ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Eventcone on February 15, 2013, 02:38:21 PM
-
This is my first 'new topic' post here, so let me take the opportunity to say 'Hello' to you all! :)
I have been an admirer of NASA's Apollo Program since watching the first moonlanding as a sleepy 9 year old (it was the middle of the night here in the UK!).
I'd like to pose the following question:
Is anyone familiar with this 'claim' recently posted at Aulis, which attempts to demonstrate that a piece of amateur film footage taken at Cape Kennedy reveals that the Apollo-Saturn stack did not accelerate as required and could not have reached Earth orbit. ::)
http://www.aulis.com/apollo11saturn_v.htm (http://www.aulis.com/apollo11saturn_v.htm)
The footage in question:
Now I know that this is a ridiculous suggestion, given the overwhelming evidence that the Apollo 11 mission went off as planned. However I'm a little intrigued by this. As much as I think there must be something screwy here, I have to admit that I'm not certain where the error (or deception, if any) lies.
As you can see, the claim is based on observations of the launch vehicle as it passes through a thin cloud layer, and the motion of the shadow that the vehicle then casts upon the cloud (visible to the camera from beneath). I had already noticed this feature of the launch in footage shown in a BBC program shown here in the UK ("Neil Armstrong - First Man on the Moon").
I can't buy that the launch vehicle could have been travelling as slow as they claim (100 m/s) some 105 seconds into the flight given that the vehicle should have been supersonic from about 66 seconds. My gut feeling is that the aforementioned cloud layer was penetrated much earlier, and that somehow their timing of the event is either in error, or is fraudulent. But how?
Also, is anyone aware of any other continuous, unbroken, unedited footage of the launch from T=0 to 1st stage seperation, or any other footage that shows the cloud penetration and launch vehicle shadow?
Many thanks!
-
An attempt to use Phil Pollacia's video to deduce the velocity of Apollo 11's Saturn has been discussed on the old forum.
Here's the thread, starting with this post:
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=theories&thread=2732&page=2#94424
In short, the claim is contradicted by the acceleration and velocity observed when the rocket clears the launch tower. To have the claimed velocity later in the flight, it would require for the engines to be deliberately throttled down. (Fixed-thrust engines cause rockets to accelerate continuously, as the thrust remains the same, but the rocket loses mass.)
-
Not going to spend much time on this.
1. It's Aulis. One of the biggest lie filled sacks of crap on the internet. The default position is, if it's from Aulis, it's wrong by default.
2. Some how, a hand held super Eight has a clock, synchronised with NASA superimposed on the film. How? The only option is that this footage is altered. By Aulis.
3. The difference between the OSD and the Youtoob clock varies wildly over the course of the video. Oops.
4. I have lost the will to continue looking at this Aulis BS
5. Present something meaningful or go back to sucking at the teat of Jack White and his successors.
6. Why exactly should anyone spend time on this lunatic claim?
-
There is footage available taken just after TLI of the docking procedure. The Earth visible in that footage matches exactly the satellite images of the weather on launch day, and only that day.
-
There is footage available taken just after TLI of the docking procedure. The Earth visible in that footage matches exactly the satellite images of the weather on launch day, and only that day.
"A smell of sock pervades throughout."
-
That's an OSD VCR counter, is it not?
-
That's an OSD VCR counter, is it not?
Something that looks like one, yes, but it's too crisp to be even part of a video conversion of super 8 to VHS, at least in my opinion.
-
That's an OSD VCR counter, is it not?
Something that looks like one, yes, but it's too crisp to be even part of a video conversion of super 8 to VHS, at least in my opinion.
I believe so. This film looks like it has been transferred onto a VCR tape by projecting it onto a screen with an 8mm film projector, and videotaping the projected image with a video camera. The darkening at the edges of the film is a dead giveaway; you simply don't get that with a proper digital movie film scanner. It was probably doen some years ago
I would guess that the next step has been taken more recently, and this is to "play" the tape using a VCR to HDD/DVD, or captured direct to a computer using a VCC.
3. The difference between the OSD and the Youtoob clock varies wildly over the course of the video. Oops.
In general, you should be careful using this as a claim to debunk a video.
I copy people's Home movie VCR tapes to DVD as a part of my business, and I am very familiar with the process. When I capture VHS tape to computer, the software displays the elapsed time of the recording, which is synchronised at the time I press "play" on the VCR. Both the VCR's OSD and the software OSD start at 0:00, but after an hour of playback, it is not usual to find the VCR OSD lagging the software OSD by as much as five minutes.
The reason for this is that the tape has stretched due to years of play and rewind. VHS tape runs at 1.31 inches per second (we have PAL-secam in NZ) so the time code intervals on a stretched tape are spaced further apart. Even though the tape still runs at the same speed, the OSD ticks over more slowly. This is particlarly bad on E-240 tapes that are much thinner.
-
That's an OSD VCR counter, is it not?
Something that looks like one, yes, but it's too crisp to be even part of a video conversion of super 8 to VHS, at least in my opinion.
I believe so. This film looks like it has been transferred onto a VCR tape by projecting it onto a screen with an 8mm film projector, and videotaping the projected image with a video camera. The darkening at the edges of the film is a dead giveaway; you simply don't get that with a proper digital movie film scanner. It was probably doen some years ago
I would guess that the next step has been taken more recently, and this is to "play" the tape using a VCR to HDD/DVD, or captured direct to a computer using a VCC.
3. The difference between the OSD and the Youtoob clock varies wildly over the course of the video. Oops.
In general, you should be careful using this as a claim to debunk a video.
I copy people's Home movie VCR tapes to DVD as a part of my business, and I am very familiar with the process. When I capture VHS tape to computer, the software displays the elapsed time of the recording, which is synchronised at the time I press "play" on the VCR. Both the VCR's OSD and the software OSD start at 0:00, but after an hour of playback, it is not usual to find the VCR OSD lagging the software OSD by as much as five minutes.
The reason for this is that the tape has stretched due to years of play and rewind. VHS tape runs at 1.31 inches per second (we have PAL-secam in NZ) so the time code intervals on a stretched tape are spaced further apart. Even though the tape still runs at the same speed, the OSD ticks over more slowly. This is particlarly bad on E-240 tapes that are much thinner.
Exactly my point. Since the vid varies between 4 secs ahead and behind, drawing any conclusion about it is suspect from the get go, without provenance.
-
Exactly my point. Since the vid varies between 4 secs ahead and behind, drawing any conclusion about it is suspect from the get go, without provenance.
True, its just that I thought you were implying some malarkey on the part of whoever created the video. In fact its just a limitation of the process with old and outdated technology.
In all probability this film would have been recorded onto either a Video 8, or a VHS-C tape first (1st generation), then copied onto a VHS tape (2nd generation) then finally to digital format (3rd generation).
All up, that makes anything like this very unreliable for any kind of measurement or analysis
-
The Aulis website is 100% bullshit. That's a fact.
-
C'mon, guys, he already knows that. He just wanted to know the actual, specific errors in the analysis. Yes, Aulis may be 100% bullshit but that's not the answer he wanted.
-
I have several comments...
1) Does Aulis show the calculations? I'm not going to just take their word for it. Show me the math!
2) What's the margin of error in the calculation? (Surely pretty large.)
3) The Saturn V isn't going as fast as you would think. If we believe the time on the video, the rocket reaches the cloud deck at about 40 seconds after liftoff. According to my launch simulation (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/saturnV.htm), the vehicle's velocity at that point is about 140 m/s.
4) The Saturn V was traveling about 100 m/s at the 32 second mark. If the timer was superimposed later and is not in sync with the image, the rocket could've reached the cloud deck closer to 32 s than 40 s.
5) All things considered, it's likely the actual velocity is well within the margin of error.
-
C'mon, guys, he already knows that. He just wanted to know the actual, specific errors in the analysis. Yes, Aulis may be 100% bullshit but that's not the answer he wanted.
OK then. Relative to the clouds, the motion of the Saturn rocket is 'up' in the frame at first, but then 'down' relative to the clouds later on. This is because the spacecraft is pitching.
Similarly, the shadow Aulis, for their analysis, used would have reversed direction on the film had it been in frame, which, according to their analysis, would mean the rocket had reversed direction and was coming right back. Analysis of the shadows movement is thus meaningless.
The Aulis analysis assumes a straight path. This did not occur. They ignore pitching. They ignore the actual trajectory of the spacecraft. They ignore that the cloud "screen" is not necessarily flat, in fact we know it isn't because the rocket just disturbed it.
Aulis just is not friends with 3D spatial reasoning.
-
That the Saturn seems to rise off the pad so slowly probably makes it easy for some people to believe it wasn't really going nearly 2.8 km/s at shutdown. I can see several reasons:
1. The Saturn did rise from the pad relatively slowly. Its thrust-to-weight ratio was barely greater than unity at liftoff, so nearly all of its thrust was needed just to support its own weight.
2. The Saturn is big and, like all rockets, achieves velocities well outside everyday human experience. It's hard to believe something so big can go so fast. With nothing as a reference, it is easy to misperceive as a smaller, closer and slower-moving object.
3. Low at liftoff, the Saturn's acceleration increased substantially during first-stage flight. It peaked twice at 4 g: just before inboard engine cutoff, and again at outboard cutoff. This was the result of the steady loss of propellant mass (and weight), decreasing gravity loss as the rocket pitched over, increased engine efficiency and decreased drag with altitude.
This is opposite to the power-limited acceleration of a car, which is greatest at first and steadily decreases as velocity increases.
Most of the Saturn's velocity at staging therefore came late in the burn when it was far away from the launch site observers and traveling almost directly away from them, making it difficult to perceive.
-
Going back to the cloud thing, Aulis makes a big thing about cirrostratus clouds and them having a 'maximum height' of 26000 feet. They give a few internet encyclopedia references for this value. Of the references they cite for that value, one actually says that the highest levels are 42000 feet, and other two contain the same text and mention "about 6-8km" for mid latitude cirrostratus. I have found numerous websites citing much higher values than 26000 feet. I also have actual gosh-darned books that place the upper limit for cirrostratus much higher than that.
They freely admit that there are no data from Apollo 11 for the cirrostratus height on that day, but despite this the massive assumption that because there was "2nd level cloud cover" of cirrostratus at that height for Apollo 13, it must therefore have been that height for Apollo 11.
That kind of assumption is nonsense. Their own references show that there is also a lower limit at which cirrostratus can be found - the idea that it is only ever found at 26000 feet at the launch site is just stupid, and completely discredits any kind of 'scientific' analysis they might be trying to attempt using that number as a basis.
The author of the piece uses his PhD freely, but it is not in any way related to the field he is discussing. Make of that what you will.
-
Cirrostratus no higher than 26,000ft? They don't fly much.
-
Another major problem with the Aulis calculation is the assumption that the shadow is the same length as the rocket - they are calculating speed from the time the shadow takes to travel its own length. By the time the rocket reaches these high altitudes it is trailing an immense exhaust wake which will also cast a shadow, so their speed estimate will be low by a factor of rocket length to total length of rocket plus exhaust.
-
Going back to the cloud thing, Aulis makes a big thing about cirrostratus clouds and them having a 'maximum height' of 26000 feet. They give a few internet encyclopedia references for this value. Of the references they cite for that value, one actually says that the highest levels are 42000 feet, and other two contain the same text and mention "about 6-8km" for mid latitude cirrostratus. I have found numerous websites citing much higher values than 26000 feet. I also have actual gosh-darned books that place the upper limit for cirrostratus much higher than that.
The Saturn V was no where near those heights when it reaches the clouds in the video. According to my simulation, the altitude at T+40 s is about 7,900 feet. And the NASA recorded altitude at T+66.3 s (Mach 1 acheived) is 4.236 nautical miles (25,738 feet).
ETA: Nevermind. I just went to the Aulis website and I see that their talking about a completely different part of the video then I thought they were. Sorry.
-
OK then. Relative to the clouds, the motion of the Saturn rocket is 'up' in the frame at first, but then 'down' relative to the clouds later on. This is because the spacecraft is pitching.
The Saturn V was pitched over about 50 degrees from vertical during the time in question.
-
Not going to spend much time on this.
1. It's Aulis. One of the biggest lie filled sacks of crap on the internet. The default position is, if it's from Aulis, it's wrong by default.
2. Some how, a hand held super Eight has a clock, synchronised with NASA superimposed on the film. How? The only option is that this footage is altered. By Aulis.
3. The difference between the OSD and the Youtoob clock varies wildly over the course of the video. Oops.
4. I have lost the will to continue looking at this Aulis BS
5. Present something meaningful or go back to sucking at the teat of Jack White and his successors.
6. Why exactly should anyone spend time on this lunatic claim?
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.
2. Altered by someone, certainly.
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. :-\
4. Clearly, you're still hanging in there.......! :)
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.
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.
-
An attempt to use Phil Pollacia's video to deduce the velocity of Apollo 11's Saturn has been discussed on the old forum.
Here's the thread, starting with this post:
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=theories&thread=2732&page=2#94424
Thanks Dagger. :)
I did attempt a search to see if it had been discussed previously, but found nothing at the time.
-
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.
Fair enough.
1. We have had a number of "individuals" here within the past few months that are sock puppets of two personalty identifiable people that are exceptionally driven to make claims of a hoax.
2. It is quite common for hoax believers to start a conversation by saying they wanted help debunking an argument who quickly reveal themselves as into hoax believers.
Unfortunately this situation has left us gun shy. In the era of Tor and commercial proxy servers, it is next to impossible to trace sock puppets by IP address. While we all agree it is best to take each poster as they come, the frustration with trolling sock puppets also comes out sometimes.
And, welcome to the forum.
-
C'mon, guys, he already knows that. He just wanted to know the actual, specific errors in the analysis. Yes, Aulis may be 100% bullshit but that's not the answer he wanted.
Thanks :)
-
C'mon, guys, he already knows that. He just wanted to know the actual, specific errors in the analysis. Yes, Aulis may be 100% bullshit but that's not the answer he wanted.
Thanks :)
To sum up, the specific errors are first the plucking a figure out of the air for cloud height which is nowhere near the maximum possible for cirrostratus clouds and second the shadow length problem that I mentioned above. As a contributing factor, they ignore uncertainty in the film timing.
-
Another major problem with the Aulis calculation is the assumption that the shadow is the same length as the rocket - they are calculating speed from the time the shadow takes to travel its own length. By the time the rocket reaches these high altitudes it is trailing an immense exhaust wake which will also cast a shadow, so their speed estimate will be low by a factor of rocket length to total length of rocket plus exhaust.
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.
-
Fair enough.
1. We have had a number of "individuals" here within the past few months that are sock puppets of two personalty identifiable people that are exceptionally driven to make claims of a hoax.
2. It is quite common for hoax believers to start a conversation by saying they wanted help debunking an argument who quickly reveal themselves as into hoax believers.
Unfortunately this situation has left us gun shy. In the era of Tor and commercial proxy servers, it is next to impossible to trace sock puppets by IP address. While we all agree it is best to take each poster as they come, the frustration with trolling sock puppets also comes out sometimes.
And, welcome to the forum.
Ahhh.
If this is the reason for the 'acidity' (no offense intended) of Abaddon's initial response, then please allow me to say that I quite understand. Having lurked here a while before posting I can say that I can recall one hoax believer who did just as you describe.
Perhaps I did not make my position clear enough in my original post or, more likely, I guess it takes time before established members begin to trust those new to the site? In any case, and for what it is worth, let me state here that my only motive in posting was to see the Aulis claim demolished.
In any case, I would like to thank ALL of those who have replied. I don't have time to reply to you all individually. Let me take time to digest the earlier discussion on the old site, to which Daggerstab (?) kindly provided the link.
And, thanks for the welcome. :)
-
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.
Fair enough.
1. We have had a number of "individuals" here within the past few months that are sock puppets of two personalty identifiable people that are exceptionally driven to make claims of a hoax.
2. It is quite common for hoax believers to start a conversation by saying they wanted help debunking an argument who quickly reveal themselves as into hoax believers.
Unfortunately this situation has left us gun shy. In the era of Tor and commercial proxy servers, it is next to impossible to trace sock puppets by IP address. While we all agree it is best to take each poster as they come, the frustration with trolling sock puppets also comes out sometimes.
And, welcome to the forum.
And it's incidents like this one that illustrates the point gillianren has been trying to make lately. We shouldn't immediately assume sock puppetry or question motives. I think we'd all do better if we could keep our personal feelings in check and focus on the arguments. 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. Stay cool, people.
-
If this is the reason for....
I don't want to speak for anyone else, but have, myself, been in the position of releasing frustrations with intransigence hoax believers and sock puppets. To employ a bit of spin, lets call it a "timing issue." ;)
-
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."
-
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.
-
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. ;D
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.
-
OK, maybe a little at you. :D
-
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 +28o from the horizon, and the Z axis was at +44o? If so that would be an AoA (if that's the correct term in this context) of 16o?
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?
-
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 (http://www.clavius.org/jackwhite.html)
-
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 +28o from the horizon, and the Z axis was at +44o? If so that would be an AoA (if that's the correct term in this context) of 16o?
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. :P
-
OK, maybe a little at you. :D
OK. Thanks for clearing up those points. :D
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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 +28o from the horizon, and the Z axis was at +44o? If so that would be an AoA (if that's the correct term in this context) of 16o?
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. :P
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Here we go, from page 15-1/2 of the Saturn Flight Evaluation Report for Apollo 11.
The Q-ball angle-of-attack sensor abort limit is set to a (differential, I assume) dynamic pressure limit of 2.2 N/cm2 (22 kPa, 3.2 psi). The maximum recorded pressure was 0.28 N/cm2 (2.8 kPa) between T+89 and 91 sec. The total (i.e., along the longitudinal axis) dynamic pressure at max-Q (T+83 s) was 3.5 N/cm2 (35 kPa).
At launch the EDS roll rate abort limit is 20 deg/s and the pitch and yaw rate limits are both 4 deg/s. At 134.8 sec (right before inboard cutoff and well after max-Q at T+83 sec) the automatic roll rate abort was inhibited and the pitch and yaw limits increased to 9.2 deg/s.
Page 11-2 gives the angle of attack around max-Q as 1.6 deg in pitch and 1.4 deg in yaw. From the discussion of high altitude winds, I presume that much of this is due to those winds and is not intentional.
-
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
Why not? Even the temperatures inside the combustion chamber don't come anywhere near the temperature of the sun's photosphere, and the plume is much cooler than the combustion chamber. And the S-IC plume is clearly opaque, at least at lower altitudes.
-
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.
The space-fixed flight path angle is also affected by the time since launch (because the earth rotates, changing the local direction of "up") and the distance flown downrange (because the earth curves away, also changing the direction of "up".)
The space-fixed and earth-fixed Z axes coincide at the launch site at T-17 sec, the time of guidance release.
Added: Scratch that. The Apollo convention for the launch coordinate system has, at the launch pad at the instant of guidance release, the +X axis straight up, the +Z axis downrange, and the +Y axis completing a right-handed set (i.e., pointing roughly south).
The Saturn's body coordinates coincided with these axes at this time but the CSM's coordinate system is rotated 180 deg so that X is up, -Z is downrange and +Y points roughly north. Boy, this stuff can trip you up.
-
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.
Here we go, from page 15-1/2 of the Saturn Flight Evaluation Report for Apollo 11.
The Q-ball angle-of-attack sensor abort limit is set to a (differential, I assume) dynamic pressure limit of 2.2 N/cm2 (22 kPa, 3.2 psi). The maximum recorded pressure was 0.28 N/cm2 (2.8 kPa) between T+89 and 91 sec. The total (i.e., along the longitudinal axis) dynamic pressure at max-Q (T+83 s) was 3.5 N/cm2 (35 kPa).
At launch the EDS roll rate abort limit is 20 deg/s and the pitch and yaw rate limits are both 4 deg/s. At 134.8 sec (right before inboard cutoff and well after max-Q at T+83 sec) the automatic roll rate abort was inhibited and the pitch and yaw limits increased to 9.2 deg/s.
Page 11-2 gives the angle of attack around max-Q as 1.6 deg in pitch and 1.4 deg in yaw. From the discussion of high altitude winds, I presume that much of this is due to those winds and is not intentional.
According to the Apollo 11 journals, at 00:00:34 the roll program ended and the pitch program began. Not sure how high or fast at this point; I am guessing around 1½ miles high and maybe 900 fps
By 00:01:06 the stack was 3.4 miles high and 1 mile downrange which makes the ascent vector at that point around 16.4° so that would mean that the stack is tipped over by at least 14.8° if your 1.6° max AoA is correct.
I find it hard to imagine the whole stack not sideslipping at around 650 fps at that point. It surely could not be ascending directly along the thrust vector.
Even if it were half that angle, say 7.5°, I still struggle to visualise the stack not sideslipping by a significant amount
-
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
Why not? Even the temperatures inside the combustion chamber don't come anywhere near the temperature of the sun's photosphere, and the plume is much cooler than the combustion chamber. And the S-IC plume is clearly opaque, at least at lower altitudes.
I am curious about the plume casting a shadow too. Using the American terminology, the first stage was burning RP1 which is was essentially kerosene, would the combustion products be all that different from those of a paraffin wax candle? The typical paraffin candle flame does not cast a shadow. At some altitude the exhaust stream turns white and appears opaque, but early in the launch it would not surprise me if a good portion of the plume did not cast a shadow.
-
At some altitude the exhaust stream turns white and appears opaque, but early in the launch it would not surprise me if a good portion of the plume did not cast a shadow.
Well, in the current discussion we are talking about what happens at altitude, where the extended exhaust becomes much less bright:
http://cdn.ttgtmedia.com/rms/computerweekly/photogalleries/236862/1294_20_the-apollo-11-saturn-v-space-veh~t-apollo-11-pictures-that-amazed-us.jpg
-
I am curious about the plume casting a shadow too. Using the American terminology, the first stage was burning RP1 which is was essentially kerosene, would the combustion products be all that different from those of a paraffin wax candle? The typical paraffin candle flame does not cast a shadow. At some altitude the exhaust stream turns white and appears opaque, but early in the launch it would not surprise me if a good portion of the plume did not cast a shadow.
The exhaust is the product of multiple large rocket engines rapidly burning large amounts of RP-1 with LOX, not a little candle slowly vaporizing paraffin from a wick and burning it with air. And in fact, candles do cast shadows...they are bright in the first place due to incandescent particles of carbon that will block light, but even the hot air from an electric heating element can cast shadows due to its different refractive index.
The exhaust would cast a shadow on any surface where the light from the exhaust is dimmer than sunlight, though it might not be as clear.
-
Why not? Even the temperatures inside the combustion chamber don't come anywhere near the temperature of the sun's photosphere, and the plume is much cooler than the combustion chamber. And the S-IC plume is clearly opaque, at least at lower altitudes.
But the plume (as a light source) is much closer to the clouds than is the sun (not conclusive, I know).
Also, does the plume appear opaque precisely because it is so bright to our eyes and cameras? Our iris does not allow us to see dimmer light sources (blue sky) through it?
I guess the question is: At the distance of the surrounding cloud layer, which would have the greater apparent brightness - the plume or the sun? And even if the sun is brighter and the plume casts a shadow, would it not be significantly less defined than the shadow cast by the rocket?
-
The exhaust would cast a shadow on any surface where the light from the exhaust is dimmer than sunlight, though it might not be as clear.
Agreed. This is the point I have tried to make.
-
And in fact, candles do cast shadows...they are bright in the first place due to incandescent particles of carbon that will block light, but even the hot air from an electric heating element can cast shadows due to its different refractive index.
I am aware of shadows due to different refraction. I was using casting of a shadow it the context of casting on that is similar to that of a candle or the Saturn V rocket. Would not the shadow of the plume at the altitude in question be significantly lighter and less distinct than the shadow of the rocket? In this context, a spot light shining on a candle will cast a distinct shadow of the entire wick and no hard boundary shadow of the flame.
-
What it comes down to is not how bright is the exhaust, but how opaque is it? After all, assuming it is opaque, if the flame is bright enough to wash-out the shadow of the plume, it would also wipe-out the shadow of the rocket itself, and we do not see this. Looking at photos of Saturn V launches, I sure can't see any details through the flame (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/ap11-KSC-69PC-419HR.jpg).
-
Bah. Any light cast by the rocket is inverse-cube. The Sun is at infinity (at this scale, close enough to makes no difference). Assuming the plume is actually opaque, there WILL be a distance at which no light it casts can possibly wipe out the shadow it casts.
And since it casts light in all directions, all that is necessary is for sunlight to be just a hair brighter -- no matter how lightened the shadow is, the background is lightened by an equal amount, and the shadow remains distinguishable.
-
Bah. Any light cast by the rocket is inverse-cube. The Sun is at infinity (at this scale, close enough to makes no difference). Assuming the plume is actually opaque, there WILL be a distance at which no light it casts can possibly wipe out the shadow it casts.
And since it casts light in all directions, all that is necessary is for sunlight to be just a hair brighter -- no matter how lightened the shadow is, the background is lightened by an equal amount, and the shadow remains distinguishable.
Thanks nomuse - beat me to it..
WHAT NOMUSE SAID!!!
-
Bah. Any light cast by the rocket is inverse-cube. The Sun is at infinity (at this scale, close enough to makes no difference). Assuming the plume is actually opaque, there WILL be a distance at which no light it casts can possibly wipe out the shadow it casts.
Inverse square. But yes, the much greater distance to the sun means that the rocket's illumination falls off faster...the rocket is only brighter in a small volume.
And since it casts light in all directions, all that is necessary is for sunlight to be just a hair brighter -- no matter how lightened the shadow is, the background is lightened by an equal amount, and the shadow remains distinguishable.
Right. In truth, the shadow exists no matter what their relative brightnesses are...a shadow lit by one will still be dimmer than the surroundings lit by both. You just need something that can detect the difference in brightness.
-
The authors of the Aulis article claim that Pollacia's film shows the true sequence of events in proper time, but all they do to establish this is confirming with Pollacia that the film has not been manipulated, and perform some simple analysis to try to support the films correct timing (using what they mistakenly believe is the S-IC separation as a time stamp.)
Since their arguments hinge critically on the playback speed being correct, one might think it prudent to establish this by finding other sources that agree with the Pollacia film, but instead they argue that NASA has manipulated their films and that Pollacia's film is unique in both being independent of NASA as well as showing the whole sequence from lift-off to cloud passage.
But it is possible to find other independent sources, such as this, also shot with an 8mm film camera:
The passage occurs much earlier, around the minute-mark, clearly not consistent with the Pollacia film.
In fact, the following CBS video (from the TV broadcast) is both independent of NASA, shows the whole sequence, as well as being guaranteed to have the correct time on account of being from a video camera and, you know, live broadcast:
It's entirely consistent with the above 8mm film, and shows that the cloud passage really is taking place right after the 1-minute mark, which naturally gives entirely different heights and speeds, compared with the times from the Pollacia film.
The eagle-eyed can spot a Prandtl–Glauert condensation cloud forming right before the passage, something that happens during trans-sonic speeds. Conferring with NASA tables confirms that the rocket is moving trans-sonically at this time.
The height also is completely consistent with the presence of a cirrus cloud.
Finally, for those interested, here is a high-definition clip of the Apollo 11 cloud passage (near the end):
-
That's excellent - just what I was hoping someone would turn up - an alternative film that is continuous (unedited) from launch to cloud penetration. AND it shows that the cloud penetration occurred much earlier and much lower (as I suspected). Many thanks.
The authors of the Aulis article claim that Pollacia's film shows the true sequence of events in proper time, but all they do to establish this is confirming with Pollacia that the film has not been manipulated, and perform some simple analysis to try to support the films correct timing (using what they mistakenly believe is the S-IC separation as a time stamp.)
Just curious - why do you conclude that they are mistaken about the S-IC separation?
Finally, in the HD clip that you posted, is that a conical shock wave that we see ripple through the cloud layer? If so, might that offer another method by which the stack velocity could be determined (demonstrated) at that time-point?
-
Just curious - why do you conclude that they are mistaken about the S-IC separation?
For one thing the video doesn't go as far as S-IC separation. What they have identified as S-IC separation is not. Their 'cloud of hot gas' surrounding the rocket is actually a contrail.
If you watch liftoff footage of many rockets you will notice there is a period during which the rocket is ascending through a region where atmospheric conditions allow the formation of a large white contrail behind it. This contrail then stops when the rocket passes into a region where water vapour from the exhaust no longer condenses to make a white cloud. First stage separation of the Satrun V occurs well above this altitude, and once you have seen a decent quality piece of footage you'll immediately realise you can't mistake this for a staging event. The staging event is much less protracted and very distinctive.
-
A couple of questions just to satisfy my own curiosity....
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/98915197/smoke.png)
What are the trails of white smoke/mist/vapour that are emanating from the junction of the first and second stages?
Why would they be twisting around the stage instead of just going straight down?
- Surely the stack is not travelling fast enough yet to generate significant vortices?
- Its not caused by the stack rolling because it hasn't cleared the tower yet, so the roll programme hasn't started.
-
What are the trails of white smoke/mist/vapour that are emanating from the junction of the first and second stages?
The usual fog you get around cold objects or from sources of cold gas, like tanks and plumbing full of liquid oxygen.
Why would they be twisting around the stage instead of just going straight down?
It might not be twisting: on the right, the streamers seem pretty vertical, on the left they seem to be pulling away from the rocket. Several things could be the cause: a breeze, differences in the air currents due to the presence of the tower, momentary slight sideways motion of the rocket itself...
-
And there is indeed a momentary sideways motion of the rocket. At T+1.7 sec (1.4 sec after first motion) the Apollo 11 Saturn V executed a 1.25 deg yaw maneuver away from the tower to give it a little extra margin against wind pushing it into the tower. This maneuver ended at T+9.7 sec, about the time of tower clear. At T+13.2 sec it began the roll and pitch maneuver.
BTW, the white stuff is actually coming from the outside of the LOX tank in the upper half of the first stage (the RP-1 fuel tank at the base of the rocket is at ambient temperature.) The entire tank is covered with ice, which is why it's white. Much of it fell off at liftoff, which it's starting to do here.
-
And there is indeed a momentary sideways motion of the rocket. At T+1.7 sec (1.4 sec after first motion) the Apollo 11 Saturn V executed a 1.25 deg yaw maneuver away from the tower to give it a little extra margin against wind pushing it into the tower. This maneuver ended at T+9.7 sec, about the time of tower clear. At T+13.2 sec it began the roll and pitch maneuver.
BTW, the white stuff is actually coming from the outside of the LOX tank in the upper half of the first stage (the RP-1 fuel tank at the base of the rocket is at ambient temperature.) The entire tank is covered with ice, which is why it's white. Much of it fell off at liftoff, which it's starting to do here.
Michael Collins describes those first few seconds, as only he can:
"It is steering like crazy, like a nervous lady driving a wide car down a narrow alley, and I just hope it knows where it's going, because for the first ten seconds we are perilously close to that umbilical tower."
-
Just curious - why do you conclude that they are mistaken about the S-IC separation?
For one thing the video doesn't go as far as S-IC separation. What they have identified as S-IC separation is not. Their 'cloud of hot gas' surrounding the rocket is actually a contrail.
If you watch liftoff footage of many rockets you will notice there is a period during which the rocket is ascending through a region where atmospheric conditions allow the formation of a large white contrail behind it. This contrail then stops when the rocket passes into a region where water vapour from the exhaust no longer condenses to make a white cloud. First stage separation of the Satrun V occurs well above this altitude, and once you have seen a decent quality piece of footage you'll immediately realise you can't mistake this for a staging event. The staging event is much less protracted and very distinctive.
Exactly. Here's footage from Apollo 16 showing the contrail (right after the 2-minute mark):
-
A couple of questions just to satisfy my own curiosity....
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/98915197/smoke.png)
What are the trails of white smoke/mist/vapour that are emanating from the junction of the first and second stages?
It's ice that has formed on the outside of the first stage LOX tank. The upper boudary of that ice 'cloud' is actually the lower edge of the forward skirt of the S-IC stage. A little above that you can see a white line. This is the forward end of the S-IC stage. The white line is the linear shaped explosive charge that is used to separate the stages. Above that is another white line/shaped charge, which is the forward edge of the interstage section.
As to why it's not going straight down, I'm not sure, but I'd guess, as others have said, it has something to do with the yaw in the early part of the flight.
-
Michael Collins describes those first few seconds, as only he can:
"It is steering like crazy, like a nervous lady driving a wide car down a narrow alley, and I just hope it knows where it's going, because for the first ten seconds we are perilously close to that umbilical tower."
Another frequent astronaut simile is a runaway freight train going down an old, poorly maintained track. The Saturn V Flight Reports have detailed plots of steering positions, rates and errors for each stage, and they show the engines took a couple of seconds to actually swing the launcher around in response to a step change in commanded attitude. For A11, peak yaw rate was +0.5 deg/s at T+5 s during the yaw maneuver and -0.5 deg/s at T+12s after it ended. It probably felt much greater in the CM because the center of gravity at liftoff was so low.
Still, the report says the first stage engines used only 10% of their "gimbaling authority" (steering range). Imagine what it would have felt like if they had swung rapidly from one stop to the other.
The report also says the winds at launch were 3.3 m/s from the south at the 18.3 m level. (The tower was on the north side of the vehicle.)
-
But it is possible to find other independent sources, such as this, also shot with an 8mm film camera:
Welcome to the forum, that's a first post that makes a really valuable contribution to the thread.
-
Thanks, ejstans. Welcome to the forum.
Based on the new videos, it looks the Saturn V passes through the clouds at about T+54 seconds, or half the time claimed by Aulis. If we assume their video is running at half-speed, then their calculation is off by 2X (that's assuming we trust their method). That makes their speed about 200 m/s rather than 100 m/s. The earth-fixed velocity at T+54 s as recorded by NASA was 221.5 m/s.
-
Incidentally, look at the shadow on the HD video posted by ejstans. You can clearly see the actual rocket, partly inside a condensation cloud mainly concentrated round the second stage, and with a trailing exhaust. No doubt that the exhaust casts a shadow.
-
Imagine what it would have felt like if they had swung rapidly from one stop to the other.
That's compelling to think about, but my gut says that would stand a good chance of demating the stages.
The report also says the winds at launch were 3.3 m/s from the south at the 18.3 m level. (The tower was on the north side of the vehicle.)
Best explanation I can see for the direction of the vapor trails.
-
Another frequent astronaut simile is a runaway freight train going down an old, poorly maintained track.
That's a simile I like better. No need to bring the "woman driver" stereotype into things!
-
The report also says the winds at launch were 3.3 m/s from the south at the 18.3 m level. (The tower was on the north side of the vehicle.)
Best explanation I can see for the direction of the vapor trails.
D'oh! Why didn't wind occur to me?
-
D'oh! Why didn't wind occur to me?
Because you're a scientist, not an engineer. :)
-
The report also says the winds at launch were 3.3 m/s from the south at the 18.3 m level. (The tower was on the north side of the vehicle.)
Best explanation I can see for the direction of the vapor trails.
And it certainly explains the need for the yaw maneuver. The Saturn V took about 10 seconds to clear the tower, and I think it was a lot closer to it than 33 meters.
-
The report also says the winds at launch were 3.3 m/s from the south at the 18.3 m level. (The tower was on the north side of the vehicle.)
Best explanation I can see for the direction of the vapor trails.
And it certainly explains the need for the yaw maneuver. The Saturn V took about 10 seconds to clear the tower, and I think it was a lot closer to it than 33 meters.
Well, the stack wouldn't have immediately begun moving north at that speed as soon as the holddowns released. That was a lot of mass to accelerate!
It was not, as it were, a leaf on the wind.
-
Thank you all for the replies.
I never knew about the yaw movement to take the stack away from the tower, though it does make sense; the stack is awfully close to that tower.
Nothing about it in the lunch part of the Apollo 11 journal
-
That was interesting. I'd noticed the yaw in launch videos but was always unsure if it was real or an illusion of the video.
-
Another frequent astronaut simile is a runaway freight train going down an old, poorly maintained track.
That's a simile I like better. No need to bring the "woman driver" stereotype into things!
Substitute "nervous driver", then. Hey, I don't make 'em up, I just quote 'em. Actually, I thought that particular stereotype was dead and buried - I think Danica pretty firmly hammered the last nail in the coffin Sunday.
Speaking of Aulis claims, I was poking around some of their links the other day (entertainment is where you find it, I guess) and found some documents from 2010 written by a Greg Alexander in which he questions the validity of the law of Conservation of Energy and the formula for kinetic energy, among other things.
What caught my attention was that he used an example for kinetic energy that sounded awfully familiar:
"Consider two identical space rockets in the vacuum of space well away from the effects of any gravitational field. Both, in parallel, burn their engines at full power on two separate occasions of exactly equal duration. However the second rocket, immediately after its first burn does an about turn such that its engine is pointing in exactly the opposite direction just in time for the second burn. In such a situation it is obvious that the first rocket will continue accelerating with the second burn while the first will start to decelerate, losing the velocity it had gained from the first burn. It is also apparent that by the end of the second burn the second rocket will have lost all the velocity it had gained from the first burn while the first rocket will have exactly doubled the velocity it had gained after the first burn.
... Each rocket can be considered as a closed system and both have had the same amount of energy supplied to it by its engine.... Even though the first had all its power from its engine transformed directly into kinetic energy, the second rocket is now stationary compared with the first, relatively speaking, and has zero kinetic energy... It would appear that as the two burns were directed precisely counter to one another, the kinetic energy from both has exactly cancelled out. Such a destruction of energy is completely counter to the laws of conservation."
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.
Oh, if anyone wants a chuckle, this is the link:
http://www.webspawner.com/users/gjalex (http://www.webspawner.com/users/gjalex)
-
Another stunning consequence is found in the world of astronomy in that meteorites no longer explode on impact.
Why stop there? More stunning conclusions...bullets don't hurt. Cars bounce harmlessly off trees and other cars. Etc...
-
"Consider [snip]... Both, in parallel, burn their engines at full power on two separate occasions of exactly equal duration. [snip]... However the second rocket, immediately after its first burn does an about turn such that its engine is pointing in exactly the opposite direction just in time for the second burn. [snip]... by the end of the second burn the second rocket will have lost all the velocity it had gained from the first burn while the first rocket will have exactly doubled the velocity it had gained after the first burn.
Except that the first wouldn't be at a standstill, and the second wouldn't be at exactly 2x velocity, either, would they? (Tsiolkovsky's equation - unless you have, um, magic).
-
Substitute "nervous driver", then. Hey, I don't make 'em up, I just quote 'em. Actually, I thought that particular stereotype was dead and buried - I think Danica pretty firmly hammered the last nail in the coffin Sunday.
Oh, sure. It's just one of the interesting side notes of studying the Space Race. There's an awful lot of casual sexism thrown about, and you can always assume that the people making decisions are men and seldom be contradicted. And, no, I know a lot of people who still believe that. Many of them are men who are themselves terrible drivers.
-
Well, the stack wouldn't have immediately begun moving north at that speed as soon as the holddowns released. That was a lot of mass to accelerate!
Yeah, I guess you're right. I estimate the cross sectional area of the three stages of the Saturn V (excluding the LM adapter, CSM and LES) as almost exactly 800 m2. I can't find its drag coefficient, but assuming it's 1.0, the force from a 3.3 m/s wind at sea level (1.2 kg/m3) would be 5227 N. That will accelerate 2800 tonnes at a rate of 1.9 mm/sec2...
-
Well, the stack wouldn't have immediately begun moving north at that speed as soon as the holddowns released. That was a lot of mass to accelerate!
Yeah, I guess you're right. I estimate the cross sectional area of the three stages of the Saturn V (excluding the LM adapter, CSM and LES) as almost exactly 800 m2. I can't find its drag coefficient, but assuming it's 1.0, the force from a 3.3 m/s wind at sea level (1.2 kg/m3) would be 5227 N. That will accelerate 2800 tonnes at a rate of 1.9 mm/sec2...
I don't suppose there are any ka9q correction T-shirts available... ;)
-
Except that the first wouldn't be at a standstill, and the second wouldn't be at exactly 2x velocity, either, would they? (Tsiolkovsky's equation - unless you have, um, magic).
No, but you can fix that one - just have the one that turns around fire until it stops, and the other one fire in the same direction for the same time as the other rocket.
The big issue is that it ignores the kinetic energy of all that hot glowing stuff shooting out the nozzle. The stuff that makes the rocket go in the first place.
-
"Consider [snip]... Both, in parallel, burn their engines at full power on two separate occasions of exactly equal duration. [snip]... However the second rocket, immediately after its first burn does an about turn such that its engine is pointing in exactly the opposite direction just in time for the second burn. [snip]... by the end of the second burn the second rocket will have lost all the velocity it had gained from the first burn while the first rocket will have exactly doubled the velocity it had gained after the first burn.
Except that the first wouldn't be at a standstill, and the second wouldn't be at exactly 2x velocity, either, would they? (Tsiolkovsky's equation - unless you have, um, magic).
True, but the point is still valid - after doing two burns each, identical except for vector, the two spacecraft would have very different velocities relative to their starting point. He's made the exact mistake as Heiwa; he's ignoring the kinetic energy of the particles of ejected propellant, which is still part of the "closed system" he started with, even though physically separated from the spacecraft.
-
Thank you all for the replies.
I never knew about the yaw movement to take the stack away from the tower, though it does make sense; the stack is awfully close to that tower.
Nothing about it in the lunch part of the Apollo 11 journal
Here's a quote from W. David Woods' How Apollo Flew To The Moon that you might like:
As 3,000 tonnes of metal and volatile propellant rose past the umbilical tower, it could be seen to lean disconcertingly away as though it were about to go out of control. This was an entirely planned yaw rotation designed to manoeuvre the rocket away from the launch tower as a precaution in case a swing arm were to fail to retract or a gust of wind were to push the vehicle back towards the unyielding tower.
-
1.0 is a reasonable estimate for a smooth cylinder, except at some very high Reynolds numbers where it's much lower. It certainly won't get much higher than 1.0. The Saturn V is not especially smooth, since the stringers are arranged transverse to ideal wind flow, but this shouldn't increase the overall drag much since it affects only skin drag.
-
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 (http://history.nasa.gov/ap12fj/pdf/a12_sa507-flightmanual.pdf)
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
(http://history.nasa.gov/SP-60/i-5-1.jpg)
(http://asset3.cbsistatic.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim//2009/10/02/SupersonicX15.jpg)
-
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 (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19920075301_1992075301.pdf). The Sun's azimuth & elevation was determined using NOAA's Solar Position Calculator (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/azel.html). 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 (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900066485_1990066485.pdf), 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.
(http://www.braeunig.us/pics/A11shadow.gif) (http://www.braeunig.us/pics/A11shadow.gif)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
That was one, yes. And the first one I came up with.
-
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.
-
That makes sense as reasoning, but he's told people that it won't happen and they don't believe him.
-
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".)
-
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.
-
That's his aluminum foil, is it?
-
That's his aluminum foil, is it?
¿Qué?
-
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.
A beautiful experiment ... :)
-
Demonstration rather than an experiment.
A friend has something similar: A length of aluminum pipe and a supermagnet. First, he shows how the magnet won't stick to the outside of the pipe. Then he holds the pipe vertical and drops the magnet down the middle. Five seconds later it falls out the bottom.
Fred
-
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......
I wonder if any answers would have changed had he pointed out that the disk in an ordinary electromechanical utility watt-hour meter is aluminum.
-
Then he holds the pipe vertical and drops the magnet down the middle. Five seconds later it falls out the bottom.
This is a very common demonstration in science museum lectures.
Another fun thing often done with eddy currents is to build a large transformer with a long vertical pole-piece and lay aluminum rings on the top of the transformer. When you apply current to the coil, the ring shoots up in the air. I've seen Youtube videos where the rings reach 10-15 m; I think that one charged up a large capacitor bank to something like 750V DC and discharged it into the coil.
One practical application of this effect is the linear induction motor. My all-time favorite amusement park ride, Superman: The Escape, accelerates a car from 0-100 mph (0-44.7 m/s) in 7 s (6.4 m/s2, 0.65 g).
Actually, I'm not totally sure that this ride uses the linear induction motor or the closely related linear synchronous motor, with a permanent magnet rather than a non-magnetic metal plate.
-
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
I've had a color ultrasound movie of my heart. The color was false, of course; it encoded the Doppler shift of the blood moving in the field. Blood approaching the sensor was in red, and blood moving away was blue (I thought it should have been the opposite, but I didn't design it). Cardiologists find this very useful to see how blood is flowing through the heart chambers and valves.
-
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......
I wonder if any answers would have changed had he pointed out that the disk in an ordinary electromechanical utility watt-hour meter is aluminum.
How many 12/13 year olds would even know what an electrowatthourthingy was in the first place?
-
That's his aluminum foil, is it?
¿Qué?
It's a Douglas Adams reference. Life, the Universe, and Everything.
-
That's his aluminum foil, is it?
¿Qué?
It's a Douglas Adams reference. Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Ah!. That why it went over my head.
I only ever read the first two books in the Hitch-hiker series.
-
How many 12/13 year olds would even know what an electrowatthourthingy was in the first place?
I did...
-
How many 12/13 year olds would even know what an electrowatthourthingy was in the first place?
I did...
Most only really know what it is when they start paying the electric bill. Then they realize it is a monster that sucks the soul out of your paycheck.
-
I've had a color ultrasound movie of my heart. The color was false, of course; it encoded the Doppler shift of the blood moving in the field. Blood approaching the sensor was in red, and blood moving away was blue (I thought it should have been the opposite, but I didn't design it). Cardiologists find this very useful to see how blood is flowing through the heart chambers and valves.
They do that on this one, too, but the only thing that gets the false colour is the moving blood.
-
Then they realize it is a monster that sucks the soul out of your paycheck.
Nah...thats an ex-wife....
-
Then they realize it is a monster that sucks the soul out of your paycheck.
Nah...thats an ex-wife....
I should know, I have one of those.
-
Most only really know what it is when they start paying the electric bill. Then they realize it is a monster that sucks the soul out of your paycheck.
And the ones who remember their physics (but not their ethics) may reinvent one of the classic ways to make these meters read low: subject them to a strong static magnetic field to exert drag on the rotating disk.
-
Most only really know what it is when they start paying the electric bill. Then they realize it is a monster that sucks the soul out of your paycheck.
And the ones who remember their physics (but not their ethics) may reinvent one of the classic ways to make these meters read low: subject them to a strong static magnetic field to exert drag on the rotating disk.
Now you tell me. Just after the electric company has put in a smart meter.