Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast

[ApolloEnthusiast]

My thesis here is simply this --
"Over the past 40 years, we are unaware any viable physics theory that would explain the steady/consistent high acceleration of the Ascent Modules for the first full 1-second."

This theory currently stands unrefuted.

Let's move your theory along here to see if you can offer a refute for this famous MLH claim that has stood for 40+ years.

What's next?

Jay is being very kind to humor you, but the correct way to write this is, "Over the past 40 years, we are unaware of any documented and well supported claim that the Ascent Module acceleration was ever higher than would be expected under all of the circumstances present at the time."

This claim currently stands undocumented and unsupported.

If you apply yourself, maybe you could be the first person in 40+ years to show conclusively that there was something anomalous in the acceleration. (No, your own feelings about it will not count as documentation or support. This will require you to not only to show a methodology that is repeatable by others, but to also learn enough rocket science to eliminate all possible explanations supported by physics.)

You have consistently tried to avoid it, but the burden of proof is on you, as the person making the claim. No matter how many people humor you and try to help you dig yourself out of this rabbit hole, you are falling woefully short of your responsibilities in an honest discussion.

[JayUtah]

I corrected the spreadsheet math for your corrections, and still not getting 19.5 MJ for hydrazine...

Why would you expect to? That figure is for a different reaction.

so this basic method doesn't seem sufficient.

Or you're doing it wrong. This is literally the first week of Thermo 101.

Near the start, you claimed there was ONE main contributor to thrust that I was missing -- "Static Pressure".

Where did I even slightly imply that this was the only effect we'd need to consider? That's one effect you didn't think about. There are others, and I mentioned them. But in your haste to blunder onwards you're stumbling over those foundational principles I mentioned. Stop trying to short-circuit the process. Final warning.

This theory currently stands unrefuted.

No. It remains unexplained. You don't get to assume your desired conclusion by default and demand that everyone else do all the heavy lifting.

[najak]

If you apply yourself, maybe you could be the first person in 40+ years to show conclusively that there was something anomalous in the acceleration.

The claim of the steady acceleration at launch being well-above the rocket's own ratings - has been UNCONTESTED.

The only counter-claim that anyone seems to know about, came from Braenig - who's refutation was not "we didn't accelerate that fast" but to try and explain this anomaly via vague science -- transients and static pressure effect.   He pulled down his vague refutation 7 years ago -- and still this seems to be the only quote I've seen from Apollogists to refute.

So the claim of "higher-than-normal acceleration" is simply not contested.   And a viable/mathematical explanation of this acceleration boost has yet to be given.

Try again.

[najak]

I corrected the spreadsheet math for your corrections, and still not getting 19.5 MJ for hydrazine...

Why would you expect to? That figure is for a different reaction.

Because I'm ALSO doing the math for Hydrazine + N2O4 combustion...   and getting a different-than-published-ratings result (15% too low).

So this doesn't give me great confidence.   For base ratings like this, I trust the industry.   The same was we are starting out with chemical formulas stated by the industry, as well as their claim that combustion happens at all - and etc, etc...     I have no reason to doubt these.

In the end -- we have "far more than enough combustion energy" -- whether it's 100x too much or 110x too much -- won't really change the core problem of figuring out how a small fraction of this excess energy can be HARNESSED into AM thrust.

[najak]

Where did I even slightly imply that this was the only effect we'd need to consider? That's one effect you didn't think about. There are others, and I mentioned them.

I checked through our 30 pages here, and see no such mention of "other significant contributors".

Please indicate for us what other types of significant contributors you think need to also be considered?

[Mag40]

Where did I even slightly imply that this was the only effect we'd need to consider? That's one effect you didn't think about. There are others, and I mentioned them.

I checked through our 30 pages here, and see no such mention of "other significant contributors".

Please indicate for us what other types of significant contributors you think need to also be considered?

Ignition transients? The "piston-effect" from the reaction of the APS Bell inside the descent stage housing?

Also, and I am very much a layman for rocketry, have you considered the initial phase-change of the propellant in any equation?

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19680009997/downloads/19680009997.pdf
"The thermodynamic properties of Aerozine-50 (a 1:l mixture of * hydrazine and UDMH ) are of major importance to research, development and design efforts concerning the use of Aerozine-50 as a propellant or hydraulic working- fluid in space propulsion systems. Recent studies have shown that upon exposure to a low-pressure environment, Aerozine-50 can undergo rapid evaporative cooling, and both composition and phase changes, including freezing. "

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19670029071/downloads/19670029071.pdf


Ignition transients:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212540X2200058X

[najak]

#1: Ignition transients?
#2: The "piston-effect" from the reaction of the APS Bell inside the descent stage housing?
#3: Also, and I am very much a layman for rocketry, have you considered the initial phase-change of the propellant in any equation?

Thanks for the notes/suggestions:

#1: "Transients" - the ones that produce "more thrust for very short duration" are considered bad... usually results in oscillation -- so a heavy impulse of acceleration is followed by a drop off, then followed by another hard hit, etc...  as the fuel feed comes in at 170 psia for the AM -- so as you vary the combustion chamber psia - it largely influences the fuel feed..  and can get nasty, even dangerous.  So engineers try to minimize these oscillations.  Also the overall, these transients don't usually result in an "average increase in boost", but is usually less, or close to a wash out.

#2: "piston-effect" - this is what we're doing NOW.   The static pressure contributor *is* the piston-effect contributor (except we're not inside of a sealed tube, as in our case the gap opens quickly, thus eliminating most of this effect after it's 12" off the ground).

#3: "phase-change" - from liquid to gas before combustion...  I believe this is part of the assumption already for the "rated rocket power".  If for some reason, some liquid fuel/oxidizer stays a liquid as it's ejected from the chamber -- this is an inefficiency, resulting in less thrust, not more.

==
What do you say, Jay?

[Mag40]

#1: Ignition transients?
#2: The "piston-effect" from the reaction of the APS Bell inside the descent stage housing?
#3: Also, and I am very much a layman for rocketry, have you considered the initial phase-change of the propellant in any equation?

Thanks for the notes/suggestions:

#1: "Transients" - the ones that produce "more thrust for very short duration" are considered bad... usually results in oscillation -- so a heavy impulse of acceleration is followed by a drop off, then followed by another hard hit, etc...  as the fuel feed comes in at 170 psia for the AM -- so as you vary the combustion chamber psia - it largely influences the fuel feed..  and can get nasty, even dangerous.  So engineers try to minimize these oscillations.  Also the overall, these transients don't usually result in an "average increase in boost", but is usually less, or close to a wash out.

When Jay said "nope" for this, I'm guessing you just ignored him. Sometimes transients are unavoidable.

#2: "piston-effect" - this is what we're doing NOW.   The static pressure contributor *is* the piston-effect contributor (except we're not inside of a sealed tube, as in our case the gap opens quickly, thus eliminating most of this effect after it's 12" off the ground).

Static pressure occurs inside the combustion chamber and exit static pressure is not related to any short impedance to exhaust.

#3: "phase-change" - from liquid to gas before combustion...  I believe this is part of the assumption already for the "rated rocket power".  If for some reason, some liquid fuel/oxidizer stays a liquid as it's ejected from the chamber -- this is an inefficiency, resulting in less thrust, not more.

That's what you believe is it? You have been told and I duly noted the inference, that rated power is for atmospheric pressure.

[najak]

You have been told and I duly noted the inference, that rated power is for atmospheric pressure.

So you are claiming that the "rated power" specified for the LM/AM engines is for "earth's atmosphere", not a vacuum?

[Mag40]

You have been told and I duly noted the inference, that rated power is for atmospheric pressure.

So you are claiming that the "rated power" specified for the LM/AM engines is for "earth's atmosphere", not a vacuum?

Typo - rated "energy", for the propellant.

[najak]

Static pressure occurs inside the combustion chamber and exit static pressure is not related to any short impedance to exhaust.

Check that again.  The static pressure we're looking at is measured at "the exit of the nozzle".  Then Newton's 3rd law applies....  It's the Nozzle's static pressure that is used to calculate this extra Lift.

Example:
The Area of the Nozzle's exit is 750 sqIn.
So if nozzle exit pressure is 1 psia -- then this produces 750 lbs of Lift.
Newton's 3rd Law demands that the counter pressure be applied by a combination of the Nozzle's Flared Walls (have a forward facing component) - and the Combustion chamber throat... (which can be treated like 16.4 sq In of forward facing pressure.
Overall - the two must balance out -- thus the net lift from this example is 750 lbF.


The nozzle exit's exhaust impedance (inverse to aperture size) DRAMATICALLY influences this Static Pressure inside the Nozzle.

[ApolloEnthusiast]

If you apply yourself, maybe you could be the first person in 40+ years to show conclusively that there was something anomalous in the acceleration.

The claim of the steady acceleration at launch being well-above the rocket's own ratings - has been UNCONTESTED.

The only counter-claim that anyone seems to know about, came from Braenig - who's refutation was not "we didn't accelerate that fast" but to try and explain this anomaly via vague science -- transients and static pressure effect.   He pulled down his vague refutation 7 years ago -- and still this seems to be the only quote I've seen from Apollogists to refute.

So the claim of "higher-than-normal acceleration" is simply not contested.   And a viable/mathematical explanation of this acceleration boost has yet to be given.

Try again.

It is possible that the acceleration was higher than normal, although I haven't seen the methodology for determining that definitively. What is completely missing is any kind of rigor in ruling out all of the possible explanations for this acceleration under the circumstances present in the moment.

Jay is being kind to humor you, but this is the responsibility of the claimant, in this case, you.

The claim stands unsupported for 40+ years

[najak]

#1: It is possible that the acceleration was higher than normal, although I haven't seen the methodology for determining that definitively. What is completely missing is any kind of rigor in ruling out all of the possible explanations for this acceleration under the circumstances present in the moment.

#2: Jay is being kind to humor you, but this is the responsibility of the claimant, in this case, you.

#1: Check my doc, others have these too.  It contains image analysis that demonstrates this conservatively.  Most others who do this analysis come up with HIGHER acceleration than I do.  I did this on purpose to eliminate the "you're exaggerating the acceleration!" claims... because these conservative analysis still show 2.5X the normal acceleration for these engines.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sJsIUlzdVF3brADa8YwR4XTg59mod-K2ct4jQCSKlyA/edit?usp=drive_link


#2: Since it's impossible to prove "we didn't miss anything" (can't fully prove a negative), we can address all identified viable/significant contributors to thrust.
Then the ball is in the Apollogists court to say "you missed something", if there is something missed.

This is how ALL OTHER MLH Claims have been debunked -- the MANY BAD MLH arguments are debunked...  by Apollogists.

But this one -- 40+ years old -- STILL has not been debunked.

If this could have been refuted, it would have been --- just like all of the others that were refuted.

[Mag40]

But this one -- 40+ years old -- STILL has not been debunked.

Wrong. The claim has not been quantified as his been pointed out to you. The gist of it being a motion during take-off has not been explained to the people least likely to ever understand it. Not found in the "40+ year old claim" are any of the early steps you are being drip-fed (by JayUtah) to deduce and eliminate potential causes - let alone the final steps which you have no idea about. No. Not for the HB community is that going to happen.

Even now some thirty pages on in this thread, you are still not doing what is being asked, still failing to carry out the steps to disprove the claim of fakery. That is what an honest scientific approach entails. You however, blunder in with your posturing and assumptions and just keep making them like an immature schoolkid.

Just to dot all the i's - where was this claim first raised in 1984?

If this could have been refuted, it would have been --- just like all of the others that were refuted.

Bollocks. Show me an HB rocket engineer! That being the entry level to understand the issue.

Now, would you be so kind as to stop stalling and get the hell on with this. I can't wait for the next steps in this process. Whilst I don't 100% understand them, they are gold dust for those who would like a grounding in the subject - and boy, that so includes you!

[najak]

Now, would you be so kind as to stop stalling and get the hell on with this. I can't wait for the next steps in this process. Whilst I don't 100% understand them, they are gold dust for those who would like a grounding in the subject - and boy, that so includes you!

I've completed my part.  Did the Heat Combustion calculations, and got some results.  But without Jay saying "why is this needed".

The top level map of where we're going with this is ALWAYS done in engineering.  This top level map has NOT been provided by Jay.  He could simply say "here are the steps we're going to follow" and "here are the various potential concepts that could have a significant impact".   No top level map is being provided -- just "here, jump through these hoops without me telling you the master plan."

In all my life, I've never seen an engineer who doesn't FIRST explain the top-level procedure they are going to follow, and state the top-level "possible options" they might need to explore.   Jay has done neither of these.   Which is why this process seems sabotaged on purpose... hindered, stalled, slowed down.

You say "Jay isn't going to do your work"... but he's spending a heck of a lot MORE effort doing this the very slow way.  More work - to get it done slower.  This is how you behave when you don't want to get to the end of the road.

This is like when Eugene on the TWD sabotaged the bus so they couldn't reach DC.   He didn't want to get there.