Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast

[najak]

Because every problem that involves conservation of energy begins with the energy balance equation, to phrase the problem as a formulated conservation. Why is this not obvious to someone who claims his passion is Newtonian physics?

Good engineers know how to "start simple" before delving into the weeds.  We already know the nominal energy output of this combustion.  And it's deficient.  It's not the path that will solve this problem.  Simple unbreakable logic reveals this, but this eludes you entirely.

So if you want to go down this route, please do.  Show us that this is the "right weeds to delve into".

You won't, because if you did, it would unsurprisingly reveal what high school physics students already know - "you cannot create new energy" (in this isolated closed-system context).

Is there anyone here who does NOT want to see you make this proof?  It's not just me, but many.

[najak]

...demonstrating how Jay is implying we can break (or ignore) these laws and basics, because "complexity" - which seems to be the foundation of his disguise.

I make no such claim, implication, or insinuation. Your failure to understand the rebuttal is a direct result of your misunderstanding of elements you apparently do not wish to consider. You allude to simple principles of elementary physics, but you ignore all that contributes to the values represented in those relationships.

Why spend time trying to prove you can break simple physics?

If in billiards a ball hits a ball with perfect energy transference, but the 2nd ball takes off with 2X the energy of the first...  and all you know is "this was filmed" and "it breaks physics"... you don't say "let's delve into what was going on at the molecular level of pool balls", despite this being a 40+ year old issue, that no one before you has been able to DEBUNK.  You are simply wasting time -- or in your case "stalling".

So quit stalling and do it.  You think this is the answer -- so prove it.   This isn't MY CLAIM - it's 40+ years old.  And until you DEBUNK THIS -- Apollogists cannot HONESTLY claim to have Debunked all MLH claims.

Quit stalling and just do it already.

[JayUtah]

Good engineers know how to "start simple" before delving into the weeds.

The energy balance equation is the simple start. Once that relationship is set up, deciding what the values in it should be is the weedy part.

We already know the nominal energy output of this combustion.  And it's deficient.

You have thrown out a bunch of vague numbers and concepts, but there is no "we" about it. You claimed conservation of energy is violated. But you don't seem to know how to reckon a conservation-of-energy problem correctly.

It's not the path that will solve this problem.

Energy balance questions are the only way to reckon about conservation of energy.

You won't, because if you did, it would unsurprisingly reveal what high school physics students already know - "you cannot create new energy" (in this isolated closed-system context).

Nobody is claiming to be able to create new energy. Energy balance equations are taught in high school.

[Mag40]

Good engineers know how to "start simple" before delving into the weeds.

That discards you then.

We already know the nominal energy output of this combustion.  And it's deficient.  It's not the path that will solve this problem.  Simple unbreakable logic reveals this, but this eludes you entirely.

We know that you are flannelling. "Nominal" energy you say?

Is there anyone here who does NOT want to see you make this proof?  It's not just me, but many.

I want you to quit being a coward and answer the question(s). I am happy that you are being held to account for ignorant assertions before you get educated.

[JayUtah]

Why spend time trying to prove you can break simple physics?

I'm not claiming I can break simple physics. I am claiming your understanding of the physics is incorrect, and I am going to show you how. When you go to write out the energy balance equation, we'll have a discussion about one term that is usually ignored in nominal rocket operations but which becomes important in this situation. If you play your cards right, you might learn something.

So quit stalling and do it.  You think this is the answer -- so prove it.

I can't until we fix all your attempts at preemptive rebuttal based on vague, incorrect claims.

This isn't MY CLAIM - it's 40+ years old.

What is your claim is the notion that no such explanation is possible because—according to you—it involves creating energy out of nowhere. What's the point of continuing under that notion, if you're just going to keep claiming conservation of energy is a trump card?

Could it possibly be that you've already written out the energy balance equation and figured out where all that "extra" energy is coming from?

[Mag40]

We already know the nominal energy output of this combustion.  And it's deficient.  It's not the path that will solve this problem.  Simple unbreakable logic reveals this, but this eludes you entirely.

WE know that you aren't paying attention. Do you even know what nominal means?

Here's a start. It doesn't directly address thrust, but it does address the proxy value of chamber pressure. "The maximum allowable combustion chamber pressure during start transients was 177 percent of the nominal combustion-chamber pressure." C.E. Humphries, R.E. Taylor. Apollo Experience Report - Ascent Propulsion System, NASA Technical Note TN D-7082 (Houston, TX: 1973), p. 2. You maintain that thrust is uniformly lower during ignition transients. But from your own sources: "Single engines or different engines of the same design also exhibit variations of thrust input, and consequently have significant differences in thrust-buildup curves. As discussed in Section 2.1.4, the usual procedure is to conduct many static firings to establish the statistical nature of the ignition thrust input." Transient Loads from Thrust Excitation. NASA Space Vehicle Design Criteria, NASA SP-8030, p. 2. The reference says, "Data for obtaining dynamic input curves of thrust buildup and thrust decay should be obtained directly from static firings of the actual engines, with care taken to correct the data for test-stand motion." (internal references omitted) Id. p. 15. There's no one-size-fits-all concept of ignition transient.

[najak]

Could it possibly be that you've already written out the energy balance equation and figured out where all that "extra" energy is coming from?

If that were the case, why would I be daring you to simply show it?

The energy balance equation simple says - "starting energy equates to final energy".   This must always hold true.  And since we KNOW the output/efficiency of the rocket in steady state, we can derive that "at ignition" this combustion is not going to produce any added energy.   Because it can't.


Here's some top-level math:

The predicted Energy output for this rocket engine while still launching (moving slowly) is about 15,600 N * 0.7 meters == 11,000 Joules.

The energy we witness being output is instead:   26,800 N * 1.8 meters == 48,000 Joules  (4x+ what is predicted, also predictable by the speed being 2X as much, which means the kinetic energy of the AM after 1 second is > 4X the predicted)

You clearly have something in mind that would explain how this rocket engine produced more than QUADRUPLE the predicted energy output for this first full second.

So let's hear it.  Dazzle us.

[najak]

WE know that you aren't paying attention. Do you even know what nominal means?

I use it to mean "rated power", "steady state power", when it's running efficiently in a vacuum.  I haven't seen any "ignition curves" yet that demonstrate the engine producing MORE thrust than the "rated" (aka nominal) thrust.  Ignition is usually LESS efficient, not MORE....  from what I've seen.   If Jay knows otherwise and isn't sharing his sources -- that's on him.

If Jay claims to know how to DEBUNK this 40+ year old claim for real, but refuses to do so -- you might want to reconsider your views about him.

[Mag40]

Here's some top-level math:

Says who?

The predicted Energy output for this rocket engine while still launching (moving slowly) is about 15,600 N * 0.7 meters == 11,000 Joules.

The energy we witness being output is instead:   26,800 N * 1.8 meters == 48,000 Joules  (4x+ what is predicted, also predictable by the speed being 2X as much, which means the kinetic energy of the AM after 1 second is > 4X the predicted)

You clearly have something in mind that would explain how this rocket engine produced more than QUADRUPLE the predicted energy output for this first full second.

OK. Let me "dazzle" you. Your top-level math multiplied two different values for nominal and your claim of observed but.... not by the same duration. Should you wish to compare the two you should multiply the second value by the same duration.

15600 * 0.7 = 10,920
26800 * 0.7 = 18,760

Here's a Mickey Mouse video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=m3LV5Z2nCRg

Can we confirm that you have no photogrammetry experience? Your estimate based on "computing" distances and time without any rectification being shown.

[najak]

OK. Let me "dazzle" you. Your top-level math multiplied two different values for nominal and your claim of observed but.... not by the same duration. Should you wish to compare the two you should multiply the second value by the same duration.

You've missed the fundamental equation here for translating force into energy -- it's multiplied by DISTANCE not time.

https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/work/

Don't fret.  Even Jay seems to be struggling with these simpler concepts.

[Mag40]

You've missed the fundamental equation here for translating force into energy -- it's multiplied by DISTANCE not time.

https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/work/

Dazzle everyone by showing how you deduced the times.

Don't fret.  Even Jay seems to be struggling with these simpler concepts.

Sheer arrogance from the guy who thought a "suction-cup effect" drew sand up from the surface during a jump.

[najak]

Can we confirm that you have no photogrammetry experience? Your estimate based on "computing" distances and time without any rectification being shown.

I *do* have some professional photogrammetry experience.  In one of our Military contracts, of which I was the lead, we were tasked with translating sets of Satellite imagery into 3D models of trees and buildings.  Our input was a "set of images" taken by aircraft or satellite, from known coordinates, and the Time Of Day (allowing us to calculate the angle of incidence of the sun).  It isn't too hard.

But for this "Lunar Launch Too Fast" - we ALREADY KNOW the geometry of what we're looking at -- so it becomes a MUCH EASIER analysis.  One that I can easily explain, so that more people can clearly realize that the measured distances are reasonably accurate and precise.

Apollo Broke Physics, many times.  And we are all victims of this hoax... both the believers and the skeptics.   But it's not all bad - lots of good came from the Lie too.

Now SpaceX's moon landing is delayed 2027 -- which at the current rate of target changes -- will become 2030+ before it settles.

SpaceX is more exciting for me -- because I am among those who realize that Artemis will be truly our FIRST time to make this great/daunting achievement of landing humans on the moon.   Gen X/Y/Z will finally accomplish what the Boomers could only fake (and be fooled).  That will be how they spin this, to turn our dismay into a form of new excitement.

And since all those who perpetrated this "Military operation of deception" are now dead, or feebly old -- we can simply record this historically as another grand achievement - "The largest hoax ever successfully perpetrated on mankind."  (maybe aside from the most popular religions - where only ONE, at most, can be a Non-Hoax)

[najak]

Sheer arrogance from the guy who thought a "suction-cup effect" drew sand up from the surface during a jump.

The "suction cup effect" was a hypothesis based upon a REAL phenomenon.  In a 14 PSI atmosphere, it plays a role only to the effect that the dust compaction has a form of air-tightness to it.

If you place a flat lid on top of water.... then lift it really fast -- the water comes up with it.... this is due, in part, to the vacuum seal that is being broken.   With tightly packed tiny particles, the same form of "Vacuum seal" could also exist.

Just because I dropped this hypothesis in favor of "adhesion" doesn't mean it's a bone-headed unfounded hypothesis.  It just means I think it's better/easier to call it "adhesion", which is caused by a COLLECTION of various factors...   The forces that "hold it to together" we call "adhesion" -- which can include "surface tension" (14 PSI pressing from one side, vs. lower air pressure beneath the surface).   "Surface Tension" is the main (and only?)  cause of the Suction Cup effect.

[smartcooky]

...demonstrating how Jay is implying we can break (or ignore) these laws and basics, because "complexity" - which seems to be the foundation of his disguise.

I make no such claim, implication, or insinuation. Your failure to understand the rebuttal is a direct result of your misunderstanding of elements you apparently do not wish to consider. You allude to simple principles of elementary physics, but you ignore all that contributes to the values represented in those relationships.

Why spend time trying to prove you can break simple physics?

If in billiards a ball hits a ball with perfect energy transference, but the 2nd ball takes off with 2X the energy of the first...  and all you know is "this was filmed" and "it breaks physics"... you don't say "let's delve into what was going on at the molecular level of pool balls", despite this being a 40+ year old issue, that no one before you has been able to DEBUNK.  You are simply wasting time -- or in your case "stalling".

So quit stalling and do it.  You think this is the answer -- so prove it.   This isn't MY CLAIM - it's 40+ years old.  And until you DEBUNK THIS -- Apollogists cannot HONESTLY claim to have Debunked all MLH claims.

Quit stalling and just do it already.

You are the one who is stalling. You're in Our House now - you're not going to be allowed to come in and start dictating how things are done.

Jay is asking you to complete certain tasks so that he can correctly gauge what your level of understanding is. Its become pretty clear so far that your level of physics understanding is barely that of an average schoolboy, your maths skills are average at best, and that you do not have any real idea how a rocket engine works beyond "the fuel goes in here, and the thrust comes out here" . And no matter what you claim about being here to learn, it fairly obvious you have come here with your own preconceived conclusions, and are totally resistant to learning anything that might trouble those conclusions.

Its hard enough teaching a child who thinks they already know everything; its even harder when that child stamps their feet and throws a tantrum when teachers tell them things they don't want to hear.

Now I suggest you stop whining and stamping you feet, and get to work completing the tasks Jay is asking you to. Its clear there will be no further progress until you do.

The ball is in YOUR court.   

[najak]

Now I suggest you stop whining and stamping you feet, and get to work completing the tasks Jay is asking you to. Its clear there will be no further progress until you do.
The ball is in YOUR court.

I can say with certainty that your assessment of my physics and math skills is inaccurate.

There is a 40+ year old MLH claim yet to be DEBUNKED.  And it appears that you still believe Jay can do it.

So you ask him to do it, and say please ... for the good of all of you.  Otherwise, you can no longer honestly claim that "all MLH Claims are debunked" - as this will be a Lie.