Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast

[Mag40]

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.

And your "bone-headed" final conclusion is a force that is an attractive one and not a propelling one. Even IF the whole thing was dragged up by the boot, it's at the same gravitational freefall. However it isn't being dragged, the parabola you turned and fled from, is nowhere near the bottom of his boots, but between them.

[Mag40]

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.

Sorry, I accidentally bumped your post off of the current page.
The whining you speak of also includes bolding his whole post and just repeating his claim. His image "rectification" is from Youtube videos.

[najak]

#1: .."bone-headed" final conclusion is a force that is an attractive one and not a propelling one.
#2: Even IF the whole thing was dragged up by the boot, it's at the same gravitational freefall. However it isn't being dragged,
#3: the parabola you turned and fled from, is nowhere near the bottom of his boots, but between them.

My debate time with you is a lot like time spent with an old friend of mine, who didn't do so well in school, but he was convinced that I was boneheaded for telling him my reasons for not accepting the Bible as God's One True Word.   No matter what I said, I was "boneheaded".  It was fruitless.

#1: Only on earth can the "suction" force add to the "adhesion"... Suction vs. propulsion produces the same result - in cases like this, is easier on the brain to simply deal with suction/adhesion as a "pulling force"...

#2: On earth, where astronaut is being partially lifted by a cable, while the dust is not -- Therefore, on earth, the dust is trying to fall away from the boot the WHOLE TIME -- but if adhesion holds it tight, this force is "pulling it" along AFTER Launch - -therefore not a plain/vanilla parabola.

#3: For John Young's case, IF we assume that the video you have is legit (given that it does NOT match that of the one NASA links to) -- we HAVE OBVIOUS PROOF that at the START of the jump, there is a thick cloud of dust that is LEADING THE BOOT -- it was LAUNCHED FASTER....  so it would be expected to rise more.  The other factor at work, if on earth, is atmosphere... perhaps the reason that it's so faint (and NOT VISIBLE AT ALL ON THE NASA LINK) -- is that it's just the lighter/smaller dust particles!... this too can only happen on Earth.

===
Seriously, please find a better way to spend your time.  There is no fruit to be born here between us - at least not in the form of debate.

[LunarOrbit]

#1: .."bone-headed" final conclusion is a force that is an attractive one and not a propelling one.
#2: Even IF the whole thing was dragged up by the boot, it's at the same gravitational freefall. However it isn't being dragged,
#3: the parabola you turned and fled from, is nowhere near the bottom of his boots, but between them.

My debate time with you is a lot like time spent with an old friend of mine, who didn't do so well in school, but he was convinced that I was boneheaded for telling him my reasons for not accepting the Bible as God's One True Word.   No matter what I said, I was "boneheaded".  It was fruitless.

#1: Only on earth can the "suction" force add to the "adhesion"... Suction vs. propulsion produces the same result - in cases like this, is easier on the brain to simply deal with suction/adhesion as a "pulling force"...

#2: On earth, where astronaut is being partially lifted by a cable, while the dust is not -- Therefore, on earth, the dust is trying to fall away from the boot the WHOLE TIME -- but if adhesion holds it tight, this force is "pulling it" along AFTER Launch - -therefore not a plain/vanilla parabola.

#3: For John Young's case, IF we assume that the video you have is legit (given that it does NOT match that of the one NASA links to) -- we HAVE OBVIOUS PROOF that at the START of the jump, there is a thick cloud of dust that is LEADING THE BOOT -- it was LAUNCHED FASTER....  so it would be expected to rise more.  The other factor at work, if on earth, is atmosphere... perhaps the reason that it's so faint (and NOT VISIBLE AT ALL ON THE NASA LINK) -- is that it's just the lighter/smaller dust particles!... this too can only happen on Earth.

===
Seriously, please find a better way to spend your time.  There is no fruit to be born here between us - at least not in the form of debate.

Keep these discussions in the appropriate thread, please.

[Mag40]

Keep these discussions in the appropriate thread, please.

Noted. I would love that to happen but unfortunately he fled the thread.

[theteacher]

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.

Do you think SpaceX will claim to be the first to land humans on the Moon when time comes?

[JayUtah]

The energy balance equation simple says - "starting energy equates to final energy".   This must always hold true.

Agreed. And if it doesn't hold true in your formulation, that means either that you aren't measuring or deriving the energy correctly, or that there are some terms missing from one side of the equation and you need to determine what they might be. In this case, there's a term on one side of the equation that's sometimes beneficial and sometimes not.

And since we KNOW the output/efficiency of the rocket in steady state...

But now the question is how sure you are that you do. That's why we put the energy balance equation down explicitly, not just hand wave about it.

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

No, no, no. That is not even close to a correct understanding. The energy balance equation for rocket propulsion has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the motion of the spacecraft.

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.

No, I just know how to correctly write the energy balance equation for a thermodynamic rocket engine.  For the umpteenth time, I'm not doing anything like creating energy out of nothing.

So let's hear it.  Dazzle us.

Why don't you keep working on that energy balance equation. Hint: start with the enthalpy of the rocket fuel.

[najak]

Do you think SpaceX will claim to be the first to land humans on the Moon when time comes?

Yes.  GenX/Y/Z won't want to dirty their hands with propagating a Lie, especially when it erroneously detracts from the magnitude of the accomplishment.

They'll spin it like this - "Odysseus" gave us a solid clue that things don't seem to be the same as Apollo reported... and that they are taking their time "to be sure" before upending reality for everyone.

I believe recent signs indicate we're headed in this direction.  BUT - this is a topic that deserves a new thread, as it's way out of scope for the tight/specific thesis that this current thread addresses.

[theteacher]

Do you think SpaceX will claim to be the first to land humans on the Moon when time comes?

Yes.

Thank you.

[LunarOrbit]

Yes.  GenX/Y/Z won't want to dirty their hands with propagating a Lie, especially when it erroneously detracts from the magnitude of the accomplishment.

Which is precisely why the hoax theory fails logically. NASA would have known that they couldn't maintain the lie forever, so why would they even try? It makes zero sense.

NASA can't control every person on Earth for the rest of time, so they would have known that eventually someone would discover the lie. Whether it was six months later, 50 years later, or a century later, someone somewhere would either have the means to go to the Moon or discover the obstacle that prevents it. At that point the hoax would fail.

The consequences for being caught in such a huge lie would be embarrassing and damaging to the reputation of the United States. Why would they try to lie about something if they were 100% guaranteed to get caught?

If there was some obstacle preventing NASA from going to the Moon it would have been easier to just come right out and admit it then.

[LunarOrbit]

For reference, @LunarOrbit and @Mag40, and anyone who wants to know the truth about Google AI related to Science, as I was searching for articles regarding "Pressure Thrust in vacuum vs. atmosphere"... I simply asked the same type of question in two different browsers, and got the EXACT OPPOSITE answer from Google AI.   So when I say "never use Google AI as a reference" -it's because it's stupid.   It only provides you "some clues", but the conclusions can be completely wrong.

I'm not saying Google AI answers should be trusted 100% all of the time. But simply dismissing them without explaining why you think they are wrong is no different than me dismissing everything you say simply because it comes from a source I don't trust (ie. Jarrah White).

If someone provides you with an answer to one of your questions, and you don't trust their source, that's fine. But you don't get to declare them wrong without explaining why.

[beedarko]

By how much, and why?  Isn't it true that you would simply continue down the path you're on now, without so much as a pause for self-reflection? 

NOPE.  If Jay can provide a valid proof for the 1-full-second of added thrust, I'll be floored.  Will give me GREAT PAUSE -- and gleefully so.  When I change positions on something, I do so PROUDLY

I don't believe you.

Nothing you've written so far convinces me that you're an upgrade from the long queue of anti-science landing deniers that came before you. 

I just watched as you learned in realtime that you weren't viewing the A11 rendezvous sequence at the correct playback speed -- an event you admitted was at least partially responsible for your current skepticism of Apollo -- and it didn't slow you down one iota.  Instead of a mea culpa, you doubled down on your obstinacy without pausing to consider that your smoking gun was actually a gag water pistol that squirts the shooter.

[najak]

Yes.  GenX/Y/Z won't want to dirty their hands with propagating a Lie, especially when it erroneously detracts from the magnitude of the accomplishment.

The consequences for being caught in such a huge lie would be embarrassing and damaging to the reputation of the United States. Why would they try to lie about something if they were 100% guaranteed to get caught?

If there was some obstacle preventing NASA from going to the Moon it would have been easier to just come right out and admit it then.

They see how religion is believed, yet if you simply read the bible, without bias, it provides you with all the evidence you need that Yahweh is a evil sadistic narcissistic hypocrite.  Yet 2.5 Billion people don't see it that way.   What does this tell them?   Creating a false belief is easy so long as people WANT to believe it, and you present it confidently.

And in the end, they have a "valid excuse" - they were "trying to win a Cold War" - to "deceive the Russians" - and even this wasn't likely to be the REAL reason, it's the lie they told those invovled, that they were part of a "war effort, based on deception" -- these were Patriots carrying a BURDEN.   It tore their lives apart in ways -- Armstrong wouldn't even celebrate the event many times, and became a recluse.   Patriots - keeping national secrets, told "for the good of America"... that's how they packaged it.

Upon succeeding, Nixon sold is as the springboard for "World Peace and Unity", which EVERYONE wanted - and to finally "end the Red Scare" via a space-based alliance with Russia by 1972.

This "fear of being caught" didn't stop the "JFK assassination", "Gulf of Tonkin -> Vietnam", "bay of pigs" or the "Daniel Ellsberg" fiasco.  Lies and deception were a hallmark of Johnson and Nixon.  But not JFK, nor RFK -- they were too honest, to genuine -- and then assassinated.

This is the context I considered as I developed my conclusions, and why I put "little stake on Claims and what they recorded as history".

Not surprisingly - who wants to spend exorbitant time to "be a party pooper" where the sure result is being insulted/ridiculed... and for what?   It would be like running through the churches yelling "it's all Lies!  There is no Heaven!" -- and even though this *might* be true -- who does this??   And if they do, are they successful?  Nope.

In my mind, Apollo thrived and survived like a massive, but mostly harmless Religion, as an operation of the DoD, conducted by Patriots with Patriotic motives...   If they were caught, they'd be "justified" as simply "a DoD operation that failed"...     "Failure was not an option"--  "We needed to beat the Russians, even if it was only a delusion -- Ancient Art of War teaching".

Now that they're all dead or feebly old - it's time to reveal it -- so that it can stop "holding back science".

===
From a "Follow the money" perspective -- if they had "admitted failure" - they would have taken a HUGE hit in voter confidence... making them look very inept (vs. the MOST competent govt/nation on earth) -- and there would have been no follow-on space exploration spending.   These govt contracts are very profitable -- and probably come with kickbacks for politicians.

So it would have been WAY WORSE to admit failure --   especially given that faking it proved to be rather simple...    ~500 military men, or trusted civilian Patriots with top secret clearances, involved, is my guess.   Spilling the beans was considered TREASON.  They were doing this FOR AMERICA...  Armstrong bore this burden of Lying (and for him, IMO, was a burden) - patriotically.

That's the current model in my head regarding all of this -- and I have many more reasons to share this - but this belongs on a NEW THREAD.  Not here.

[najak]

I'm not saying Google AI answers should be trusted 100% all of the time. But simply dismissing them without explaining why you think they are wrong is no different than me dismissing everything you say simply because it comes from a source I don't trust (ie. Jarrah White).
If someone provides you with an answer to one of your questions, and you don't trust their source, that's fine. But you don't get to declare them wrong without explaining why.

If you ONLY have Google AI as your source - it's not better than just saying "I think XYZ with NO SUPPORT."  It does not deserve an answer.   Google AI can only be Supplemental in nature, or mostly is just good for "giving you clues on what to search for" -- because the phrases it uses -- comes from other sources -- but you need to find those sources to see if AI interpreted it correctly.

I could post stuff from AI all day long saying "wrong things that support my ideas"  -- do people OWE me answers?  That would be silly.

[najak]

I don't believe you.

Fine, don't.  Are you saying that "Broken Physics" would influence your beliefs?  Or are you just a black pot, hoping I'm a black kettle so that you aren't alone in being this way?

The Apollo 11 lunar Rendezvous maneuvering is a different topic, but one worth discussing.  Since you are so confident that it's a "water pistol", then it should be a fun thread to start, so that you can tear me a new hole.  Let's do it.