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

[onebigmonkey]

The Saturn V Flight Manual gives the timings for the 8 second yaw manoeuvre taking place between 1.4 and 9.4 seconds after first motion, giving the reason as:

During this period, a yaw maneuver is executed to provide tower clearance in the event of adverse wind conditions, deviation from nominal fight and/or engine failure...After clearing the tower, a tilt and roll maneuver is initiated to achieve the flight attitude and proper orientation for the selected flight azimuth.

http://history.nasa.gov/ap12fj/pdf/a12_sa507-flightmanual.pdf

[JayUtah]

I wonder if this is where our maritime engineer friend got his ideas or if it's just a parallel case of someone else who didn't pay attention in high school physics and thinks you can just toss mass/energy out of a closed system and pretend it just disappeared.

I'd argue for parallel case.  Energy-balance equations are simple in the abstract but do require a somewhat counterintuitive concept of "system."  In that conspiracism is rife with people taking an intuitive approach to the physical sciences, I would expect an intuitive (although incorrect) formulation of a system to arise more often than sock puppetry.

[Eventcone]

Finally, for those interested, here is a high definition clip of the Apollo 11 cloud passage (near the end):

This is something I mentioned on an earlier post - I don't think anyone commented on it so I thought I'd throw it back in:

In the above HD clip, something appears to ripple through the cloud layer as it is penetrated by the Saturn. I'm not sure but there may be a smaller ripple on penetration followed by two larger ones as (or immediately after)the vehicle completes its passage through the cloud.

Are we seeing the effects of shock waves on the clouds here? (There could be several such shock waves at various points down the length of the stack, could there not?). Or are we seeing an effect created by the engines' plume?

Table B-II of AS-506 (APOLLO/SATURN V POSTFLIGHT TRAJECTORY) indicates Mach 1.0 after 66secs, whereas the Saturn appears to penetrate the cloud layer at around 60secs. However there could be (would be?) shock waves forming below Mach 1.0, in the transonic region.

More evidence against the Aulis claim (if more were needed).

What do people think?

[smartcooky]

Finally, for those interested, here is a high definition clip of the Apollo 11 cloud passage (near the end):

This is something I mentioned on an earlier post - I don't think anyone commented on it so I thought I'd throw it back in:

In the above HD clip, something appears to ripple through the cloud layer as it is penetrated by the Saturn. I'm not sure but there may be a smaller ripple on penetration followed by two larger ones as (or immediately after)the vehicle completes its passage through the cloud.

Are we seeing the effects of shock waves on the clouds here? (There could be several such shock waves at various points down the length of the stack, could there not?). Or are we seeing an effect created by the engines' plume?

Table B-II of AS-506 (APOLLO/SATURN V POSTFLIGHT TRAJECTORY) indicates Mach 1.0 after 66secs, whereas the Saturn appears to penetrate the cloud layer at around 60secs. However there could be (would be?) shock waves forming below Mach 1.0, in the transonic region.

More evidence against the Aulis claim (if more were needed).

What do people think?

Those ripples that run from 2:12 to 2:15 look like boundary layer/supersonic shock-waves to me.

You can imagine them as a series of cones within cones, largest at the front smallest at the back. There is a definite series of ripples; the first few appear to centre on the visible hole in the clouds, but a fraction of a second later there are a couple more that are slightly higher in the cloud later, or at least, higher than the visible hole.

[Bob B.]

It looks to me like the CBS video (below) is the best for estimating the time that the Saturn V passed through the cloud layer.  Liftoff occurs at 2:29 in the video and I see what appears to be S-IC separation at 5:11.  That's a difference of 162 seconds, which is the correct amount of time between those two events.  The shadow starts to appear at the 3:32 mark, or 63 seconds after liftoff.  Therefore, I'm saying the cloud layer was penetrated at GET 63 s.

All the position and velocity data is available from the Apollo/Saturn V Postflight Trajectory - AS-506.  The Sun's azimuth & elevation was determined using NOAA's Solar Position Calculator.  The thing I'm least certain of is the rocket's pitch.  I used Figure 11-1 from Saturn V Launch Vehicle Flight Evaluation Report - AS-506 Apollo 11 Mission, but I'm not sure of the coordinate system.  NASA uses many different coordinate systems and the one used to create Figure 11-1 may not be the same used for the position and velocity data.  Nonetheless, estimating pitch from the graph gives numbers that are within one degree of the direction of the velocity vector (i.e. angle of attack < 1°), so that looked pretty good.  I used the raw numbers straight from Figure 11.1 without any transformation realizing that there may be some error.

Given this information I was able to determine the rocket's position, attitude, and angle of illumination during the period of time that the shadow is visible in the video.  Assuming the cloud layer formed a flat plane below the rocket, I projected the position, size and orientation of the Saturn V's shadow on the clouds.  Below is an illustration showing the results (click on image to enlarge).  This is a view looking down from a overhead position.  Of course, if you were looking up from below and in a downrange direction, you'd see the shadow moving up and to the left just as it appears in the video.  The size of the shadow in the illustration is that of the rocket itself, not the exhaust plume.

[Noldi400]

I wonder if this is where our maritime engineer friend got his ideas or if it's just a parallel case of someone else who didn't pay attention in high school physics and thinks you can just toss mass/energy out of a closed system and pretend it just disappeared.

I'd argue for parallel case.  Energy-balance equations are simple in the abstract but do require a somewhat counterintuitive concept of "system."  In that conspiracism is rife with people taking an intuitive approach to the physical sciences, I would expect an intuitive (although incorrect) formulation of a system to arise more often than sock puppetry.

Related to the old malice vs stupidity proverb, sounds like.

It's amazing how many things in the sciences, whether biology or physics or other, are counterintuitive. It's really not surprising that people who have not either had formal training (you) or at least done layperson-level studying of the subject matter (me) have difficulty understanding some of the principles of astronautics.  What is so G.D. frustrating are the ones who are convinced that their intuition or "common sense" trumps the actual proven facts of science.

[gillianren]

As I've said, the sonographer who did my ultrasound the other day has been asked when he thinks they'll be in (accurate) colour.  There are two reasons I can think of off the top of my head that it's impossible to use sound to create a colour picture of the inside of a uterus, but it seems a lot of people aren't even educated enough about science to know one.

[Noldi400]

As I've said, the sonographer who did my ultrasound the other day has been asked when he thinks they'll be in (accurate) colour.  There are two reasons I can think of off the top of my head that it's impossible to use sound to create a colour picture of the inside of a uterus, but it seems a lot of people aren't even educated enough about science to know one.

I can think of one that should be a matter of common sense: it's dark in there.

[gillianren]

That was one, yes.  And the first one I came up with.

[Grashtel]

As I've said, the sonographer who did my ultrasound the other day has been asked when he thinks they'll be in (accurate) colour.  There are two reasons I can think of off the top of my head that it's impossible to use sound to create a colour picture of the inside of a uterus, but it seems a lot of people aren't even educated enough about science to know one.

I suspect that its less a lack of education and more not actually thinking things through.  I suspect that the reasoning chain behind the question goes "It produces black and white images on a TV screen > TV went from black and white to colour > therefore so will ultrasound" without ever touching on the obvious reasons why that can't happen.

[gillianren]

That makes sense as reasoning, but he's told people that it won't happen and they don't believe him.

[pzkpfw]

I suspect that its less a lack of education and more not actually thinking things through.  I suspect that the reasoning chain behind the question goes "It produces black and white images on a TV screen > TV went from black and white to colour > therefore so will ultrasound" without ever touching on the obvious reasons why that can't happen.

There's a famous story about a famous guy (but I can't actually recall more specific facts) who when electric light first was becoming widespread, said in company "I just don't know how this electricity stuff works" (or some thing like that). A woman in the room carefully explains "why it's simple, you just flick this little switch".

So I think you are right; there's an aspect of just not thinking about how things work.

(The other parallel I see is the folk who think rockets can't work in space because there's no air to "push against".)

[smartcooky]

It's amazing how many things in the sciences, whether biology or physics or other, are counterintuitive.

I can give you a great example of this, from my Form 2 (9th grade in USA) Science class.

The Physics Teacher set up an experiment using a small rectangular flat sheet of aluminium attached along the middle of the short side to a pivot point. The pivot point was designed so that the sheet could only swing edgewise like a pendulum (i.e., it was unable to spin or rotate flatwise)

He then lifted it up to horizontal and let it go. Of course, the sheet swung freely back and forth numerous times, only slowing down through friction at the pivot point and I guess a small amount of air resistance.

Then, he stopped the sheet, and positioned a powerful "C" shaped magnet (one of those that has the poles about an inch apart and facing each other) so that the aluminium sheet would swing between the poles. He asked us what we expected to happen, and without exception we all said that it would just swing on through because we all knew aluminium was not attracted to a magnet and therefore, would not be affected by it......

WRONG!!!!

Imagine our surprise when the aluminium sheet visibly slowed, barely made it past the magnet and came to a complete stop in about three short swings.

That is the day that I learned the words "eddy current", a lesson I have not forgotten in over 40 years.

[gillianren]

That's his aluminum foil, is it?

[smartcooky]

That's his aluminum foil, is it?

¿Qué?