Author Topic: The Popov/Bulatov "analysis" of Apollo 11's velocity vs time  (Read 11796 times)

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1811
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: The Popov/Bulatov "analysis" of Apollo 11's velocity vs time
« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2015, 02:40:25 PM »
Is this a rehash of the claim made by Stanislav Pokrovsky?
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1158
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: The Popov/Bulatov "analysis" of Apollo 11's velocity vs time
« Reply #16 on: February 09, 2015, 04:09:30 PM »
Is this a rehash of the claim made by Stanislav Pokrovsky?

Kind of, although in that one they use a NASA supplied clip and seem quite happy with the timings that gives.

http://www.aulis.com/pdf%20folder/Pokrovsky1.pdf

I'd also like to point out that the basis for assuming that 26000 feet is the right height for cirrostratus is because that's the height they were for Apollo 13. These clouds never form at any other height over Florida, ever  ::)

Surely then the obvious thing to do would be to verify their data with Apollo 13's launch - right?

Online JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2700
    • Clavius
Re: The Popov/Bulatov "analysis" of Apollo 11's velocity vs time
« Reply #17 on: February 09, 2015, 04:10:50 PM »
Is this a rehash of the claim made by Stanislav Pokrovsky?

Probably, because I tried to find my comments in the old Popov/Bulatov thread, only to discover they were made toward Pokrovsky instead.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1811
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: The Popov/Bulatov "analysis" of Apollo 11's velocity vs time
« Reply #18 on: February 09, 2015, 04:20:01 PM »
Probably, because I tried to find my comments in the old Popov/Bulatov thread, only to discover they were made toward Pokrovsky instead.

That's why I asked, as I was sure that you, sts60, Bob and others have discussed something similar at length. I couldn't find the thread, I thought it was in the archive at the Proboard site.

Did Pokrovsky also claim that the Saturn was travelling an order of magnitude slower at staging than the speed claimed by NASA, and he based this on using shadow to measure distance?
« Last Edit: February 09, 2015, 04:24:44 PM by Luke Pemberton »
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Online JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2700
    • Clavius
Re: The Popov/Bulatov "analysis" of Apollo 11's velocity vs time
« Reply #19 on: February 09, 2015, 04:53:42 PM »
He claimed the Saturn V was less powerful than advertised, but not by an order of magnitude.  He analyzed the frames of film (read:  he drew some lines on them and waved his hands vigorously), and determined that at a certain moment in the canonical video the rocket could not be at the altitude NASA claimed.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Bob B.

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Bob the Excel Guru™
    • Rocket & Space Technology
Re: The Popov/Bulatov "analysis" of Apollo 11's velocity vs time
« Reply #20 on: February 09, 2015, 06:12:08 PM »
That's why I asked, as I was sure that you, sts60, Bob and others have discussed something similar at length. I couldn't find the thread, I thought it was in the archive at the Proboard site.

I found the old thread here:  http://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/2732/pokrovsky-theory


Did Pokrovsky also claim that the Saturn was travelling an order of magnitude slower at staging than the speed claimed by NASA, and he based this on using shadow to measure distance?

He claimed it was traveling about 1/2 the velocity reported by NASA.  I don't think it had anything to do with a shadow; I seem to recall it being based on observations of the exhaust plume.  It was the same type of nonsense, however.
 
« Last Edit: February 09, 2015, 06:22:52 PM by Bob B. »

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2840
Re: The Popov/Bulatov "analysis" of Apollo 11's velocity vs time
« Reply #21 on: February 09, 2015, 07:41:03 PM »
Ah, sure enough. I knew the topic seemed familiar. I even contributed to the thread.

We're getting so old we're starting to repeat ourselves.

And we're saying a lot of the same things more than once, too.

Online JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2700
    • Clavius
Re: The Popov/Bulatov "analysis" of Apollo 11's velocity vs time
« Reply #22 on: February 09, 2015, 10:02:44 PM »
Not only that, we're saying a lot of the same things too.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Abaddon

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 988
Re: The Popov/Bulatov "analysis" of Apollo 11's velocity vs time
« Reply #23 on: February 09, 2015, 10:19:23 PM »
Not only that, we're saying a lot of the same things too.
Sorry, but didn't you say that before?

Deja vu is a curse.

Offline dwight

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 676
    • Live Tv From the Moon
Re: The Popov/Bulatov "analysis" of Apollo 11's velocity vs time
« Reply #24 on: February 09, 2015, 10:56:05 PM »
They really are grasping at straws these days. So the several million people along the Florida coast saw what launch on July 16, 1969 exactly?
"Honeysuckle TV on line!"

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2840
Re: The Popov/Bulatov "analysis" of Apollo 11's velocity vs time
« Reply #25 on: February 09, 2015, 11:29:45 PM »
Just for fun, I'm still thinking of ways that one could build a rocket that would have the readily verifiable characteristics of the Saturn V, yet still be unable to make it to the claimed cutoff velocity for the S-IC stage.

The fatal flaw that makes it impossible, of course, are the readily observed shock clouds forming just as the stack approaches Mach 1. But let's say NASA has some fiendish way to fake those too. Besides, the average person doesn't understand supersonic fluid flow, therefore all that science is bogus and can be ignored.

"Readily verifiable" includes the external dimensions of the entire rocket, the height of the launch tower, and the liftoff acceleration. We can include the known physical properties of kerosene and liquid oxygen, and we can assume Newton's laws of motion and Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation are correct. It would not include any mass, thrust or engine Isp figures as those are obvious NASA propaganda. Dummy upper stages (e.g., containing extra propellants for sub-performing first stage engines) would be permitted as it's assumed the eyewitnesses could not verify proper operation of the S-II and S-IVB stages.

We can assume that NASA would not secretly sabotage their rocket to lower its performance, as the whole point is to fake a better-performing rocket than the one they were able to build.

Have at it...
« Last Edit: February 09, 2015, 11:35:11 PM by ka9q »

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1811
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: The Popov/Bulatov "analysis" of Apollo 11's velocity vs time
« Reply #26 on: February 10, 2015, 12:45:45 AM »
Ah, sure enough. I knew the topic seemed familiar. I even contributed to the thread.

Nonetheless, I read through the thread again and seemed to understand a bit more this time around.

Quote
We're getting so old we're starting to repeat ourselves.

Like a good cheese with crusted port, we repeat on ourselves.

Quote
And we're saying a lot of the same things more than once, too.

At least you are consistent. That's more than can be said for CTs.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1638
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: The Popov/Bulatov "analysis" of Apollo 11's velocity vs time
« Reply #27 on: February 10, 2015, 11:40:15 AM »
Not only that, we're saying a lot of the same things too.

I'd just like to say good luck.  We're all counting on you.
"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 ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2840
Re: The Popov/Bulatov "analysis" of Apollo 11's velocity vs time
« Reply #28 on: February 10, 2015, 12:41:13 PM »
And don't call me Shirley.

Offline BazBear

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 381
Re: The Popov/Bulatov "analysis" of Apollo 11's velocity vs time
« Reply #29 on: February 10, 2015, 01:38:40 PM »
Ah, sure enough. I knew the topic seemed familiar. I even contributed to the thread.

We're getting so old we're starting to repeat ourselves.

And we're saying a lot of the same things more than once, too.
It can't be all blamed on our advancing ages; the HBs trot out the same old arguments so often that you're forced to use the same old rebuttals.

Now what were we talking about again?
"It's true you know. In space, no one can hear you scream like a little girl." - Mark Watney, protagonist of The Martian by Andy Weir

My Youtube Apollo playlist http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SfyE9qsG8k&list=PL2aEC7cUMrGCNrtGMMWRXYob-kqCz2zz8