Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast

[Luke Pemberton]

Hint 1: The nozzle isn't the only thing that exhaust gas static pressure is acting against in this problem, and therefore not the only thing that must be included in the integral.

Hint 2: There are photographs showing a reflected shock wave from the ascent engine plume during LM staging tests in a vacuum. Can shock waves exist in a vacuum?

I found these photos for descent testing. The snippet about NASA worrying that the landing probes bending and causing the astronauts to trip on egress - you've got to love their attention to detail.

Collect Space - Descent and ascent stage testing

Edit: Change to hyperlink text to account for Jay's observation.

[JayUtah]

If you look more closely, the first two photos are descent testing and the last two photos are ascent staging tests in which the APS plume interacts with the descent stage deck in a way that we really try to avoid in general.

And yes, the landing probe was removed from the forward strut for LM-5 and subsequent.

[Luke Pemberton]

If you look more closely, the first two photos are descent testing and the last two photos are ascent staging tests in which the APS plume interacts with the descent stage deck in a way that we really try to avoid in general.

Yes, I was scrolling up and down to try and correlate text to photos. I can see the sides corresponding to the octagon shape now. I'll correct the hyperlink text.

I may have missed something in the thread, but did they avoid that interaction and if so, how? As you and others have pointed out, the forces during the transient period are an integral of many forces and do not act only on only one part of the engine assembly.

[JayUtah]

They didn't avoid the interaction, although that's what we do in general rocketry. That's why there's a hole in launch pads and trenches, water deluge systems, etc. to manage the acoustics of the exhaust plume. Obviously Grumman didn't care what happened to the descent stage at ascent-stage launch so long as any damage resulting from the APS plume didn't find its way to the ascent stage. Determining that the ascent stage ignition did not damage the ascent stage unacceptably was a matter of flight testing.

ETA: Hot staging such as that being developed by SpaceX for Starship effectively abandons the conventional wisdom of "don't do that." They didn't get it right the first time, but they're improving. And because we want to do this, plume interactions with nearby surfaces and structures are now an interesting field of study.

[najak]

My question on Stack Exchange is related to another thread - not started yet - and maybe never started.   I am investigating some general dynamics of the Ascent Module itself.

This topic is concluded here because in the end Rocket Science cannot break Newtonian physics within the context of a slow-moving closed system, nor the Law of Conservation of Energy.  I started this topic with two missed concepts - thanks to there being NO SUPPORTED DEBUNK of this issue to date.

I purposefully take a strong stance to provide the stickman target for you to debunk.  Nobody did, so I continued.

The two things I missed were:
1. 60% efficiency for a Rocket Engine applies to the kinetic energy of BOTH the vehicle and the Exhaust mass.  Once I corrected this MYSELF - I dropped it.   If I were the teacher here, I'd have corrected the student from the onset with a single sentence, "60% efficiency applies to BOTH combined" - and this matter would have been resolved in 5 minutes.  It's a SIMPLE MISS.  As others have witnessed here, when they make simple mistakes, I provide them simple corrections, kindly and quickly.  I don't lead them on, trying to stretch out and maximize my ability to discredit them.  Simple mistakes are COMMON, not embarrassing.   This was a SIMPLE MISTAKE.. easily corrected -- but left uncorrected for DAYS.   Bad teacher?  Or purposeful discrediting?

2. Static Pressure Thrust is a SPECIAL CASE in rocket science, that applies to this Ascent Module, approximated by SIMPLE FLUID DYNAMICS, simple algebraic equations.  From these approximations, it can be determined that within the first 33 cm of lift-off, the added boost from this addition source of thrust provides enough EARLY acceleration (early is important) to make the filmed acceleration curve more closely match the theory. 


I am not interested in MARGINAL cases.  This is now a marginal case.   We've entered the realm where only a rocket scientist could invalidate this launch acceleration, by stating that my "approximations of early acceleration" are invalid/unrealistic.   At this point, the thread is concluded.

I am ONLY looking at Hoax theories which can be proven by non-specialists.   There are cases where Apollo breaks SIMPLE PHYSICS - and these are my focus.

This launch acceleration rate NOW STATISFIES SIMPLE PHYSICS close enough, such that it is NO LONGER A CANDIDATE for proving the hoax.

Even as a Non-Apollogist, and someone came to this board expressing their belief that the "launch acceleration too fast is proof of the hoax" - I would correct them with a couple paragraphs.   From a basic physics standpoint, this Hoax claim has now become "sufficiently debunked"...  for the first time, apparently.   It wasn't hard.  Didn't require a deep knowledge of rocket science... only Fluid Dynamics 101 (Week #1), algebra, trig, and basic calculus.   Easy stuff for an engineer/scientist.

I wouldn't waste their time and everyone else's in a campaign to discredit them.

So this thread, which I started, has been concluded.   Satisfied.  Sufficiently debunked (from basic physics standpoint).   You can continue it and debunk it more if you like.  But there is nothing left to be said or done here from the hoax standpoint.   I concede, that from my standpoint, this is NOT proof of the hoax.

I have other matters to bring up next.   And now that I know the Salem-Witch-Trial manner of the magistrates in charge, I'll conduct my future threads accordingly.

I ask the Salem magistrates for permission to bring up my next pieces of evidence for discussion.

[Mag40]

I am ONLY looking at Hoax theories which can be proven by non-specialists.   There are cases where Apollo breaks SIMPLE PHYSICS - and these are my focus.

You have identified none that do that!

Even as a Non-Apollogist

Pathetic and childish name calling.

I wouldn't waste their time and everyone else's in a campaign to discredit them.

You never had the credit in the first place. Had you conducted yourself like a reasonable adult you would have fared far better. Nobody cares about "discrediting" you, that's your ego being bruised.

I ask the Salem magistrates for permission to bring up my next pieces of evidence for discussion.

You have open questions that you are cowardly avoiding in the "sand too fast" thread. I would suggest insulting the site-owner as not a great way to protect your pram toys.

[Luke Pemberton]

. I am ONLY looking at Hoax theories which can be proven by non-specialists.   There are cases where Apollo breaks SIMPLE PHYSICS - and these are my focus.

Simple physics - is there any other kind of physics? Hard physics, robust physics, physics with hard math, physics with abstract math?

What do you construe as breaking simple physics?

[najak]

I am ONLY looking at Hoax theories which can be proven by non-specialists.   There are cases where Apollo breaks SIMPLE PHYSICS - and these are my focus.

You have identified none that do that!

8 Flag Motions while they are inside the LM.  This one remains currently NON-DEBUNKED.  There remains NO VIABLE EXPLANATION for this simple Physics setup, to explain the 5 slow-steady movements onto the screen, and then held there for many seconds.   No chaos.   No pendulum.   No explainable force that could push that flag onto the screen in this manner, and hold it there.

I also believe the Apollo 12 Rendezvous with Flinging Dish that comes to rest in pendulum style manner - also appears to have no viable explanation for what all they presented here in footage, transcript, and mission report.

I've got more to bring up, to see if they can withstand the scrutiny.


=== Apollogist ====

Pathetic and childish name calling.

Apologist is a neutral term, as even the Christian scholars refer to themselves as Biblical Apologists.   

Merriam's Definition Apologist:  "someone who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something that is subject to criticism"

Apollogist is just a fortunate play on words between Apollo and this very neutral non-derogatory word Apologist -- it simply means "Apollo Apologist". Non-derogatory.

You say "Pathetic":   Where is your non-duplicitous opinion towards those who have referred to Jarrah White as TBFDU?   Plus HB itself, "Hoax Believer" is derogatory - because MOST HOAXES ARE STUPID, so calling me a HB is an attempt to associate me with all other hoaxes.  It's too general -- but I don't mind it, nor make issue of it.

You can be as childish as you want, continuing with TBFDU or HB - and it only reflects poorly on you.

Apollogist itself is fully neutral, and a fortunate similarity in words to accurately describe what most people here are -- Apollo Apologists.  Neutral.  As intended.

[najak]

. I am ONLY looking at Hoax theories which can be proven by non-specialists.   There are cases where Apollo breaks SIMPLE PHYSICS - and these are my focus.

Simple physics - is there any other kind of physics? Hard physics, robust physics, physics with hard math, physics with abstract math?

What do you construe as breaking simple physics?

Simple Physics = Newtonian style physics.  Stuff they teach in High school Physics, or freshman year college.

Non-simple physics gets into Relativity -- relationships between mass, time, velocity, energy, waves, etc....   Or Quantum Physics is also non-simple.

Rocket Science - introduces physics of fluids/thermodynamics/molecules.    In the end, no matter the complexity inside the combustion chamber/nozzle -- the end result can be approximated with Newtonian physics (i.e. a Net Force).

So once it was established/shown that Static Pressure Force (the result of more complex fluid dynamics/etc) was enough to provide the EARLY acceleration that accounts well-enough for this first 1-full-second of launch motion -- this thread is now complete.

Static Pressure Force is a SIMPLE CONCEPT - at least for approximating it's POTENTIAL IMPACT -- which is all the Apollogists need to debunk this claim.   It gives the Apollogy a reasonable explanation.  End of thread.  Nothing else to discuss.

I am surprised that with how simple this was to debunk, that someone hasn't already done and presented this in a more numerical/supported fashion to date.

I'd be happy to donate my work here as that foundation for debunk.  Make it known.   Knowledge is good.   Spread it around.

[JayUtah]

My question on Stack Exchange is related to another thread - not started yet - and maybe never started.

That doesn't stop the answer you received there from applying to your claims in this thread.

This topic is concluded here because in the end Rocket Science cannot break Newtonian physics within the context of a slow-moving closed system, nor the Law of Conservation of Energy.  I started this topic with two missed concepts - thanks to there being NO SUPPORTED DEBUNK of this issue to date.

You started this thread pretending to be an expert and belittling anyone who disagreed with you, no matter how well supported their argument. I taught you one new concept in rocketry, which took many pages thanks to your arrogance and bluster. Now you've decided that this one new thing you learned fully explains what you see in the video, so you've concocted yet another straw man around it that you can pretend maintains your illusion of genius. And now you're trying to preclude any further discussion and forge ahead with your Gish gallop to avoid having that illusion challenged.

Your approach seems to be to try to get out in front of every new idea with what inevitably amounts to a straw man conceived in ignorance. Instead of getting out in front of the idea, you get out over your skis and then try to get everyone to look the other way while you pick yourself up off the ground.

Static Pressure Thrust is a SPECIAL CASE in rocket science...

No, it isn't.

...that applies to this Ascent Module, approximated by SIMPLE FLUID DYNAMICS, simple algebraic equations.

No.

You tell us you published your solution in spreadsheet form on Dec. 22, and according to my reckoning you presented that thrust model to a different forum on Dec. 29 and were correctly told you were making "many mistakes." Simplicity is a virtue only when it doesn't compromise correctness.

I am not interested in MARGINAL cases.  This is now a marginal case.

It was always a marginal case, which you claimed had to be considered anomalous because it could not be explained in terms of your existing understanding, which was limited to simplifications of nominal cases. You don't get to pretend 30-odd pages later that you were never interested in the topic you raised. Your newfound disinterest is better explained by a realization that you're in over your head and that you desperately want to move on to fresh bluster.

We've entered the realm where only a rocket scientist could invalidate this launch acceleration, by stating that my "approximations of early acceleration" are invalid/unrealistic.

That happened.

At this point, the thread is concluded.

No, at this point you're trying to resign from the debate in a way that saves face and absolves you from having to demonstrate actual competence in the face of continued examination.

It wasn't hard.  Didn't require a deep knowledge of rocket science... only Fluid Dynamics 101 (Week #1), algebra, trig, and basic calculus.   Easy stuff for an engineer/scientist.

You evidently don't care whether Apollo was real or not. You clearly don't care whether you got the right answer according to a physically correct method. All you care about is that you can continue to pretend you're the smartest guy in the room. We know you know you're not, hence your humble pleading in a forum you thought we wouldn't see.

We, on the other hand, are interested in getting the right answer for the right reasons. So as long as that's still on the table, the discussion proceeds.

I concede, that from my standpoint, this is NOT proof of the hoax.

Why do you think that's all anyone should care about? For the bulk of this thread you've been baiting me into spoon-feeding you the answer under the pretense that we would reap honor and glory for having finally explained a vexing, long-standing anomaly. Now that you're on the illusory side of that explanation, it's suddenly unimportant to get it right.

I have other matters to bring up next.   And now that I know the Salem-Witch-Trial manner of the magistrates in charge, I'll conduct my future threads accordingly.

I ask the Salem magistrates to bring up my next pieces of evidence for discussion.

You're not being judged unfairly. Stop whining.

[Luke Pemberton]

Apollogist itself is fully neutral, and a fortunate similarity in words to accurately describe what most people here are -- Apollo Apologists.

I can help you here. It's a very deliberate and offensive characterisation that goes back some 17 years when sceptics were organised on YouTube.

I posted my very first comment on a YouTube hoax video, and within 30 minutes there was a pile on, orchestrated and co-ordinated by Duane Damon and another character. I was called a paedophile because in their minds Apollo, a mythological Greek God, was a paedophile. The term Apollogist, while a play on words, has a deeper meaning to the YouTube sceptics.

[JayUtah]

So once it was established/shown that Static Pressure Force (the result of more complex fluid dynamics/etc) was enough to provide the EARLY acceleration that accounts well-enough for this first 1-full-second of launch motion -- this thread is now complete.

Your thrust model is not correct.

Static Pressure Force is a SIMPLE CONCEPT...

No, you've just treated it simplistically and cobbled up something that gives you a number you can pretend to be happy with.

End of thread.  Nothing else to discuss.

Except for the parts you're leaving out because you don't seem to know about them or understand how they work. You're not interested in the right answer; you're simply trying to jump through the hoops you think will let you move on to your next ignorant song and dance.

I am surprised that with how simple this was to debunk...

No, you're not the smartest guy in the room.

I'd be happy to donate my work here as that foundation for debunk.  Make it known.   Knowledge is good.   Spread it around.

Your method is incorrect and you have been told as much by two qualified experts. No, you haven't contributed anything valuable to the field.

[najak]

I can help you here. It's a very deliberate and offensive characterisation that goes back some 17 years when sceptics were organised on YouTube.

I posted my very first comment on a YouTube hoax video, and within 30 minutes there was a pile on, orchestrated and co-ordinated by Duane Damon and another character. I was called a paedophile because in their minds Apollo, a mythological Greek God, was a paedophile. The term Apollogist, while a play on words, has a deeper meaning to the YouTube sceptics.

Thanks for the clarification.  What neutral term would you prefer to be called?

I'd prefer "HB" be changed to "MLS" - Moon Landing Skeptic.   Neutral and accurate.

[najak]

I'd be happy to donate my work here as that foundation for debunk.  Make it known.   Knowledge is good.   Spread it around.

Your method is incorrect and you have been told as much by two qualified experts. No, you haven't contributed anything valuable to the field.

That's fine.  Do nothing with it.  Publish your own.   Until then, I am already satisfied that such an Apollogy is feasible.  Prior to MY work, I saw no sufficient debunk.  If you wish to debunk it PROPERLY, go for it -- I'll read and spread your conclusions.  I want others to know that this is "debunked".  Unlike you, my goal is to save time and embarrassment for others.

The reason I invited A McKelvey (from the stack exchange) here, was to get more physics-minded people here to look at the Hoax Claims -- such as the 9 Flag movements from A14, or the A12 Rendezvous flinging dish pendulum.

I want smart minds here to meaningfully discuss, debate, and make progress on the Hoax Theories.  If they are debunkable, I want to see them debunked... quickly.

[Luke Pemberton]

Simple Physics = Newtonian style physics.  Stuff they teach in High school Physics, or freshman year college.

Newtonian style physics is taught well beyond 1st year at college. Which is rather the point Jay is making. There is a whole set of physics and math that is taught in STEM subjects at Masters Level and into professional life that is Newtonian. It's just the underlying math gets harder and involves calculus and linear algebra.

Simple Physics = Newtonian style physics.  Stuff they teach in High school Physics, or freshman year college.

Non-simple physics gets into Relativity -- relationships between mass, time, velocity, energy, waves, etc....   Or Quantum Physics is also non-simple.

Physics is the relationship between mass, time and energy - these parameters define the whole of physics at the fundamental level. The fact that you have compartmentalised physics into these boxes really does prove you know very little about the subject; its history, the underpinning philosophy and development of physics from antiquity to modernity. But more to the point, it reveals your lack of the distinction between physics when applied in engineering and physics in its purest sense.

I could talk to engineers about relativity from Galileo to Einstein's GR, and while they may find this of academic interest; they will want to know how to apply Einstein's general relativity to the astrodynamics of a spacecraft (if GR applies of course).

If you read through my responses to Jay, I know that he is an engineer and approaches his use of physics in a different way to me. He understands the limitations, the approximations and thereby sets out knowing he will have to assess risk and undergo test regimes. Why? Because he is involved with building real systems that involve money and peoples' lives. He knows that 'simple physics' won't cut it in real systems, and I know that too.

What is clear to me: when I read what Jay and others have written I know that their training and experience in physics has taken a different route to mine. I accept F = ma and F = PA won't cut it, but that does not mean I disregard their expertise. As a physicist I can follow the main thrust of their arguments. I will ask a question, and I will always get a reply. I don't sit here in my 'physics ivory tower' and shout out I don't get it, my analysis shows this, it's all wrong because of ego or pride. I listen carefully and accept I have knowledge gaps in my own field, rather than cling on rabidly because my error has been exposed.

I see you have moaned about the 'teaching' and in some way declared a Pyrrhic victory because you rectified your own mistake. This forum has always been Socratic. You're not with your peers, you've got to pass the exam and defend your claims. There are few things worse than a viva voce.