Author Topic: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch  (Read 118330 times)

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #555 on: April 08, 2019, 12:56:23 PM »
It'd blow his tiny mind if he learned that they installed pyros to cut holes in the SLA to provide emergency egress for the crew working in the SLA if there was a hyperbolic spill.
I've been studying Apollo for years and never knew this. Learn something new every day, even things that happened a half century ago.

When were the LM and CSM fueled? I know that in the uncrewed spacecraft world propellant loading is done as late as possible. The crews who actually do the loading wear pressurized "SCAPE" suits to protect them in case of a leak, and everyone else is evacuated. Fuel and oxidizer are loaded on separate days, just in case some gets out and lingers in the area.

Once the tanks are loaded everyone treats it as a live bomb, carries a gas mask, and practices evacuation drills. Staff are constantly sniffing around with gas detectors. Somewhere I have pictures of some friends jumping into the emergency chute from the top of the Ariane V gantry in Kourou during one of those drills.

This was new to me also, you do learn something every day if you keep an open mind.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline twik

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 595
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #556 on: April 17, 2019, 02:59:15 PM »
Hi VQ,

Judging by your comments you are youngster who wasn't around in the 60's and 70's. Yes, it is probably much harder to pull the wool over peoples eye's now than it was then. Access to information for the average individual (even country) is like night and day compared to 50 years ago. But even today, with reams of information at people's fingertips countries are able to "bury" anything if they really want to.

Just like the Rwandan genocide? Which there are Hollywood movies about?

Or the murder of Mr. Khashoggi, of which nearly complete details (down to the instructions to play music to drown out the noise of the bone saws) are known?

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #557 on: April 29, 2019, 01:05:46 AM »
Bumping this thread (again) since our poster has returned.  Jr Knowing, do you concede that you were wrong about the question of LM stability with the plume deflectors?  Can you explain the math in the document you referred us to in light of your claim?
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #558 on: April 29, 2019, 03:17:04 PM »
Let me elucidate a bit more on where we stand in this thread, given contributions in other threads by Jr Knowing and his critics.  Gillianren appropriately pointed out that no, we aren't obliged to agree-to-disagree amicably when the matter at hand can be factually resolved.  So what are the facts here?

It is a fact that the stability of any free body is governed by the laws of free-body dynamics.  Notice I say the laws.  To science, that means something.  The law of gravity states that between two or more particles of a given mass there will exist a rigorously quantifiable force of attraction between them.  This law is inviolate; it always predicts the outcome.  Now in physics there are plenty of theories for the mechanism by which this behavior arises.  And as with all theories, there is plenty of well-argued disagreement on which, if any of them, might hold.  But a theory is different than a law.  Scientific law is about observable, quantifiable facts.

The specific application of the laws of free-body dynamics to the lunar module are well known and indisputable.  They govern what the effect of the plume deflectors will be, in a rigorously quantifiable way.  They govern what the natural stability of the spacecraft would be, absent any inputs from the RCS jets.  They govern the behavior of the lunar module in cases where the RCS doesn't work properly -- again, all in rigorously quantifiable ways.  What's important to realize is that no amount of intuition or personal perspective -- no matter how "differently" formulated -- changes the behavior predictable by the laws of free-body motion.  The spacecraft doesn't move in a differently evaluable way just because it "looks" ungainly, or because a claimant is not conversant with the relevant principles.  To Jr Knowing :--

When you write
Quote
Others would rather put down people for having different views on things then them.
you're sidestepping the point.  Your "different view on" the stability of the lunar module means precisely nothing.  Your feelings are absolutely irrelevant in the face of how we know the behavior of free bodies to be governed.  Your "view" is not entitled to any respect, because it simply contradicts facts.  Nor does friendliness enter the picture.  No one is being inappropriately unfriendly for pointing out that your special-snowflake beliefs are contradicted by facts.  On this point you're pretending to be an engineer.  Engineering does not accommodate your feelings, your pretense to out-of-the-box thinking, your privilege of remaining ignorant, or your irrelevant references to Rwandan refugees.  You either know free-body dynamics, or you don't.

It is a fact that there exists a certain document from Apollo history.  It is stipulated to describe one of several possible effects of the LM autopilot operating the LM RCS with the CSM attached, in a degraded mode.  That document has been presented as evidence.  It is not a fact that Jr's interpretation of that document is correct when he says it undermines the general stability of the lunar module.  Those of us who better know what the document describes have pointed out the limited effect its findings have.  It is a fact that document author presents an equation derived from free-body law that supports his rationale.  It is a further fact that correct algebraic evaluation of that law proves the LM cannot have the generalized stability problem Jr Knowing has insisted would be the case.  Again, merely having a "different view" from others doesn't make facts go away.  Jr's "view" is expressible in mathematical form, although he has not chosen to do so.  The presented evidence includes elements of what such a representation would look like.  This lets us determine with mathematical rigor whether Jr's "view" is supported by the evidence he presents in favor of it.  It does not, and Jr Knowing has been invited to submit a reconciliation, but will not.  To Jr Knowing :--

Despite your believe that--
Quote
I have attempted to answer people's questions.
the evidence does not show this to be the case.  We can cite many other examples in this thread and others where you simply refuse to answer questions.  This is why your critics rightly take you to task for changing the subject rather that continuing to debate the points on the table, and why you have been appropriately restricted from doing so.

In a larger sense, you make statements such as--

Quote
I have responded nearly 100 times in those threads.
I have only so much time in a day.
I have been respectful and courteous to everyone.
--in an apparent ploy to assure us that you are debating in good faith.  But you are being assured in turn that the behavior I outline above speaks far louder than your self-serving protests.  You are not arguing the matter of LM stability in good faith, and you are being treated appropriately.

On the question--

Quote
And to be quite honest I feel I am being held to a higher standard.
--yes, you're being held to a standard far higher than, "My view is valid, no matter what you all think or why."  You're being held to the standard that universally applies to questions of stability in spacecraft.  If you are unable to meet that standard, then the universe doesn't care.  If you think those standards should not apply to your claims, you're simply factually wrong.  If you think everything "somehow" still works out in a way that validates your suspicions, you're just asking people to give approval to your ignorance.  You are not being treated unfairly.

Other issues in this thread include the difference in appearance of the LM during the various stages of its preparation for flight.  What is not a fact is the premise that it should have been considered "complete" at any time prior to seeing it fly.  Reams of evidence has been presented that roundly refute that, yet Jr Knowing simply restates his original claims as if nothing had intervened.  Several references were made to what are the facts, presented, explained, and documented by one of the noted authorities on the subject of preparing rockets for launch, and who worked personally on the Apollo project.  Jr cannot reconcile any of his ill-informed expectations with that, and rather chooses not to try.

Another issue was the SM reaction control jets during the Saturn V ascent.  What is not a fact is the expectation that such a feature would invariably have suffered loss or damage as the result of aerodynamic forces.  Again, the laws of science tell us that a flow possessing certain given properties will separate from the boundary of discontinuous geometries, at the points of discontinuity.  What is a fact is that the Saturn V rocket produces the conditions under which this will happen.  What is not a fact is that the condensation that sometimes accompanies and evinces flow separation necessarily occurs across the full extent of separation.  It may not even be present at all.  Many other facts arise from the laws of fluid flow, which are entirely consistent with the flow separating a the CM-SM boundary and extending the length of the SM, and thus placing the RCS quads in the lee.  As I qualified engineer, I am certified to speak with expert knowledge on those and other principles that relate to my profession.  Unlike many other professions, I am legally liable for the correctness of my understanding when properly offered.  Jr Knowing, on the other hand, confessed that this was not something he readily understood.  To Jr Knowing :--

When you write
Quote
I have been respectful and courteous to everyone.
we can properly cite the above behavior as evidence to the contrary.  Ignoring the evidence and expertise that others bring to bear is not respectful or courteous.  It's presumptuous, arrogant, and rude.  Even when the topics involve some degree of judgment, such as whether it's a good idea to add things to a spacecraft just before flight, you prefer your own inexperienced and uninformed "different view of things," rather than give proper respect to the people who do those things for a living and who are volunteering their time and effort to give you the benefit of their hard-won experience.  No one is obliged to respect your opinion just because you have one.

Moreover, statements like

Quote
But I am also smart enough and realistic enough to admit, as I admitted to Jay, that I am probably 99 percent likely wrong.
are flatly contradicted by the evidence of your participation.  As I've outlined, you won't admit error even when you are certainly wrong.  You simply avoid the question, and beg everyone just to be friendly.  In a few cases you even resort to outright fabrication in order to maintain your "different view" in contravention of the facts.  You lately assure us that it must "obviously" be the SM RCS quads themselves that are causing visible flow separation, even though you previously admitted you didn't know the science.  You're asking us, for the sake of preserving your snowflake beliefs, to agree that you suddenly became an expert in flow separation and can offer authoritative interpretations of evidence, over and above those presented and defended by people who have had to demonstrate actual expertise.

No, Jr Knowing.  You are not entitled to keep getting away with the same tired stunts over and over again, the same protests of innocence and persecution, and the same wanton hubris you've brought to every thread.  You are not entitled to respect for your "different view" if it runs counter to fact.  You are not entitled to simply abandon debates you're losing without consequences that might include being laughed at.


Let's see if Jr Knowing is able to reconcile his claims of LM stability with the mathematics presented in his own evidence.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #559 on: April 30, 2019, 10:38:05 AM »
Frankly, to me, claiming the Apollo record is hoaxed is itself discourteous.  It puts the person making the claim on a different level than everyone else.  It assumes that, regardless of their knowledge and expertise, they aren't smart enough to have spotted the hoax.  It assumes that everyone involved in the hoax was either not themselves smart enough to figure it out or else willingly in on it, neither of which are exactly compliments.  It's saying that people lied in the most extraordinary fashion.  It is, to be blunt, vile to claim.  It simply wasn't possible to fake the Apollo landings with 1969 technology, but even if it had been, it's arguable that anyone knowingly involved in it should have gone to prison.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline ApolloEnthusiast

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 38
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #560 on: April 30, 2019, 11:10:06 AM »
Frankly, to me, claiming the Apollo record is hoaxed is itself discourteous. 
I agree with this 100%.  It is one thing to state that you don't understand how it could have been done, and to genuinely ask questions with an honest intent to learn.

It is another thing entirely to make a ridiculous claim like this without presenting extraordinary evidence supporting that claim, which of course, never happens.  The "evidence" is inevitably nothing more than vague questions meant to lead the ignorant to the intended conclusion of hoax, or variations of "It doesn't make sense to me, therefore it must be fake."

That type of "debate" is, as you point out, inherently discourteous.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #561 on: April 30, 2019, 11:44:38 AM »
It is another thing entirely to make a ridiculous claim like this without presenting extraordinary evidence supporting that claim, which of course, never happens.

That's where the discourtesy lies for me.  Yes, for me there's a brief sting when someone attacks my profession in general, and some of its most eminent and pioneering practitioners and projects.  But after spending so much time as an engineer, I've learned to let the emotional reaction subside before engaging.  "Your design sucks!" is something you need to be able to hear as a design professional without jumping in to defend it like it's your baby.  But to survive a rational examination, such a claim must be followed by, "...and here's why."

I'm okay in the abstract with someone claiming the Apollo record was hoaxed.  But I don't stay okay if the claimant is unaware of the standard of proof he has to meet in order to make that a reasonable objective interpretation of the record, or is unwilling to meet it.  That's where we stand now.  Jr Knowing is utterly on the wrong side of the facts in this thread, yet is unwilling to concede that he is wrong.  This is someone who knows he cannot meet a reasonable standard of proof, but will not take responsibility for it.  He'd rather make stuff up, avoid the issue, and change the subject.  That is eminently discourteous.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline jfb

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #562 on: April 30, 2019, 12:05:00 PM »
The thing I tell people who claim it was all shot on a soundstage is to provide evidence for that soundstage - pictures of it in development, financial records, employment records, something.  These things don't get built for free, money has to change hands somehow.  You have to hire people to build it, to work it.  Equipment has to be purchased and maintained.  That income has to be reported for tax purposes. 

That's where HBs need to be looking, not at the imagery. 

Offline ApolloEnthusiast

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 38
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #563 on: April 30, 2019, 01:36:20 PM »
The thing I tell people who claim it was all shot on a soundstage is to provide evidence for that soundstage - pictures of it in development, financial records, employment records, something.  These things don't get built for free, money has to change hands somehow.  You have to hire people to build it, to work it.  Equipment has to be purchased and maintained.  That income has to be reported for tax purposes. 

That's where HBs need to be looking, not at the imagery.
And this is precisely where a hoax of this magnitude would inevitably fall apart.  Even if it were possible to convincingly fake a moon landing, how could anyone possibly hide the resources, both human and material, necessary to perpetrate it?  It takes hardly any research to find an enormous list of much smaller conspiracies, with far fewer people involved, that fall apart within weeks or maybe months at best.  It's been 50 years without any hint of the sound stage, contractors, crew, or equipment that would need to exist to validate the claim of hoax. 

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #564 on: April 30, 2019, 02:19:00 PM »
The lack of sound sets won't stop the willfully ignorant from posting nonsense.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Northern Lurker

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #565 on: May 01, 2019, 09:22:59 AM »
Also hoax narrative doesn't have any internal consistency. It is common to see a short clip and have claim that this was faked by wires. Next clip - slowed down film. Clip after that - Vomit Comet. While all the clips are from the same hours long telecast which makes it impossible to move the actors from Vomit Comet to sound stage or rearrange wire rigs for the next take.

Lurky

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #566 on: May 01, 2019, 09:55:22 AM »
The simple fact is, we literally do not have the technology to fake the hoax as it is documented.  The combination of film, photography, and physical evidence is not possible to fake and is considerably more complicated than just, you know, going to the Moon.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #567 on: May 01, 2019, 11:23:53 AM »
The simple fact is, we literally do not have the technology to fake the hoax as it is documented.  The combination of film, photography, and physical evidence is not possible to fake and is considerably more complicated than just, you know, going to the Moon.

Indeed the film on the Moon was not possible according to filmmaker S G Collins


and

Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #568 on: May 01, 2019, 02:21:44 PM »
The simple fact is, we literally do not have the technology to fake the hoax as it is documented.  The combination of film, photography, and physical evidence is not possible to fake and is considerably more complicated than just, you know, going to the Moon.

And yet this does not stop several hoax believers from arguing that NASA could do it because they had access to unlimited funds and secret tech. Why that makes it impossible to use such funds and tech to go to the Moon I don't know....
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline raven

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1637
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #569 on: May 01, 2019, 03:32:08 PM »
The simple fact is, we literally do not have the technology to fake the hoax as it is documented.  The combination of film, photography, and physical evidence is not possible to fake and is considerably more complicated than just, you know, going to the Moon.

And yet this does not stop several hoax believers from arguing that NASA could do it because they had access to unlimited funds and secret tech. Why that makes it impossible to use such funds and tech to go to the Moon I don't know....
Searing radiation hell that no space agency corroborates, or, in Jr  knowing's case, bonking into that solid firmament, no doubt.
***
Look, Jr, you make much of the fact of you being 'polite'. Personally I find you condescending and passive aggressive, but let's say you are,  in fact, polite. Well, congratulations, you  win at basic human decency. Here's your ticker tape parade and women (or your genders of choice) who will flock to you like it's an Axe commercial.
Oh wait, that's not how life works. 
Now, I agree that being polite and level headed in discussions on contentious topic is valuable skill, but it doesn't change facts. It doesn't change you being right or wrong. So why don't you stop bragging about how 'polite' you are and start answering the fine people of this forum's questions.  I am no expert, unlike most of the fine people here, but I do know that someone who Gish gallops from topic to topic is probably not much of an expert either.