Anyone familiar with this 'claim' at Aulis.com?

[gillianren]

And it's incidents like this one that illustrates the point gillianren has been trying to make lately.

Indeed, and I was worried about this yesterday.  After all, Aulis is still out there, for all we wish it weren't, and presumably more than one person is being exposed to it.  Since Jack is, after all, dead, this means that a lot of people just now finding it aren't going to know much about him.  They'll at bare minimum never have interacted with him.  And they'll never know how lucky they are to have missed that.  I never did, either, but I've been around conspiracism long enough to know exactly how lucky I am.

[Abaddon]

Thank you for the 'welcome'. 

1. I have no experience with Aulis. I made one visit to their site (having been 'referred' to it by an 'opponent') and I have no reason to disagree with your sentiments concerning them.

OK. Aulis was the home of the now deceased Jack White, a man who knew as little about photographic analysis as I know about left handed thripples, whatever they may be, yet good ole JW held forth about photogrammetry as if he was an expert. In fact, when asked in court about what was his expertise in photogrammetry, he replied "What is photogrammetry?"

2. Altered by someone, certainly.

Not necessarily deliberately.

3. Interesting. I sampled 5 points in the YouTube version (0.01, 3.47, 5.32, 6.15 & 6.41) and the difference with the OSD reading was 57mins 19secs in each case. 

Aulis , OTOH, claims to have analysed "frames". Frames of what? Frames of the youtube video? Frames of the VHS? Frames of the super 8? They don't say. Pause button in youtube is more likely.

4. Clearly, you're still hanging in there.......! 

Can't help meself. 

5. I'm truly sorry that my post did not come up to your own standards of what might be considered "meaningful". Who, by the way, is Jack White, and why would you think that I would ever "suck at (his) teat"? You appear to have jumped to some erroneous conclusions concerning me.

That was directed at Aulis, not you.

6. Why indeed. But then cannot ALL claims that Apollo was faked be described as 'lunatic'? Yet ApolloHoax.net exists precisely because people do want to spend time on such claims. If you're not interested in any individual claim I respectfully suggest you ignore it.

No. If no-one stands up, then we will live in a world run by those very lunatics.

[Abaddon]

 OK, maybe a little at you.   

[Noldi400]

Indeed.  At the time in question (T+108 s), the Saturn V's heading was about 79° and its pitch was about -46°, i.e. an elevation of 44°.  At the same time and location, the Sun's position in the sky was approximately azimuth 84° and elevation 37°.  The means the Saturn V was pointed almost directly into the Sun, which would extremely shorten its shadow.  For the shadow to appear as elongated as it does in the video, we have to be seeing the shadow of a very long exhaust plume.

Let's add another point...  The pitch angle describes the direction the rocket it pointed, i.e. its attitude.  In this case, the longitudinal axis of the rocket is inclined upward 44° with respect to the local horizon.  However, this is not the direction the rocket is traveling.  The Saturn V's flight path angle at the time in question was about 28°, which means the velocity vector was inclined 28° to the horizon.  The effect of this is that the shadow appears to move more slowly than it would assuming the pitch and direction of travel are one in the same.  Therefore the key premise on which the Aulis method is based fails:

"The key idea of the method is that when the shadow has gone its one length "l", it also corresponds to the rocket having travelled one length of itself."

OK, a question from one of the non-engineers. Do I understand you to be saying that the velocity vector was at +28^o from the horizon, and the Z axis was at +44^o?  If so that would be an AoA (if that's the correct term in this context) of 16^o?

That sounds like a lot for something as relatively flimsy at the AS stack was, especially at what, around 2000 m/s? Or was it above enough of the atmosphere at that point to make external stresses negligible?

[Chew]

Who, by the way, is Jack White,

He is the laughing stock of the HB community. See this link for Jay's review of some of White's "analysis".

Clavius: Bibliography - jack white

[Bob B.]

Indeed.  At the time in question (T+108 s), the Saturn V's heading was about 79° and its pitch was about -46°, i.e. an elevation of 44°.  At the same time and location, the Sun's position in the sky was approximately azimuth 84° and elevation 37°.  The means the Saturn V was pointed almost directly into the Sun, which would extremely shorten its shadow.  For the shadow to appear as elongated as it does in the video, we have to be seeing the shadow of a very long exhaust plume.

Let's add another point...  The pitch angle describes the direction the rocket it pointed, i.e. its attitude.  In this case, the longitudinal axis of the rocket is inclined upward 44° with respect to the local horizon.  However, this is not the direction the rocket is traveling.  The Saturn V's flight path angle at the time in question was about 28°, which means the velocity vector was inclined 28° to the horizon.  The effect of this is that the shadow appears to move more slowly than it would assuming the pitch and direction of travel are one in the same.  Therefore the key premise on which the Aulis method is based fails:

"The key idea of the method is that when the shadow has gone its one length "l", it also corresponds to the rocket having travelled one length of itself."

OK, a question from one of the non-engineers. Do I understand you to be saying that the velocity vector was at +28^o from the horizon, and the Z axis was at +44^o?  If so that would be an AoA (if that's the correct term in this context) of 16^o?

That sounds like a lot for something as relatively flimsy at the AS stack was, especially at what, around 2000 m/s? Or was it above enough of the atmosphere at that point to make external stresses negligible?

OK, you've brought up a good point that forces me to make a correction/clarification.  The 28° number is the space-fixed flight path angle.  The earth-fixed flight path angle was 38°.  Earth-fixed velocity is that relative to a point on the rotating Earth, and is the apparent velocity an observer would see.  Since the atmosphere is rotating with Earth, the the angle of attack would be 44 - 38 =  6°.

I also question the 46° pitch angle.  That number comes from the Saturn V flight evaluation report for Apollo 11, Figure 11.1 - Pitch Plane Dynamics During S-IC Burn.  However, there's also Figure 10-4 - Attitude Commands During Active Guidance Period, which shows a pitch angle of about 52° at T+108 s.  A pitch of 52° is an elevation of 38°, or an AoA of nearly zero.  (My simulation shows a pitch of 50°, though much guesswork went into determining that.)

I believe my original argument is still valid.  That is, the Aulis method does not account for nonzero angle of attack and is, therefore, flawed. 

Unfortunately you don't get a T-shirt for correcting Bob B.

[Eventcone]

OK, maybe a little at you.   

OK. Thanks for clearing up those points. 

[Eventcone]

Let's add another point...  The pitch angle describes the direction the rocket it pointed, i.e. its attitude.  In this case, the longitudinal axis of the rocket is inclined upward 44° with respect to the local horizon.  However, this is not the direction the rocket is traveling.  The Saturn V's flight path angle at the time in question was about 28°, which means the velocity vector was inclined 28° to the horizon.  The effect of this is that the shadow appears to move more slowly than it would assuming the pitch and direction of travel are one in the same.  Therefore the key premise on which the Aulis method is based fails:

"The key idea of the method is that when the shadow has gone its one length "l", it also corresponds to the rocket having travelled one length of itself."

That's an interesting point about the velocity vector vs the inclination of the rocket, and yes it would affect the apparent motion of the shadow. It remains to be seen whether it would make as large a difference as the one Aulis are claiming. However I much prefer this suggestion to the one where the rocket eflux casts a shadow: That eflux is VERY bright, so it's difficult to conceive of it casting any shadow, especially not one that is not easily distinguishable from the shadow cast by the rocket (don't forget that the shadow 1st appears as the vehicle starts to penetrate the cloud layer).

I hope the above point doesn't sound like something you'd expect from a HB Sock Puppet! I feel as if I'm on probation. 

[Bob B.]

I’ve been doing some number crunching and I’ve got some interesting results.  I’m not claming my solution is correct – I’m just trying to show that the Aulis solution is flawed.

I’ve assumed the rocket heading is 79°, its flight path angle is 38°, and its pitch is –46° (or +44° elevation).  I figured the Sun’s position is azimuth 84° and elevation 37°.  I started out with the center of the rocket 100 m above a flat horizontal plane.  Assuming a rocket length of 100 m, I projected the rocket’s shadow onto the plane.  I then advanced the rocket’s position in 100 m increments along its flight path, recalculating the shadow’s length and location on the plane.  I then calculated the distance that the center of the shadow moved between each step.  Here are the results:

Step    Shadow Length

  0           20.52 m
  1           20.81 m
  2           21.04 m
  3           21.21 m
  4           21.33 m

Step   Shadow Movement

0>1          3.37 m
1>2          3.70 m
2>3          4.01 m
3>4          4.29 m

Once again, the Aulis page states the following:

"The key idea of the method is that when the shadow has gone its one length "l", it also corresponds to the rocket having travelled one length of itself."

My calculations clearly show this to be false.  When the rocket has traveled its own length (100 m), the shadow moves less than 1/5th its own length.  Of course there’s enough error in the numbers I’m using that I can’t claim an accurate result.  The point is that the Aulis method is fundamentally flawed.

[Noldi400]

Indeed.  At the time in question (T+108 s), the Saturn V's heading was about 79° and its pitch was about -46°, i.e. an elevation of 44°.  At the same time and location, the Sun's position in the sky was approximately azimuth 84° and elevation 37°.  The means the Saturn V was pointed almost directly into the Sun, which would extremely shorten its shadow.  For the shadow to appear as elongated as it does in the video, we have to be seeing the shadow of a very long exhaust plume.

Let's add another point...  The pitch angle describes the direction the rocket it pointed, i.e. its attitude.  In this case, the longitudinal axis of the rocket is inclined upward 44° with respect to the local horizon.  However, this is not the direction the rocket is traveling.  The Saturn V's flight path angle at the time in question was about 28°, which means the velocity vector was inclined 28° to the horizon.  The effect of this is that the shadow appears to move more slowly than it would assuming the pitch and direction of travel are one in the same.  Therefore the key premise on which the Aulis method is based fails:

"The key idea of the method is that when the shadow has gone its one length "l", it also corresponds to the rocket having travelled one length of itself."

OK, a question from one of the non-engineers. Do I understand you to be saying that the velocity vector was at +28^o from the horizon, and the Z axis was at +44^o?  If so that would be an AoA (if that's the correct term in this context) of 16^o?

That sounds like a lot for something as relatively flimsy at the AS stack was, especially at what, around 2000 m/s? Or was it above enough of the atmosphere at that point to make external stresses negligible?

OK, you've brought up a good point that forces me to make a correction/clarification.  The 28° number is the space-fixed flight path angle.  The earth-fixed flight path angle was 38°.  Earth-fixed velocity is that relative to a point on the rotating Earth, and is the apparent velocity an observer would see.  Since the atmosphere is rotating with Earth, the the angle of attack would be 44 - 38 =  6°.

I also question the 46° pitch angle.  That number comes from the Saturn V flight evaluation report for Apollo 11, Figure 11.1 - Pitch Plane Dynamics During S-IC Burn.  However, there's also Figure 10-4 - Attitude Commands During Active Guidance Period, which shows a pitch angle of about 52° at T+108 s.  A pitch of 52° is an elevation of 38°, or an AoA of nearly zero.  (My simulation shows a pitch of 50°, though much guesswork went into determining that.)

I believe my original argument is still valid.  That is, the Aulis method does not account for nonzero angle of attack and is, therefore, flawed. 

Unfortunately you don't get a T-shirt for correcting Bob B.

OK, thanks for the clarification. I have learned that many aspects of spaceflight are counterintuitive (which sets me apart from the HB community) but I just wasn't sure if I understood correctly.

[smartcooky]

OK, you've brought up a good point that forces me to make a correction/clarification.  The 28° number is the space-fixed flight path angle.  The earth-fixed flight path angle was 38°.  Earth-fixed velocity is that relative to a point on the rotating Earth, and is the apparent velocity an observer would see.  Since the atmosphere is rotating with Earth, the the angle of attack would be 44 - 38 =  6°.<snip>

All this brings up a really good point about rocketry that is so obvious to anyone who understands a little about it, but that I'll bet these so-called "analysts" at Aulis don't realise. They appear to have a perception that rockets accelerate and travel directly along the thrust axis, but this is only true if the rocket remains vertical. Of course, as soon as the rocket "pitches over" it begins to side-slip, as the force of gravity no longer acts along the longitudinal axis, but at some angle to it.

[Noldi400]

OK, you've brought up a good point that forces me to make a correction/clarification.  The 28° number is the space-fixed flight path angle.  The earth-fixed flight path angle was 38°.  Earth-fixed velocity is that relative to a point on the rotating Earth, and is the apparent velocity an observer would see.  Since the atmosphere is rotating with Earth, the the angle of attack would be 44 - 38 =  6°.<snip>

All this brings up a really good point about rocketry that is so obvious to anyone who understands a little about it, but that I'll bet these so-called "analysts" at Aulis don't realise. They appear to have a perception that rockets accelerate and travel directly along the thrust axis, but this is only true if the rocket remains vertical. Of course, as soon as the rocket "pitches over" it begins to side-slip, as the force of gravity no longer acts along the longitudinal axis, but at some angle to it.

Not unlike crabbing an aircraft during a crosswind landing... well, not like it either, exactly, except that it illustrates the point that a craft's velocity vector is not always directly reciprocal to the direction of thrust.

Speaking of the perceptions of HBs, has anyone noticed that a lot of them use the fact that "Apollo-gists" almost all use the same facts and arguments to refute their claims as they drag them from forum to forum as a criticism? They claim that "we've all learned our scripts well".  Wouldn't it say more for their 'cause' if they got different answers at different places? The facts of Apollo are facts and I would think consistency would make it clear that they don't change over time.

[Bob B.]

Just in case anybody doesn’t understand the difference between space-fixed velocity and earth-fixed velocity, I’ll explain.

Suppose you are witness to a rocket launch.  When you see the rocket on the launch pad it appears stationary, but in reality it is moving because Earth is rotating.  You don’t see it move because you are moving along with it.  At the latitude of Cape Canaveral, the velocity is 409 m/s in a due east direction.  The velocity you see is the earth-fixed velocity, or 0 m/s as the rocket sits on the launch pad.  However, the velocity relative to the heavens, or the space-fixed velocity, is 409 m/s.

Suppose the rocket lifts off and travels straight up for several seconds, reaching a velocity relative to the launch pad of 20 m/s.  Now the earth-fixed velocity is 20 m/s.  Meanwhile, the space-fixed velocity has a vertical component of 20 m/s and a horizontal component of 409 m/s.  The total space-fixed velocity is SQRT(20²+409²) = 409.49 m/s.

Flight path angle is the angle the velocity vector makes with the local horizon.  Since the earth-fixed velocity vector is straight up, the earth-fixed flight path angle is 90 degrees.  On the other hand, the space-fixed flight path angle is ATAN(20/409) = 2.80 degrees.

For things like determining the orbit, we use space-fixed velocity, but for things like calculating atmospheric drag, we use earth-fixed velocity.

[ka9q]

If Eventcone really is a sock puppet of a previous HB (and I don't currently believe that's the case), getting all emotional is giving him exactly what he wants. 

And if he is, it'll become obvious soon enough. If not, it won't.

[ka9q]

They appear to have a perception that rockets accelerate and travel directly along the thrust axis, but this is only true if the rocket remains vertical. Of course, as soon as the rocket "pitches over" it begins to side-slip, as the force of gravity no longer acts along the longitudinal axis, but at some angle to it.

I don't think that's true. During this phase of flight the aerodynamic forces are almost at their peak (max-Q) so the angle of attack must be kept virtually at zero. This is done by flying a "gravity turn" wherein the rocket is pitched down just a little shortly after liftoff (when air speed and pressure are still low) and then letting gravity do the work of curving over the trajectory. Then the engines only have to follow the rocket's path, so to speak, by keeping the angle of attack near zero.

Angle of attack is one of the things monitored by the Q-ball at the tip of the launch escape rocket (angular rates are another). If it exceeds a set maximum, the Emergency Detection System automatically aborts.

I don't remember the figures offhand but I can look them up in one of the Saturn flight manuals.