Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast

[najak]

Specifically, in this post by Bob. B
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=655.msg37834#msg37834

That is an UN-supported claim.  No math, no analysis...

The +72% thrust was "steady for 1 full second", then dropped off after that.   If his explanation were valid, then the almost the entire "added boost" would have happened before it was 1 foot off the ground, yet it continued, steadily up to 1.8 meters.

So that makes his "debunk" INVALID- - unsupported.   Vague.   No math.

It looks debunked to even the smarter "Apollogists" because of bias.   It's a critically flawed conclusion, which is what bias does to us.

[najak]

Oh really? If you're just noting the alleged* absence of the proof then why did you spend pages belligerently insisting that such a proof is impossible and that Jay is an imposter?

*How certain are you there is no proof? I don't believe you've interrogated your own assumptions about the framework of the problem, and how far beyond Google have you searched for an answer?*

"Professional" - This was a loaded statement.  Jay can prove he's professional, by being the first to produce an Apollogist explanation for the actual 1-second steady acceleration of the AM.

I do believe he's got some professional experience.  But my life experience is that he's giving off the signs of being one who seeks to elevate themself above what is actually realistic.  Insistence upon not answering questions, but using "Socratic method" instead - in this context -- is an approach of "avoidance and posturing".

Socratic method is best employed AFTER someone has demonstrated the inability to learn a concept.  It is NOT APPROPRIATE for use in conveying simple theories or pointing out "you missed something there" (which would have been immediately well-received).   So using it as your FIRST METHOD - is simply for "avoidance and posturing".   You avoid answering questions, so that no one can pin anything on you saying something wrong, while trying to pull someone along, but in this case - it's to discredit them at every chance you have... to emphasize the posturing.

Example:
When Jay said knowing the "Inertial Moment" of the LM/AM is "utterly irrelevant" - he exposed IGNORANCE.  He later called it an "optimization" -- no, it's "Crucial" - therefore Apollo cares VERY DEEPLY about this calculation, to generate the best-possible "initial guess" in an environment where "high speed feedback loops are slower and problematic".

This made HIM look bad.   It's why he doesn't answer questions... if you ONLY use Socratic Method, it postures you as a "teacher" without providing any evidence that you might not know as much as you are leading on.    This is how "posers" tend to behave....  disguise, stall, hide - and posture.

It doesn't mean he "knows nothing" - it simply means that I believe he's likely attempting to elevate himself higher than what is likely realistic.

He should just "say what he knows" - because, by FAR, this would be the fastest way forward.

But, I believe "He won't, because he Can't".  I'd love to see him prove me wrong.

[ApolloEnthusiast]

Socratic method is best employed AFTER someone has demonstrated the inability to learn a concept.  It is NOT APPROPRIATE for use in conveying simple theories or pointing out "you missed something there" (which would have been immediately well-received).   

As a professional educator, I am qualified to assess that pedagogy should be added to the increasingly long list of subjects in which you have no idea what you're talking about.

He should just "say what he knows" - because, by FAR, this would be the fastest way forward.

But, I believe "He won't, because he Can't".  I'd love to see him prove me wrong.

After having the egregious error in your assumptions confirmed, I would think you would learn a bit of humility and start to approach Jay's questions with a bit more compliance. Apparently your pride is more important to you than truth.

[najak]

#1: As a professional educator, I am qualified to assess that pedagogy should be added to the increasingly long list of subjects in which you have no idea what you're talking about.
#2: After having the egregious error in your assumptions confirmed, I would think you would learn a bit of humility and start to approach Jay's questions with a bit more compliance. Apparently your pride is more important to you than truth.

#1: If a student of yours is trying to make a proof, but is simply omitting a simple, but crucial concept -- do you deliberately let them go on and on for a long time - THEN tell them about it, after they've made a fool of themselves?   Or do you simply "offer the correction as you notice it" so that they can benefit from the "2nd set of eyes" much more quickly, and start being more productive quicker?  I'd like to know which type of teacher you are.

#2: I admitted I was wrong, based on MY FINDINGS; I corrected myself, and was pissed because I'm certain that Jay saw my error a day earlier.  His motives are not well-meaning "teaching".  He's trying to win a debate here, not solve a problem.

I'm trying to solve a problem.  Figure out if there is ANY VIABLE SCIENTIFIC explanation for the AM accelerations being 2.5X too fast.

I'm getting pissy, because Jay is choosing to "posture/stall/hide" rather than simply be productive and make this proof that he says is doable.  I'm on his side here...  but I'm not going to play this game of "Teacher-student" especially where his goals with me are non-genuine -- his primary motive is NOT my education.

I believe he's stalling, because like all those before him - he ALSO cannot provide a viable scientific explanation for this acceleration -- 1 full-second of steady acceleration at +72% the rated thrust.

I'm only against him, in that he's not being genuine here.  He's employing stalling/posturing tactics instead.  Acting like this is MY CLAIM -- this claim has stood strong for 40+ years... undebunked.

[najak]

@JayUTAH - Yoohoo.   Coming back any time soon?

Ever since I realized my stupid "Conservation of Energy" wildcard was a dud, I've spent time going down the more complex path (would have done this sooner with a small correction).

I went a ways down the path of "aperture ratios" between the Combustion Chamber (16.4 sqIn) vs. the equivalent aperture encircling the Nozzle exit (which increases by 97 sqIn per inch of rise, and starts at 59 sqIn)

From what I can see in science, the exhaust flow is a function proportionate to "Pressure / Resistance" -- and the Resistance is inversely proportionate to aperture size (area).  Similar to how Electricity flow itself can be predicted, as a linear relationship between "Voltage (Pressure), Amps (Air Flow Quantity), and Resistance (Constriction of Air Flow)"..  It appears that the general math that governs Exhaust flow is equivalent.

For the first round of more simplified estimation - where you first determine the "max expected contribution from this pressure buildup" - what other "significant factors" might I be missing that could impact the end result?

And can you think of any other significant contributors to thrust, aside from normal Rocket thrusts + this "Static pressure Buildup". ??

[beedarko]

I'm getting pissy, because Jay is choosing to "posture/stall/hide" rather than simply be productive and make this proof that he says is doable.  I'm on his side here...

You're accusing genuine American heroes, patriots, pilots and engineers of being despicable liars.  You are definitely NOT on the same side as Jay, or anyone else here who acknowledges the monumental accomplishments of NASA's Apollo program. 

You diminish those great men and women with your narcissistic claptrap. 

[najak]

You're accusing genuine American heroes, patriots, pilots and engineers of being despicable liars.  You are definitely NOT on the same side as Jay, or anyone else here who acknowledges the monumental accomplishments of NASA's Apollo program. 

You diminish those great men and women with your narcissistic claptrap.

Even if we didn't land men on the moon, they are all Patriots, carrying the burden of secrecy about a celebrated public narrative.  This was an operation run by the DoD, with the "excuse" of "fooling the Russians"... even if their excuse was disingenuous.  The Astronauts are all Patriotic military men, except one - and he's a patriot too.  If they had spilled-the-beans, it would have been Treason.   We "won a war" without firing a shot.  Kudos.

To be sure they went, I'm looking at the most compelling proofs that they didn't so that I can weigh them, see if they stand.  I won't find many good answers inside MLH forums, only here where there is extreme resistance.

If we've got to lie and hide to protect NASA's claims - this doesn't sit well with me.  So if there are MLH proofs that hold any merit, I want to present them accurately.

Personally, I'm seeing too many instances of "breaking physics" for me to just ignore them.   So I'm digging down deep, to see if any of it holds water.  This shouldn't piss you off.

[Jason Thompson]

Even if we didn't land men on the moon, they are all Patriots, carrying the burden of secrecy about a celebrated public narrative.  This was an operation run by the DoD, with the "excuse" of "fooling the Russians"... even if their excuse was disingenuous.  The Astronauts are all Patriotic military men, except one - and he's a patriot too.  If they had spilled-the-beans, it would have been Treason.   We "won a war" without firing a shot.  Kudos.

Another tick on the bingo card, thanks.

To be sure they went, I'm looking at the most compelling proofs that they didn't so that I can weigh them, see if they stand.  I won't find many good answers inside MLH forums, only here where there is extreme resistance.

Why don't you try looking at the whole thing and understanding it? The amount of stuff published about Apollo (and the rest of the space program, which you simply cannot ignore for the context it provides) is vast. Most Apollo deniers in my experience don't look at it because it is also complex and they lack the ability to understand it, or the willingness to try. A few questions or things you can't understand in there don't invalidate the rest. Your use of the word 'compelling' is informative, since it implies a preference for arguments that appeal to your preference rather than an objective analysis.

If we've got to lie and hide to protect NASA's claims - this doesn't sit well with me.  So if there are MLH proofs that hold any merit, I want to present them accurately.

Personally, I'm seeing too many instances of "breaking physics" for me to just ignore them.   So I'm digging down deep, to see if any of it holds water.  This shouldn't piss you off.
[/quote]

[najak]

Why don't you try looking at the whole thing and understanding it? The amount of stuff published about Apollo (and the rest of the space program, which you simply cannot ignore for the context it provides) is vast. Most Apollo deniers in my experience don't look at it because it is also complex and they lack the ability to understand it, or the willingness to try. A few questions or things you can't understand in there don't invalidate the rest. Your use of the word 'compelling' is informative, since it implies a preference for arguments that appeal to your preference rather than an objective analysis.

The administration style of this forum doesn't bode well for the Apollogist cause, as it appears they find the need to wield admin powers to enforce bias.  I have certain things that are big in my mind, which I am not even allowed to discuss on their own threads, where they'd belong.

Physics is important to me, and I want to discuss it, to completion (where both sides have said their piece, leaving not much else to be said)..  So that these big things that reside in my head, can be properly framed.

Not sure if you are Christian or Muslim.  Let's pretend you aren't Christian - and my proof to you that Jesus is the One and Only Way to God is to say things like "Jesus was the most historic figure of all time; he's more factual than George Washington.  If he wasn't the Savior, why did all 12 Apostles die for the cause?   And how could 500 people have a mass delusion when they saw Jesus risen from the dead as a group?   Jesus Christ is fact.  If you don't believe it, you are headed to Hell."

Now say you find 10 major flaws in the Bible - what seem to be huge to you.   But you aren't allowed to raise these issues among the Christians.

What is your next step -- to study all of the "addon materials" written about Jesus in the last 2000 years?  How much time will you devote to studying the works of later Christians, for a religion that might turn out to be fiction?

I think you won't care much about "all of those materials" until you first establish that you have good reason to believe he was the One True Savior of mankind.  If he wasn't, then you've wasted a LOT of time, indoctrinating you brain with fiction as though it's fact.

I have several big issues to settle here.  I've gotten through 4 so far.

[Jason Thompson]

Not sure if you are Christian or Muslim.

Neither, and discussion of religion is not even remotely applicable to discussion of an historical and technological event such as landing men on the Moon.
[/quote]

[najak]

Neither, and discussion of religion is not even remotely applicable to discussion of an historical and technological event such as landing men on the Moon.

It is because if you talk to Christians, they might even tell you that Jesus is more historically factual than Apollo.

I have some key issues still to discuss that are vital, which are separate theses.  Are the members of this forum afraid to hear them?

[Jason Thompson]

Neither, and discussion of religion is not even remotely applicable to discussion of an historical and technological event such as landing men on the Moon.

It is because if you talk to Christians, they might even tell you that Jesus is more historically factual than Apollo.

Which would still have no bearing on the reality or otherwise of Apollo.

[LunarOrbit]

I'm getting pissy...

Maybe you should take a break then.

[ApolloEnthusiast]

#1: If a student of yours is trying to make a proof, but is simply omitting a simple, but crucial concept -- do you deliberately let them go on and on for a long time - THEN tell them about it, after they've made a fool of themselves?   Or do you simply "offer the correction as you notice it" so that they can benefit from the "2nd set of eyes" much more quickly, and start being more productive quicker?  I'd like to know which type of teacher you are.

I don't believe you're qualified to assess my pedagogy, but regardless, it depends on the circumstances. If I'm confident the student understand the material and made a small error, I would correct them in the moment. If I'm less confident in their comprehension, I might let them work through it for two principle reasons. First, it gives them the opportunity to discover their own error, which is a good opportunity for me to reassess their understanding of the concept in general. Second, it gives me an opportunity to try to understand their error in the full context of the problem so I can try to better understand their thought process and help them most efficiently by targeting their specific needs once we get to breaking down their work. Making mistakes doesn't make someone look foolish, by the way, it's how we learn. What makes us look foolish is how we present our work and how we handle being corrected.

Jay doesn't need my approval, but having seen him communicating both of these ideas along the way, I would say he has a good understanding of pedagogy and has the misfortune of dealing with an intransigent student who is too arrogant to trust the expert and follow the process to better understanding.

#2: I admitted I was wrong, based on MY FINDINGS; I corrected myself, and was pissed because I'm certain that Jay saw my error a day earlier.  His motives are not well-meaning "teaching".  He's trying to win a debate here, not solve a problem.

I agree that Jay may have seen that specific error much earlier, but you make so many that he may legitimately not have been certain which error or errors you were making. I don't believe your assessments of his motives are accurate. My read on the whole exchange is that Jay is actually interested in showing you how to find the answer rather than just providing it.

I'm trying to solve a problem.  Figure out if there is ANY VIABLE SCIENTIFIC explanation for the AM accelerations being 2.5X too fast.

I'm getting pissy, because Jay is choosing to "posture/stall/hide" rather than simply be productive and make this proof that he says is doable.  I'm on his side here...  but I'm not going to play this game of "Teacher-student" especially where his goals with me are non-genuine -- his primary motive is NOT my education.

What is your objection to a "Teacher-student" relationship with someone who is a qualified expert in their field and you are a self-proclaimed rookie? An intellectually honest person would be grateful that someone is investing time and energy to help them understand this complex material.

I haven't seen any evidence of stalling, posturing, or trying to make you look bad. His stated intentions seem pretty genuine, which as I understand them, are to help you understand what's missing in your assumptions and methodology, step by step, so whatever conclusion you reach at the end is yours, and not something you will easily dismiss out of hand.

[auote]
I believe he's stalling, because like all those before him - he ALSO cannot provide a viable scientific explanation for this acceleration -- 1 full-second of steady acceleration at +72% the rated thrust.[/quote]
Didn't you already acknowledge there is a lot more energy in the system than you had anticipated? Why are you right back to where you started? And why won't you just go through the steps with Jay and see what's waiting for you at the end? The only person I see stalling is you.

[najak]

Didn't you already acknowledge there is a lot more energy in the system than you had anticipated? Why are you right back to where you started? And why won't you just go through the steps with Jay and see what's waiting for you at the end? The only person I see stalling is you.

I'm WELL AHEAD of Jay right now -- awaiting his "next steps".   He started out asking "what is the aperture of the exit".  Now that it's established that approaching this from a "Conservation of Energy" standpoint is silly - we have to go down the path of "fluid dynamics" -- in this case -- "Pressure vs Resistance vs Air Flow".

And so I, without prodding from him, simply followed this to conclusion, via a spreadsheet.  Which demonstrates that the required "extra boost from pressure build-up" falls off VERY QUICKLY with altitude.

To justify the acceleration of the AM, we need +72% thrust ABOVE the rated engine thrust.   We fall below this 72% below 6" (15 cm) from liftoff.   By 12"(0.3 meters) it's cut in half again...  Yet we still have another 1.5 meters to go....

Jay hasn't solved this issue ever, nor has anyone else.

The basics of fluid dynamics are fairly easy...   It works near equivalent as Electricity concepts of "Voltage, Current, and Resistance" - for Fluid dynamics, it's "Pressure, Flow, and Resistance/constriction".

If this is not the case, Jay should show up and say "here's something else (of significance to the end result) that needs to be added into this equation", so that we can make more progress, and complete a preliminary coarse approximate of the expected net Thrust that should be exerted on the AM.