Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast

[najak]

If there was NO STATIC PRESSURE component - I believe this would have been slam-dunk proof of the hoax.  I could have been made aware of this with a few paragraphs of good faith teaching.

No. You rejected Bob Braeunig's claim to that effect categorically on page 1 of this thread. That it's taken us 30 pages of remedial physics to convince you against your will that such a thing exists is not a sin you get to lay at your teachers' feet. That you've concocted a physically broken argument to justify your reversal does not entitle you to crow about your skill, knowledge, and forthrightness.

"rejected":  A post which only existed for 2 years, then yanked down 7 years ago....  with NO NUMERICAL ANALYSIS.  NONE.  And by a guy who claimed to be "an ordinary guy".  So pardon me for not taking his few-sentences of unsupported text as gospel.

[JayUtah]

This thread -- I've conceded failure.

No. You conceded the hoax hypothesis, but you redefined victory to mean having come up with a physically valid explanation ostensibly on your own, without anyone's help here—and indeed allegedly despite their interference.

In all your other threads you concede only ambiguity, holding out hope that someone smarter than you might eventually agree with you.

[JayUtah]

So pardon me for not taking his few-sentences of unsupported text as gospel.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either all it ever took was for someone simply to mention the subject to you, or your claim to be amiably susceptible is pure revisionism.

[najak]

1. You appear to be incapable of accepting that it is your interpretation of the information that is wrong and not everyone else's.
2. You have been repeatedly asked to stop calling people names like "apollogists".
3. You have been repeatedly given answers to your claims, which you repeatedly dismissed or ignored.
4. until the claim was resolved to everyone's satisfaction,
5. And let's be clear: I am not required to tolerate anyone that I don't like. I pay for this forum, and I'm not going to pay to be insulted.

1. Did I NOT concede HERE that the Lunar Launch Acceleration is NOT proof of the hoax?  Did I NOT concede that "Sand Falls Too Fast" is ambiguous enough to allow for other people's opinions?

2. "Apollogist" - please tell me what you'd like to be called, and I'll do it.  Are you going to mandate that people like me not be called "HB's"?

3. "Given Answers - ignored/dismissed" - As have BOTH side.  It's called Debate.  BOTH sides give answers, and in the end, the debaters walk away with some disagreements.  Which means they are BOTH dismissing the "answers" given by the other side.  This is how debates ALWAYS work.  Except for the Salem Witch Trials - where only one present conclusion is mandated.

4. "Everyone's Satisfaction" -- even if that "satisfaction" REQUIRES me to concede to something that I do not agree with?  This is like putting the witch on trial, and she cannot be saved from death unless she confesses to being a Witch...  because that's the ONLY admission that "satisfies" the court.


Tell me where to send you some money to pay for this forum.  What is it costing you?   I'll help you bear that cost burden, if NASA isn't already (they should be).

[Luke Pemberton]

First off, I took and aced Calculus I & II at Rose-Hulman Inst. of Tech. Then went on to Differential Equations I & II, and Linear Algebra.   A's in all.

That's great. I really enjoyed partial differential equations, very useful in Lagrange multipliers but also essential for waves, heat transfer and of course QT. Solving the Schrodinger equation for the hydrogen atom in spherical coordinates was a little tricky in the radial component. Of course partial differential equations really pulled physics together with GR and Maxwell (not the cricketer). GR was beyond me though. I understood the ideas and some of the basic mathematical ideas, but deriving the metric and then applying it... nah.

Here's my claim - if the Ascent module demonstrates a uniform acceleration of 4 m/s^2 for 1 second, then the Net Force on the Ascent Module can be calculated using F = m * a.   If the Mass is 5000 kg, then the NET force must be 20,000 Newtons.   So subtracting 1.62 m/s^2 for lunar gravity can yield the NET THRUST.

But m is a function of time, and F is non-linear, so you need to know the different components of force and integrate them. Immediately this presents an issue of direction and a time component. You cannot apply F = ma in a simple high school manner, with F being a constant and m being a constant. That's the bottom line.

[JayUtah]

1. Did I NOT concede HERE that the Lunar Launch Acceleration is NOT proof of the hoax?

You did, but you think that should end all discussion. In the course of making that concession, you made new claims that deserve scrutiny: namely that you have a physically valid model to explain the LM liftoff observation (despite evidence that you don't), and that no one here contributed to your understanding of the problem and instead impeded it. Just because you're no longer willing to draw the conclusion that this anomaly is best explained by a hoax doesn't mean we are prevented from questioning your revised conclusions including that this supposed anomaly is best explained by your model.

...if NASA isn't already (they should be).

No, we're not paid shills.

[najak]

This thread -- I've conceded failure.

No. You conceded the hoax hypothesis, but you redefined victory to mean having come up with a physically valid explanation ostensibly on your own, without anyone's help here—and indeed allegedly despite their interference.

I gave you credit for 5-minutes-worth of help. 

It would have gone like this:
===
Static Pressure can be approximated with Fluid Dynamics simplified model of Pressure, Restriction and Flow.... which are correlated by:   P = F * R.

The pressure inside the Combustion chamber is rated for 120 psia, with a throat aperture of 16.4 sqIn.  The Nozzle Exit is constricted by the platform beneath it with a starting angle of 1.5 degrees, and a 34 inch diameter nozzle exit.   You can calculate the approximated pressure drop from Combustion Chamber to Nozzle to Vacuum, similar to how a simple electric circuit works in SERIAL, for Volts(pressure), Amps (Flow) and Resistance (Restriction)...   the Concepts work out the same.    It won't be exact, but will be approximated.

As the rocket ascends, this constriction becomes less quickly, however, Fluid Dynamics still can produce an approximate pressure for you.

The resulting Static Pressure Thrust can be approximated as the "PSI of the Nozzle chamber" x "Area of the Nozzle Exit in SqIn".

You might want to factor this into your model, this may add significant thrust/impact to the first 30 cm of takeoff.
====

I derived MOST of this from you simply pointing me at the "aperture of exiting the Nozzle".  That's about ALL YOU DID.

Are you a Bad Teacher?  Or purposefully slowing down the process?   You spent weeks to help me accomplish what could have been said in 5 minutes (shown above).

[Luke Pemberton]

No, we're not paid shills.

I get a free stamp on my 'get a free Gregg's coffee card' for each post.

[JayUtah]

It would have gone like this:

I'm not interested in your alternative universe fantasy.

I derived MOST of this from you simply pointing me at the "aperture of exiting the Nozzle".  That's about ALL YOU DID.

No, you don't get to blame me for your having come up with a model full of mistakes. As I said, you habitually want to get out ahead of the discussion. That results in straw-man claims that I have to painfully unravel.

Are you a Bad Teacher?  Or purposefully slowing down the process?   You spent weeks to help me accomplish what could have been said in 5 minutes (shown above).

No, you don't get to presume you've been a good faith student.

[najak]

That's great. I really enjoyed partial differential equations, very useful in Lagrange multipliers but also essential for waves...

I forgot almost ALL of differential equations.  It was useful for me in math that involved Communications/Signals, where imaginary numbers had a role.   I graduated 1992, and went right into programming, my true love.   3D math, along with Physics Simulations is my new domain for math.  (Quaternions are weird, and matrices)   Global conversions from Lat/Lg to Lambert or Mercator projections is also something I've dealt a lot with.  Not much beyond that since 1992.

But m is a function of time, and F is non-linear, so you need to know the different components of force and integrate them. Immediately this presents an issue of direction and a time component. You cannot apply F = ma in a simple high school manner, with F being a constant and m being a constant. That's the bottom line.

Correct.  My preferred method of doing this is via a spreadsheet (or 3D simulation) - where it's simple Newtonian physics model (NET force) samples at 1000 frames-per-second, and produces a realistic-enough result.   In this brute force manner, I'm able to simplify the top-level math involved in deriving answers.

Here's my spreadsheet for the AM Launch:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qYtfrOghTwQ-C3sxMIerEGokdxFqFdM32_NX-TmpELs/edit?usp=sharing

I'm currently able to model "what was shown" to within 7 inches after 1 second...    And I'm certain the final 7 inches could be explained away by 10% time skew....  I'm not going to champion a Hoax Claim that comes down to "10% skew in time".

There are better ones to focus on.

Before inserting the "Static Pressure" thrust component, things looked very bad for Apollo.

I'd like to get your feedback on the other 2 threads.   "The 8 flag motions one", though, has been locked by LunarOrbit, currently.

[najak]

No, we're not paid shills.

I get a free stamp on my 'get a free Gregg's coffee card' for each post.

This site and Jay are providing NASA a service.  They should be paid for their work.

If this forum were Neutral - it would work against NASA/Apollo.   So maintaining the bias is a service to NASA, and deserves payment.

I do suspect that certain key individuals might be subsidized.  Otherwise, I'm not understanding the irrational levels of bias I see here -- as though you are contracted to ensure I don't get heard, because NASA doesn't want the general public aware of the non-debunked stuff.... such as 8 flag movements, or the A12 Dish flinging.   You won't find EITHER of these in the "top 10 hoax theories debunked" - for a reason.

[JayUtah]

My preferred method of doing this is via a spreadsheet (or 3D simulation) - where it's simple Newtonian physics model (NET force) samples at 1000 frames-per-second, and produces a realistic-enough result.

Assuming the physics embodied in the spreadsheet values and formulas are correct. You seem to be using the notion that your result approximates your expectations as a validation that your model is physically correct.

In this brute force manner, I'm able to simplify the top-level math involved in deriving answers.

That's not a substitute for understanding why calculus is needed to accurately describe the physical behavior. Further, as we discovered in the case of a simple thermodynamics problem, your spreadsheets are haphazard, hard to follow, and thus hard to validate as appropriate expressions of problems and solutions.

Before inserting the "Static Pressure" thrust component, things looked very bad for Apollo.

No. Before you learned a few things about rocketry that you previously didn't know, things looked bad for you. They still look bad because you're not finished learning. You're neither as smart nor as important as you seem to think you are.

I'd like to get your feedback on the other 2 threads.

This is what I mean when I say you're Gish galloping.

[Jason Thompson]

If this forum were Neutral - it would work against NASA/Apollo.

That is literally contradictory. If this site were neutral it would take a side? Seriously?

I do suspect that certain key individuals might be subsidized.

Another tick on the bingo card. 20+ years on this site and all the most vocal proponents of the hoax theories have at some point stooped to suggesting this.

Otherwise, I'm not understanding the irrational levels of bias I see here

It is not irrational bias when YOU. ARE. WRONG.

[JayUtah]

This site and Jay are providing NASA a service.  They should be paid for their work.

No, that's not how hobbies work.

If this forum were Neutral - it would work against NASA/Apollo.

No, that's not how neutrality works.

I do suspect that certain key individuals might be subsidized.

No, there is no NASA-funded conspiracy to discredit you.

Otherwise, I'm not understanding the irrational levels of bias I see here...

You've shown no evidence of bias on the part of anyone here, irrational or otherwise. That people disagree with you with good reason is not bias.

...because NASA doesn't want the general public aware of the non-debunked stuff.... such as 8 flag movements, or the A12 Dish flinging.   You won't find EITHER of these in the "top 10 hoax theories debunked" - for a reason.

No, you're not important. If you want to be the next Edward Snowden, you need to have the kind of evidence he had and not just example after example of your personal failure to understand how things work.

[Luke Pemberton]

I forgot almost ALL of differential equations.  It was useful for me in math that involved Communications/Signals, where imaginary numbers had a role.

I still recall most of it, it was bread an butter for 25 years. Complex numbers, now that was my favourite part of maths. When taught in high school that root -1 exists, it was a wow moment.

Correct. My preferred method of doing this is via a spreadsheet (or 3D simulation) - where it's simple Newtonian physics model (NET force) samples at 1000 frames-per-second, and produces a realistic-enough result.   In this brute force manner, I'm able to simplify the top-level math involved in deriving answers.

I want you to remove all vitriol and your sense of bias here, whether it is from this camp or your camp  is irrelevant. There is no simple Newtonian model. there is only a Newtonian model. I think I understand Jay, and he can interject. As high school students we learn Newton. But once we progress to undergrad, post grad and professional life we refine Newton in line with his ideas of infinitesimal changes.

So yes, working at 1000 fps would be that infinitesimal change. But the video you have does not work at that level. That is one reason your analysis is flawed. This is what Jay was trying to explain (I think). You cannot take the video and apply high school Newton. the resolution of the video does not allow you to account for the infinitesimal. You need to do the engineering, not apply simple physics and say the engineering is wrong. As Jay said, cart before the horse.

Honestly, Jay is a decent guy; as are all the others here - apart from LO, he's a real pain  . Ask the question and think about the answer. We're a good bunch with the same day to day issues as everyone else. There is no us and them.