ApolloHoax.net

Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: jr Knowing on December 12, 2018, 02:46:12 PM

Title: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 12, 2018, 02:46:12 PM
Hi, I would like to get everyone's thoughts on the Lunar Lander pre-launch. NASA doesn't provide a lot of documentation of the LM just prior to Apollo 11's launch. For instance, there appears to be no pictures or video of the Lunar module being inserted into the Saturn stage. (you would think this would be important to document) But there are some NASA photos of the Lunar Module just prior to insertion and post insertion as it is about to be mated to another Saturn stage. 

Here is a NASA photo of the LM post production being moved to assembly. 

And here is a NASA photo of the LM inserted in the stage as it is being lifted to be mated with another Saturn stage. (http://)
 
What is evident with these pictures is the fact the LM looks significantly different from the LM seen in space and on the moon's surface. It is missing many features such as the black and copper insulation. It is also missing the RCS plume deflectors. Even the ladder is taped differently. The undercarriage of the LM in the photo where it has already been inserted in the Saturn is completely different from the LM seen in space. Not only are the legs black and not wrapped, the underside frame is completely lacking any of the black and copper insulation. 

How was all this changed once the LM was already in the Saturn? It had a complete makeover. Even plume deflectors were added. These are not cosmetic changes. The plumes were large and had to be attached firmly and accurately. Are we to believe all these changes were done on the pad? There are one or two references that seem to suggest this is what happened. Anything is possible but this doesn't seem very plausible. Yes there is a small hatch on the Saturn stage that housed the LM, but inside was extremely tight and dark. (photos of the separation stage in space shows very little room inside the stage that housed the LM) How they added all the coverings let alone the plume deflectors escapes me. Furthermore they were desperate to cut weight to the point, I believe, they were offering contractors $50k for every pound they could shave off. And yet they go to the launch pad last second and add all this. It defies reason. The deflectors were never tested but they were added in the dark on the launch pad? The deflectors, themselves, are very problematic. You have rocket thrust literally trusting back onto the vehicle. How the ship (any ship for that matter) does not go into an uncontrolled spin is a miracle. There is even a MIT paper published in 1969 suggesting the deflectors would cause the craft to go into an uncontrolled spin in any situation short of perfect conditions. And perfect conditions would require a perfectly balanced/weighted ship and perfectly equal and timed trusts on opposite sides. Conditions they felt were not possible. Given, I believe, the Apollo 11 mission used the thrusters 3-4000 times up to 30 seconds at a time it seems truly remarkable the craft remained stable as the engines thrust back into the craft. In any event, I would love to hear people's thoughts on these issues. (and btw are there any vehicle/craft out there that thrusts back on itself like the LM?) Thanks.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Obviousman on December 12, 2018, 03:29:15 PM
I don't know about there. There seems to be a bit about:

(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a410/ap10-S69-17810.jpg)

(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a410/ap10-S69-17807.jpg)

(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a410/ap10-S69-17809.jpg)

That's just Apollo 10. And there are lots more:

http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

And the LMs do look like the ones in the images. You do know that each LM looked alittle different, don't you?

https://www.apollomaniacs.com/apollo/lme.htm
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 12, 2018, 03:40:36 PM
The ALSJ also has a section on vehicle assembly for each mission, eg:

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html#Vehicle

If you're serious about the subject I can heartily recommend "Countdown to a moon launch", which details bit by bit what was done to get the complete launch vehicle to the pad:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Countdown-Moon-Launch-Preparing-Historic/dp/3319177915/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1544647045&sr=1-1&keywords=countdown+to+a+moon+launch

I haven't found a specific reference to the plume deflectors, but there is a description of ground crews working to install and check equipment on the LM once in place inside the Saturn - accessed via a hatch in the SLA, and the difficult and cramped conditions under which they worked.

Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 12, 2018, 03:45:36 PM
Hi Obviousman,

There are many photos of the LM in production. I am not disputing that. There are few post production photos in the assembly area. And if you look closely at the photo (I recommend you download a hi resolution photo) I attached with the LM inserted in the Saturn stage you will see the undercarriage and legs do not resemble the LM in the photos seen in space or on the moon's surface.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 12, 2018, 04:00:01 PM
This page I have just scanned from the book I mention above has two interesting pictures.

Firstly it shows the LM mated with the rest of the Saturn prior to the upper SLA covering it up. There is evidently room to work on the LM there, although the LM was not apparently exposed for long.

Secondly, it shows the arrangement of working platforms inside the SLA once that has been mated with the rest of the rocket.

(https://i.imgur.com/dMrDelU.jpg)

Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: ka9q on December 12, 2018, 04:13:11 PM
IIRC, the plume deflectors were indeed a last-minute addition to the Apollo 11 LM.

There's an Apollo Experience Report on Thermal Protection from Engine Plume Environments that describes them in detail.

Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Kiwi on December 12, 2018, 04:45:08 PM
...if you look closely at the photo (I recommend you download a hi resolution photo) I attached with the LM inserted in the Saturn stage you will see the undercarriage and legs do not resemble the LM in the photos seen in space or on the moon's surface.

Does anything that is...
1. As carefully wrapped as the command module, the service module, the SLA section and the lunar module's footpads, are in that photo, and
2. Folded like the LM's legs are in that photo,
...ever look like exactly the same when it is unfolded and the wrappings taken off?

I see differences too but I don't question them, because I'm quite ignorant of the details of spacecraft assembly so I assume, with some justification, that the experts concerned know what they are doing and that what they do is the right thing to do in the circumstances so everything will turn out fine.

Every time I'm about drive across a bridge or walk onto a boat or aeroplane I think about it in a similar way. Don't you?

If you want answers to your questions, why don't you school yourself properly about spacecraft assembly in general and Apollo assembly in particular, and after five years of study, ask experts about what you've missed?

We do have at least two members who know a fair bit about the subject so maybe they will help, but they might be laughing too hard or cringing too much to reply promptly.

Finally I must ask, why are both of your threads in the hoax section, instead of the Reality of Apollo section? Puzzlement over some wrapping and folding is hardly justification for claiming a hoax, and if you're not claiming one, there is a more proper place for such queries.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Kiwi on December 12, 2018, 07:06:49 PM
Here's a little more info. The bits in bold about the SLA are not in the "Apollo 11 Spacecraft History" at Apollo by the Numbers https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/contents.htm

The list is about the 16mm silent film on the first part of Disc 1 of the Apollo 11 original 3-DVD set from Spacecraft Films, and there might be more tucked away on the Mighty Saturns sets. The current Apollo 11 set might have more too.
http://www.spacecraftfilms.com

Making Ready  16mm film — No audio
0 - 01:33   S-IVB Checkout — 21 Jan 1969
0 - 03:32   S-II on Dock — S-II Stage Arrival — 6 Feb 1969
0 - 05:28   S-IC on Dock — S-IC Stage Arrival — 20 Feb 1969
0 - 04:51   S-IC Erection — 21 Feb 1969
0 - 01:57   S-IVB Mate — S-IVB Aft Skirt Mating — Date Unknown
0 - 05:34   S-II Erection — 4 Mar 1969
0 - 02:55   IU Erection — Instrument Unit Erection — 5 Mar 1969
0 - 05:45   S-IVB Erection — 5 Mar 1969
0 - 03:05   CSM Checkout — 1 Apr 1969
0 - 03:29   LM to SLA — LM Installation into SLA — 4 Apr 1969 (some frame jitter)
0 - 06:33   CSM to SLA — CSM Installing in SLA — 10 Apr 1969

0 - 04:33   S/C Erection — Spacecraft Transfer and Erection — 14 Apr 1969
0 - 08:34   Rollout — 20 May 1969
0 - 11:15   Pad 39A — Work at Pad CDDT — 1 Jul 1969

So the LM and CSM were installed in the SLA by 10 Apr 1969 and there's 10 minutes of film about it on the DVD. Perhaps a month before Rollout and three months before launch was sufficient time to get those wrappings off.

Others oldies who were around at the time will possibly remember the fears some laypeople had about what Earth germs might do to the Moon, and even worse, what Moon germs might do to us. So I wonder if those external wrappings got some special visual treatment for the public's benefit, the same as a few other procedures did.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 12, 2018, 08:28:18 PM
Hi Kiwi, thanks for your input and help. And I respect your opinion regarding questioning things but respectfully disagree. Even though I feel I am "well schooled" on the subject, I think people should have the right to question things regardless. I don't think you literally need to be a "rocket scientist" to question things that seem odd or unusual. Yes most questions might have easy or obvious answers but you would be surprised on how many things that seem self evident/obvious but under scrutiny fall apart. A perfect example of this is the very limited visibility from within the LM to operate and maneuver.  People take it for granted the LM was not visibility impaired because the flights went off with 'little' issues. Yet, having said this, it literally takes people using a back up camera and 360 degree visibility to back up out of their driveway but we take it for granted the Apollo LM was able to operate drone like (moving up to 5000 ft per second) with 2 small side windows for visibility without incident. One just has to look at the DAC footage taken from these windows to understand things are not as straightforward as we think.   

With regards to changes on the LM pre-flight, official documentation (what little there is) says all these changes occurred post roll out on the launch pad. Again, seems a bit odd and concerning all this was done last minute on the launch pad. This leaves very few people to confirm this. Moreover it demonstrates NASA took huge risk installing untested plume deflectors at the very last minute. And there seems to be no scientific documentation (from NASA) on how these plumes would affect the stability of the craft. Yet there exists scholarly papers that suggest these plumes would create significant stability issues. This is a perfect example of where people just accept something because it most work otherwise it wouldn't be on the craft. I would love for someone to show me a craft/vehicle in which it's engines thrust directly back onto its own body. Believe me I have asked many people over the years and get no answers. Anybody out there have an example? Thanks.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 13, 2018, 02:13:57 AM
Yet, having said this, it literally takes people using a back up camera and 360 degree visibility to back up out of their driveway

This is simply untrue. I've been reversing out of my driveway without the benefit of a camera for years. The need for 360 degree visibility is not related to doing the actual manouvre either, it is because when driving there are many possible hazards coming at you from many directions for you to be aware of. I could reverse off my driveway quite happily without even looking if I knew there was no-one else around to be hit by my car while I move it. Piloting a lunar module to a landing on the Moon no-one is going to be walking by or trying to pass you, so you can focus very narrowly on getting it down.
 
Quote
but we take it for granted the Apollo LM was able to operate drone like (moving up to 5000 ft per second) with 2 small side windows for visibility without incident. One just has to look at the DAC footage taken from these windows to understand things are not as straightforward as we think.

Again, visibility is not such an issue when you have only one thing to look at (the ground) and a radar to tell you how far away from it you are.   

Quote
With regards to changes on the LM pre-flight, official documentation (what little there is) says all these changes occurred post roll out on the launch pad. Again, seems a bit odd

'Seems a bit odd' is not a very meaningful argument.

Quote
Moreover it demonstrates NASA took huge risk installing untested plume deflectors at the very last minute.

Who says they were untested? And how much testing does a plume deflector need?

Quote
Yet there exists scholarly papers that suggest these plumes would create significant stability issues.

You've made this claim twice now. Please provide a citation for these papers, or must we take you at your word even as you refuse to take NASA at theirs?

Quote
I would love for someone to show me a craft/vehicle in which it's engines thrust directly back onto its own body.

Why is this a reasonable request? I suggest you look at a diagram of the LM some time. If you do you'll see that the arrangement of the RCS thruster quads and the shape of the descent stage actually gives all of them a clear line of thrust in every axis. At no point do any of them actually 'thrust back onto its own body'.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 13, 2018, 02:32:28 AM
Too much text to parse and it's early, but some more points:

1. I echo the comments above about reversing out of a driveway. reversing cameras are a new thing. I've done it enough times to know the exact movements I need to make with the steering wheel and the speeds required, I'm pretty sure I could do it blindfold. This is why astronauts spent so much time in simulators.

2. The 'just asking questions' is a common one employed here and in other forums where someone implacably opposed to the landings comes along all wide eyed and innocent to see how far they get. It doesn't wash. Asking questions requires that you accept answers from people who know the subject in greater depth than you, not reject answers with which you have an a priori disagreement.

3. You were given the title of a document in an earlier response. If you bother to look for that document you will find it contains information about a wealth of testing that was done on the plume deflectors. Likewise if you visit the NASA Technical Reports Server you will find many more documents on the subject. Your lack of awareness of those documents or their subject does not mean that the information is missing, or the thing that you think wasn't done is actually true. I'm not spoonfeeding you links. If you are genuinely seeking answers you have all the information you require to find them for yourself.

4. Completing the assembly of the LM on the pad is not a question of hiding anything, it's a matter of managing the construction timeline. Again if you search hard enough you will find forums where the people involved in these final construction phases actually contribute to discussion. Try telling them that they did not do their job.

5. You are employing another technique commonly used here, which is to identify a minute detail that you believe shows some inconsistency and using your limited understanding of that detail to try and disprove the landings. This is totally inappropriate - you need to consider the entirety of the evidence and place your small detail in context. Photographs exist of those lunar module plume deflectors on a lunar module on the lunar surface with Earth in shot, and Earth that is provably showing exactly what it should in terms of weather and the position and configuration of the terminator.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 13, 2018, 06:31:30 AM
1. I echo the comments above about reversing out of a driveway. reversing cameras are a new thing. I've done it enough times to know the exact movements I need to make with the steering wheel and the speeds required, I'm pretty sure I could do it blindfold.

Another comment about reversing cameras: they weren't put in to assist in reversing out of a driveway onto an open road, they were created primarily to help reversing into a parking space, or for vehicles with no rear windows to provide a better view behind than could be provided by wing mirrors alone. In all cases they are there to stop you reversing into something or someone and either injuring someone (or backing over someone's cat) or damaging your vehicle. None of those considerations apply to landing a spacecraft on the Moon when you are the only moving thing for miles and all you are trying to do is land on a big open space. Those small windows give you plenty of vision to see craters and boulders coming up under you, and they only need to be small because the astronauts are standing up right next to the them. The original LM designs had huge windows because the original plan was to have seats, and that meant wide panoramic windows were required to give the astronauts a decent field of view from a seated position. Delete the seats, have them stand, and the window can be much smaller.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: gillianren on December 13, 2018, 10:51:35 AM
In my decidedly unprofessional experience, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to think things look odd, but sometimes, you do need to be one to understand why they're not.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 13, 2018, 11:08:24 AM
Hi Everyone, I appreciate your responses. And yes I am not a naïve guy who just wandered in. But I am not a "hunchbacked" either. To be honest I don't know what to think anymore. I don't have a agenda. But having immersed myself in the subject over the years, some things continue to nag at me. I don't have blinders on and I am sure there are reasonable answers to many of my concerns.

With regards to backing up in your driveway. I was just being a bit cynical to illustrate the visibility we require today. But to suggest, as some here have, that two small windows on the LM were adequate for the job shows people have certain predisposed views. Those windows were in no way adequate, let alone ideal, in maneuvering that craft. I would suggest, if we could, ask the crew of Apollo 17 if those windows were adequate. They literally landed 2 feet away from almost certain death. Not only did one pad land in a small crater, the entire craft missed a very large crater by 2 or 3 feet which would have resulted in the craft tumbling over and death. I am 100 percent certain they had no intention of landing that close. But they did because they had zero visibility below. It was a complete miracle the crew did not perish. If I were Cernan and Schmitt I would be irate that I was nearly killed because I was given a craft in which I am flying blind. So to suggest, on anyone's part, the LM's design regarding visibility isn't, at very least, a bit puzzling demonstrates people may have blinders on. Again, just look at the DAC footage from these windows. You can't see directly below and your view is limited to maybe 15-20 percent of the horizon.

With regards to LM pre-flight, I was hoping I would get an honest discussion about this. Literally someone said "I see the differences but I don't question them" I don't get it. Does no one care? I show a photo that explicitly shows a different looking LM already inserted in the Saturn stage, mated to the CM and being hoisted to be mated to a lower stage. Everything is different right down to the tape job on the ladder. And then there are the plume deflectors. The engine thrusts are pushing directly against the body of the craft. Does this not raise even the simplest of questions? ie How do you maintain stability??? Is there even one craft/ship/vehicle in existence in which its engines thrust back into itself??? I would love to have a good debate on this (rather than whether you need a back up camera in your driveway). (and btw onebigmonkey I see no documentation on how the plumes would work. There is documentation of them on the LM)
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 13, 2018, 11:25:40 AM
I don't have blinders on and I am sure there are reasonable answers to many of my concerns.

A reasonable answer, in many cases, might be that your assumptions are wrong.  Are you prepared to accommodate that answer?  And in other cases you note the "suspicious" lack of documentation to address some particular concern.  What if that concern wasn't really an issue among experts in the field?  What does that say about your attempts to read intent into absence?

Quote
Those windows were in no way adequate, let alone ideal, in maneuvering that craft.

What standard of adequacy are you using to make this determination?  In your long years of "immersion" in aerospace engineering, when has a single component in anything ever been designed as ideal by one single criterion?  (I've been an aerospace engineer for about thirty years, by the way.)

Quote
It was a complete miracle the crew did not perish.

What standards are you using to evaluate acceptable risk in this scenario?  What were the exact causes of poor surface visibility during a P66 descent?

Quote
...demonstrates people may have blinders on.

Please be more specific about what you mean here.

Quote
Again, just look at the DAC footage from these windows. You can't see directly below and your view is limited to maybe 15-20 percent of the horizon.

What makes you think the DAC footage accurately captures the pilot's experience?

Quote
ie How do you maintain stability?

The same way you maintain stability, say, in a jet-out condition.  The DAP is a closed-loop controller with a non-uniform basis and independent-axis control laws.  Once again, you asserted that there are published findings questioning the controllability of the LM with the plume-deflectors installed.  Please provide a reference to it, as it seems the only evidence you have besides your personal incredulity.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: nomuse on December 13, 2018, 11:27:10 AM
Spacecraft pretty much never get t-boned, no matter how many driveways they might have to back out of.

How is the size of the windows an indicator of anything other than design trade-offs? Have you ever been inside a buttoned-down tank? Heck, have you ever played drums in a crowded orchestra pit? The LM cockpit was mocked up and flown in sims and the astronauts signed off on the idea that they could adequately perform the necessary piloting tasks with viewports that didn't negatively impact the structural strength and other flight considerations of the spacecraft.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 13, 2018, 11:36:33 AM
Hi Everyone, I appreciate your responses. And yes I am not a naïve guy who just wandered in. But I am not a "hunchbacked" either. To be honest I don't know what to think anymore. I don't have a agenda. But having immersed myself in the subject over the years, some things continue to nag at me. I don't have blinders on and I am sure there are reasonable answers to many of my concerns.

With regards to backing up in your driveway. I was just being a bit cynical to illustrate the visibility we require today. But to suggest, as some here have, that two small windows on the LM were adequate for the job shows people have certain predisposed views. Those windows were in no way adequate, let alone ideal, in maneuvering that craft. I would suggest, if we could, ask the crew of Apollo 17 if those windows were adequate. They literally landed 2 feet away from almost certain death. Not only did one pad land in a small crater, the entire craft missed a very large crater by 2 or 3 feet which would have resulted in the craft tumbling over and death. I am 100 percent certain they had no intention of landing that close. But they did because they had zero visibility below. It was a complete miracle the crew did not perish. If I were Cernan and Schmitt I would be irate that I was nearly killed because I was given a craft in which I am flying blind. So to suggest, on anyone's part, the LM's design regarding visibility isn't, at very least, a bit puzzling demonstrates people may have blinders on. Again, just look at the DAC footage from these windows. You can't see directly below and your view is limited to maybe 15-20 percent of the horizon.

With regards to LM pre-flight, I was hoping I would get an honest discussion about this. Literally someone said "I see the differences but I don't question them" I don't get it. Does no one care? I show a photo that explicitly shows a different looking LM already inserted in the Saturn stage, mated to the CM and being hoisted to be mated to a lower stage. Everything is different right down to the tape job on the ladder. And then there are the plume deflectors. The engine thrusts are pushing directly against the body of the craft. Does this not raise even the simplest of questions? ie How do you maintain stability??? Is there even one craft/ship/vehicle in existence in which its engines thrust back into itself??? I would love to have a good debate on this (rather than whether you need a back up camera in your driveway). (and btw onebigmonkey I see no documentation on how the plumes would work. There is documentation of them on the LM)

Concerning the bolded text notice from the landing site diagram, Gene landed between two smaller craters  between two larger craters  I don't have a scale on that drawing so I can't make a comment on how far they were.  But again Gene guided the LM to where it landed and yes he could see them out the windows, until he was directly above them.  To make a statement that landing in a crater would resulted in a tumbling over resulting n death.  If you would have researched that comment you would see that the amount of list was taken into consideration.  The construction increased the chances of tumbling over were greatly decreased.


You really need to research the LM, weight was a major concern and the window size was designed to give the optimal view versus weight.  So:"If I were Cernan and Schmitt I would be irate that I was nearly killed because I was given a craft in which I am flying blind."  They were given a craft with the windows and their mission was to land.  You presume a feeling without clear knowledge of any of the astronauts.
https://airandspace.si.edu/multimedia-gallery/12965640jpg

Concerning the RCS system the force is developed at the nozzle throat, not the deflectors.  the exhaust will make a smaller force but the accelerometers would detect any motion not intended and fire thrusters to stop that movement. No problem or concern here unless the system stopped working which did not happen during the six landings.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 13, 2018, 11:49:26 AM
In my decidedly unprofessional experience, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to think things look odd, but sometimes, you do need to be one to understand why they're not.

Indeed, there are questions and then there are questions.  Any well-developed body of specialized understanding is likely to manifest things that look odd or seem counterintuitive to the layman.  Layman's questions intended to learn more about the field are honest and good.  Rhetorical questions that hide intuitive (but wrong) assumptions and attractive (but wrong) conclusions are less honest and less productive.

Things that seem "odd" about reaction control systems are often based on idealized depictions of such systems for lay audiences.  Certain jets fire for roll, others for pitch, etc.  In practice this is never the case.  Which is to say, in practice there is no ideal positioning of RCS thrusters on any spaceframe such that only the expected cardinal axis is affected by some control command.  It is essentially impossible to achieve such an elegant arrangement in actual design and practice.  Given this limitation, the control system for an RCS has the task of translating (auto-)pilot commands such as "roll 30 degrees clockwise" into actual on-off commands for control jets as they are actually constituted, which will inescapably generate residuals.  It must accommodate stuck or stuttering valves, broken or bent jets, and the ubiquitous condition that control moments are never exactly confined to any of the cardinal axes.  To that effect, the common solution is understandably generalized and based heavily in linear algebra.  Then, because this type of solution exists, all the other unwanted moments (fuel slosh, etc.) are also rendered according to this same generalized model.  To make matters even more interesting, the control axes for the LM weren't even orthogonal!  The generalized solution for RCS control accommodates all this, and does so dumbly with a single set of abstract control laws instantiated for each RCS channel.  In other words, engineers who do this are far smarter than lay critics give them credit for.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jfb on December 13, 2018, 12:26:24 PM
And yet they go to the launch pad last second and add all this. It defies reason.

Not necessarily - fiddly, sticky-outy bits like plume deflectors could easily be damaged during the mating process, so it makes sense to install them after mating is complete.  Same with things like thermal blankets.  Yeah, the workspace would have been cramped, but flying to the moon isn't for sissies. 

Then you have all the protective wrappings that need to be there for transport and mating, but has to be removed before flight.  It's not at all surprising to me that some work had to be done after the LM was encased in adaptor. 
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 13, 2018, 12:28:02 PM
Concerning the RCS system the force is developed at the nozzle throat, not the deflectors.  the exhaust will make a smaller force but the accelerometers would detect any motion not intended and fire thrusters to stop that movement. No problem or concern here unless the system stopped working which did not happen during the six landings.

Let's elaborate on that.  The principal reactive thrust is generated in the throat of the deLeval nozzle, to be sure.  There is another model which locates it at the top of the thrust chamber, but that's for another purpose.  But plume impingement is a separate conservation-of-momentum event.  If any momentum change occurs, a reaction must occur to conserve the momentum.  When the plume hits the planted flag, the flag reacts inertially by moving.  Other reactions possible in other kinds of objects would include stress and strain effects (e.g., if the object were solid and fastened down).  The LM plume deflectors are attached to the LM structure, so they react inertially by a combination of absorbing and transmitting mechanical loads to the structure.  The resultant moment for stability purposes depends on the precise moment diagram for each plume deflector, and how they combine during actual operation.

Now whereas the thrust generated by the LM RCS was on the order of 400 N -- that's what I recall the rated vacuum thrust is of the the particular Marquardt jet I'm thinking of -- the reaction in the plume deflector is going to be much, much less.  It depends on the angle of deflection, and how much of the plume actually hits the deflector.  Reckoning the reaction force -- i.e., the nominal force coupled back to the LM frame -- is suitably analogous to angle-of-attack for a conventional airplane's airfoil.  The less angle of attack, the less force that aerodynamicists solving the airfoil problem decompose into flow-deflection lift, drag, and so forth.  If the plume gases deflect by only a small number of degrees, the flow-deflection reaction is small because the change in velocity vector is small.  Yet it would be the biggest force in the problem; drag from the plume would be negligible.  In this case it acts in the plane defined by the longitudinal axis of the deflector and the plume axis, perpendicular to the deflector axis.  That's inward, toward the center of the LM.

The fully integrated lunar module's center of mass is in the descent stage, and moves upward dramatically during powered descent.  With a nearly empty descent stage, the center of mass is closer to the interstage connection.  From photographs of the landed LM, we can see that the impingement point was biased high on the deflector surface.  And from appropriate drawings, we can see that the deflectors are angled and fastened such that the net force would point directly at the center of mass in the DPS-powered, low-fuel condition.  The deflectors were aimed precisely so as to create as small a residual as possible.

Now consider when the affected jets would be used.  In orbital flight, the x-axis thrusters provide small translations by firing all four together.  If you decompose the plume deflector reaction vectors into moment and non-moment components, you see that the moment-producing components add to amplify (or possibly reduce) the combined thrust in the desired direction, not produce a roll, pitch, or yaw moment.  It reads in the DAP simply as thrusters firing a little more or less energetically than designed.  As you say, that's just picked up by the accelerometers and accommodated in the state vector.  The x-axis thrusters also participate in roll and pitch control.  Here the residuals would produce a slight tendency to translate in the direction of the roll or pitch.  In landing, this is not at all a problem, since pitch and roll are most commonly effected in order to angle the DPS and produce lateral movement above the surface.  The sympathetic residuals contributed by plume deflectors would be lost in the DPS thrust.  And it's not a problem at all for docking, since the plume deflectors get left behind before that's necessary.

So no, an analysis of the problem with a proper knowledge of spacecraft dynamics and control and the precise design characteristics of the LM's plume deflectors reveals no stability issue that rises to the level of concern.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 13, 2018, 12:30:22 PM
It's not at all surprising to me that some work had to be done after the LM was encased in adaptor.

It's absolutely standard.  The notion that any vehicle and its payload are rolled out the launch pad with all the parts installed is laughably naive.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 13, 2018, 12:48:06 PM
It's not at all surprising to me that some work had to be done after the LM was encased in adaptor.

It's absolutely standard.  The notion that any vehicle and its payload are rolled out the launch pad with all the parts installed is laughably naive.

In addition the images that have been posted are far apart to do an analysis you need a series of sequential operation to make a better evaluation.  Maybe one does not exist, but to even ask a question of the LM assembly during the mating operations without knowledge of the process is laughable.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 13, 2018, 12:49:14 PM
Jay: Great elaboration of my post!  :)
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 13, 2018, 01:07:56 PM
...but to even ask a question of the LM assembly during the mating operations without knowledge of the process is laughable.

There is nothing magical about rollout and/or erection.  Those are simply single steps in a long, elaborately coordinated procedure of fabrication, assembly, integration, and checkout, and safing that occur as part of any rocket launch.  There's a certain ceremonial significance to rollout, chiefly for those who paid for the mission, but to engineers it's just another procedure to worry about.  It does not signal the end of their work.  Their work continues after the rocket is integrated with launch and ground-support facilities.  I'd have to check the regs to be sure, but it might even be illegal to install things like pyrotechnics until literally hours before launch.  You certainly can't have them installed when people are working in and around the equipment that needs it.

As I said, there are questions and then there are questions.  If someone wants to learn about the intricate details of payload integration, they should find well-qualified people and ask them questions.  But when questions are paired with presumptuous declarations like something "defy[ing] reason," we gather then that the question is intended to be rhetorical, not inquisitive.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 13, 2018, 05:05:35 PM
I think people need to consider the deflector was 6 inches away from the nozzle and not 5 feet. To suggest the thrust would have little impact is a supposition I have seen nowhere (from a technical standpoint). And regarding the comments about the DAP, it is the partial reason why the craft may go into an uncontrollable spin. If the thrusts start to cause instability, the system may call for more thrusts in what will lead to an almost negative feedback loop. I will dig up one of the MIT papers which suggests this is a real possibility short of perfect conditions. Thanks to posters for taking the time to respond.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on December 13, 2018, 05:42:27 PM
I think people need to consider the deflector was 6 inches away from the nozzle and not 5 feet. To suggest the thrust would have little impact is a supposition I have seen nowhere (from a technical standpoint).

Why would it have an effect?
Do you even know how rocket motors work?
Do you think that a rocket motor works by "pushing" against something?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 13, 2018, 06:23:19 PM
I don't have blinders on and I am sure there are reasonable answers to many of my concerns.

Are you willing, as Jay has asked, to concede that one of the 'reasonable answers' is that your expectations and suppositions are wrong? So far you have produced a lot of 'seems odd' or 'defies reason' arguments, but that is subjetive. No professional individual or organisation is obliged to share your incredulity at how things are done.

Quote
With regards to backing up in your driveway. I was just being a bit cynical to illustrate the visibility we require today.

And we were pointing out that the requirements for backing out of a driveway are totally different from those of landing on the Moon. If you wish to use illustrative examples then ensure they actually fit.

Quote
But to suggest, as some here have, that two small windows on the LM were adequate for the job shows people have certain predisposed views.

To suggest, as you have done, that two small windows that were the result of years of design work and design trade-offs (weight versus the need to see out of the craft) by several experienced professionals including the astronauts who would actually land the thing were inadequate demonstrates your predisposed views. The crews were not simply handed this craft and told to fly it. Astronauts had involvement in all stages of spacecraft design.

Quote
They literally landed 2 feet away from almost certain death. Not only did one pad land in a small crater, the entire craft missed a very large crater by 2 or 3 feet which would have resulted in the craft tumbling over and death.

Please tell us how you conclude the craft would tumble over, taking into account the span of the footpads and the location of the centre of mass of the craft, and any information you can find about the possible slopes it could land on.

ALso please point out this 'very large crater' in this (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/584389main_ap17_3panel_flat.jpg) LRO image of the landing site.

Quote
Again, just look at the DAC footage from these windows. You can't see directly below and your view is limited to maybe 15-20 percent of the horizon.

Or it would be if your eyes were locked in that position. Why do you think a fixed mounted camera (specifically put up out of the way to avoid blocking the window) in any way represents the experience of a person with a mobile head and eyes who could change his position in regard to the window?

Quote
With regards to LM pre-flight, I was hoping I would get an honest discussion about this.

You've had one.

Quote
Literally someone said "I see the differences but I don't question them" I don't get it. Does no one care? I show a photo that explicitly shows a different looking LM already inserted in the Saturn stage, mated to the CM and being hoisted to be mated to a lower stage. Everything is different right down to the tape job on the ladder.

And plenty of people have shown you how much work was done as a matter of routine after that stage. Once again, are you willing to concede that your naive assumption that once it was mated it was all done might be wrong?

Quote
And then there are the plume deflectors. The engine thrusts are pushing directly against the body of the craft. Does this not raise even the simplest of questions? ie How do you maintain stability???

Here's a thought: the thrust at the engine nozzle will be a fair bit more than any incidental impingement on the plume deflectors would generate, and in any case fire them in pairs and use an active control system that can detect and resond to instability. That way any thrust generated by one thruster plume impinging on the defelctor is cancelled by an equal thrust on the opposite deflector. This is in fact exactly what they did, but not for any reason to do with any small amount of thrust that might impinge on them but simply because that's how you use an RCS thruster quad system anyway. The plume deflectors are only impinged on by the engine exhaust if the LM pitching up (two forward thrusters firing down while two rear ones fire up), pitchng down (two forward thrusters firing up with two rear ones firing down) or translating 'upwards' (all four firing down).

Quote
Is there even one craft/ship/vehicle in existence in which its engines thrust back into itself???

A helicopter for starters. Rotors above the body generate downward thrust over the entire body of the craft. It still flies OK.

Quote
I would love to have a good debate on this

That presumes there is actually cause for debate.

Quote
and btw onebigmonkey I see no documentation on how the plumes would work. There is documentation of them on the LM

'There is no' or 'you have found none'? Two very different propositions.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 13, 2018, 06:27:09 PM
I think people need to consider the deflector was 6 inches away from the nozzle and not 5 feet. To suggest the thrust would have little impact is a supposition I have seen nowhere (from a technical standpoint).

Rockets don't work by pushing against things outside the rocket nozzle, and the RCS thrusters were used in pairs.

Quote
If the thrusts start to cause instability, the system may call for more thrusts in what will lead to an almost negative feedback loop.

In a negative feedback loop you get the result you want. Instability leads to more thrust opposed to the instability, thus cancelling it. In fact ths is just how the RCS was used. The scenario you describe is a positive feedback loop, where the system demands more, which leads to more demand, leading to more and increasing the problem.

Quote
I will dig up one of the MIT papers which suggests this is a real possibility short of perfect conditions.

Please do, it will be interesting to read.

Quote
Thanks to posters for taking the time to respond.

You're welcome.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 13, 2018, 06:45:41 PM
And yet they go to the launch pad last second and add all this. It defies reason.

Not necessarily - fiddly, sticky-outy bits like plume deflectors could easily be damaged during the mating process, so it makes sense to install them after mating is complete.  Same with things like thermal blankets.  Yeah, the workspace would have been cramped, but flying to the moon isn't for sissies. 

Then you have all the protective wrappings that need to be there for transport and mating, but has to be removed before flight.  It's not at all surprising to me that some work had to be done after the LM was encased in adaptor.

The amount of work that had to be done on the entire vehicle after stacking is obvious when you consider this:

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/49/28/a7/4928a7a26ad8e251d05ce54bb3f8b179.jpg)

That large scaffold to the right of the Saturn V is the mobile service structure. Parked at that point in rollout but after the launch platform was desposited on the pad the crawler transporter would trundle back down the crawlway and pick up the structure and bring it alongside the LUT and vehicle. They built an entire service structure that's actually bigger that the LUT specifically for the purpose of doing stuff on the craft after rollout that was either impractical, unsafe or simply not convenient to do while the craft was in the VAB in the overall process of getting the vehcile ready for launch.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 13, 2018, 07:28:23 PM
I think people need to consider the deflector was 6 inches away from the nozzle and not 5 feet. To suggest the thrust would have little impact is a supposition I have seen nowhere (from a technical standpoint).

If you didn't understand my explanation of the forces resulting from flow deflection, then you probably don't know enough about spacecraft dynamics and control to have this discussion.  Your response displays a fundamental misunderstanding of basic Newtonian dynamics.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: nomuse on December 13, 2018, 07:30:47 PM
It's not at all surprising to me that some work had to be done after the LM was encased in adaptor.

It's absolutely standard.  The notion that any vehicle and its payload are rolled out the launch pad with all the parts installed is laughably naive.

Well, if it is a James Bond movie they also transport it fully fueled.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: nomuse on December 13, 2018, 07:34:27 PM
I think people need to consider the deflector was 6 inches away from the nozzle and not 5 feet. To suggest the thrust would have little impact is a supposition I have seen nowhere (from a technical standpoint). And regarding the comments about the DAP, it is the partial reason why the craft may go into an uncontrollable spin. If the thrusts start to cause instability, the system may call for more thrusts in what will lead to an almost negative feedback loop. I will dig up one of the MIT papers which suggests this is a real possibility short of perfect conditions. Thanks to posters for taking the time to respond.

Was that paper by a cyberneticist and by some terrible miscarriage was he permitted to graduate? Seriously, this is control loop 101 stuff.

(Now sitting back and waiting for Jay to deliver full broadside on this one).
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 13, 2018, 07:54:58 PM
(Now sitting back and waiting for Jay to deliver full broadside on this one).

It's a red herring.  Sure, any PID-type controller can be coerced into unstable behavior if given wildly unexpected outputs.  But our poster's latest handwaving is based on the thrusters causing "instability" by impinging on the plume deflectors.  The only component of the deflectors' reaction force that would matter points through the LM center of mass, or close enough to it that the moment arm is negligible.  Proving how the control system would respond given certain dynamic conditions doesn't prove that the plume deflectors would produce those dynamic conditions.  He waved his hands past that part.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 13, 2018, 10:03:37 PM
I appreciate all the responses. And I understand everyone's convictions and their solid understanding on these subjects. And I respect everyone's position. First I would like to point out I meant to say positive feedback loop not negative. And for the poster who used a satellite photo to demonstrate there were no craters near the A17 LM, there are many high resolution photos of the A17 LM directly beside a crater at least  3-4 feet deep. And one of its pads is actually in a smaller crater. And not that everyone doesn't know, the entire Apollo photo catalogue is on Flickr.

With regards to the deflectors, I still think people should not dismiss this issue. As one poster rightly pointed out, because of the deflectors, stability required the engines to be fired in pairs. It also needed to be perfectly balanced (according to the MIT paper, which I will find). Do you not think that would present a problem? Changing fuel, moving astronauts etc. Also what if any of the RCS's failed? They had failed prior to A11. Yet they had no backups on these 7 flights.

And btw, given we are on the subject of RCS engines, how did the RCS's nozzles not get torn off the Saturn on liftoff. The LM's RCS's were covered but the RCS's on the CM were completely exposed. Max Q is 14km up. That is a long way up for those small nozzle cups facing up not to get torn off. Even if they were not torn off, they could have been easily damaged or compromised.  That seems quite the risk NASA took given the RCS's had no backups.  Regards jr.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Dalhousie on December 14, 2018, 12:53:24 AM
And btw, given we are on the subject of RCS engines, how did the RCS's nozzles not get torn off the Saturn on liftoff. The LM's RCS's were covered but the RCS's on the CM were completely exposed. Max Q is 14km up. That is a long way up for those small nozzle cups facing up not to get torn off. Even if they were not torn off, they could have been easily damaged or compromised.  That seems quite the risk NASA took given the RCS's had no backups.  Regards jr.

Which is why they were under the boost protective cover (BPC).  If you don't understand something, ask.  Don't assume that the people who worked on Apollo were stupid or risk takers, or that you have discovered some inconsistent detail that proves it was fake.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 14, 2018, 01:52:16 AM
First I would like to point out I meant to say positive feedback loop not negative.

I thought that was probably the case.

Quote
And for the poster who used a satellite photo to demonstrate there were no craters near the A17 LM

No, I put the picture up to ask you to identify the 'very large one' that was supposedly a problem.

Quote
there are many high resolution photos of the A17 LM directly beside a crater at least  3-4 feet deep.

Then provide one, then explain why that would be a 'certain death' situation, taking into account the stability of the LM given it's structure and the range of slopes it could safely sit on.

Quote
And one of its pads is actually in a smaller crater.

Yes, a very small one. So what?

Quote
With regards to the deflectors, I still think people should not dismiss this issue.

They haven't. In fact you've been provided with a very detailed explanation as to why it was not an issue.

Quote
As one poster rightly pointed out, because of the deflectors, stability required the engines to be fired in pairs.

No, that is not what was said. Firing in pairs is the best way to achieve the pitch, roll and yaw regardless of the deflectors. If you wish to have an 'honest discussion' don't mis-represent the counter-arguments.

Quote
It also needed to be perfectly balanced

Do you undertand the concept of error margins? It was not necessary to 'perfectly' balance the system, just to keep it within a certain margin of performance.

Quote
Do you not think that would present a problem? Changing fuel, moving astronauts etc.

Do you really think this is beyong the engineering knowledge of the companies that built them? They knew what the craft had to do and engineered it accordingly.

Quote
Also what if any of the RCS's failed?

How many have to fail to present a problem that can't be fixed using the remaining active ones?

Quote
And btw, given we are on the subject of RCS engines, how did the RCS's nozzles not get torn off the Saturn on liftoff. The LM's RCS's were covered but the RCS's on the CM were completely exposed. Max Q is 14km up. That is a long way up for those small nozzle cups facing up not to get torn off. Even if they were not torn off, they could have been easily damaged or compromised.  That seems quite the risk NASA took given the RCS's had no backups.  Regards jr.

Again, do you honestly not think they could be engineered to withstand those forces, gven that the design obviously presented this problem in flight? You keep presenting these 'issues' as if they are insurmountable problems, but the reality is they can be solved by a team of halfway competent engineers.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 14, 2018, 01:55:29 AM
And btw, given we are on the subject of RCS engines, how did the RCS's nozzles not get torn off the Saturn on liftoff. The LM's RCS's were covered but the RCS's on the CM were completely exposed. Max Q is 14km up. That is a long way up for those small nozzle cups facing up not to get torn off. Even if they were not torn off, they could have been easily damaged or compromised.  That seems quite the risk NASA took given the RCS's had no backups.  Regards jr.

Which is why they were under the boost protective cover (BPC).  If you don't understand something, ask.  Don't assume that the people who worked on Apollo were stupid or risk takers, or that you have discovered some inconsistent detail that proves it was fake.

The CSM RCS quads were not under the BPC, being about a third of the way down the side of the service module.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTIutbVddbNGezeX7Iupnt_-1-BkSqNrgLJQ7Q3IcYowgWQQoI)

 However, that doesn't mean they can't simply be engineered to be tough enough to survive those forces. That's the kind of detail that years of design and testing fixes....
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: VQ on December 14, 2018, 02:22:29 AM
I appreciate all the responses. And I understand everyone's convictions and their solid understanding on these subjects. And I respect everyone's position. First I would like to point out I meant to say positive feedback loop not negative. And for the poster who used a satellite photo to demonstrate there were no craters near the A17 LM, there are many high resolution photos of the A17 LM directly beside a crater at least  3-4 feet deep.

To be clear, an unstable or rough landing was a concern during mission planning. The designers studied the dynamics of what a tipover accident on landing might look like and considered if a tilt sensor to trigger an automated abort was warranted. What they determined was that in 1/6th gravity, it takes long enough for a LM to tip over that the astronauts would have time to manually press the abort button. So even in the scenario that you imagine (which overstates the actual A17 landing danger) it was not "certain death" for the crew.

And rather obviously, the windows were adequate for the crew to visually survey the landing site and make adjustments as needed to avoid obstacles if necessary. A11 did so rather famously.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 14, 2018, 02:33:33 AM
And for the poster who used a satellite photo to demonstrate there were no craters near the A17 LM, there are many high resolution photos of the A17 LM directly beside a crater at least  3-4 feet deep. And one of its pads is actually in a smaller crater. And not that everyone doesn't know, the entire Apollo photo catalogue is on Flickr.

Firstly, the entire Apollo photo catalogue is not in the Flickr archive - most of it is. You will find a more complete (but not necessarily high resolution) collection at the Apollo Image Atlas.

Secondly, I don't think you will find photos of the Apollo 17 LM directly beside a 3-4 feet deep crater. This is because I suspect you are actually referring to Apollo 15. It caused the crew some concern, but it was well within the safety margins of the LM design. If I am right, it is perhaps another indication of the depth of your understanding of the subject.

As well as the US's LRO, there is photographic evidence from China, Japan and India of human activity at that landing site, and a wealth of high resolution imagery taken on the surface that show details from that landing site that are confirmed by those orbiting probes. Do please show us a pre-Apollo image showing the crater next to which they landed. Can you tell us in what way a photograph of something on the surface of the moon proves that it is not on the surface of the moon?

I always get annoyed by hyperbolic and hysterical news reports featuring vox pop interviews about some easily averted minor crisis where, had events conspired differently "anything could have happened and the world could have ended". This is the same. Disaster didn't happen. How is that proof of anything?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Obviousman on December 14, 2018, 02:49:07 AM
Here is some footage of the tests they conducted to ensure the stability of the LM landing gear:




Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: ka9q on December 14, 2018, 03:46:46 AM
Do you think that a rocket motor works by "pushing" against something?
To be fair...

While it's true that a rocket doesn't work by pushing against surrounding objects with its plume, that assumes the surrounding objects aren't attached to the rocket itself. When they are, the effect is exactly the same as a hypothetical unobstructed rocket generating the same ultimate gas flows and directions. That's why Jay said that the deflectors generate a small inward force in the process of deflecting the plume outward.

But that force is small, because much of the plume misses the deflector. And as Jay said, the deflection angle of the gas that does hit it is fairly small.

Most people are familiar with the appearance of a rocket plume in the atmosphere: a long, thin and usually brilliant flame extending well past the nozzle. That pencil-thin plume is caused by atmospheric pressure squeezing it from the sides, and its brilliance is caused by atmospheric oxygen burning the residual fuel in the exhaust (all chemical rockets run fuel-rich for efficiency reasons).

Those factors are not present in vacuum. The gas in the plume immediately begins to expand laterally outward as soon as it exits the nozzle because there's nothing to stop it. Nozzles for vacuum engines are made longer to reduce this, but there's no confining it entirely because even a low plume pressure is still greater than zero. And of course there's no oxygen to burn the residual fuel and make it obvious where the gas is going.

You do see some of this when you watch the expanding plume of a launch vehicle as it climbs into the thinner upper atmosphere, but the viewing geometry (and the rapidly decreasing flame brightness) still make it a little difficult to see exactly what's happening.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: ka9q on December 14, 2018, 04:18:00 AM
It also needed to be perfectly balanced (according to the MIT paper, which I will find). Do you not think that would present a problem? Changing fuel, moving astronauts etc.

It's amazing how persistent this misconception has become. The same thing is true for nearly every rocket launched from the earth's surface, yet few people deny that those rockets are real and actually work.

I know of two ways to passively stabilize a rocket against small undesired torques such as those resulting from imbalanced or off-axis engine thrusts. One is to spin the whole rocket around its thrust axis so the off-axis torque averages to zero. The other is to use tail fins to produce a restoring torque to drive the angle of attack toward zero.

The latter method is fine for model rockets but it obviously doesn't work in a vacuum. The former method doesn't let you fly along a programmed curved trajectory as needed when launching vertically from a surface.  (Passive spin stabilization is often used by satellites firing their apogee kick motors as steering is not needed during the burn.)

With these exceptions, rockets need some sort of closed-loop control system that can measure attitude (orientation in space) and a set of rocket motors capable of generating whatever torques are required to point the pointy end forward. If you've got several rocket engines, you can gimbal some or all of them. If you've got only one main engine (as on both stages of the LM) then you need auxiliary engines like the RCS.

So yeah, the LM was never perfectly balanced -- but it didn't have to be. During descent, the computer gimbaled the main engine to put its thrust vector directly through the center of mass. The ascent engine had no gimbal, so the computer fired the RCS engines as needed to keep the LM pointed in the desired direction. This resulted in a very pronounced "wallowing" (or rocking) motion that is clearly visible in all of the ascent movies taken from within the LM. This happened for two reasons: each RCS engine was either on or off -- only the descent engine had a throttle -- and very short RCS burns were inefficient. The control system permitted the attitude error to build up to some limit (a "deadband") before firing the appropriate RCS thrusters to push the error all the way to the other end of the deadband. Then it shut off the thruster and waited for the attitude error to again hit the edge of the deadband.

As for what happens when a rocket's attitude control system fails, see this:
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on December 14, 2018, 04:36:27 AM
Do you think that a rocket motor works by "pushing" against something?
To be fair...

While it's true that a rocket doesn't work by pushing against surrounding objects with its plume, that assumes the surrounding objects aren't attached to the rocket itself. When they are, the effect is exactly the same as a hypothetical unobstructed rocket generating the same ultimate gas flows and directions. That's why Jay said that the deflectors generate a small inward force in the process of deflecting the plume outward.


I understand that. I was fishing to see if out erstwhile honest-discussion-seeking, just-asking-question poster is one of those that thinks that rockets only work in atmospheres as they need something to push against.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 14, 2018, 06:33:30 AM
It also needed to be perfectly balanced (according to the MIT paper, which I will find). Do you not think that would present a problem? Changing fuel, moving astronauts etc.

It's amazing how persistent this misconception has become. The same thing is true for nearly every rocket launched from the earth's surface, yet few people deny that those rockets are real and actually work.

It amazes me too. Rockets are not dependent on a perfect set of circumstances to remain balanced and work. Passive and active correction is a common feature. Fins, grids, RCS systems, gimballed engines and gyroscopic platforms are just the ways I could think of off the top of my head to ensure that a rocket of any kind goes where you want it by either using aerodynamics during atmospheric flight phases or else reaction control systems in space.

It is somewhat less confusing than the misconception several HBs have that the LM is somehow top-heavy, despite having its fuel and oxidiser tanks in both stages set around the engine rather than stacked on top like every rocket that ever launches from Earth ever....
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Von_Smith on December 14, 2018, 07:30:52 AM
I have a question for the OP:  In your opinion, why do the plume deflectors even exist?  I mean, if the missions are fake, and their presence and location somehow "give away the game", why even bother with them? 
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 14, 2018, 09:31:28 AM
I just have a few minutes right now, so I'll touch on a couple of topics briefly and then address the rest later today.

That's why Jay said that the deflectors generate a small inward force in the process of deflecting the plume outward.

Geometry matters, and our poster doesn't seem to understand the math.  The only force that's relevant to the stability problem is the one that's normal to the deflector surface.  The deflectors are angled to aim that force in a direction that's neutral for stability.

Quote
But that force is small, because much of the plume misses the deflector. And as Jay said, the deflection angle of the gas that does hit it is fairly small.

The strength of the force is proportional to the sine of the angle made by the plume axis and the plane of the deflector.  Unlike straight-up thrust, the strength of the force of an impinging fluid stream is also proportional to its mass density which is non-trivial for a rocket plume, as you illustrate.  We have three basic ways to parameterize the general impingement model:  volume flow rate plus mass density, mass flow rate, and area plus mass density.  The third one is what's appropriate here, since both density and area are irregular.  The exhaust is, at this point, a quickly dispersing gas.  It has a low mass density.  The deflector is not intended to deflect all the plume, just the part of it that would have otherwise impinged on sensitive structure.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 14, 2018, 09:46:47 AM
The CSM RCS quads were not under the BPC, being about a third of the way down the side of the service module.

...and within the zone of boundary layer separation, thus protecting them from the supersonic slipstream.  The discontinuity where the conical command module becomes the cylindrical service module causes the boundary layer of air there to separate from the side of the service module.  You can see this illustrated by condensation around the stack during transonic flight.  The air in the immediate vicinity of the RCS quads is turbulent, not in laminar flow at high velocity.

This is an example of how many design factors contribute to where RCS jets can be located in a design, and underscoring that there is no "magical" placement for them such that any other position or configuration is dangerous or useless.  You can never place or configure RCS jets such that they have mission-wide optimal dynamics.  Thus no actual spacecraft design tries, nor relies on this being the case.

Quote
However, that doesn't mean they can't simply be engineered to be tough enough to survive those forces. That's the kind of detail that years of design and testing fixes....

This is where pictures don't do justice.  Part of the joy of my profession is handling the hardware.  You've never lived until you've had a shuttle-tile fight.  But more to the point, Marquardt made good products.  You can hammer nails with one of those jets.  Well, the nozzles are brittle, so you might chip one if you did that.  But they are solidly built from robust materials.  They're not going to be the least bothered by aerodynamic buffeting on the way up.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: gwiz on December 14, 2018, 09:52:11 AM
If plume deflectors are so problematical, why have all Harrier aircraft carried them for the last half century?
https://forum.largescaleplanes.com/uploads/monthly_02_2010/post-13803-1267007003.jpg
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 14, 2018, 10:26:46 AM
The CSM RCS quads were not under the BPC, being about a third of the way down the side of the service module.

...and within the zone of boundary layer separation, thus protecting them from the supersonic slipstream.  The discontinuity where the conical command module becomes the cylindrical service module causes the boundary layer of air there to separate from the side of the service module.  You can see this illustrated by condensation around the stack during transonic flight.  The air in the immediate vicinity of the RCS quads is turbulent, not in laminar flow at high velocity.

Thank you, Jay, for another example of how 'just look at those things and where they are' is really not an adequate argument for any claims on performance.

Quote
You've never lived until you've had a shuttle-tile fight.

Right, where do I get leftover shuttle tiles from? I want this for my next office do!

Quote
But they are solidly built from robust materials.  They're not going to be the least bothered by aerodynamic buffeting on the way up.

And most of us here wouldn't expect them to be. It's a variation on the 'inflexible pressurised spacesuit' argument: It fails because it requires us to believe that the designers and engineers who built the thing somehow forgot about some basic requirements of functionality during the course of the mission. In the spacesuit case, that the person in it would need to be able to walk, bend and hold things while wearing it pressurised, and in this case that the RCS quads be able to withstand whatever forces they would be subjected to during launch.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 14, 2018, 11:51:47 AM
Thank you, Jay, for another example of how 'just look at those things and where they are' is really not an adequate argument for any claims on performance.

Of course.  As you learn more about some subject, those questions come up legitimately.  "How are the RCS quads not torn off by the slipstream?" is an intelligent question on its face.  And it provides an opportunity to be taught things about fluid flow that you may not previously have known, such as Prandtl models.  But the problem with that in this forum is that we always stand in the gray area of such questions asked to solicit knowledge, and such questions asked rhetorically to insinuate a hoax.  I don't know if our poster knows this, but there is a separate part of the forum to discuss Apollo under the presumption that it really happened.  He has chosen to post in the section where people get to question it.  Consequently we have to choose our approach carefully.

Quote
And most of us here wouldn't expect them to be.

Sure, but if you're scrambling to find things wrong with it...

An often-forgotten fact is that the S-IVB had its own RCS, termed the APS.  And in the vehicle design it did have to be bolted onto the outside of the fuselage (otherwise it would have been immersed in cryogenic propellant).  And in that position it was drag-sensitive.  The solution?  It was in an aluminum fairing, as were the solid-fuelled ullage motors and the other stuff that had to stick out from the vehicle.  So if the CSM RCS was in a drag-heavy position, it would have been fitted with a jettisonable fairing, just like the BPC was for the CM itself.  This is not a hard design problem.

Quote
It's a variation on the 'inflexible pressurised spacesuit' argument: It fails because it requires us to believe that the designers and engineers who built the thing somehow forgot about some basic requirements of functionality during the course of the mission.

Right; it argues circuitously that engineering is no more than applied common sense, and that space engineering has some sort of mystique that must be respected.  The problem of a flexible high-pressure fluid conduit or container didn't just spring out of the bushes when it came to space suits.  Go to any construction site and look at a 300-series Caterpiller excavator.  See those rubber hoses out on the arm?  Those rubber hoses bear more than 3,000 psi hydraulic pressure, and they bend just fine and don't balloon out to unserviceable diameters.  That's because the notion of an embedded or annular restraint layer in a flexible conduit is hardly a new solution in engineering.  We had to solve the problem long ago of balancing flexibility with constrained spaces.

Further, the notion of separating problem requirements into different solution spaces is what engineers do.  Humans generally don't think naturally this way.  But they can be easily taught to do so, and with practice it will become second nature.  One particular company's solid rocket motor design effectively separates the thermal requirements of the design from the pressure requirement.  The thermal "bottle" that holds the burning fuel is wrapped in Kevlar.  The bottle material is good at keeping heat where it's supposed to be.  The Kevlar is good at keeping pressure where it's supposed to be.  The way they wrap the Kevlar is a trade secret, which is why you won't see it published in the literature.  The guy who designed the wrapping process and the machinery to do it would very much like to retire at this point, but they just keep adding zeros to the number on his paycheck, so he stays on.  He's one of the guys that hooks me up with flown hardware as trinkets.  Technically such pilfering is forbidden, but what are they gonna do?  Fire the guy?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 14, 2018, 11:53:22 AM
The CSM RCS quads were not under the BPC, being about a third of the way down the side of the service module.

...and within the zone of boundary layer separation, thus protecting them from the supersonic slipstream.  The discontinuity where the conical command module becomes the cylindrical service module causes the boundary layer of air there to separate from the side of the service module.  You can see this illustrated by condensation around the stack during transonic flight.  The air in the immediate vicinity of the RCS quads is turbulent, not in laminar flow at high velocity.

Thank you, Jay, for another example of how 'just look at those things and where they are' is really not an adequate argument for any claims on performance.

Quote
You've never lived until you've had a shuttle-tile fight.

Right, where do I get leftover shuttle tiles from? I want this for my next office do!

Quote
But they are solidly built from robust materials.  They're not going to be the least bothered by aerodynamic buffeting on the way up.

And most of us here wouldn't expect them to be. It's a variation on the 'inflexible pressurised spacesuit' argument: It fails because it requires us to believe that the designers and engineers who built the thing somehow forgot about some basic requirements of functionality during the course of the mission. In the spacesuit case, that the person in it would need to be able to walk, bend and hold things while wearing it pressurised, and in this case that the RCS quads be able to withstand whatever forces they would be subjected to during launch.

There must have 1000's of engineers working the problems that would exist in a mission.  Of course there will always be the outlier that everyone forgot or forgot to communicate with others, but all in all they did a great job on Apollo/Saturn.  All the launches only a partial failure in A6, leading to design refinements that corrected the detected flaws.  Then IIRC only one failure of any engine (A13) but the other engines burned longer to compensate.
My hat is off to those guys, and the guys involved in designing the remainder of the missions.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 14, 2018, 12:12:26 PM
Hi, thanks again for the responses. But I have to say it is disheartening to see some responses. I am aware, myself included, we all have certain predispositions. But it is deflating to see immediate responses that clearly show no considered thought. I ask a simple (and I think reasonable ) question regarding RCS engines on the side of the CM. Immediately I am told they were covered. Are people not aware there are many photos on liftoff showing the exact opposite? I can't even get anyone admit that Apollo 17 landed beside a crater. I have come to you guys because of your knowledge. In any event, I attached some photos to show the A17 LM beside the crater. And again, I am 100 percent certain that Cernan (or anyone for that matter) would not intentionally land that close to a crater. So either Cernan (or Schimitt?) is very bad pilot or their visibility was extremely impaired.

One poster did pose an interesting question regarding why NASA would have bothered adding deflectors if the whole thing is a fake. I gave that question some thought in the past. And I came to the conclusion, the alternative would have been worse. People, (including many here I'm sure), would point out the engines were thrusting (including heat) directly on the lower stage of LM. That certainly would raise many questions. They did it briefly without deflectors on prior missions but landing on the moon would bring a lot more eyes to the project.

The photos I have attached are coincidently the reason I began to have questions about the Mission. And it has nothing to do with how the LM landed that we have been discussing. If anyone is serious of taking an unbiased look at the Missions, I suggest you examine all the A17 photos/magazines very closely particularly EVA 1. The pictures I have attached will lead to some unsettling conclusions. PM me, if you like. 
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: VQ on December 14, 2018, 01:21:21 PM
Hi, thanks again for the responses. But I have to say it is disheartening to see some responses. I am aware, myself included, we all have certain predispositions. But it is deflating to see immediate responses that clearly show no considered thought. I ask a simple (and I think reasonable ) question regarding RCS engines on the side of the CM. Immediately I am told they were covered. Are people not aware there are many photos on liftoff showing the exact opposite?

The CM RCS were under the BPC. The SM engines were not. You got one hasty answer and a number of other editors corrected the misunderstanding. Why are you focused on the one mistaken answer?

Quote
I can't even get anyone admit that Apollo 17 landed beside a crater. I have come to you guys because of your knowledge. In any event, I attached some photos to show the A17 LM beside the crater...

That's your "at least 3-4 feet deep", "very large crater"!? Small wonder no one knew what you were talking about. My impression is that that would not have been a safety concern during or after the landing - and most certainly not a bringer of "certain death". It was obviously the focus of some interest during the mission, though, since they photographed it a few times. Maybe we can review the surface journal to see if there was any measurement or discussion?

In the mean time, question to you. In your view if the A17 mission was a fabrication because no real mission would have landed so close to that feature, why did NASA build one into the set?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Northern Lurker on December 14, 2018, 01:58:20 PM
Hi, thanks again for the responses. But I have to say it is disheartening to see some responses. I am aware, myself included, we all have certain predispositions. But it is deflating to see immediate responses that clearly show no considered thought. I ask a simple (and I think reasonable ) question regarding RCS engines on the side of the CM. Immediately I am told they were covered. Are people not aware there are many photos on liftoff showing the exact opposite?

You are implying that members of this site are mineless drones brainwashed by NASA. When actually one member made a mistake...

Which is why they were under the boost protective cover (BPC).  If you don't understand something, ask.  Don't assume that the people who worked on Apollo were stupid or risk takers, or that you have discovered some inconsistent detail that proves it was fake.

...another immediately corrected it...

The CSM RCS quads were not under the BPC, being about a third of the way down the side of the service module.

However, that doesn't mean they can't simply be engineered to be tough enough to survive those forces. That's the kind of detail that years of design and testing fixes....

...And finally the resident aerospace engineer explains why

The CSM RCS quads were not under the BPC, being about a third of the way down the side of the service module.

However, that doesn't mean they can't simply be engineered to be tough enough to survive those forces. That's the kind of detail that years of design and testing fixes....

Since the mistake was identified and corrected before you even mentioned it, in my humble opinion, you are just poisoning the well.

I can't even get anyone admit that Apollo 17 landed beside a crater. I have come to you guys because of your knowledge. In any event, I attached some photos to show the A17 LM beside the crater. And again, I am 100 percent certain that Cernan (or anyone for that matter) would not intentionally land that close to a crater. So either Cernan (or Schimitt?) is very bad pilot or their visibility was extremely impaired.

Yes one leg of the LM is in a crater which is little bit deeper than landing pad. Do you actually mean that was a deadly threat?

Also yes, there is a crater near the LM. How close it is? How do you decide that it is too close? How deep it is? How large variations in depth LM's legs could absorb? Is the crater deeper than that? These are direct questions and I expect them to be answered. I think Cernan saw the crater near a good landing site and decided to land while keeping adequate distance from the crater.

Using your backing up a car analogy: I visited local IKEA today. I backed up my car into a convenient parking space between two other cars. My car doesn't have parking sensors or back up camera. While parking I was using myself as a closed loop control system: I decided where I want to be, started backing up, monitored my progress using mirrors and adjusting my driving accordingly until I was where I wanted. Despite having two deadly cars only 30 cms on my both side  :o

Lurky
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 14, 2018, 02:04:00 PM
Hi VQ,

I think you need perspective to understand the size of the crater. The strut supporting the LM leg is 4 feet 10 inches off the ground. Are you suggesting the main descent engine nozzle coming down on the raised crater edge would not have created a significant, if not, catastrophic outcome?

I did not say the A17 mission was a fabrication because they would not have landed that close to the crater. What I did say however is the pictures I attached if examined with the other A17 photos (particularly EVA1) you will come to some unsettling conclusions.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 14, 2018, 02:38:33 PM
Hi VQ,

I think you need perspective to understand the size of the crater. The strut supporting the LM leg is 4 feet 10 inches off the ground. Are you suggesting the main descent engine nozzle coming down on the raised crater edge would not have created a significant, if not, catastrophic outcome?

I did not say the A17 mission was a fabrication because they would not have landed that close to the crater. What I did say however is the pictures I attached if examined with the other A17 photos (particularly EVA1) you will come to some unsettling conclusions.

I'm not sure where you are going with this, but A15 descent engine bell came into contact as was bent by the collision.

https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&biw=1371&bih=667&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=1wMUXOWlF8aGsQXh3bKgDw&q=apollo+15+LM+images&oq=apollo+15+LM+images&gs_l=img.3...113790.114354..116925...0.0..0.54.103.2......1....1..gws-wiz-img.vv9BO11KuKs#imgrc=sfkHLUdtAnDyyM:  In my search it is fourth from the left.  There may be better images in the Lunar Surface Journal.  https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html

I don't understand where the strut being 4 feet 10 inches has any discussion value other than it is probably true.  Are you indicating the pad was not in contact with the Lunar surface?
Again the Lunsr Surface Journal will have all the images.


ETA:  Zakalwe has a much better image of the damage.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on December 14, 2018, 02:39:03 PM
Hi VQ,

I think you need perspective to understand the size of the crater. The strut supporting the LM leg is 4 feet 10 inches off the ground. Are you suggesting the main descent engine nozzle coming down on the raised crater edge would not have created a significant, if not, catastrophic outcome?

Why do you think that this was not anticipated? The landing procedure called for the engine to be cut before final touchdown to address this very issue. From A15 the DPS bell was extended to raise the engine efficiency to counter the increased mass of the J missions.  The engine bell on A15 DID hit the ground hard enough to buckle the nozzle. No significant, or indeed catastrophic outcome was the result.


(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Apollo_15_Engine_Bell.jpg)



{edit} I was ninja'd by bknight' speedier typing fingers!
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 14, 2018, 03:01:26 PM
jr: did you know that the struts collapse on landing, a maximum of 32 inches, which lowers the center of mass and makes it harder to tip over. 
You don't know what the Gene was thinking when he landed.  I showed and image of the landing site and it looks like he did a good job of guiding the LM between the small and large craters.  You should give him more credit than you do.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM04_Lunar_Module_ppLV1-17.pdf

Page 11.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 14, 2018, 03:39:07 PM
And I understand everyone's convictions and their solid understanding on these subjects.

Do you understand that conviction in this case is born of solid understanding?  As in, a professional level of understanding?  As in, I can list the actual spacecraft and actual launch vehicles that I've worked on, and I can speak of their design problems not from the position of having read about them in web sites and on books, but from the position of having had to solve them myself and be on the hook for the validity of those solutions?  For some of us here, space engineering was thoroughly demystified a long time ago.  We don't look at these problems, or the products of their solutions, and allow the mist in our eyes to blind us to how it all actually works.

It is common for hoax claimants to think that believing in Apollo is an act of national pride, or devotion to a cause, or a knee-jerk reaction.  In other words, it is common to attribute belief to an emotional need.  In this case it is not true.  Belief here is a matter of knowing the relevant facts and drawing logically valid conclusions from them.

Quote
And I respect everyone's position.

No, I don't think you do.  You're being taught by people who actually do for a living the things you're reading about.  You present questions of the sort that a reasonable student of the field would present.  But when you are given the correct answers from the field, your response is, "No, I still think what I've said presents a genuine problem."  If you really respected our position, you would thoroughly understand where it comes from and do more than simply repeat your concerns and demand that they be reconsidered.  In many cases our answers correct the wrong assumptions and misconceptions upon which your concerns are based.  When that happens, and a rationale has been given for it, you don't simply get to insist that your assumptions and misconceptions must remain in force.  Yet on some of your questions that's what you're doing.  It often doesn't take much "considered thought" to recognize the same wrong assumptions hoax theorists have been bringing to the table for years, and to give a proper rebuttal in the form of challenging the assumption.

Quote
First I would like to point out I meant to say positive feedback loop not negative.

Very well.  Since I don't know you very well yet, I'll accept in this case that you misspoke.  But be warned:  if you plan to base further arguments on the premise that you are well-versed in the relevant science, and if the aim of those arguments is to suggest that Apollo was somehow staged or lied about, then the professional scientists and engineers in this forum will grant you zero further quarter for errors of this sort.  One of the ways we will know whether your premise is true is whether you can speak correctly about the underlying sciences in the correct language.  I hope you realize that you can't bluff your way past this audience.

Now that we've agreed on the direction of convergence, do you wish to pursue your argument?  Yes, feedback is something to beware of in any closed-loop control system.  What can you tell us specifically about the lunar module's autopilot and how it handled feedback of the kind you mention?  Your argument so far is merely handwaving.  You raise an abstract concern, but you don't connect it to any observable circumstance or to any particular failure or omission in the design that would make your concern operative.  You're begging the question that the LM DAP couldn't handle feedback.

Quote
With regards to the deflectors, I still think people should not dismiss this issue.

No one has dismissed it.  Rather, they have patiently, and in suitable detail, pointed out why your proposition that the deflectors would make the LM unstable assumes things that do not hold.  The effects on stability are all modeled as moments in the framework of a generalized solution.  Intentional effects include those caused by steering vanes in atmospheric flight or reaction wheels and jets.  Unintended causes include fuel slosh, fuel depletion, staging, the jettison of expendable components, or outside impacts.  Even flexing from variations in heating creates behavior that can be modeled this way.  All this just goes into the pot.

Modeling the effect of an RCS plume impinging on the plume deflector is no different.  It's just another input for the overall guidance model.  I walked you through a first-order modeling exercise.  It's not clear whether you did any such modeling, but I'm guessing you didn't.  You seem to have merely assumed that the moments it generated were significant and unplanned.  I have refuted that assumption using the same principles of engineering that would have been used by the scientists and engineers designing the plume deflectors.  You have not challenged those principles or my employment of them.  You seem to be asking that we just set them aside and agree instead with your irrational fears.

Quote
As one poster rightly pointed out, because of the deflectors, stability required the engines to be fired in pairs.

If I'm that poster, then I made no such claim.

In the RCS configurations favored by most practical designs, sets of thrusters operating in concert or opposition offer several design advantages, although naturally at the cost of greater complexity and mass.  The LM could effect very spritely yaw moments using four thrusters, or more sedate yaw moments using only two thrusters.  The implied symmetry would be a requirement for a spacecraft whose mission could not tolerate translation residuals.  I pointed out that the LM can tolerate such residuals, and that in fact the effect of any such residual would be lost in the noise of all the other translational maneuvers the LM was already doing.  As such, the LM can maintain yaw control with only one of its four relevant thrusters operating.

The plume deflector does not alter this dramatically.  What I pointed out was that when the RCS was operated in the intended way, the effects of the deflector summed and canceled out in a particular way that was neutral to stability and guidance.  It's a matter of explaining what would happen under common conditions, not insisting that those conditions had to hold.  The plume deflectors did not alter whatsoever the way in which the RCS jets were commanded.

Quote
It also needed to be perfectly balanced...

Nonsense.  No spacecraft is ever flown presuming that the principal thrust operates exactly through its center of mass.  You propose that you are familiar with the field, but you keep relying upon layman's misconceptions.

Quote
...according to the MIT paper, which I will find.

Yes, you do that.  You have made several references to offerings in the literature that you say support your belief, but you haven't produced a single one of them.

I and others here are very familiar with the documentation from the Draper lab that lays out the generalized model of guidance and how it was specifically implemented for the lunar module.  You seem to have come away from those documents with an understanding that differs markedly from that of others, and more closely resembles the simplifications laymen commonly find.   Further, many of us here can also quote chapter-and-verse from such standard references as Fundamentals of Astrodynamics and Spacecraft Dynamics and Control, which provide alternative models (the first reference) or expand the general stability model -- at book length -- to practically any conceivable problem one could have in controlling a spacecraft (the second reference).  So when you suggest that the literature supports you, we can confidently say, "No, it does not."  Until you provide actual references, we cannot determine why you think they do.

Quote
Do you not think that would present a problem? Changing fuel, moving astronauts etc.

You seem to think these were problems that hadn't been faced and solved in rocketry long prior to Apollo.  As I told you before, there is no sudden mystique in Apollo or its lunar module that somehow invalidates the general guidance model.  Of course anything that relocates the center of mass or imposes a moment would "present a problem" for stability.  But only a naive analysis would assume that there isn't a straightforward, generalized solution to all of them.  No rocket scientist ever assumed his center of mass would stay put in his design.  No rocket scientist ever assumed that unexpected moments would not arise.  Nobody has ever designed assuming such ideal conditions.  Once you relax the assumption that the center of mass will never be fixed, then you stop caring what specific things might make it change.  And once you relax the assumption that the only moments will be those you command, then you stop caring what specific causes might arise.  And when someone asks, "Aren't you concerned at all these special new things the lunar module had to contend with?" the answer is, "If I can model them in the standard guidance model, then no."

Quote
Also what if any of the RCS's failed? They had failed prior to A11. Yet they had no backups on these 7 flights.

Of course they did.  Just perhaps not something you immediately recognize as a "backup."  I'm guessing by "backup" you mean a fully-redundant set of jets in compatible locations to the primary, thrusting in generally the same directions as the primary.  That's a reasonable first pass at redundancy.  The problem with most laymen's attempts to second-guess Apollo designs is that they have only thought of these first-pass solutions.  Or stated more generally, they think that the way they would have designed Apollo is the way any conscientious engineer would have done it.  From that follows the accusation that if a design doesn't seem common-sensical in that way, it is somehow suspect.

If you've seen the error and error-rate state diagrams for a single DAP channel, you will have seen how the control laws were derived for each envelope in the diagram.  The output from the control law is either "do nothing" (i.e., within the deadband) or "command rate-positive" or "command rate-negative."  How the rate commands get interpreted by the RCS controller is another matter.  Nominally an LM DAP command to "yaw positive, best rate" would be interpreted by the RCS controller in terms of firing four thrusters.  The controller knows which thrusters are in an operable state because it has either detected their failure, or the pilot has switched a jet off.  In this case, the RCS controller "knows" (i.e., has been designed) that it can execute the command with up to three of the relevant thrusters inoperative.  In this highly-degraded condition, the DAP will note that the error rate is changing more slowly than usual, but as long as it is moving in the right direction to the set-point value, it will patiently wait for that to occur.  The pilot will feel this simply as sluggishness in the yaw motion.  Only if the RCS controller has all four yaw-relevant thrusters out will it signal an exception that would need extraordinary attention from the computer or pilot.  That's an unbelievable degree of redundancy in the yaw channel.

Okay, consider the pitch channel.  Again nominally, the RCS controller responds to a DAP command "pitch forward" by firing four thrusters -- two firing upward in front and two firing downward in back.  This produces a forward pitch moment, and a desired pitch rate.  What if one of those fails, let's say the one just outside the pilot's window.  The RCS is told not to use that jet, either by its own detection or by the pilot's command.  The built-in combinatorial logic then inhibits the co-pilot's side jet too.  A "pitch forward" command is answered by firing the jets in the rear quads only.  Ditto for left and right roll.  "But," you might say," doesn't that also result in thrusting upward as an unwanted translation -- a residual?"  And the answer is, "Yes, but we don't care."  In the LM's case, the 800 N of accidental additional thrust is lost in the 30,000 N of thrust from the DPS along the same axis.  If that were a problem, then the DPS senses a drop in the descent rate and throttles the DPS back a little to compensate.

Okay, for nits and giggles let's also fail the downward-squirting thruster on the pilot's side.  The combinatorial logic in the RCS controller does not inhibit the companion thruster on the co-pilot's side because it "knows" (i.e., is in a combinatorial-logic state that expresses degraded operation) that it would be otherwise unable to create forward-pitch moments at all.  So it goes ahead and fires that jet alone.  And the layman might rightly say, "Yikes!  It's so off-center it's going to throw the vehicle off-kilter."  Well, yes and no.  The advantage you gain by decoupling all the control channels as we do is that the last remaining control action -- our second fallback configuration -- is still able to answer Yes when the DAP tells it to pitch forward.  Even with two jets gone, we can still pitch the vehicle.  "But what about the obvious left roll this will also cause?"  That's the roll channel's problem.  The DAP told us to pitch forward, and we have a thruster configuration that can at least do that.  The DAP is also perhaps wanting us to keep an even keel in the roll channel, so when it notices an error rate there, it will send additional "roll right" commands to the RCS controller.  And depending on the situation, the thrusters that would respond to those commands might be in perfect working order.  I would expect a beginning electrical engineering student to take about an hour to design the RCS controller circuit that could satisfy these constraints.  In fact, a simplified version of it one of my interview questions for certain kinds of engineer.

The point is that the configuration that's already there in the LM provides a considerable amount of redundancy if you just think carefully about what you can do with it.  The key, again, is the single-mindedness of the individual channel controllers.  The layman's approach to designs like this is often to lump the whole control problem together into a single monolithic solution.  The engineer decouples and disentangles until he's left with a set of individual problems, each of which is individually simple to understand and address.

The secret is that these cross-control scenarios, where a commanded pitch maneuver might have residual consequences in roll and/or yaw, are the rule, not the exception.  Remember I said it is not possible to have a fixed RCS installation that is also ideal for all control axes.  With careful mechanical design you can minimize those residuals.  But the student needs to be vigorously disabused of the notion that RCS systems he will actually design and build, and which will actually fly on spacecraft, exhibit any of the abstract niceties we allude to in illustrative drawings.  Even very simple commanded actions will produce "impure" patterns of thruster fire.

Now we're not disregarding the significance of degraded performance or out-of-tolerance inputs.  The generalized guidance solution presumes limits on moments, whether imposed or commanded.  When we can predict them, we can set reasonable design requirements.  But those requirements presume what we're trying to do.  Performance that's required to land safely on the Moon is allowed to be higher than other levels of performance the design can meet which are concerned merely with survival.  You might, for example, need to use the LM to control the docked CSM/LM stack, something it wasn't intended to do.  You can "control" it, but not very well.  Certainly not well enough to do all the things you originally built the spaceship to do.  But maybe well enough to get home, which is not necessarily as hard a problem.  Similarly a damaged LM RCS might not be up to snuff if the requirement is to make a pinpoint landing on the Moon.  But it can satisfy the requirements of getting to any stable abort orbit so that the CSM can swoop down and rescue it.  Not all the engineering of Apollo went into assuring mission success at all costs.  Much more of it, in fact, went into being able to recover non-fatally from missions that fail.  You fly six or seven missions so that not every one of them has to succeed.  And if something happens that violates a mission rule (e.g., "You must have all 16 RCS jets functioning on the LM prior to DOI") then you still have reserve capacity to get home.  Not to fly loop-de-loops, but to get home.

Quote
...how did the RCS's nozzles not get torn off the Saturn on liftoff.

As previously stated, because they were in the turbulent boundary layer separation zone.  They required no fairings.

Quote
...those small nozzle cups facing up not to get torn off.

How far did you take the mathematics of this concern to convince yourself it would be a problem?  Did you do any calculations?  Or did you just look at the picture and jump to a conclusion? 

Quote
Even if they were not torn off, they could have been easily damaged or compromised.

How easily?  In what kind of scenario?  By what anticipated cause?

Engineering -- especially aerospace engineering -- is not merely unbridled alarmism.  One doesn't provide corrections for conditions that aren't a problem, because the corrections themselves often bring parasitical problems along with them that you could avoid by simply tolerating the condition.

It's easy to find pictures of these jets.  If you live near San Diego, you can see one in person.  And a lucky few like me, who practice the profession, have held them and hefted them in our hands, and consequently have a very visceral understanding of how robust they are.  I seriously believe I could hammer a nail with one.  Ram air gets choked at the nozzle throat, so the structure behind it is relatively protected.  The diaphragms of the solenoid valves are deep inside tubes leading to the thrust chamber.  The only thing ram air would hit is the Inconel pre-ignition chamber, which is exceptionally robust.  (That's what they make jet engine turbines out of.)  And that's really the bottom line:  even if the RCS jet were in the laminar flow -- which it isn't -- that's nothing compared to thermal, shock, and pressure abuse it takes simply by doing its job as a rocket motor.

So let's say that we provide a jettisonable fairing for it out of an abundance of caution.  That then becomes yet another thing that has to work perfectly for the mission to proceed.  The RCS jet is protected against the extremely unlikely event of its being damaged during boost, but then what if it won't pop off on command?  Mission rules say you need all 16 SM RCS jets working in order to go to the Moon, because you might need full CSM maneuverability to rescue the LM, or to align yourself precisely for LOI-1,2 and TEI.  So with that snafu you'd have to simply come home.  That would also be true if you lost an unprotected jet on ascent, but that doesn't ever happen.  That's to say, it happens seldom enough that that's the acceptable risk, over the correct performance of an RCS shroud.

Quote
That seems quite the risk NASA took given the RCS's had no backups.

Or perhaps your assessment of risk suffers from an alarmist view of the circumstances and your inability to see the full ingenuity of the solutions these professional engineers at the tops of their careers came up with, in an industrial era dubbed the Golden Age of Aerospace.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 14, 2018, 03:44:58 PM
Hi Guys,
I respect your opinions. I believe a crater like the one seen in A17 could cause a significant issue. I also believe a pilot would not deliberately land this close to a crater given a choice. That says to me they had a visibility problem. Others obviously feel differently. No big deal. Just wanted to point it out as example of what I believe is LM visibility problem.

I am actually interested in everyone's thoughts of those A17 photos. I reattached the first two I posted. I believe it shows everything you need to make a proper assessment of the legitimacy of A17 photos. Pay particular attention to the crater, the footprints in the foreground, the footprints in the background, background rocks and the hills, and especially the fender on the ground in the background (to the left of LM leg halfway back in the background). (And before anyone suggests that isn't a fender, there are many hi Res colour pics that show it to be a fender)

 I have attached another photo to help everyone along. It is from A17 EVA 1. It should get you started on a journey. Take your time, be diligent and be cognizant of Mission timelines.  I appreciate well reasoned responses even if it goes against my thoughts.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 14, 2018, 04:12:43 PM
jr:  What on Earth are you calling "fenders".  I have looked at 360 degree images of the lander and I don't see what you are calling fenders?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 14, 2018, 04:23:37 PM
Hi bknight,

The fender I am referring to is a fender off the land rover not the LM. The fender is laying on the ground in the background slightly to the left of the LM leg.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 14, 2018, 04:27:54 PM
The fender I am referring to is a fender off the land rover not the LM.

I assume you mean the lunar rover, the LRV.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: BertieSlack on December 14, 2018, 04:29:38 PM
background rocks and the hills

The 'hill' in the background is Bear Mountain. It's about 3 miles away.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 14, 2018, 04:41:36 PM
Hi Jay,

You are right. Lunar Rover. It’s funny, When I was writing it I was saying in my head this isn’t right. Brain freeze. I am getting too old.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 14, 2018, 04:44:50 PM
Hi bknight,

The fender I am referring to is a fender off the land rover not the LM. The fender is laying on the ground in the background slightly to the left of the LM leg.


What is the number of the image?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 14, 2018, 04:57:37 PM
Hi bk,

The first two photos are from magazine 147, photo 22515 et al. This magazine also has a series of strip down lunar rover pics where the rover goes for a quick test spin. These are central to this discussion. (The fender is in the background on some of these pics) The final photo I posted has the pic number in jpg description.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: BertieSlack on December 14, 2018, 05:00:17 PM
I have attached another photo to help everyone along.

It's part of a pan Gene took at the SEP site: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17pan1230624.jpg

Please, go ahead - make a clown of yourself. I look forward to a good laugh.


Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 14, 2018, 05:45:20 PM
I believe a crater like the one seen in A17 could cause a significant issue.

And that belief has what evidentiary value?

Quote
I also believe a pilot would not deliberately land this close to a crater given a choice.

And that belief has what evidentiary value?  One of the more common approaches hoax claimants have used here is essentially "I would have done it differently."  That sort of reasoning spectacularly fails to convince us that there must have been something suspicious about the Apollo program.  You aren't a lunar module pilot, and you certainly weren't Gene Cernan at that time and place.

What Cernan said in the debriefing is that he deliberately curtailed his forward movement because the terrain ahead of him was even more forbidding, not in terms of craters but of hills and hummocks that might have exceeded the LM's touchdown terrain angle.  In terms of your analysis, it seems he wasn't given the choice.

Quote
That says to me they had a visibility problem.

Except that Cernan specifically said he had excellent visibility during the P66 landing.  The fact is that the LM didn't land in a crater.  You're trying to tell us, based on your personal impressions, that this had to have been a near-accident instead of precise flying from a highly-trained and experienced pilot.

Quote
Others obviously feel differently. No big deal. Just wanted to point it out as example of what I believe is LM visibility problem.

Your belief is based on no data, and in fact is contradicted by the testimony of people who were there.  Your belief is simply an uninformed opinion.  Now you tell us you know it's just your opinion and that other people will have different ones.  Yet you seem eager for people to take some sort of "journey" based on your impressions.  Why should anyone?  It comes off as a sort of passive-aggressive argument that there "really" was some sort of critical flaw in the LM cockpit design that made it hard to fly.

Have you ever been in an Apollo lunar module?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jfb on December 14, 2018, 06:18:24 PM
Okay, I've looked at the pictures again.  What "unsettling conclusions" should I come to?

Absent any numbers that show how far away the crater actually was, what the tilt angle would have been had the LM put a foot down in it, etc., you're just guessing.  I mean, based on the angle of view, I'd guess that the crater was a good 5 to 8 meters away from the footpads.  Close, yeah, but not right next to.  Also based on that angle of view, I'd guess that the floor of the crater wasn't significantly lower than the ground the other footpads were on (and certainly not several feet deep). 

But again, that's all guessing.  Which is all you are doing.  And, sorry, I'm not gonna trust your gut on this. 

The LM was designed to land on uneven terrain, up to a certain tolerance.  Test articles were built and drop-tested to characterize what it could handle.  Crews trained for months in simulators to handle off-nominal landing situations.  Nobody expected to land on a tabletop surface.  The LM was designed to tolerate some tilt (up to 12 degrees, I think), the legs were designed to absorb some impact on touchdown, etc.  If you can provide numbers that show this particular crater really was outside the tolerance the LM was designed for, then we'll talk.  Otherwise, you're just arguing from incredulity, which is ... not convincing. 
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 14, 2018, 06:18:44 PM
Hi Jay,

While it is evident I have doubts about things, I never suggested the actual LM landings were hoaxed. I only pointed out that the LM seemed to have less than optimal visibility. Just an opinion.

As far as being passive aggressive, I am just trying not alienate myself from everyone as being seen as "hunchbacked", flat earth, firmament, alien moon base crackpot. Believe me, I am trying only to ask reasonable questions.

Humor me. Take a look at the Apollo 17 photos. This is ultimately what led me to the uncertainties/doubts I have now.

 

Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 14, 2018, 06:27:34 PM
Hi jfb,

The third picture I attached shows the footpad (in a small crater) about 2-3 feet from the ridge of the much larger crater not 5-8 meters as you suggest.

The unsettling conclusions have nothing to do with the LM landing. It has to do with everything you see in those pics versus other photos from A17. (my recent posts give some direction on where to start to look.)
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 14, 2018, 06:53:17 PM
Hi, thanks again for the responses. But I have to say it is disheartening to see some responses. I am aware, myself included, we all have certain predispositions. But it is deflating to see immediate responses that clearly show no considered thought. I ask a simple (and I think reasonable ) question regarding RCS engines on the side of the CM. Immediately I am told they were covered. Are people not aware there are many photos on liftoff showing the exact opposite?

This was noted and corrected, and discussed at length before you returned to this thread. Why bring it up again instead of just dealing with the actual answer to the query that was eventually provided?

Quote
I can't even get anyone admit that Apollo 17 landed beside a crater.

That is another misrepresentation. What you can't get from anyone is a blind acknowledgement that Apollo 17 landed beside a crater that would have caused a fatal accident.

Quote
And again, I am 100 percent certain that Cernan (or anyone for that matter) would not intentionally land that close to a crater. So either Cernan (or Schimitt?) is very bad pilot or their visibility was extremely impaired.

Or your certainty is wrong. What is it based on? Have you met Cernan or Schmitt? Have you read their debriefings? Or is it simply that you wouldn't have done what they did? If so, why should they be under any obligation to do what you think they should have done? THey were landing on a surface that is cratered at every scale. THey had no choice but to land 'near' a crater. The size is the issue, and no-one here sees any proble with the size of that crater.

Quote
People, (including many here I'm sure), would point out the engines were thrusting (including heat) directly on the lower stage of LM. That certainly would raise many questions.

Actually one of the things that would strike me about it would be the rather toxic and corrosive nature of some of the propellants and their combustion products coating the regions of the descent stage the astronauts would be working on. However, as I have already pointed out, without the plume deflectors the engines are not thrusting directly onto the LM at all. The axis of thrust passes by the octagonal descent stage. ONly the wider dispersing combustion products would be impinging onto the LM itself as they spread out in a vaccum, and that's a tiny fraction of the actual thrust.

But on the subject, I noticed you have not responded to the reply I gave to your question about a vehicle that thrusts back onto itself. There's one kind of vehicle that does exactly that and has been flying successfully in large numbers for decades.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Obviousman on December 14, 2018, 07:00:21 PM
That says to me they had a visibility problem. Others obviously feel differently. No big deal. Just wanted to point it out as example of what I believe is LM visibility problem.

Have you ever stood inside the LM / LM simulator and looked outside through those windows, seeing what the visibility is like? I have, and I am sure a few others here have.

If you are interested in how they were constructed, this has good technical detail:

https://dodlithr.blogspot.com/2012/07/lunar-module-windows.html

And if you think that the vision provided was not sufficient to land the LM, just consider that some of the X-15 pilots had a tiny slit to land a craft such as the X-15 at about 240 mph.

(http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/research/x15/x15_05.jpg)

In the image above, the window on the left was blocked through debris from the ablative material applied to the aircraft. The right window had 'flaps' on it that could be opened after the high-speed flight, giving a tiny - but adequate - view for landing.

I think you don't give credit to the Apollo crew's great skills and substantial training they went through for the missions.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 14, 2018, 07:00:46 PM
Hi Guys,
I respect your opinions. I believe a crater like the one seen in A17 could cause a significant issue.

WHy believe? Calculate and show. You know how big the LM is, and you can estimate the depth of the crater. What would be the effect of landing with one leg in that crater other than the LM being tipped back a bit? Incidentally, Apollo 15 did exactly what you said would be disastrous and landed with one leg in a crater. The LM tipped back and the engine bell hit the ground. Not catastrophic at all.

Quote
I also believe a pilot would not deliberately land this close to a crater given a choice.

Maybe not, but did he have much of a choice? You're talking about the actions of two men, one of whom only died recently and the other of whom is still alive, who have been discussing this for decades. What is your belief based on other than your personal incredulity?

Quote
That says to me they had a visibility problem. Others obviously feel differently. No big deal. Just wanted to point it out as example of what I believe is LM visibility problem.

One that has been explicitly refuted by people who actually flew the thing, and people who designed it, and people who have been inside one, or a mockup of one. Have you ever stood in a life-size relica of a LM and seen how those windows worked in terms of visibility?

Quote
I am actually interested in everyone's thoughts of those A17 photos. I reattached the first two I posted. I believe it shows everything you need to make a proper assessment of the legitimacy of A17 photos. Pay particular attention to the crater, the footprints in the foreground, the footprints in the background, background rocks and the hills, and especially the fender on the ground in the background (to the left of LM leg halfway back in the background). (And before anyone suggests that isn't a fender, there are many hi Res colour pics that show it to be a fender)

I feel the need to point out at this stage that some of us have been here for decades. We will not play this game, If you have specific concern about the images then present them. Don't expect us to jump through your vague hoops. Many of us are intimately familiar with this record and have been examinaing it for a very long time. Bring your arguments to the table or abandon the discussion.

Quote
I appreciate well reasoned responses even if it goes against my thoughts.

You have already demonstrated this is not true since you stil insist the plume deflectors are an issue despite several lengthy posts explaining in some detail why this is just not the case.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 14, 2018, 07:03:27 PM
While it is evident I have doubts about things, I never suggested the actual LM landings were hoaxed. I only pointed out that the LM seemed to have less than optimal visibility. Just an opinion.

DOn't play the semantics game here, it won't wash. You are very clearly implying the landing were hoaxed or else suspect in some way. Just because you haven't explicitly stated it doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to defend that position.

Quote
Believe me, I am trying only to ask reasonable questions.

We will believe you a lot mre if you actually represent the responses you have been given correctly and acknowledge the lengthy expert explanations you have been given as to why your opinions are based on flawed premises.

Quote
Humor me. Take a look at the Apollo 17 photos. This is ultimately what led me to the uncertainties/doubts I have now.

AGain, we have looked at them. If you have specfic concerns then bring them here. No guessing games.

 


[/quote]
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 14, 2018, 07:09:47 PM
I only pointed out that the LM seemed to have less than optimal visibility. Just an opinion.

Of course it has "less than optimal" visibility, just as many practical vehicles have "less that optimal" visibility, or "less than optimal" turning radius, or "less than optimal" fuel efficiency.  "Less than optimal" is a ubiquitous condition in any engineered product, for any criterion.  That is because engineering is mostly the study of balancing competing concerns.  Nothing ends up optimal, for good reason.  The question is why this particular suboptimality matters, and why you keep returning to it again and again as if it means something.

And don't think we didn't see the goalposts move just then.  There's a big difference between the "visibility problem" you've been asserting up until now and the "less than optimal" visibility you backpedaled to on this post.  If you want to revise your argument, please do so.  But don't try to sneak it under the radar.  State it explicitly and openly.  Otherwise it makes it very hard to argue that you're just asking honest and reasonable questions.

Quote
Believe me, I am trying only to ask reasonable questions.

It would be easier to believe you if you were to stop dismissing the answers in favor of belaboring your beliefs, surreptitiously rewriting your arguments, and misrepresenting your interlocutors.

Quote
Humor me. Take a look at the Apollo 17 photos. This is ultimately what led me to the uncertainties/doubts I have now.

You already have my answer.  Your "uncertainties/doubts" are based on assumptions and uninformed personal opinions that you refuse to let go of.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: VQ on December 14, 2018, 09:58:38 PM
Hi VQ,

I think you need perspective to understand the size of the crater. The strut supporting the LM leg is 4 feet 10 inches off the ground. Are you suggesting the main descent engine nozzle coming down on the raised crater edge would not have created a significant, if not, catastrophic outcome?

I did not say the A17 mission was a fabrication because they would not have landed that close to the crater. What I did say however is the pictures I attached if examined with the other A17 photos (particularly EVA1) you will come to some unsettling conclusions.

As others have noted, the LM leg is a poor yardstick because by design it collapsed on landing as a single-use shock absorber. One of the photos you posted showed the crater covered in footprints, which does provide a decent yardstick. Based on the footprints it's clearly a lot less than 3-4 feet deep, more of a gently sloped pothole. By inspection, I would say that it would have caused no life safety risk whatsoever: the LM was designed to land on quite alarming slopes without overturning, and even if it overturned, it would have done so slowly enough to allow an abort to orbit. And as others have also noted, contact of the engine bell to surface features at landing was minimally concerning - neither significant nor catastrophic. Remember, the engine was near minimum throttle at this point in the landing, and by design would have been shut off just above the surface to allow a short free fall.

You'll find that many posters here have minimal patience for wordplay regarding "I didn't say it was faked" or your innuendo regarding "unsettling conclusions".

Personally, I'd like to close out this particular line of discussion (including hearing a real reply to my question in reply #52) before we gallop on to some other concern you have.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Von_Smith on December 14, 2018, 10:17:32 PM

One poster did pose an interesting question regarding why NASA would have bothered adding deflectors if the whole thing is a fake. I gave that question some thought in the past. And I came to the conclusion, the alternative would have been worse. People, (including many here I'm sure), would point out the engines were thrusting (including heat) directly on the lower stage of LM. That certainly would raise many questions. They did it briefly without deflectors on prior missions but landing on the moon would bring a lot more eyes to the project.


You said in your original post that the deflectors were "problematic" and claimed that an MIT paper had suggested that they would create significant instabilities in anything other than perfect conditions.  Now you're suggesting that the deflectors would have been considered necessary by any competent observers, and so had to be there in order to fool them.  So which is it?  Are the deflectors what one would expect on a legit mission or not?  Are they features that "don't look right" or ones that look exactly the way they need to in order to fool the experts among the audience?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Dalhousie on December 14, 2018, 10:30:40 PM
And btw, given we are on the subject of RCS engines, how did the RCS's nozzles not get torn off the Saturn on liftoff. The LM's RCS's were covered but the RCS's on the CM were completely exposed. Max Q is 14km up. That is a long way up for those small nozzle cups facing up not to get torn off. Even if they were not torn off, they could have been easily damaged or compromised.  That seems quite the risk NASA took given the RCS's had no backups.  Regards jr.

Which is why they were under the boost protective cover (BPC).  If you don't understand something, ask.  Don't assume that the people who worked on Apollo were stupid or risk takers, or that you have discovered some inconsistent detail that proves it was fake.

The CSM RCS quads were not under the BPC, being about a third of the way down the side of the service module.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTIutbVddbNGezeX7Iupnt_-1-BkSqNrgLJQ7Q3IcYowgWQQoI)

 However, that doesn't mean they can't simply be engineered to be tough enough to survive those forces. That's the kind of detail that years of design and testing fixes....

Jason, I understood the question to have been about the thrusters on the CM, which jr Knowing specified. These were under the BCF, I think.

The RCS on the SM were a different matter

Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 14, 2018, 10:41:33 PM
The RCS on the SM were a different matter

Quite, actually.  When speaking of the integrated command and service modules, the acceptable abbreviation is CSM.  But when speaking of the RCS systems, there is no such thing as the CSM RCS.  There is the CM RCS, the SM RCS, and the LM RCS.  Jr Knowing specifically called out the "CM RCS," which means a specific thing.  And that specific thing was indeed under the boost protective cover.  This tempest in a teapot is ultimately the fault of precise (although wrong) terminology which some interpreted literally and others evidently corrected mentally.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: nomuse on December 15, 2018, 12:29:01 AM
Hi jfb,

The third picture I attached shows the footpad (in a small crater) about 2-3 feet from the ridge of the much larger crater not 5-8 meters as you suggest.

The unsettling conclusions have nothing to do with the LM landing. It has to do with everything you see in those pics versus other photos from A17. (my recent posts give some direction on where to start to look.)

I really hate to dive into the meta-discussion. But please look at it our way. There's a familiar profile that the vast majority of hoax proponents fit. Whatever your motives, whatever your intended approach, however you personally perceive your approach, you are fitting the profile sufficiently to make some of the people here uncomfortable.

At the risk of engaging in a long-winded and ultimately futile analogy, at the beginning of the James Bond novel "Man with the Golden Gun" Bond, who had been missing for over a year, shows up in London. He immediately heads for Fleet Street to get the kind of suit James Bond wears, to the shops to get the kind of tobacco James Bond smokes and the kind of liquor James Bond drinks, and even the kind of perfume James Bond wears. When he finally saunters in to report to M they have the bulletproof glass down and a guard waiting.

And, yes; pointing at a picture and calling it suspicious and refusing to explain why is exactly the sort of thing you don't want to do.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 15, 2018, 04:02:39 AM
First of all now that you've posted the images that are exercising you so I can see the crater to which you are referring and I apologise for accusing you of being mistaken.

That said the point is moot and my original observation remains: they did not land in that crater.

Here it is as viewed from the LRO:

(https://i.imgur.com/mkvG0zi.jpg)

If you know the dimensions of the LM ascent module you can work out exactly how far away it is from it.

You can just about make it out in the descent footage shot by the 16mm camera, it would have been visible to the crew at some point. I've highlighted approximately where it is on this screenshot of that footage:

(https://i.imgur.com/EsRizWH.jpg)

I'm afraid I am at a loss as to where you think the fender is in the image you posted, and cryptic comments are not helping you. If there are high resolution images showing it more clearly, show us them. At the risk of being overly crude, shit or get off the pot. Cut to the chase.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 15, 2018, 04:36:51 AM
Jason, I understood the question to have been about the thrusters on the CM, which jr Knowing specified. These were under the BCF, I think.

The RCS on the SM were a different matter

A good point. I interpreted it to be the SM RCS as they are the exposed ones, but yes, JR did refer to CM thrusters which were under the cover.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: BertieSlack on December 15, 2018, 04:44:03 AM
That said the point is moot and my original observation remains: they did not land in that crater.

By maintaining a little forward velocity Gene knew he wouldn't back into something he'd already flown over. You can hear Jack reminding gene to nudge the LM forward as the approach the ground. The audio from the other missions contain many such reminders. On Apollo 15 the blown dust obscured the ground to such an extent that Scott and Irwin didn't have any visual clues as to their +Z motion which is why the -Z footpad ended up in a shallow crater.

BTW - I'm pretty sure I know what JR's claim about AS17-134-20437 is going to be. It's approaching the Expattaffy level of silliness.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 15, 2018, 04:45:03 AM
Having looked around this morning, can I assume that the feature I've circled in red is the alleged fender?

(https://i.imgur.com/iR2ia0Q.jpg)

It's to the right of the LRV, that would be the thing with the 4 bright red fenders.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 15, 2018, 05:32:39 AM
This is (I believe) the same feature in AS17-140-21373:

(https://i.imgur.com/dbJEeG9.jpg)

and in close up:

(https://i.imgur.com/iQbFcqj.jpg)

Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: BertieSlack on December 15, 2018, 05:49:52 AM
This is (I believe) the same feature in AS17-140-21373:

I just found that too. Not a fender. It appears in Jack's 4 o'clock LM pan before Gene went for a test drive. Maybe something Gene discarded when he ran over to Poppie after he came down the ladder. It's right next to his trail to Poppie.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 15, 2018, 07:38:02 AM
This is (I believe) the same feature in AS17-140-21373:

I just found that too. Not a fender. It appears in Jack's 4 o'clock LM pan before Gene went for a test drive. Maybe something Gene discarded when he ran over to Poppie after he came down the ladder. It's right next to his trail to Poppie.

In between landing and taking the photo they had also opened up the MESA and unloaded the LRV. Quite a lot of material kicking around from both of those things I would imagine.

There's another pan he took on EVA 2

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17pan1410123.jpg

Where he's stood pretty much on that spot.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 15, 2018, 09:28:22 AM
Whatever it is also features in the live TV. This still I just took from apollo17.org's video is at maximum zoom

(https://i.imgur.com/Jx34LTk.jpg)

By maximum zoom I mean that Ed Fendell picks it out and zooms in on it. Ponder that for a moment.

Shortly after this the fender (one of the 4 still mounted on the LRV) does actually break.

It's also worth pointing out these observations from the crew:

Quote
117:11:30 Cernan: Jack, I'm out here. Oh, my golly! Unbelievable! Unbelievable; but is it bright in the Sun. (Pause) Okay! We landed in a very shallow depression. That's why we've got a slight pitch-up angle. (It's a) very shallow, dinner-plate-like, dish crater just about the width of the struts (meaning the total span of the landing gear). How you doing, Jack?

Quote
117:14:20 Cernan: There's a small little 1-meter crater right in front of us with a whole mess of glass right in the middle. That's right in front of the MESA, as a matter of fact. Right where I want to park the Rover. Jack, you're looking good.

Quote
117:15:05 Cernan: Who said this place was smooth? Oh, boy! There's a lot of local depressions here I didn't figure existed.

Quote
117:15:21 Cernan: Hey, Bob, I'm east of the LM now. I'm east of the LM, and the back strut of the LM is...Well, the LM straddles this crater I talked about, and that's where we get the pitch angle; the back strut is probably right down in the eastern one-third of that crater. Just a very subtle crater.

Quote
117:16:08 Schmitt: You landed in a crater!

Quote
117:21:50 Cernan: Yeah. I don't think there is any place you could land around here where you wouldn't have one foot(pad) in a crater.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 15, 2018, 10:21:44 AM
By maintaining a little forward velocity Gene knew he wouldn't back into something he'd already flown over. You can har Jack reminding gene to nudge the LM forward as the approach the ground. The audio from the other missions contain many such reminders.

Cernan addresses this in the debriefing.  He said that when flying the LM visually in P66 a pilot naturally tended to let it drift backwards.  The pilot had to consciously coerce forward motion.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 15, 2018, 11:39:36 AM
Hi Everyone,

Yes that is the object I am talking about. It is a fender. There are Hi-Res pics that show it clearly with both its color and proper shape. (it isn't completely curved as some people may think.) The thing I would note here is according to transcripts they lost the fender during EVA 1 and didn't recover it. It should also be pointed out there is another object between the two foot paths near the fender. (Apollo surface journal says they have no idea what it is) One should also note the photos that show the striped down LR going for an initial test drive (with the fender in background) has all four fenders intact at the end photo.

Keep all this in mind with the two pictures I have attached to this post. It is one of the landing site and another of EVA 1. They are slightly oriented differently (maybe 30 degrees) and one is taken from a higher vantage point. I have numbered certain features. (I would suggest using Hi-Res)

1. Small crater in front of subject crater. Notice the straight edge of the bottom of the crater created by the tire track. Also take note of patterns/rocks/shadows within this small crater.

2. Subject crater with smaller attached satellite crater to the left.

3. rock and shadow behind/left of satellite crater.

4. Distinctive shaped rock/shadow to the right of what appears an indentation. Second picture same distinctive rock but now a rock has been added above the indentation. Also note the foot trail behind.

5. In one pic it is an indentation, in the other a large rock has been added.

6.Large rock. Same in both.

7. In one picture it is a set a tire tracks. (including a tire track in the foreground up against the subject crater). In the second photo, it is foot tracks that seem to follow a very similar path. Note the zig zag around rock six. Also if you are wondering about the two visible craters beside the number 7 in the one photo and not the other. They are there. If you download the hi-res pic they show up clearly even from the lower vantage point of photo. (you can see them somewhat even on this pic, directly below the number 6)

8. In one photo it shows an indentation. In The other photo, two rocks have been added. Take note of the foot prints around these two rocks.

Not marked. but should be noted are the Hills in the background.

I have many more photos to show the similarities. (These photos are AS17-134-20437 and AS17-147-22514.) But, to me, it appears EVA 1 was done first and then the landing site. The site was re-dressed somewhat and the tire tracks were just literally walked over. What are the odds of the tire tracks and foot paths having such similar characteristics? (Btw,There are some good photos of the foot print trails out by rock 6. Take a look at the amount of shoe prints.)

What are people's thoughts?  Please be gentle.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 15, 2018, 11:55:11 AM
The site was re-dressed somewhat...

So you are claiming it was faked?

Quote
Please be gentle.

Please be honest.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 15, 2018, 12:03:39 PM
Hi Everyone,

Yes that is the object I am talking about. It is a fender. There are Hi-Res pics that show it clearly with both its color and proper shape. (it isn't completely curved as some people may think.) The thing I would note here is according to transcripts they lost the fender during EVA 1 and didn't recover it. It should also be pointed out there is another object between the two foot paths near the fender. (Apollo surface journal says they have no idea what it is) One should also note the photos that show the striped down LR going for an initial test drive (with the fender in background) has all four fenders intact at the end photo.

It is not a fender. you insisting it is a fender does not make it a fender.

Quote
Keep all this in mind with the two pictures I have attached to this post. It is one of the landing site and another of EVA 1. They are slightly oriented differently (maybe 30 degrees) and one is taken from a higher vantage point. I have numbered certain features. (I would suggest using Hi-Res)

1. Small crater in front of subject crater. Notice the straight edge of the bottom of the crater created by the tire track. Also take note of patterns/rocks/shadows within this small crater.

2. Subject crater with smaller attached satellite crater to the left.

3. rock and shadow behind/left of satellite crater.

4. Distinctive shaped rock/shadow to the right of what appears an indentation. Second picture same distinctive rock but now a rock has been added above the indentation. Also note the foot trail behind.

5. In one pic it is an indentation, in the other a large rock has been added.

6.Large rock. Same in both.

7. In one picture it is a set a tire tracks. (including a tire track in the foreground up against the subject crater). In the second photo, it is foot tracks that seem to follow a very similar path. Note the zig zag around rock six. Also if you are wondering about the two visible craters beside the number 7 in the one photo and not the other. They are there. If you download the hi-res pic they show up clearly even from the lower vantage point of photo. (you can see them somewhat even on this pic, directly below the number 6)

8. In one photo it shows an indentation. In The other photo, two rocks have been added. Take note of the foot prints around these two rocks.

Not marked. but should be noted are the Hills in the background.

I have many more photos to show the similarities. (These photos are AS17-134-20437 and AS17-147-22514.) But, to me, it appears EVA 1 was done first and then the landing site. The site was re-dressed somewhat and the tire tracks were just literally walked over. What are the odds of the tire tracks and foot paths having such similar characteristics? (Btw,There are some good photos of the foot print trails out by rock 6. Take a look at the amount of shoe prints.)

What are people's thoughts?  Please be gentle.

Nope. Completely wrong. You are looking at photographs from two completely different locations. AS17-134-20437 was taken at the SEP site. It is part of this pan:

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17pan1230624HR.jpg

Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 15, 2018, 12:11:38 PM
Hi OneBigMonkey,

Yes, I have all the pans. I realize they are suppose to be from two different sites. But it doesn't change the fact, if you look carefully at the photos I attached something doesn't appear right. Please download the hi-res pics and look for your self. The three craters in the foreground (the main crater, the attached satellite crater and the crater in front of the main crater), alone should give you pause and at least make you want to investigate further.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 15, 2018, 12:22:24 PM
I realize they are suppose to be from two different sites. But it doesn't change the fact, if you look carefully at the photos I attached something doesn't appear right.

Not a fact.

Quote
Please download the hi-res pics and look for your self.  ...[Y]ou want to investigate further.

Present an argument that assumes everyone already has, and that they disagree with your interpretation.  Rampant question-begging doesn't convince anyone.  We've already shown that your assumptions are rarely correct.  Why should this be a different case?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 15, 2018, 12:35:14 PM
Hi Jay,

I understand you are scepticism. I have attached a few of the "fender" pics. I wish I could post Hi-Res because it will show it pretty clearly. Even on one of the Space journals they suggest it is a fender.

Please take a look at those comparison pics I posted. Like I said, even if you look at the craters in the foreground, it should give you pause and make you want to dig a bit deeper. It did me.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 15, 2018, 12:37:54 PM
Hi Everyone,

Yes that is the object I am talking about. It is a fender. There are Hi-Res pics that show it clearly with both its color and proper shape. (it isn't completely curved as some people may think.) The thing I would note here is according to transcripts they lost the fender during EVA 1 and didn't recover it. It should also be pointed out there is another object between the two foot paths near the fender. (Apollo surface journal says they have no idea what it is) One should also note the photos that show the striped down LR going for an initial test drive (with the fender in background) has all four fenders intact at the end photo.

Keep all this in mind with the two pictures I have attached to this post. It is one of the landing site and another of EVA 1. They are slightly oriented differently (maybe 30 degrees) and one is taken from a higher vantage point. I have numbered certain features. (I would suggest using Hi-Res)

1. Small crater in front of subject crater. Notice the straight edge of the bottom of the crater created by the tire track. Also take note of patterns/rocks/shadows within this small crater.

2. Subject crater with smaller attached satellite crater to the left.

3. rock and shadow behind/left of satellite crater.

4. Distinctive shaped rock/shadow to the right of what appears an indentation. Second picture same distinctive rock but now a rock has been added above the indentation. Also note the foot trail behind.

5. In one pic it is an indentation, in the other a large rock has been added.

6.Large rock. Same in both.

7. In one picture it is a set a tire tracks. (including a tire track in the foreground up against the subject crater). In the second photo, it is foot tracks that seem to follow a very similar path. Note the zig zag around rock six. Also if you are wondering about the two visible craters beside the number 7 in the one photo and not the other. They are there. If you download the hi-res pic they show up clearly even from the lower vantage point of photo. (you can see them somewhat even on this pic, directly below the number 6)

8. In one photo it shows an indentation. In The other photo, two rocks have been added. Take note of the foot prints around these two rocks.

Not marked. but should be noted are the Hills in the background.

I have many more photos to show the similarities. (These photos are AS17-134-20437 and AS17-147-22514.) But, to me, it appears EVA 1 was done first and then the landing site. The site was re-dressed somewhat and the tire tracks were just literally walked over. What are the odds of the tire tracks and foot paths having such similar characteristics? (Btw,There are some good photos of the foot print trails out by rock 6. Take a look at the amount of shoe prints.)

What are people's thoughts?  Please be gentle.

I have to disagree with you That 4 o'clock pan during EVA-1 shows any fender.  I have reviewed ll the pan images.   117:45:47-117:47:43  AS17-147-22497--AS17-147-22526  and then takes an images or the LRV with Gene driving and all four fenders are in tact.(AS17-147-22527).
Now I'm not saying you didn't see a fender but not in this sequence.  Another image number?

ETA: With your more complete description, I did find the number AS17-147-22525(part of 4 o'clock pan).  Yes there is a fender laying on the ground.  So what point were/are you trying to make with a missing fender?  It is really easy to post Hi-Res images.  from previous image AS17-147-22525:

https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22525HR.jpg
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 15, 2018, 12:44:52 PM
I understand you are scepticism.

No, you don't understand my skepticism at all.

Quote
...make you want to dig a bit deeper.

If you understood my skepticism, you would have provided the argument I asked for.  Instead you just keep begging some vague question.  State clearly what you believe to have happened, and show clearly how the evidence points to that conclusion.  Quit playing games.

Quote
It did me.

Irrelevant.  You've given your critics here plenty of reasons to distrust your motives, skill, and methods.  Hence do not suggest we should rely on any of that.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 15, 2018, 12:46:05 PM
Hi OneBigMonkey,

Yes, I have all the pans. I realize they are suppose to be from two different sites. But it doesn't change the fact, if you look carefully at the photos I attached something doesn't appear right. Please download the hi-res pics and look for your self. The three craters in the foreground (the main crater, the attached satellite crater and the crater in front of the main crater), alone should give you pause and at least make you want to investigate further.

You need to rid of yourself of this idea you have that you are the only one who has looked at these images properly. You are not the only person who has ever studied Apollo images carefully, and you are also not the first person to make a fool of themselves by mistaking something in them for something else. This is what you have repeatedly done here.

The images are from completely different locations. The location of the first photograph you posted can be seen in the panorama that contains the second - here it is with the same rock identified amongst the tracks leading to Poppie crater:

(https://i.imgur.com/9kZlen1.jpg)

If you think they are from the same location then why not try lining up the mountains in the background and see what happens:

(https://i.imgur.com/21AwQmR.gif)

I have aligned that image on one slope of the hills in the background. If you actually look closely, instead of claiming that you have, you will see that they do not match up at all. The reason for that is because they are photographed from a different perspective.



Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 15, 2018, 12:46:27 PM
Yes, I have all the pans. I realize they are suppose to be from two different sites. But it doesn't change the fact, if you look carefully at the photos I attached something doesn't appear right.

So are you contending that these are supposed to be two different sites but are actually the same set slightly redressed? What exactly draws you to this conclusion?

Simple questions. Give simple answers.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 15, 2018, 12:57:50 PM
Hi Jason,

In reply #91 I posted two pics in which I have highlighted/numbered similar features. Just look at the three craters in the foreground of each pic and go from there.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 15, 2018, 01:07:36 PM
In reply #91 I posted two pics in which I have highlighted/numbered similar features.

Describe how you determined they were identical rather than merely similar.

Quote
Just look at the three craters in the foreground of each pic and go from there.

No, that's not how investigation works.  You've obviously gone somewhere specific and arrived at a specific conclusion.  Explain the details of your line of reasoning.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 15, 2018, 01:24:57 PM
Hi Jason,

In reply #91 I posted two pics in which I have highlighted/numbered similar features. Just look at the three craters in the foreground of each pic and go from there.

Similar does not equal the same. They are different features in different locations.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 15, 2018, 01:43:23 PM
Hi OneBigMonkey,

I hesitate to say anything at the risk of being seen as crackpot, but if there is something to what I am saying then why would that far off picture of the LM "exist"in which you point out the rock? If, even if it is a million to one, the EVA and LM site are one in the same then could that not be some Matte painting? Look at how the LM looks. It looks very vivid and the colors look off. Again don't destroy me. I am just pointing out how evidence might not always be fully trust worthy.

I am not quite sure about what you are trying to show with the pair comparison.  They were shot from significantly different angles and height. Even then, despite what you are saying, they actually line up pretty good. I think you are being confused by the dark band of land just below the hills. If you follow the footprints/tracks out to where they disappear in background you will see it is darker band of ground/hill that changes. You see this transition from flat ground to hills/horizon in many pics particularly the later missions. That band changes everything else remains fairly static. I will leave it to another day to explain what I think is going on. I rather concentrate on the comparisons between the two sites for now. As some posters have pointed out, we need to stick to one topic at a time.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 15, 2018, 01:57:43 PM
I hesitate to say anything at the risk of being seen as crackpot...

You're more likely to be regarded a crackpot while you keep playing games.  If you want to avoid that impression, state your conclusions clearly and unambiguously, and describe in detail the line of reasoning that led you there.  Then respond conscientiously to questions from those whose input you have come here to obtain.

Quote
It looks very vivid and the colors look off.

And what do you think this means?  Describe the process you used to determine what the proper colors should be, and to investigate the ways in which the photos you're using might have rendered them differently.

Quote
Again don't destroy me.

Quit playing games, and you will be treated fairly and respectfully.

Quote
I am just pointing out how evidence might not always be fully trust worthy.

So far your approach to the evidence has simply been to measure it against your vague or incorrect assumptions and ignore contrary facts.  You can "point out" whatever you like, but you can't seem to make a case that your conclusions are anything other than poorly-informed opinions and assumptions.

Quote
...pretty good.
...fairly static.

You seem to be parlaying mere similarity as if it were identicality.  Please describe the process you used to determine that things you argue to be identical are just so, and not simply similar.

Quote
I will leave it to another day to explain what I think is going on.

Then you have no business soliciting others' opinions.  You clearly have a line of reasoning and a conclusion in mind, and you clearly want others to somehow guess what it is.  Refusing to state it is one of the games that brand you a crackpot.

Quote
As some posters have pointed out, we need to stick to one topic at a time.

A fine time to be trying to stick to the topic.  You're waffling on about the Apollo 17 landing site when the thread is supposedly about the plume deflectors.  So now that we've raised the issue of relevance, do you concede that you were wrong about the plume deflectors?  Do you concede that you were wrong about the SM RCS jets?  This is a test of your honesty.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: BertieSlack on December 15, 2018, 01:58:28 PM
The images are from completely different locations. The location of the first photograph you posted can be seen in the panorama that contains the second - here it is with the same rock identified amongst the tracks leading to Poppie crater:

(https://i.imgur.com/9kZlen1.jpg)


You beat me too it. Gene's tracks south to Poppie - and the rock next the tracks - are clearly visible in both panoramas conclusively showing that JR Knewing actually shot himself.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 15, 2018, 02:00:15 PM
Hi Bknight,

I am glad you see the fender. The location and timing is problematic. The fender was lost supposedly during EVA SEP location. The fender you see is at the LM site. And the fender is on the ground prior to the rover being driven. There are photos prior to the rover taking the test drive showing the fender on the ground.(no tire tracks anywhere)  And there are photos of the fender on the ground during test drive in which the rover still had all its fenders after the test drive.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: BertieSlack on December 15, 2018, 02:05:16 PM
Hi Bknight,

I am glad you see the fender.

It's not a fender.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 15, 2018, 02:18:55 PM
Hi OneBigMonkey,

I hesitate to say anything at the risk of being seen as crackpot,

That's not really working out for you.

Quote
but if there is something to what I am saying then why would that far off picture of the LM "exist"in which you point out the rock? If, even if it is a million to one, the EVA and LM site are one in the same then could that not be some Matte painting? Look at how the LM looks. It looks very vivid and the colors look off. Again don't destroy me. I am just pointing out how evidence might not always be fully trust worthy.

You have done nothing to demonstrate the that LM is a matte painting. The live TV footage and other images all back up the historical fact that Apollo 17 happened as recorded in the history books. Your apparent version of events has no supporting evidence other than "It looks funny to me".

Quote
I am not quite sure about what you are trying to show with the pair comparison.  They were shot from significantly different angles and height. Even then, despite what you are saying, they actually line up pretty good. I think you are being confused by the dark band of land just below the hills. If you follow the footprints/tracks out to where they disappear in background you will see it is darker band of ground/hill that changes. You see this transition from flat ground to hills/horizon in many pics particularly the later missions. That band changes everything else remains fairly static. I will leave it to another day to explain what I think is going on. I rather concentrate on the comparisons between the two sites for now. As some posters have pointed out, we need to stick to one topic at a time.

The two images were shot from two completely different locations. That is obvious from the gif comparison I did which shows that not one thing in the foreground, middle ground or background match up in them other than the line I arbitrarily chose to align them on. The reason for this is because they were taken at different places. They were not taken at different heights at all, save a few inches in astronaut dimensions. If you can't see that the two images are showing different things it's not because they aren't different, it's because you desperately don't want to.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 15, 2018, 02:21:44 PM
Hi Bknight,

I am glad you see the fender. The location and timing is problematic. The fender was lost supposedly during EVA SEP location. The fender you see is at the LM site. And the fender is on the ground prior to the rover being driven. There are photos prior to the rover taking the test drive showing the fender on the ground.(no tire tracks anywhere)  And there are photos of the fender on the ground during test drive in which the rover still had all its fenders after the test drive.

Nope
117:47:34 Cernan: Okay. Here we go. Okay. (Getting tongue-tied) The runt...the fright...the front wheels turn. I can't see the rear ones.
117:47:43 Schmitt: (Finishing the pan) I'll verify them in a minute.

You have decided it is out of sequence but reading the record the drive is taking place during the pan, the fender "fell" sometime during that interval look at https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22515HR.jpg  There appear to be rover tracks that lead up to the fender (perhaps backing up) then do not exist further.  And as for the image you say all then fenders are //history.nasa.gov/alsj/AS17-147-22527.jpg in place.  When if fact no one can see all of the fenders of the left hand wheels as they are hidden by the rover  You are stretching for conclusions without a full set of accompanying evidence. The fender issue is not an issue at all, unless you are preconceived that the mission images are fraud.  You are not just asking questions, you are telling us that there is evidence(which you really can't provide) that the missins were fake/frauds.  Come on now jus admit your are a HB and quit the games as Jay indicates.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 15, 2018, 02:26:10 PM
Hi Bknight,

I am glad you see the fender.

It's not a fender.

I completely agree. All the images of the rover on its first test drive taken shortly after the 4 o'clock pan show the fenders to be completely intact, and the first record of damage is after TV coverage starts. There is no mention of damage to the fenders when Gene and Jack are assembling the rover.

So, either some foolish movie tech left a spare piece of fender lying around and absolutely no-one on the set noticed at all or (bear with me here) it's not a fender. In the first photos by the OP it has an apparent curve in what would be the direction across the wheel but not in the direction around the wheel. It is too long to not be curved in that direction. Photographs from the other side of the LM show it to be much less fender-like and much more "some piece of trash kicked around during MESA and LRV deployment"-like.

So, either it's a piece of trash or NASA are really stupid. I know what my call is.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 15, 2018, 03:59:16 PM
Hi Everyone,

Jay et al, I am just trying to respect other people's beliefs. Clearly, as you can see, I am not part of "the band". I know I don't have a monopoly on truth. But neither does anyone else. Beliefs and truths are funny things. If beliefs were truths there would be at least 100 gods who created man. Trust me, there are many things that give me pause, such as the LRO pics, which makes me think I must be stupid to have these doubts. But there are things that keep nagging at me. If you want to brand me a hoaxer, fine. But I am here because you guys, if anybody, will give a reason(able) rebuttal.

BKnight, with regards to the fender. Either you attached the wrong pic, or you are proving my point. The pic you attached are not tire tracks beside the fender, they are foot prints. The fender is no where near any tire tracks. In fact, the documentation states this pic is prior to rover rollout.

Has anybody done an comparison analysis of the small crater directly in front of the large crater in the two site pics? (I have attached the pics once more. It is labelled no 1). Use high res pics (AS17-134-20437 and AS17-147-22514) and you will see the shape and patterns within the crater are very, very similar. There are a few other pics of the same small crater in the magazine sequences. I have attached another view of that small crater.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 15, 2018, 04:18:29 PM
Jay et al, I am just trying to respect other people's beliefs.

No, you aren't.  You're trying to draw your opponents into taking an affirmative position and defend the conventional narrative against some nebulous doubt you refuse to give substance.  I guarantee no one here will fall for it.  We've seen this act before, from nearly every hoax claimant.

Quote
Clearly, as you can see, I am not part of "the band".

No, your performance here has nothing to do with others' supposed groupthink.  You are simply playing the same games every hoax claimant does when avoiding intellectual responsibility.

Quote
I know I don't have a monopoly on truth. But neither does anyone else.

No, not everyone is equally hobbled.  As we demonstrated in the discussion of the plume deflectors and the RCS, your critics here know the relevant facts far better than you.  Your arguments are little more than ignorant assumptions and unfounded suppositions to which you cling despite having the truth explained patiently to you.

Quote
I must be stupid to have these doubts. But there are things that keep nagging at me.

No, you're not a sincere seeker after truth.  You've been told the truth, and you've demonstrated that you prefer your assumptions and "concerns."

Quote
If you want to brand me a hoaxer, fine.

No, it's not about "branding."  It's about you being honest regarding what you believe, why, and why you're here telling us about it.

Quote
But I am here because you guys, if anybody, will give a reason(able) rebuttal.

You were given reasonable rebuttals, which you ignored.  You were asked to acknowledge those rebuttals, and you pretended not to notice.  The willingness of others to engage you depends entirely on you being honest in your approach and methods.  So far you haven't been.

Quote
Has anybody done an comparison analysis of the small crater directly in front of the large crater in the two site pics?

Do not shift the burden of proof.  If you have a claim to make, make it and submit to questioning.  Do not bait others into having to state and defend some proposition.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 15, 2018, 04:34:26 PM
Notwithstanding Jay's comment, if you're going to suggest people do a crater comparison it'd help if you'd done one yourself:

(https://i.imgur.com/JAwx5kw.jpg)

Completely different.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: nomuse on December 15, 2018, 04:50:47 PM
Hi OneBigMonkey,

I hesitate to say anything at the risk of being seen as crackpot, but if there is something to what I am saying then why would that far off picture of the LM "exist"in which you point out the rock? If, even if it is a million to one, the EVA and LM site are one in the same then could that not be some Matte painting? Look at how the LM looks. It looks very vivid and the colors look off. Again don't destroy me. I am just pointing out how evidence might not always be fully trust worthy.

I am not quite sure about what you are trying to show with the pair comparison.  They were shot from significantly different angles and height. Even then, despite what you are saying, they actually line up pretty good. I think you are being confused by the dark band of land just below the hills. If you follow the footprints/tracks out to where they disappear in background you will see it is darker band of ground/hill that changes. You see this transition from flat ground to hills/horizon in many pics particularly the later missions. That band changes everything else remains fairly static. I will leave it to another day to explain what I think is going on. I rather concentrate on the comparisons between the two sites for now. As some posters have pointed out, we need to stick to one topic at a time.

"He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 15, 2018, 04:52:14 PM
Hi OneBigMonkey,

You are comparing the wrong two things. The pics on the right are correct. That is the small crater in front of the larger crater. The pics on the left look like the rock formation I numbered NO 3. I numbered the small crater no.1 in the comparison photos.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: nomuse on December 15, 2018, 05:04:57 PM
Of little importance. Given the detail density of the setting, is is completely plausible for two entirely different features to present identically in a select pair of images. What isn't plausible is that the pair of images you chose can be anything other than two views of fully a three dimensional terrain.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 15, 2018, 05:08:34 PM
Hi Jay,

I think you are being a bit unfair with me regarding demonstrating a high burden of proof.

I not critical of you when you state certain things without support. For instances, regarding the RCS nozzles you stated the nozzles were "within the zone of boundary layer separation, thus protecting them from the supersonic slipstream.  The discontinuity where the conical command module becomes the cylindrical service module causes the boundary layer of air there to separate from the side of the service module.  You can see this illustrated by condensation around the stack during transonic flight.  The air in the immediate vicinity of the RCS quads is turbulent, not in laminar flow at high velocity." You don't back that statement up with anything. I am fine with that. But it is helpful to me as it gives me some direction to an answer. (of course, I haven't found documentation yet of the Saturn that shows this but no biggie). To me, this all about fruitful discourse. I am not demanding concrete proof on things, just ideas and thoughts. And Given some of your answers, I don't profess to have your level of knowledge on some things. But I can hold my own on other things. Thanks.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 15, 2018, 05:18:38 PM
I think you are being a bit unfair with me...

No.  If you're going to play aerospace engineer and think that by doing so you can prove Apollo was fake, I will not hold back.  And I warned you earlier that I would not.  You can either come up to my standards or you can quit pretending to be something you're not.

Quote
You don't back that statement up with anything.

You mean other than my thirty years' experience in the field you're pretending to know about?  I told you what the phenomenon was.  I told you what caused it.  I told you how you could verify it for yourself.  Now you're telling me that you haven't, but somehow I'm at fault.

Quote
I am fine with that.

Then you should have no problem conceding that your concerns were unfounded.

Quote
To me, this all about fruitful discourse.

A discussion bears fruit when it arrives at a more reasoned conclusion than it started with.  You were unaware of the aerodynamics of the vehicle and of the mechanical strength of the thruster assembly.  You were similarly unaware of how stability is reckoned in spacecraft, and specifically how the plume deflectors were handled in that regard.  You were also unaware of launch-pad procedures.  Now you're aware of all that.  Reap the fruit by conceding you were mistaken.

Quote
I don't profess to have your level of knowledge on some things.

You might just as well, because all you offered in response earlier was a reassertion of your original assumptions, and all you're offering now is insubstantial denial.  And more than a little ham-fisted social engineering.

Quote
But I can hold my own on other things.

Such as?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: nomuse on December 15, 2018, 05:25:30 PM
Hi Jay,

I think you are being a bit unfair with me regarding demonstrating a high burden of proof.

I not critical of you when you state certain things without support. For instances, regarding the RCS nozzles you stated the nozzles were "within the zone of boundary layer separation, thus protecting them from the supersonic slipstream.  The discontinuity where the conical command module becomes the cylindrical service module causes the boundary layer of air there to separate from the side of the service module.  You can see this illustrated by condensation around the stack during transonic flight.  The air in the immediate vicinity of the RCS quads is turbulent, not in laminar flow at high velocity." You don't back that statement up with anything.

Let me stop you there. First, and trivially, Jay has outlined the evidence supporting his explanation (the condensation). Of course, this may not appear to some people to be supporting evidence. They may not understand that effect. They may have alternate explanations they wish to tender.

The important thing is that Jay's explanation is, if I may portray it that way, outward-pointing. He uses standard terminology and he illustrates with common events. In almost everything he says it is possible to crack open the books, do the tests, interview the people, or otherwise drill deeper into his explanation.

I am not an aerospace engineer. I have to take much of what Jay says on trust, but know this; in all those places where he is talking about fields I AM familiar with, he is in complete agreement with my experience. This gives me confidence that if I were to follow up and investigate more thoroughly those things he says that lie outside my direct experience, what I would find there would also be in agreement.

Other posters here are the same way. The core idea is not that the use big words or that they appear confident, but that they are TRANSPARENT. There is not a poster here who says, "trust me." Instead they say "THIS is what I find in THIS reference..." and they describe or even link to the reference.

The majority of claims presented by hoax believers -- and by you -- are not outward-pointing. They are internal and circular, and can not be explored in this manner.

I am fine with that. But it is helpful to me as it gives me some direction to an answer. (of course, I haven't found documentation yet of the Saturn that shows this but no biggie). To me, this all about fruitful discourse. I am not demanding concrete proof on things, just ideas and thoughts. And Given some of your answers, I don't profess to have your level of knowledge on some things. But I can hold my own on other things. Thanks.

And then you reverse yourself, or seem to, in your concluding paragraph. I'll leave my statement standing, however.

I will give you this credit; you are labeling your images. Far too many hoax believers insist on cropped, fifth-generation versions of lunar surface record and the first task is to determine the actual mission, cassette, and frame so both the best quality scan and proper provenience (and, in several unfortunate cases, provenance!) can be determined.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 15, 2018, 05:34:16 PM
Hi nomuse,

Well at least you called me partially intelligent (I think) and I am not regurgitating drivel from the internet. That's a start.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 15, 2018, 05:36:36 PM
Hi Everyone,

...

BKnight, with regards to the fender. Either you attached the wrong pic, or you are proving my point. The pic you attached are not tire tracks beside the fender, they are foot prints. The fender is no where near any tire tracks. In fact, the documentation states this pic is prior to rover rollout.

...
No, you are incorrect, or too hard headed to read and understand.  The pan was taken while Gene was testing the rover.
117:47:34 Cernan: Okay. Here we go. Okay. (Getting tongue-tied) The runt...the fright...the front wheels turn. I can't see the rear ones.
117:47:43 Schmitt: (Finishing the pan) I'll verify them in a minute.

https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22515HR.jpg was in fact part of the pan.

However, after much thought I must confess I was wrong it is not a fender piece.  All this discussion about being out of sequence is wrong and you are wrong.  You mentioned the LRO images gave you pause, what about them gives you pause?
I have another question, you haven't been listening to the willfully ignorant hunchbacked have you?  If so you should really pick better.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 15, 2018, 06:05:06 PM
Hi bknight,

I never suggested that pic wasn't part of a crew member pan (you might be confusing it with the post flight stitched together pans created by some). That pic is part of a crew member pan from Magazine 147 from pic 507-520 and occurs before the rover has even been removed from the LM. The fender (which you now say wasn't) is on the ground and their no tire tracks in a any of those pics. The test drive Lunar Rover PAN pics than come later in Magazine 147.

With regards to Hunchbacked, as I said before, I do not want to be seen in the same light as him. Even I agree he is completely clueless in most of what he puts out. As far as the LRO pics go, yes it is hard to dispute this recent evidence (unless there has been tampering) that shows proof of these landings. Having said this, I still have nagging concerns on some things.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Luke Pemberton on December 15, 2018, 06:35:46 PM
...I am not regurgitating drivel from the internet. That's a start.

No it's not. Having an original thought does not necessarily make something a start. If that original thought is based on false premises, then it's no sort of start. You're simply making an appeal to your own authority, when it is clearly evidenced here that you have been corrected by those with actual authority in the field of aerospace engineering.

I see you mention other nagging issues. Could you elaborate. It would appear that you are in doubt that the Saturn V operated as advertised, as you submit evidence of its flight to support your argument with regard to the RCS thrusters.

At what point do you believe the Apollo landings were faked and why? Are you a 'they made it to low Earth orbit' proponent? I'm not clear where your nagging concerns lie.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 15, 2018, 06:40:50 PM
I give up I posted the timeline twice and shows that the test drive was during the pan at 4 o'clock. 

Now if you say I confused then what picture number are you referring?  Because you posted 22515, now you're saying it was different?  Let me know which number it is.  Yes 22525 came after the pan was completed, but that was not my thought.

Yes I say I am in error, that is a fender piece as Bertie posted, I think, the curve is correct over the wheel, but it is straight where it should be curved along the tire circumference.  Now can you admit you are wrong?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: nomuse on December 15, 2018, 06:49:09 PM
"Nagging concerns" is an interesting problem. As I pointed out several pages ago, inconsistencies will always pop up. A description of a thing, or an image of a thing, is not the thing itself. It is a model, and thus, inherently incomplete.

If you check out the "Reality of Apollo" sub-forum you will find many discussions where participants have drilled deeper, making more detailed models, getting closer to reality. This is well and good and expected. It is educational and fun.

Focusing on these same irreducible fractions where the model is not and can not be perfect within the frame of "The Hoax Theory" sub-forum is another matter entirely. Refusing to give up a line of enquiry as long as there remains even the slightest discrepancy (that is, forever; the model will always fall short) is an act of stubborn adherence to flawed view. It is not honest enquiry.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 15, 2018, 07:13:57 PM
Hi Bknight,

I have attached AS17-143-21932. It shows the LR in its final resting spot. They removed the other fender end for whatever reason. The fender is clearly not rounded like people tend to suggest. It is like the "fender" found on the ground in those pictures. I have reattached those photos again. These photos look very much like the fender in AS17-143-21932.

And not that I want to open up another kettle of fish, but take a look at that LR final resting spot photo AS17-143-21932 . It makes no sense. Both back wheels are off the ground. One wheel is larger than the other. No tire threads behind the back tires. And the rear axels are in complete different directions. And the upper part of the rear right antenna is showing a profile that can only be seen from directly below. I am sure someone will say foreshortening. But if they understand foreshortening, they will know this can't cause these things to happen.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: nomuse on December 15, 2018, 07:50:47 PM


And not that I want to open up another kettle of fish, but take a look at that LR final resting spot photo AS17-143-21932 . It makes no sense. Both back wheels are off the ground. One wheel is larger than the other. No tire threads behind the back tires. And the rear axels are in complete different directions. And the upper part of the rear right antenna is showing a profile that can only be seen from directly below. I am sure someone will say foreshortening. But if they understand foreshortening, they will know this can't cause these things to happen.

No, no, no, no....and I have no idea what you mean by this last one but considering your problems thinking in three dimensions, I'm inclined to reject it, too.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Obviousman on December 15, 2018, 07:57:17 PM
I do notice that the OP seems to be avoiding answering Jay's direct and pointed questions. I wonder why?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 15, 2018, 08:15:36 PM
I wonder why?

My money's on his realization that he can't poison the well here.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Peter B on December 15, 2018, 08:55:10 PM
...As far as the LRO pics go, yes it is hard to dispute this recent evidence (unless there has been tampering) that shows proof of these landings. Having said this, I still have nagging concerns on some things.

It's fine to have nagging concerns - about pretty much anything. The issue is how you react when they're addressed.

Early on in this thread you expressed concern that the astronauts in the LM didn't have enough visibility out of their windows in order to land safely. Well, there's two ways of answering this - the technical and the non-technical.

The technical one would involve taking measurements from the astronaut's head to determine the angular size of the field of view, using either an actual LM or re-creating one using available specifications; and then using that information to attempt a landing using some sort of simulator software. In other words, the method that Grumman and NASA used to test the original LM. As others have pointed out, the astronauts themselves were intimately involved in the design and construction of the LMs, and then tested themselves endlessly using simulators which were themselves constantly updated as the LM's design was tinkered with.

The non-technical one (which I'm happy with given that I'm not an engineer but a lay person with interest in the topic) is watch either a documentary or some other show which illustrates the process in a non-technical manner. In this case the best example I can think of is the TV show "From the Earth to the Moon". The episode "Spider" was about the designing, construction and flight testing of the LM, and there's a two-minute sequence which specifically addresses the visibility issue. It's available on YouTube if you search from the earth to the moon spider capsule problem solved and select the first video (I'd give the link but my browser won't show it). It shows Grumman engineers building a cardboard mock-up of the LM Ascent Stage front section to illustrate how wide a field of view the astronauts would have despite the window's small size.

Now, was this the exact sequence of events that happened in those Grumman offices? I don't know - quite possibly not. But it illustrates in a non-technical way how the engineers approached and solved a known problem, and it has the advantage of showing just how close the astronaut's head was to the window, which in turn shows you how wide his field of view actually was.

But the thing about the difference between technical and non-technical explanations is that any problem you can uncover in a non-technical description like the "spider" episode is unlikely to be a show-stopper; more likely it's due to the simplification which comes from it being a non-technical explanation. However, if you're going to challenge a technical explanation you'd better be able to demonstrate equivalent technical knowledge, otherwise the people with the relevant technical knowledge are perfectly able to ignore you, simply because you wouldn't understand the technical explanation.

At which point I'm going to throw this one back at you: What do you do for a job? What sort of technical knowledge do you have specifically relevant to that job? What sort of problems do people raise with you that you can answer due to your technical knowledge? Do people ask you questions for which the answer is completely non-intuitive to the non-expert? Do you get annoyed when people without your technical knowledge challenge the answers you give?

In my case, my current expertise is payroll. Where I work, people are paid fortnightly (that's two weeks for those of you without that bit of technical knowledge!) and the pay fortnight runs from Thursday to Wednesday, with people then being paid on the Thursday which starts the next pay fortnight. People who work part-time are paid for exactly the number of days they work in each fortnight. I had an employee who worked three days a week (that is, six days each pay fortnight), and she was changing which three days of the week she was working. I processed the necessary change, and sent her an email explaining that in the fortnight of the change she'd instead be paid only four days pay. She rang me up, completely baffled as to why she'd be getting only four days pay in a fortnight - after all, she wasn't changing the number of days she was working each fortnight: week after week she was working three days, and yet I was telling her that in one fortnight she was getting only four days pay. And yet I was convinced I was right. See if you can work out whether I was right, or had made a mistake (and yes, I make mistakes in this work).

Now, in cases like this where non-experts challenge us, sometimes the issue gets escalated until quite senior staff get involved. If we make mistakes in situations like this we get our backsides kicked and have to apologise and fix up the problem. So our mistakes have consequences too - not risking astronauts' lives or massively expensive spacecraft as is the case with JayUtah; but given the number of people who like to remind us about the mortgages they're paying, or who are in tears when we tell them bad news about their pay, the consequences of our mistakes can ripple through the lives of the people whose finances we've messed up: unpaid mortgages and bills, consequential financial penalties, embarrassment at the supermarket check-out when your card is declined and you have no cash. I'm sure you get the idea.

So yeah, we take our technical knowledge seriously, and we don't like it when non-experts presume to tell us on the basis of their completely non-technical knowledge that we've made a mistake of some sort, as we already know the likely causes and consequences of mistakes in that particular process.

And now, let's turn to your other concern - the LRO images and your statement "unless there has been tampering".

As I said earlier, it's fine to have nagging concerns. But this statement goes way beyond that. If you're going to make a claim of active tampering, I'd really like you to show some actual supporting evidence. Otherwise it belongs in the "They could have done this" category of evidence-free accusation which is, frankly, little more than mud-slinging. So until you actually present some evidence to back up this sort of statement, I think we're free to ignore it.

Finally, you say you have some nagging concerns on "some things".

Well, out with it. What "things" are these?

Let's turn it around and look at Apollo in the bigger picture. The reality of Apollo is supported by multiple streams of evidence, many of which exist in countries other than the USA. These streams of evidence are mutually consistent and all point to the same conclusion - that Apollo was real and happened as described.

There are, for example, the lunar soil samples collected by the then USSR in the 1970s, which are geochemically comparable with the Apollo samples.

For another example, I've spoken to a few of the Australian people who worked at the Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station just outside Canberra, where I live. They were in control of their equipment, responsible for its maintenance and operation, and for training the people who worked there. They aimed their dish at points in space which were consistent with the Apollo spacecraft being where NASA said it was, and were receiving telemetry in real time. One of them even spoke to the Apollo 16 crew while they were on the Moon (which wasn't SOP - and if you knew much about Apollo you'd know why it wasn't SOP).

But one of the interesting things about these Honeysuckle guys is that they've even taken the time to try to work out if there was any way NASA might have faked Apollo under their noses without them realising (they concluded it was impossible, given what they knew about their own systems and the data they were receiving). And they were willing to do this as an intellectual exercise even though they have absolutely no doubt about the reality of Apollo. That's a level of open-mindedness which I'd humbly suggest you'd do well to follow.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Peter B on December 15, 2018, 09:16:34 PM
And not that I want to open up another kettle of fish, but take a look at that LR final resting spot photo AS17-143-21932 . It makes no sense. Both back wheels are off the ground.

I dispute that. The bottom of the nearer back wheel certainly appears to be off the ground. But given the unevenness of the ground and the lightness of the rover there's a pretty simple explanation for that. And I disagree that the farther back wheel is off the ground.

Quote
One wheel is larger than the other.

Well, given the photo was taken from off one corner you'd expect that, wouldn't you? And have you done any measuring and maths to confirm the relative difference in angular size? (Note, this is simple enough that even I could do it if I was inclined to do so.) Is it what you'd expect given the astronaut's location?

Finally, I can think of one factor related to the camera itself which might explain a greater size difference than you might have calculated, if you bothered to do that. However, as I'm not a camera expert I'll keep that to myself.

Quote
No tire threads behind the back tires.

And what do you think happens when people walk on a surface which is loosely compacted in a low-gravity vacuum?

Quote
And the rear axels are in complete different directions.

I'll assume here you mean the wheels are pointing in completely different directions. If not, could you explain better, please.

However, if I'm right, you should consider any car on Earth doing a tight turn, and I'll leave it at that. You should be able to work it out from there, but if you can't, the photo itself gives you the clue.

Quote
And the upper part of the rear right antenna is showing a profile that can only be seen from directly below.

Do you mean that wiry object in the shape of an octahedron? If so, I don't understand what your problem is. Could you explain a little more, please.

Quote
I am sure someone will say foreshortening. But if they understand foreshortening, they will know this can't cause these things to happen.

Well, as I've said, I'm not an expert in these sorts of things (except the maths - it's always good if a payroll person is competent at maths!). But as you can see I've been able to answer each of your concerns. In other words, I don't see any problems with the image.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 15, 2018, 09:33:34 PM
Hi Jay, Obviousman, Peter B,

Peter B, The answer is simple. She moved two of her work days in the week till after Thursday. And with regards to your comments about the preponderance of evidence, it is mainly from government sources. And as we have all come to know, governments can and have done some crazy, even unspeakable things.

Jay et al, I am not quite sure why everyone spends all their time questioning my motives and intentions and not addressing the issues I have laid out? And It is actually Jay who seems very quiet regarding my questions about A17 EVA/LM site comparisons/fenders etc. I don't think he has made a direct comment about of any this. But that is fine. He doesn't need to, if he doesn't want. I just wish the thread didn't get cluttered up with 'you are a hoaxer, reveal yourself' stuff. I like to stick to the meat and potatoes of things and have a fruitful dialectic dialogue with others.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: nomuse on December 15, 2018, 09:58:13 PM
Hi Jay, Obviousman, Peter B,

Peter B, The answer is simple. She moved two of her work days in the week till after Thursday. And with regards to your comments about the preponderance of evidence, it is mainly from government sources. And as we have all come to know, governments can and have done some crazy, even unspeakable things.

Jay et al, I am not quite sure why everyone spends all their time questioning my motives and intentions and not addressing the issues I have laid out? And It is actually Jay who seems very quiet regarding my questions about A17 EVA/LM site comparisons/fenders etc. I don't think he has made a direct comment about of any this. But that is fine. He doesn't need to, if he doesn't want. I just wish the thread didn't get cluttered up with 'you are a hoaxer, reveal yourself' stuff. I like to stick to the meat and potatoes of things and have a fruitful dialectic dialogue with others.

Bah. No. First off, that is a cheap excuse. It may sound plausible, even profound, at the very tinniest glimmer of first glance but it then falls apart. How exactly does "a government" (which are hardly monolithic entities) create sustain and most importantly coordinate a deception which crosses every agency and departmental line possible? That goes all the way from Presidential speeches down to tax records at a civilian company which just happens to be doing contract work for a government agency?

It's ludicrous. You might as well say, "Since the Matrix re-writes our memories..." or "Since swarms of angels selectively block our vision with their magical wings..."

Second, unless you take an extremely generous definition of what "government" means, the majority of the total material is civilian and a significant amount isn't even American.

Third, everything provided is consistent with other material produced from those same sources. It agrees in insane detail to standard practices and known physics. See, this is something that trips up the hoaxies all the time. They think that all we can know of, say, the performance of a particular fuel is a number handed to us from NASA. No. Rocket science is physics and chemistry. An ordinary untrained person with basic math and familiarity with basic science can get a first-order approximation of how those chemicals in some sort of generic rocket motor would perform.

(The rocket science in rocket science involves getting them to burn as desired and when desired...among the myriad other important details!)

So you can't pretend there is this bright line around how things would have to work in space or how a spacecraft should be designed or conditions on the Moon and say you have to take that on trust from a "government" which could be lying.

This is intellectual cowardice. This is cheap debating tactics, nothing more.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 15, 2018, 09:59:12 PM
Jay et al, I am not quite sure why everyone spends all their time questioning my motives and intentions...

Because your behavior is suspicious.  You say you want to have a "fruitful" discussion, but you're also trying to keep all your cards hidden.  And you assiduously avoid having to admit a mistake.  As long as you remain dishonest about why you're here, you will be treated with suspicion.  If your goal is to try to prove a hoax, you will be treated with respect so long as you say so.

Quote
...and not addressing the issues I have laid out?

We addressed the issues you laid out.  You said no-thank-you and reasserted your ill-informed "suspicions."

Quote
And It is actually Jay who seems very quiet regarding my questions about A17 EVA/LM...

Straw man.  As I told you, I'm waiting for you to concede the issues that conform to the title of this thread.  You started on plume deflectors and then changed the subject as soon as it was obvious you were in over your head.  And did it again.  And again.  What's wrong with wanting closure on previous topics before moving on?

Quote
He doesn't need to, if he doesn't want.

But apparently I do, otherwise I'm "quiet."  Do you really think this passive-aggressive nonsense doesn't get noticed for what it is?

Quote
I just wish the thread didn't get cluttered up with 'you are a hoaxer, reveal yourself' stuff.

Then don't act in a way that engenders that suspicion.  Do you really think you're the first hoax claimant to try the stealth entry?

Quote
I like to stick to the meat and potatoes of things and have a fruitful dialectic dialogue with others.

You started with meat, had one bite, moved on to potatoes, had one more bite, and so forth.  You're jumping from course to course as if you can't make up your mind what you're hungry for.  You said it was no big deal that others here knew something you didn't.  So it shouldn't be a big deal for you to concede you were mistaken about the plume deflectors, the RCS jets, and the visibility out of the LM.  And when you told us there were things you are competent in, I asked what those might be.  Any chance of getting answers?  Or are you just going to try to get as much mileage as possible out of my unwillingness to follow your latest distraction?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 15, 2018, 10:10:07 PM
Hi Peter B,

The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance? Download the hi resolution photo of the LR pic.  Zoom into the rear wheels. Both tires are off the ground. Not only will you will see there are no tire tracks but there a footprints instead (especially right tire) I have also attached a marked photo pointing to the rear axels. One is pointing outwards and the other is much smaller pointing inwards. With regards to the rear antenna (the name escapes me) the antenna normally looks flat. ie the wires are flat, horizontal. The only way you can see this design is from below.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 15, 2018, 10:21:19 PM
The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance?

I'll tell you how it's possible if you concede you were mistaken about the plume deflectors and the RCS.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Dalhousie on December 15, 2018, 10:26:42 PM
The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance?

I'll tell you how it's possible if you concede you were mistaken about the plume deflectors and the RCS.

Makes you wonder if he/she has ever taken a photograph and then looked at it?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: nomuse on December 15, 2018, 10:44:25 PM
Hi Peter B,

The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance? Download the hi resolution photo of the LR pic.  Zoom into the rear wheels. Both tires are off the ground. Not only will you will see there are no tire tracks but there a footprints instead (especially right tire) I have also attached a marked photo pointing to the rear axels. One is pointing outwards and the other is much smaller pointing inwards. With regards to the rear antenna (the name escapes me) the antenna normally looks flat. ie the wires are flat, horizontal. The only way you can see this design is from below.

Okay, I'll bite. How IS it possible?

You have rejected the possibility of these being ordinary and well-understood artifacts of perspective and optics.

So what is your explanation? Please, be as detailed as you like.

Please, in fact, provide any detail at all. Anything more substantial than a vague assertion that there's a whiff of hydrogen sulfide floating in the air above Copenhagen. I do so look forward to whatever phantasmagoria of pasted-up photos, absurd models, whistle-blowers with all the logic and sense of self preservation of a Batman villain, or whatever else you can concoct as a replacement for reality.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Peter B on December 16, 2018, 12:14:42 AM
Hi Jay, Obviousman, Peter B,

Peter B, The answer is simple. She moved two of her work days in the week till after Thursday.

Very good. (And for the rest of you who mightn't have twigged yet, the employee in question shifted from working Monday, Tuesday Wednesday to Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.) The thing is, though, that while the answer was simple to you, a colleague and I spent the best part of two hours trying to explain this to the employee in question, and she didn't get it.

And so it is here: it would be helpful all round if you'd be willing to accept that subject-matter experts (a) understand a given topic better than you, (b) understand exactly what your non-expert concern is, and (c) understand why your concern isn't actually a problem. Whether it's the size of LM windows or the position of SM RCS rockets, the engineers who designed these things looked at these issues and tested them all out prior to building the dang things. The people on this forum who work in the field today understand in detail what those engineers did and why - understand it in a visceral and instinctive way that I know I don't.

Take the LM's four legs, for example. The LM's designers didn't just sit around a table and agree that four's a nice number, let's give the LM four legs. Instead they looked at designs with three legs and other designs with five legs. They went away, did some sums about mass and about weight distribution, looked at images of the Moon close up and talked to experts about the Moon's surface, and then went and did some testing with models. They then chose four legs for the LM, on the basis of the test results.

Quote
And with regards to your comments about the preponderance of evidence, it is mainly from government sources. And as we have all come to know, governments can and have done some crazy, even unspeakable things.

Yes, governments do crazy, even unspeakable things. Well, to be precise, the people who work in those governments do those things, given that governments are abstractions.

However, your comment is unhelpful in at least three ways.

Firstly, just because a government does something crazy in situation A doesn't mean it would do something crazy in situation B. After all, I'm sure you accept that governments also do sensible and even noble things in some situations. On that basis Apollo must be sensible and maybe even noble.

Secondly, as others have pointed out, governments aren't monolithic things. Seeing as they're made up of people, and people behave as individuals, the result is that governments behave in anything but monolithic ways. Different agencies can often have conflicting agendas, and the result is that crazy actions are usually made public within a short period of time, either through inter-agency conflict, or interpersonal or inter-section conflict within the agency. (President Kennedy's science advisor Jerome Wiesner opposed manned space flight because he thought it was an expensive and dangerous way to do space science; he was right, but lost out because he completely missed the non-science (that is, Cold War propaganda) value of manned space flight. The point is that there were people in the government who were in a position to know the reality or otherwise of Apollo and who were quite willing to speak publicly against it.)

Thirdly, you're wrong that the evidence for Apollo is predominantly from the government, by which I assume you mean the US government. Note that the two examples I gave were from the USSR and Australia. In any case the components of the Apollo-Saturn vehicle were built by private contractors (including at least one person who was a willing whistleblower about problems in the Command Module). The Apollo rocks were studied by university scientists from around the world. Telemetry from the spacecraft was picked up by private citizens from around the world (see Sven Grahn). Pictures of the spacecraft on the way to the Moon were taken by astronomers from around the world.

And no one has come forward with any evidence that Apollo was hoaxed. Not one noble patriot. Not one deathbed confession. Not one letter to be opened after someone's death.

More importantly, no one has explained how Apollo could be faked. Not one self-consistent narrative has ever been presented.

Instead, as I said before, every thread of evidence independently points to the same conclusion.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Peter B on December 16, 2018, 12:39:48 AM
Hi Peter B,

The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right.

Hi jr Knowing

I'd dispute that 30% figure. How did you arrive at it? Is it based on actual maths or a guess? How much further away from the camera is the smaller wheel?

Quote
How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance?

I already gave you a lead to investigate in my last post when I said "camera".

Quote
Download the hi resolution photo of the LR pic.  Zoom into the rear wheels. Both tires are off the ground.

I've looked at hi-res images of the photo. I've already said there's a reasonably simple explanation for the appearance. In fact I can think of two completely mundane explanations.

Quote
Not only will you will see there are no tire tracks but there a footprints instead (especially right tire)...

In my last answer I gave you a clue as to why that might be the case.

Quote
...I have also attached a marked photo pointing to the rear axels. One is pointing outwards and the other is much smaller pointing inwards.

Well, I'm looking at the image, and while I accept the wheels don't appear to be parallel, they are both pointing to the same side of the rover. That is, to me it looks like the wheels are pointing the way they should if the vehicle was stopped while cornering. As for why they appear to be non-parallel, I gave you a clue as to why that might be.

Quote
With regards to the rear antenna (the name escapes me) the antenna normally looks flat. ie the wires are flat, horizontal. The only way you can see this design is from below.

Okay, I get what you're talking about. And yeah, I don't know what it is either. Call it the Apollo clothesline or the Apollo D&D d8 if you like. But no. It took me only a few minutes to find this one: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20453.jpg

If you load the hi-res version (add the letters HR after the 20453) you can clearly see the octahedron shape.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on December 16, 2018, 02:11:54 AM
Hi Peter B,

The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance? Download the hi resolution photo of the LR pic.  Zoom into the rear wheels. Both tires are off the ground. Not only will you will see there are no tire tracks but there a footprints instead (especially right tire) I have also attached a marked photo pointing to the rear axels. One is pointing outwards and the other is much smaller pointing inwards. With regards to the rear antenna (the name escapes me) the antenna normally looks flat. ie the wires are flat, horizontal. The only way you can see this design is from below.

Are you quite sure that you are not hunchbacked? Strange how you mentioned his name so early In proceedings and hear you are struggling to understand the effects of optics and perspective. What a coincidence...
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 16, 2018, 03:06:37 AM
Hi Jason,

In reply #91 I posted two pics in which I have highlighted/numbered similar features. Just look at the three craters in the foreground of each pic and go from there.

That is not answering my questions. The first one was a simple yes/no query and the second requested your reasoning. Repeating a vague suggestion I go and look at what you consider similar features is not a response.

Once again, are you contending that the two images taken in separate locations are actually the same set redressed? Yes or no.

If you continue to play vague semantic games, and to disregard the responses you are given, you will be given short shrift here, at which point I predict you will slip into the standard hoax believer tactic of complaining about your treatment by others in favour of discussing the actual substance of the arguments.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 16, 2018, 04:09:57 AM
Hi OneBigMonkey,

You are comparing the wrong two things. The pics on the right are correct. That is the small crater in front of the larger crater. The pics on the left look like the rock formation I numbered NO 3. I numbered the small crater no.1 in the comparison photos.

Mea culpa. It would help if you actually typed identifying markers instead of using a really broad hand written pen. However it still doesn't help your cause as you can see from this.

(https://i.imgur.com/u6P8T7y.jpg)

I really am not going to waste my time pointing out each and every subtle difference but they are there. All you have is that two similar sized craters made in the same way look similar. The fact is that your diversionary tactic doesn't solve your problem of them being in two completely different locations.

I'm going to echo comments by others. Your approach isn't fooling anyone. There has been a steady stream of wannabe heroes dropping in to this place over the years, many of whom start with your "gee I don't know but maybe" schtick, but all of whom have the attitude of "I know more about this than you" and thinking they are going to walk away shrieking victory to be carried aloft by the other hoax believers. You approach is no different, you're just dressing it up to look more fancy. So far you have been on a gentle but still very obvious gish gallop of "hey look at this", presenting some nebulous and vaguely hinted at notion of fakery and then expecting everyone else to do the legwork. When you get proven wrong you gently shift on to another topic and hope no-one will notice that you ran away. If you think we're all suddenly going to go "By George I think he's got it" you're hopelessly deluded.

Cut the crap. Be honest. Say you don't believe us and say why instead of trying to school us. It really won't work.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: molesworth on December 16, 2018, 09:35:13 AM
The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance?
How did you come up with the 30% figure?  The angles, positions and presence of fenders makes measurement a bit tricky, but my best, and most generous estimate is 20%, and more realistically it's about 17%.

I think an appropriate question at this point is, what expertise do you have in photographic analysis, and do you understand (preferably including the maths) the effects of perspective?

Quote
Download the hi resolution photo of the LR pic.  Zoom into the rear wheels. Both tires are off the ground. Not only will you will see there are no tire tracks but there a footprints instead (especially right tire)
I'd disagree that both are off the ground.  Looking closely at the original image, the right wheel appears to be in solid contact with the surface.  Again, the angles make it difficult to properly identify tracks, but careful examination of the original shows partial tracks leading to the parking spot.  There are many, many images in the record for multiple missions which show that the astronauts walked over rover tracks, messing them up - do you think they should have thought "Hey, we want to preserve these tracks for future generations, better not walk on them!"?

Quote
I have also attached a marked photo pointing to the rear axels. One is pointing outwards and the other is much smaller pointing inwards.
Again, this is partly due to angles and perspective, and partly due to the construction of the suspension system.  As you note, the left wheel appears to be off the ground, so the suspension is unloaded.  The information on the suspension, and indeed the whole LRV design and construction, is readily available, and an interesting read (well, to me anyway).

Quote
With regards to the rear antenna (the name escapes me) the antenna normally looks flat. ie the wires are flat, horizontal. The only way you can see this design is from below.
Hmmm, indeed, it makes you wonder...  ;)

One point I'd like a response on - you've mentioned several times that LRO images show something suspicious, yet you seem to avoid presenting this "killer evidence", instead focussing on trivialities such as whether there was adequate visibility from the lander windows.  Isn't it about time you showed us what your real issue is?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 16, 2018, 10:21:10 AM
Hi Peter B,

The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance?

Not by actually taking measurements they aren't. You can't see the entirety of the wheel but you can see the entirety of the fender. In your image photoshop's measuring tool says that fender measures 38.6 v 32.8 - around 15% wider on our left. Meauring from the top of highest point of the fender to the ground we get 109.2 versus 92.7 - again a difference of around 15%. Making actual measurements doesn't support your bare assertion.

Quote
Download the hi resolution photo of the LR pic.  Zoom into the rear wheels. Both tires are off the ground.

Again with the instructions. Why don't you download the high resolution image and show us conclusively that they are off the ground. When I downloaded them and zoomed in, they showed no such thing.

Quote
Not only will you will see there are no tire tracks but there a footprints instead (especially right tire)

So? you do realise there is live TV footage of the rover driving to that point? That if you adjust the brightness levels in the still image you can see the tracks leading there? That there is LRO imagery showing the tire tracks leading to that point? That Indian and Chinese imagery confirms human activity there? That all those footprints might just have obscured any tracks in the loose material around the rover?

Quote
I have also attached a marked photo pointing to the rear axels. One is pointing outwards and the other is much smaller pointing inwards.

Again, so what?

Quote
With regards to the rear antenna (the name escapes me) the antenna normally looks flat. ie the wires are flat, horizontal. The only way you can see this design is from below.

It was above Cernan's camera height. So?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 16, 2018, 10:42:52 AM
Hi Bknight,

I have attached AS17-143-21932. It shows the LR in its final resting spot. They removed the other fender end for whatever reason. The fender is clearly not rounded like people tend to suggest. It is like the "fender" found on the ground in those pictures. I have reattached those photos again. These photos look very much like the fender in AS17-143-21932.

And not that I want to open up another kettle of fish, but take a look at that LR final resting spot photo AS17-143-21932 . It makes no sense. Both back wheels are off the ground.

No both wheels are resting on the soil, there is no discernable regolith that can be seen under the wheels
Quote

One wheel is larger than the other.

Closer is larger, you should know this.
Quote

No tire threads behind the back tires.

From the angle of the image it is difficult to see any tire marks.  Did you consider that the vehicle was backed into position?  No I thought not. You reasoning is indeed two dimensional, as one of the posters sarcastically but correctly indicated.
Quote
And the rear axels are in complete different directions.

The wheels had independent control IIRC.
Quote
And the upper part of the rear right antenna is showing a profile that can only be seen from directly below. I am sure someone will say foreshortening. But if they understand foreshortening, they will know this can't cause these things to happen.
I don't understand your logic "that can only be seen from directly below"  from below would be looking through the vehicle?

Quite honestly your image analysis lacks much and needs much more refinement.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: molesworth on December 16, 2018, 10:45:48 AM
Hi Peter B,

The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance?

Not by actually taking measurements they aren't. You can't see the entirety of the wheel but you can see the entirety of the fender. In your image photoshop's measuring tool says that fender measures 38.6 v 32.8 - around 15% wider on our left. Meauring from the top of highest point of the fender to the ground we get 109.2 versus 92.7 - again a difference of around 15%. Making actual measurements doesn't support your bare assertion.
Thanks OBM - that matches my approx. 17% figure pretty closely (and I may have been erring on the side of caution).

It shows that it takes more than an estimate from just looking at an image to properly determine things like this.  It would take a bit of time to work out the angles, distances etc., but I expect that this difference would be fully explained by perspective.

Perhaps we could ask the op to show us his/her calculations relating to this?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 16, 2018, 11:17:10 AM
Hi Peter B,

The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance? Download the hi resolution photo of the LR pic.  Zoom into the rear wheels. Both tires are off the ground. Not only will you will see there are no tire tracks but there a footprints instead (especially right tire) I have also attached a marked photo pointing to the rear axels. One is pointing outwards and the other is much smaller pointing inwards. With regards to the rear antenna (the name escapes me) the antenna normally looks flat. ie the wires are flat, horizontal. The only way you can see this design is from below.


I did https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-143-21932HR.jpg
I still contend that both wheels are in contact with the surface, the right on the shoulder of a small rise,  the left maybe could be argued was off the surface, but my opinion is it in contact with the surface.  30% larger? hogwash perhaps 1 cm, but that is about all.  jr how do you measure it 30%?

Guys I'm looking for the image of the truck in front of a barn zooming in and out to show jr  perspective, but I can't find it.  Anyone have it saved?

Finally with regards to your "treatment"  if it walks like duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck. 
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: gillianren on December 16, 2018, 11:53:45 AM
To go back to the government thing, the thing history teaches us is that humans are lousy at covering things up and keeping secrets.  So while there are all sorts of examples of terrible things done by the people in government, there are those examples because the people couldn't keep it secret.  Watch the current news and see how long the current administration has hidden its wrongdoing--what, forty-five minutes on average?  Both Watergate and Iran-Contra were only about a couple of years from start to finish.  Yes, the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment went longer, but there are several things that explain that, not least the lack of interest.  There is no corresponding lack of public interest in Apollo.  Every aspect of the Apollo missions has been examined and reexamined by people from around the world.  People, too, from countries with no friendship for the United States.  And yet the evidence holds up.  There are no deathbed confessions, no tell-all books, no whistleblowers.  Just evidence.  From a historical perspective, that alone means that the weight of evidence supports that the missions happened as described.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 16, 2018, 12:09:26 PM
Okay, I'll bite. How IS it possible?

Indeed, I'm trying to imagine two guys in the scenery shop.  "Hey, Jerry," says one to the other.  "Know what would be funny?  Let's make one of these wheels, like, a whole lot bigger than the other."  How would a vehicle built with one wheel bigger than the others contribute in any way to a convincing hoax?

If the wheel actually isn't bigger, then it just looks bigger.  And there are well-understood reasons why something might just look bigger in a photograph.  I love watching novice "photographers" show up to shoot headshots or portraits with the little short lenses that came in a kit with their DSLR body.  Do they want their model's noses to look like Mt. Etna?  I don't shoot a portrait with anything shorter than 60 mm.  I'll bet Jr Knowing can't tell us why that's advisable.  The Zeiss Biogon lens has a field of view that's something like 50 degrees wide.  If the LRV is that big in the frame, the photographer is not standing very far away.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Luke Pemberton on December 16, 2018, 12:52:48 PM
Indeed, I'm trying to imagine two guys in the scenery shop.  "Hey, Jerry," says one to the other.  "Know what would be funny?  Let's make one of these wheels, like, a whole lot bigger than the other."  How would a vehicle built with one wheel bigger than the others contribute in any way to a convincing hoax?

Are these the same two guys that labelled the rocks with letters, but ran out of serials after they reached Z?  ???
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 16, 2018, 01:08:03 PM
Are these the same two guys that labelled the rocks with letters, but ran out of serial numbers after they reached Z?  ???

Probably.  I never figured out some of these claims.  "This doesn't look like I expect it to, and somehow vaguely that means it was hoaxed."  Okay, I get that a person can't immediately figure out whats going on there, but how does what you think it looks like make sense according to how someone would create a hoax?  Not making sense in one context doesn't automatically make it make sense in some other arbitrary context.  In the broader sense, "I'm just curious and have these vague doubts and suspicions" somehow always goes first to "It must have been a hoax."  No, it's not reasonable or sensible that this is the first place a person goes, and the place he keeps returning to.  One simply might not know some obscure, relevant fact, or might not understand something he can easily be taught.  "Will someone please tell me?" sounds sensible at first glance, but then when the rejoinder is "No, I'm going to stick with my original doubts and fears" or "You can't back that up" (i.e., "I could easily verify this, but I won't") then the disguise just isn't convincing anymore.  The people who attempt these stealth approaches always seem to think it's working.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Luke Pemberton on December 16, 2018, 01:09:38 PM
I like to stick to the meat and potatoes of things and have a fruitful dialectic dialogue with others.

That's quite a culinary mixture. Don't suppose you'd answer my question please. Where do you sit with the reason for hoaxing the moon landings. From your posts it seems that you propose the payload would not withstand the forces during flight. Is this your conjecture? I seek clarification. What other nagging doubts do you have? Why do you not want to reveal those cards?

For may latter equation, I'd edge my best that you are another hoax proponent that thought they could arrive here with damning evidence, and has firmly been rebutted by experts in their field, and is now entering the normal phase of the debate we have seen so many times - obfuscation before the gish gallop.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 16, 2018, 02:18:16 PM
Are these the same two guys that labelled the rocks with letters, but ran out of serial numbers after they reached Z?  ???

Probably.  I never figured out some of these claims.  "This doesn't look like I expect it to, and somehow vaguely that means it was hoaxed."  Okay, I get that a person can't immediately figure out whats going on there, but how does what you think it looks like make sense according to how someone would create a hoax?  Not making sense in one context doesn't automatically make it make sense in some other arbitrary context.  In the broader sense, "I'm just curious and have these vague doubts and suspicions" somehow always goes first to "It must have been a hoax."  No, it's not reasonable or sensible that this is the first place a person goes, and the place he keeps returning to.  One simply might not know some obscure, relevant fact, or might not understand something he can easily be taught.  "Will someone please tell me?" sounds sensible at first glance, but then when the rejoinder is "No, I'm going to stick with my original doubts and fears" or "You can't back that up" (i.e., "I could easily verify this, but I won't") then the disguise just isn't convincing anymore.  The people who attempt these stealth approaches always seem to think it's working.

Wouldn't another aspect be:  If you don't believe in the hoax, why are you looking/searching for possible "anamolies"?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on December 16, 2018, 03:04:23 PM
Are these the same two guys that labelled the rocks with letters, but ran out of serials after they reached Z?  ???

 Not to mention lifting a vehicle with wheels all over the set rather than push it around, after all wouldn’t want to leave any tracks.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: nomuse on December 16, 2018, 04:45:49 PM
Heh. Those 25 letters left after you labeled the "C" rock would fall even shorter if you followed the ways many have adopted to reduce confusion. No "Z" or "N" because those can be confused with each other. No "O" or "D" unless your handwriting is very good. And so forth.

Back in my earlier theater days the tradition was numbered lighting cues and lettered sound cues. Sound being the new kid, it wasn't allowed to use "O" or "I" because they might be confused with numbers, "L" because it looked like "I," and "M" or "N" because they sounded too much alike. And "Q" was right out. No Stage Manager their right mind would call "Cue Q."

Yeah. The "C" rock is a non-starter. If it doesn't have at least a three-digit identifier I'm unconvinced.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 16, 2018, 06:54:24 PM
Not to mention lifting a vehicle with wheels all over the set rather than push it around...

Well, if Jerry hadn't built that one wheel too big...
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jfb on December 16, 2018, 08:47:30 PM
Hi jfb,

The third picture I attached shows the footpad (in a small crater) about 2-3 feet from the ridge of the much larger crater not 5-8 meters as you suggest.

The unsettling conclusions have nothing to do with the LM landing. It has to do with everything you see in those pics versus other photos from A17. (my recent posts give some direction on where to start to look.)

This thread has moved quite a bit since I last checked.

Jr, it's far from obvious what your point is, so in order to help move things along I've provided a handy list of options for you to choose from:

1.  The landings were faked;
2.  The landings were not faked, but the imagery was;
3.  The landings were not faked, nor was the imagery, but the imagery was extensively retouched/edited for publicity purposes;
4.  The landings were not faked, nor was the imagery, but I don't understand why some of the imagery looks the way it does;

Please pick the one that most closely matches what you're actually trying to say.  It will vastly simplify discussion from here on out. 
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 17, 2018, 05:17:52 AM
If the wheel actually isn't bigger, then it just looks bigger.  And there are well-understood reasons why something might just look bigger in a photograph.

(https://i.redd.it/4ib8ss4rh0p11.jpg)
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Mag40 on December 17, 2018, 06:35:59 AM
If the wheel actually isn't bigger, then it just looks bigger.  And there are well-understood reasons why something might just look bigger in a photograph.

(https://i.redd.it/4ib8ss4rh0p11.jpg)

That's funny. I wonder whether JR would kindly click this link and explain why the Mercedes has one light bigger than the other:

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-an-old-mercedes-car-with-a-wide-angle-lens-7589051.html
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on December 17, 2018, 07:02:18 AM

The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance?

It takes some belief in your own position to seriously postulate that someone would build a Rover (even for a hoax scenario) with one wheel bigger than the other.

Did you not stop at any point and think "Do you know what, perhaps I am wrong here" or "My perception is telling me something that makes no sense. Perhaps I need to think about this"?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Allan F on December 17, 2018, 07:56:33 AM
It's weird - he has the exact same problems with perspective as hunchbacked, but doesn't have the same spelling mistakes as him. I wonder why?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on December 17, 2018, 08:30:25 AM
It's weird - he has the exact same problems with perspective as hunchbacked, but doesn't have the same spelling mistakes as him. I wonder why?

A better spell-checker?  ;D ;D
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Von_Smith on December 17, 2018, 08:57:11 AM

The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance?

It takes some belief in your own position to seriously postulate that someone would build a Rover (even for a hoax scenario) with one wheel bigger than the other.

Yup.  I once read (I think it was here) that the toughest question for hoax proponents is:  "What do you think actually happened?"  Apparently, jr. Knowing thinks that what happened was that they deliberately built a rover with one wheel *significantly* larger than its opposite number for some reason, with all the design and fabrication challenges that poses.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: ineluki on December 17, 2018, 11:09:51 AM
Hi Jay,
 I never suggested the actual LM landings were hoaxed.


But, to me, it appears EVA 1 was done first and then the landing site. The site was re-dressed somewhat and the tire tracks were just literally walked over.

So, you actually think that the landings are real, but then there were additional "movie sets" that were  faked? And the LM should have looked different...

P.S.
could you also explain if you believe that the fakers were morons who didn't ask engineers how the hardware should look, or that the engineers were morons and you  (and a few other Hoaxers) are the only ones noticing it?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jfb on December 17, 2018, 01:08:14 PM
Hi Peter B,

The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance? Download the hi resolution photo of the LR pic.  Zoom into the rear wheels. Both tires are off the ground. Not only will you will see there are no tire tracks but there a footprints instead (especially right tire) I have also attached a marked photo pointing to the rear axels. One is pointing outwards and the other is much smaller pointing inwards. With regards to the rear antenna (the name escapes me) the antenna normally looks flat. ie the wires are flat, horizontal. The only way you can see this design is from below.

Per the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, this image was taken with the 60mm lens, which for the 70mm film format is slightly wide angle, roughly equivalent to a 35mm lens on 35mm film or full frame digital sensor.  The will translate into a slightly exaggerated perspective. 

There's also the fact that the LRV is parked at an angle relative to the camera.  That, combined with the slightly exaggerated perspective, is plenty to explain why one side looks smaller than the other. 

Both rear wheels are definitely on the ground; the left is resting on a slight rise (like halfway up a speed bump).  The LRV is parked on a slight downward incline, and the camera is aimed slightly below the centerline, so yeah, you're looking at that antenna from underneath. 
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: AtomicDog on December 17, 2018, 01:30:49 PM
I wish that people would learn at least a little photography before attempting to analyze photographs.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: AtomicDog on December 17, 2018, 01:32:08 PM
Hey! I'm Mars now!
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 17, 2018, 01:34:01 PM
Hi Peter B,

The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance? Download the hi resolution photo of the LR pic.  Zoom into the rear wheels. Both tires are off the ground. Not only will you will see there are no tire tracks but there a footprints instead (especially right tire) I have also attached a marked photo pointing to the rear axels. One is pointing outwards and the other is much smaller pointing inwards. With regards to the rear antenna (the name escapes me) the antenna normally looks flat. ie the wires are flat, horizontal. The only way you can see this design is from below.

What I and others have concluded your image analysis lacks a great deal.  In addition your timeline analysis is in error.  Perhaps instead of looking for "anomalies" you should enjoy the images for what they are a successful end to a great program that landed 6 crews on the Lunar surface and returned them safely.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 17, 2018, 01:42:17 PM
I wish that people would learn at least a little photography before attempting to analyze photographs.

Same here.  I can certainly do a full photogrammetric rectification of the photo in question, if it becomes necessary.  But it won't as long as the people questioning the authenticity of these photos can't work out the basic principle that different parts of the image represent different lines of sight.  Even simple concepts like barrel distortion seem lost on some of these people who try to be image analysts.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jfb on December 17, 2018, 02:39:13 PM
I wish that people would learn at least a little photography before attempting to analyze photographs.

Talking to me or Jr?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Obviousman on December 17, 2018, 02:55:10 PM
I wish that people would learn at least a little photography before attempting to analyze photographs.

It didn't bother Jack White; why should it bother others?

LOL!
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: AtomicDog on December 17, 2018, 03:10:00 PM
I wish that people would learn at least a little photography before attempting to analyze photographs.

Talking to me or Jr?

Obviously to the person who thinks, that for some arcane reason, someone would put rear tires of two different sizes on a LRV, and that EVEN IF THEY DID, it was somehow proof of a hoax.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jfb on December 17, 2018, 03:26:49 PM
I wish that people would learn at least a little photography before attempting to analyze photographs.

Talking to me or Jr?

Obviously to the person who thinks, that for some arcane reason that someone would put rear tires of two different sizes on a LRV, and that EVEN IF THEY DID, it was somehow proof of a hoax.

Okay.  Gotta check, 'cause occasionally I get things very wrong. 

I don't expect most people to be familiar with issues related to exposure (why aren't there any stars) or technical details of medium format cameras (such as detachable film backs) or the film used on the Apollo missions (Estar base, capable of operating in a lunar environment), etc. 

I do like to think that in this era of zoom lenses on everything, most people have at least a subconscious understanding of the various distortions introduced by both short and long focal lengths, but obviously a few don't for whatever reason. 
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Luke Pemberton on December 17, 2018, 06:26:40 PM
Probably.  I never figured out some of these claims.

I struggle figuring out the people that make the claims in the first place. I sometimes feel they arrive here to try their hand at geek taunting. Sometimes they genuinely just need educating. If I recall, it was the Tim Finch thread where Jason explained quite concisely, and with clarity, that we do need to have benefit of the doubt initially, as there are those that may have genuine questions. I think that is the rightful and fair approach. Rarely do they arrive with honest intention though. It is not my experience.

Then there are the anti-science types such as cambo, and dare I say the king of the pseudo-scientists -  Rene. These types are so entrenched in their anti-establishment views, I do wonder what has happened to make them function in such a way, it is almost bitterness that they accuse credentialed professionals as sheeple that could never think freely, while disputing millennia of human knowledge out of hand with dubious claims. I've learned to pass on those sorts. I remind myself when they put forward their arguments on the internet, the irony is they are use a platform that is the culmination of the combined knowledge of thousands of scientists, engineers, computer scientists and mathematicians (and those of other disciplines). How can they even begin to dismiss the collective knowledge of so many with such sweeping arrogance?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on December 17, 2018, 07:01:58 PM
. How can they even begin to dismiss the collective knowledge of so many with such sweeping arrogance?

Frustration and feelings of inadequacy because deep down they know that they can never make such achievements.
A desire to feel special and clever as they think that they held special knowledge.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Luke Pemberton on December 17, 2018, 07:10:34 PM
I wish that people would learn at least a little photography before attempting to analyze photographs.

Absolutely. That's why I leave it to others. I have attempted photography with varied success. I have one of the DSLR kits Jay mentions. I've had some moderate success and do understand some of the basics, but it's a superficial knowledge which explains why my output is hit and miss. I sometimes produce photos that make me feel like Ansel Adams, but these moments are rare.

The other aspect is knowing the Apollo photographic record, the associated technologies used in gathering that record, and the context of the mission time and goals. I have seen many rebuttals by experts here, and am continually astounded by their encyclopedic knowledge of the missions and how they apply this deep knowledge to support the coherency and consistency of the photographic record.

Welcome the Mars.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Abaddon on December 17, 2018, 07:24:04 PM
Late to the thread but however.

The latest in the current gish gallop seems to be One wheel larger that the other (A. A stupid idea and B. Photography)

No tracks (Gene scuffed them removing the fenders for return to earth. Both are on display)

Wheels in different directions (All four LRV wheels were independently steered)

An antenna "looks wrong" (no idea which or why. They all look normal/as expected)

So where's the beef?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 17, 2018, 08:24:20 PM
Wheels in different directions (All four LRV wheels were independently steered)

All four independently powered, yes.  Steering was pairwise, front and back.  Front and rear pairs could be independently enabled, though.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 17, 2018, 09:23:30 PM
Hi Everyone,

A couple of things. And again I am not sure why everyone response's revolve around side topics that are somewhat meaningless.

With regards to the government. If everyone feels that governments are not capable of duping the people and getting away with it. I will leave you with just one quote from a former President. And you can debate it with him. From his autobiography, he states

 "Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the moon...The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed; he said that he didn't believe it for a minute, that 'them television fellers' could make things look real that weren't. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time “ Bill Clinton 2004.

Now I am not suggesting here Clinton is saying that the Landings were fake but it is clear, given his time in Washington, he believes the wool is being pulled over people's faces with regards to government actions. And it is also unclear why he would use the Moon Landings to make this point. It is 2004, he would know full well of the debate around this topic and this would only muddy the waters more particularly since he doesn't qualify the Carpenters statement about the Landings were dubious as being wrong but his thoughts on Government/media as being right.  It doesn't make a lot of sense. Can you imagine if he used JFK assignation to make his point? Anyways I have no interest in debating this. Just trying to point out governments can literally get away with murder.

With regards to the Lunar Rover pic. Again, all I was trying to show is the shape of the fender and how it is very similar to the "object" seen in the background of LM site. But everyone has ignored this and has instead decided to focus on suggesting I am a buffoon to suggest the photo appears odd. I made a simple comment. I also suggested that given where the photo appears to have taken from, it could not be foreshortening. I did not say it could not be foreshortening. But I am suggesting that photo had to be taken close and from the rear left end of the Rover. And to support this, I said one only has to look at the rear right "antenna". It has a profile that can only be seen from below. A normal pic will show a horizontal ie flat part near the top. (I have attached a pic from the same mission showing how the antenna looks if the photo is taken normally. Notice how you cannot see how the design of the flat part is constructed. On the foreshortened photo, you can see it clearly.) So if it is a foreshortened photo, the place where the photo seems to have be taken from seems wrong. So the photo could be a composite and not as Jay satirically it was created by a couple of guys sitting around building a Rover with a bigger tire. In any event, I don't really care about this. If I am wrong, I am wrong. No biggie. My main point was to show what the shape of a rover fender looks like. I believe I have done this. (I have reattached the photos again to hopefully ignite a more fruitful discussion.)

I am not quite sure what the purpose of this forum is? Forums should be about debate. I realize we all have our beliefs. I believe one of the posters asked me where I fall in my beliefs. I'll be honest, it is the photos which have brought me here. I believe many of the photos/films display things that make feel the visuals are less than authentic. Does that make the landings fake? Not necessarily but more likely. And that's why I am here. To bounce thoughts off you guys. Not to get belittled. I can do that for you up front. Odds are, probability wise, I am completely out to lunch. I already know that. But I still have questions.

To that point, I don't think anyone has address my contention the LM site and the EVA site maybe the same location other than OneBigMonkey. (his post I will address separately) Why is it so easy to ignore the "meat and potatoes" and rather question character and mock others who thoughts may not be same as your own? I think the questions I have asked in this thread have been reasonable and nor naïve. I have asked why the flag changed orientation. That's reasonable. I asked why the LM inserted into the Saturn stage looked different. Again reasonable. I asked why the engines thrusted back into the craft and if the deflectors would cause stability issues. Again reasonable. I have asked why NASA would expose a small engine nozzle to the forces of liftoff. That seems reasonable to me. I have asked why certain A17 site locations seem similar. Reasonable (but so far no response). I am just literally looking for answers. If they don't fit with my way of thinking. So be it. It won't be the first time I am wrong.

 
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: AtomicDog on December 17, 2018, 10:02:39 PM
You tapdance pretty good, son.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 17, 2018, 10:23:19 PM
And again I am not sure why everyone response's revolve around side topics that are somewhat meaningless.

Because you behave suspiciously, and until that's resolved we don't know if we're having a discussion or a debate.  You've been told what about your behavior makes it suspicious, but instead of fixing it you just double down on it and try to shame everyone away from noticing it.  Instead of complaining about how badly you're allegedly being treated, why don't you just take the advice you've been given?

Quote
A normal pic will show a horizontal ie flat part near the top.

No, there's no such thing as a "normal" picture of the antenna, or of any subject.  The line of sight in each case will either be aligned with the antenna or it will not be, and that will vary with conditions.  There's no canonically correct way that it should appear in all true photographs.  Your knowledge of photography is severely limited, as is your knowledge of engineering and science.  All your arguments simply foist your uninformed expectations on the evidence.

Quote
So the photo could be a composite and not as Jay satirically it was created by a couple of guys sitting around building a Rover with a bigger tire.

Since you forced your opponents to guess at what you were trying to argue, it's disingenuous of you to complain when they do.  Don't like it?  Fix the way you argue.

Quote
...In any event, I don't really care about this.

Then why bring it up at all?  You did care about it until your ignorance of the circumstances of the photograph was exposed, just as you seem to have stopped caring about the plume deflectors and RCS jets after your ignorance of engineering was exposed.  This is why we remark on your behavior.  It's suspicious.  A normal person just looking for answers would say things like, "Gee, that's interesting, I didn't know that before.  I can see the mistake I made.  Thanks for clearing that up."  Instead you try to sneak away from embarrassing failures.  Your behavior is more consistent with saving face than with learning how space missions work.

Quote
I am not quite sure what the purpose of this forum is? Forums should be about debate.

This one is, but you don't want to debate honestly.  You're playing all the usual passive-aggressive games that people play when they don't really have a good argument.  As long as you keep debating dishonestly, your dishonesty will remain a topic of debate.

Quote
...that make feel the visuals are less than authentic.

How many times do you have to have your head handed to you before you start questioning your ability to form correct assumptions, and considering that -- not some giant hoax -- to be the explanation?

Quote
To bounce thoughts off you guys. Not to get belittled.

Quit whining.  If you don't want your irrational behavior to be noticed and commented upon, stop behaving irrationally.

Quote
Why is it so easy to ignore the "meat and potatoes" and rather question character and mock others who thoughts may not be same as your own?

The problem is not that your thoughts aren't like ours.  The problem is that your thoughts are so poorly thought out, and you don't seem to want to face up to that.  People are giving you exactly what you say you want -- meaningful feedback about your ideas.  But you largely ignore it.  Instead of thinking of the question as one of conformity, try thinking of it as one of correctness.  Maybe nine out of ten people think a certain way about something because there really are such things as facts, and they really do know them.

Quote
I think the questions I have asked in this thread have been reasonable and nor naïve.

We talked about this.  There are questions and then there are questions.  What you initially posture as innocent requests for information quickly turn rhetorical.  Your behavior after you get the answers is certainly not reasonable.  Yes, your questions are naive because they lack a proper foundation in the facts.  That can be forgiven until you are told the facts.  After that, continuing to foist your layman's misconceptions goes from naivete to willful ignorance.

Quote
I asked why the engines thrusted back into the craft and if the deflectors would cause stability issues. Again reasonable.

No, it's not reasonable because you provided no reason except your vague, ignorant suppositions.  You insisted they would make the LM unstable.  Then when the answer was given to you at length, you rejected it and stuck with your irrational fears.  You even went so far as to say the explanation you were given was somehow inadequate.  That's the part where you became irrational and your motives became suspicious.

Quote
I have asked why NASA would expose a small engine nozzle to the forces of liftoff. That seems reasonable to me.

And once again your question was based on an ignorant supposition.  And again when you were told what the answer was, you dismissed it and decided to cling to your old beliefs.  And again you insinuated you had not been given a complete response.  Hence we now have a pattern of irrational behavior, which makes your "just asking questions" disguise pretty thin.

Every single hoax claimant does what you're doing, and every single one thinks it's original and convincing.  You stick your neck out just enough to get the hoax claims on the table, but not so far away that you can't dash back to the safety of "I'm only asking questions!" once you get in over your head.  It's a shameful ploy to defuse a failed argument via ham-fisted social engineering.

Quote
I am just literally looking for answers.

No, you're trying to argue the missions were fake, using the same passive-aggressive nonsense almost every hoax claimant does at this forum.  It's not fooling anyone.

Quote
It won't be the first time I am wrong.

You have assiduously avoided admitting you are wrong on anything, even when it has been made abundantly obvious that you are.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Northern Lurker on December 17, 2018, 10:28:07 PM
For a debate to happen, you should say what you believe and discuss one point at a time. Instead you raise a point, get rebuffed and instead of discussing it, you just rise another point.

Regarding similar backgrounds, the Moon is dead airless body. It means there are no distance cues we are used to. Like haze, vegetation and such. If those hills are farther away than you think, the background doesn't change as much as you expect.

One more thing is that science is not a court of law. In court the beef is whether there is a reasonable suspicion or not. In science the goal is to understand how the world and universe works. You are using oratorical tricks with intent of winning a debate or court case instead of honest search of objective truth.

I and many others think and feel that smearing one of humanity's great engineering achievement for your own gain and to feel better about yourself is just pathetic and wrong.

Lurky
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 17, 2018, 10:33:07 PM
You tapdance pretty good, son.

Yeah, you have to hand it to a guy who can't decide within the span of a single post whether this is a debate or whether he's "just asking questions."
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 17, 2018, 11:23:18 PM
Hi NorthernLurker,

You make some good points. Yes, this thread seems to have bounced all over the place. Not my intention. Bunch of time wasted on many minor side issues especially.

You also mention that questioning the moon landings is akin to "smearing one of humanity's great engineering achievement". I get that. That is why I try to tread lightly. I know this means a lot to many people. I have two close buddies which fall into that category. We have good natured debates all the time but nobody takes anything personally.   
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 17, 2018, 11:29:17 PM
I know this means a lot to many people.

In the sense that honest people care about facts.  Can you demonstrate as strong a devotion to fact as they?

Quote
We have good natured debates all the time but nobody takes anything personally.

I'm guessing you don't play the same games with them as you play here.  If you're committed to not making this a personal issue, then you shouldn't have any problem conceding that you were mistaken about the plume deflectors and the RCS jets.  Will you do that?

Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Von_Smith on December 17, 2018, 11:38:30 PM
Hi Everyone,

A couple of things. And again I am not sure why everyone response's revolve around side topics that are somewhat meaningless.


It may have something to do with the fact that you do this yourself.  You began this discussion with observations and questions about the plume deflectors and RCS thrusters on the LM.  If you review this thread I suspect you will find that, as long as you stayed on that topic, so did your interlocutors.  *You* were the one who introduced new, unrelated topics such as windows and rover tires.  And when you did, those "meaningless side topics" got addressed, too.

May I suggest that you not keep introducing such side topics into the discussion, since you seem to think they are meaningless and apparently do not want them dwelt upon.  For example, don't wander into such meaningless side topics as comments Bill Clinton made in his memoirs, and then at the end of two long paragraphs on this topic suddenly out of nowhere suggest that governments "can literally get away with murder".

If you want your interlocutors to focus, you must commit to focus yourself.


ETA:  May I also point out that all this complaining about your treatment and other posters' misplaced focus is itself a meaningless side topic?

Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 18, 2018, 12:16:06 AM
Hi Von_Smith,

At the risk of adding one more meaningless post. My first post tonight was in response to a few days of posts aimed at me talking about the government and the foreshortened Rover. I made it clear in that post that we are off topic and need to get back on track. And the posts since then (including yours)? All off topic. I get it. If you want me to admit I am guilty of introducing side topics. I guess I am. And if Jay wants me to admit that people have given plausible explanations for some of the questions I have asked. Sure.

Can we just move on? Lets focus on the topics and I will do my best to keep on topic.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 18, 2018, 12:41:36 AM
If you want me to admit I am guilty of introducing side topics. I guess I am.

If you want to defuse the tension, actually apologizing to those whom you disingenuously accused would help.

Quote
And if Jay wants me to admit that people have given plausible explanations for some of the questions I have asked. Sure.

That's not what I asked.  I asked you to concede that you were mistaken about the plume deflectors and the RCS.  In your version, you get to acknowledge that your critics are "plausible" without your having to change your beliefs or admit error.  I told you this was about honesty.  You're still not being honest.

Quote
Can we just move on?

Just as soon as you stop trying to save face.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: molesworth on December 18, 2018, 02:57:42 AM
A couple of things. And again I am not sure why everyone response's revolve around side topics that are somewhat meaningless.
As already mentioned by others, it's because you keep introducing them (and do so again below).  Personally, I'm still not sure what your main topic is.  What your main question or perceived problem is.  Maybe if you could state clearly and concisely exactly what point you would like people to explain or discuss, it would stop the off-topic ramblings.

I'd add that you perhaps need to put in some effort to learn and understand the subjects you're trying to discuss :
Quote
… all I was trying to show is the shape of the fender and how it is very similar to...
Quote
It has a profile that can only be seen from below. A normal pic will show...
Quote
...the place where the photo seems to have be taken from seems wrong.
Quote
I believe many of the photos/films display things that make feel the visuals are less than authentic.
"Feelings" and "beliefs" (and what exactly is a "normal picture"?) have been shown time and again to be very poor guides to what is real and what is imagined.  This applies in all walks of life, not just when discussing the Apollo landings.

Quote
I think the questions I have asked in this thread have been reasonable and nor naïve. I have asked why the flag changed orientation. That's reasonable. I asked why the LM inserted into the Saturn stage looked different. Again reasonable. I asked why the engines thrusted back into the craft and if the deflectors would cause stability issues. Again reasonable. I have asked why NASA would expose a small engine nozzle to the forces of liftoff. That seems reasonable to me. I have asked why certain A17 site locations seem similar. Reasonable (but so far no response). I am just literally looking for answers. If they don't fit with my way of thinking. So be it. It won't be the first time I am wrong.
There's nothing wrong with asking questions - even stupid questions can be worthwhile.  The problem arises when, having had the questions answered extensively, with supporting evidence, and with references, the questioner dismisses the answer and moves on to yet another vague supposition...
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: nomuse on December 18, 2018, 03:29:45 AM
Hi Everyone,

A couple of things. And again I am not sure why everyone response's revolve around side topics that are somewhat meaningless.

For the same reason Karl Popper wrote a book. Or why David Dunning phoned up his friend Justin. Knowing is not a simple thing. Understanding how you know and how to know what you know is useful to, well, know.

I hold to Feyman's Dictum myself. In a simplified and more pungent form; "Assume you made a mistake." No matter how smart you are, how skilled you are, how careful you are, you made a mistake. Now find it before someone gets hurt.

At the very least, the inability of Hoax Believers to apply that kind of sanity check on their own work serves as a vivid object lesson for the rest of us.

With regards to the government. If everyone feels that governments are not capable of duping the people and getting away with it. I will leave you with just one quote from a former President. And you can debate it with him. From his autobiography, he states

Absolutism. A Cretan once told a lie. Does that mean all Cretans lie? What if the person that told me about that lie was himself a Cretan? Do I then implode from the strange loop like a computer on Star Trek TOS?

That's the problem with pretending to do logic with word-pictures. Or even picture-pictures. Words are fuzzy. They occupy zones of meaning-space. It doesn't take a lot of work to make apparent contradictions appear.

Especially if you trim off all those words which were there to narrow the meaning. No person on this board ever stated that governments do not lie, or can not lie. They stated that the conspiracy (notice the difference!) required to fake Apollo (notice the specificity!) is implausible (again, notice the precision.)

"Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the moon...The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed; he said that he didn't believe it for a minute, that 'them television fellers' could make things look real that weren't. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time “ Bill Clinton 2004.


Oh dog not this one again. I can't believe this one isn't on the Bingo card already. Maybe because it is so damned stupid even most hoaxies turn their noses up at it?

Now I am not suggesting here Clinton is saying that the Landings were fake but it is clear, given his time in Washington, he believes the wool is being pulled over people's faces with regards to government actions. And it is also unclear why he would use the Moon Landings to make this point. It is 2004, he would know full well of the debate around this topic and this would only muddy the waters more particularly since he doesn't qualify the Carpenters statement about the Landings were dubious as being wrong but his thoughts on Government/media as being right.  It doesn't make a lot of sense. Can you imagine if he used JFK assignation to make his point? Anyways I have no interest in debating this. Just trying to point out governments can literally get away with murder.

This being the same Clinton who couldn't extra-curricular with someone in his own office without certain descriptive phrases about a certain garment being repeated on nationwide television more often than many parents would have preferred. And he was actually (though briefly) kicked out of office for it!

With regards to the Lunar Rover pic. Again, all I was trying to show is the shape of the fender and how it is very similar to the "object" seen in the background of LM site. But everyone has ignored this and has instead decided to focus on suggesting I am a buffoon to suggest the photo appears odd. I made a simple comment.

First time I ever heard the horse complain about the Gish Gallop. You could have stayed with the fender until everyone was satisfied.

I also suggested that given where the photo appears to have taken from, it could not be foreshortening. I did not say it could not be foreshortening. But I am suggesting that photo had to be taken close and from the rear left end of the Rover. And to support this, I said one only has to look at the rear right "antenna". It has a profile that can only be seen from below. A normal pic will show a horizontal ie flat part near the top. (I have attached a pic from the same mission showing how the antenna looks if the photo is taken normally. Notice how you cannot see how the design of the flat part is constructed. On the foreshortened photo, you can see it clearly.) So if it is a foreshortened photo, the place where the photo seems to have be taken from seems wrong.

Learn geometry.

So the photo could be a composite and not as Jay satirically it was created by a couple of guys sitting around building a Rover with a bigger tire.

And why would it be a composite? Because they only built half a rover?

And if it is a composite, why isn't THAT in correct perspective? You do realize this is a known field, right? The rules of artistic perspective were worked out in a previous century. People were painting trompe-l'œil with brushes and rulers back before cameras even existed.

It isn't enough to say the accepted answer must be wrong; you have to come up with one that has superior explanatory power. Having the billion-dollar multi-decade top-level conspiracy hire a one-eyed man with a paste pot to go amuck with their carefully faked footage is NOT a better crafted explanation.

In any event, I don't really care about this. If I am wrong, I am wrong. No biggie.

Then why bring it up?

My main point was to show what the shape of a rover fender looks like. I believe I have done this. (I have reattached the photos again to hopefully ignite a more fruitful discussion.)

I shouldn't have to belabor this point, but this is a board of Apollo fans who have spent years familiarizing themselves with every aspect of the program. You seriously think you have to tell them what a fender looks like?

I mean...why would we be asking the guy who doesn't even know what the vehicle is called?

(Or how big the wheels are).

I am not quite sure what the purpose of this forum is? Forums should be about debate. I realize we all have our beliefs. I believe one of the posters asked me where I fall in my beliefs. I'll be honest, it is the photos which have brought me here. I believe many of the photos/films display things that make feel the visuals are less than authentic. Does that make the landings fake? Not necessarily but more likely. And that's why I am here. To bounce thoughts off you guys. Not to get belittled. I can do that for you up front. Odds are, probability wise, I am completely out to lunch. I already know that. But I still have questions.

Or you have the same trouble Khan had; thinking in three dimensions. No shame there. Some people are color blind. Some can't carry a tune in a bucket. Find the tools to develop your eye, to work out of or work around your weakness.

Like I said earlier, perspective is a known thing. Photogrammatic analysis, the bigger, white-collar, brother, is also a thing. You don't have to squint until your eyes bleed hoping that eyeball and brain can do the chore all on their own.

To that point, I don't think anyone has address my contention the LM site and the EVA site maybe the same location other than OneBigMonkey.

I did. I said the backgrounds were only consistent with three dimensions. No matt painting ever created simulates sculptural dimension in that manner.

(his post I will address separately) Why is it so easy to ignore the "meat and potatoes" and rather question character and mock others who thoughts may not be same as your own? I think the questions I have asked in this thread have been reasonable and nor naïve. I have asked why the flag changed orientation. That's reasonable. I asked why the LM inserted into the Saturn stage looked different. Again reasonable. I asked why the engines thrusted back into the craft and if the deflectors would cause stability issues. Again reasonable. I have asked why NASA would expose a small engine nozzle to the forces of liftoff. That seems reasonable to me. I have asked why certain A17 site locations seem similar. Reasonable (but so far no response). I am just literally looking for answers. If they don't fit with my way of thinking. So be it. It won't be the first time I am wrong.

You'd get a better class of reply if you actually did as you are complaining above; clearly and concisely state your claim or problem, wait until discussion is complete, then and only then move on.

Instead you produce photographs and wave vaguely at them and tell other people there's something "wrong" with them. And you hop from question to question as if...exactly as if...winning a debate by throwing as much possible in as little time as possible is the way to go.

It does not seem like discussion. It does not seem like honest enquiry.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 18, 2018, 03:43:28 AM
Hi Everyone,

A couple of things. And again I am not sure why everyone response's revolve around side topics that are somewhat meaningless.

If you do not want people's responses to include 'side topics' then stop bringing them up. The responses have only been to things you bring to the discussion, so quit whining about it and own your agency in this discussion instead of dancing around it and casting it off when it becomes inconvenient to you to admit you were wrong.

Quote
With regards to the government. If everyone feels that governments are not capable of duping the people and getting away with it. I will leave you with just one quote from a former President.

Irrelevant. No-one disputes that people can be fooled. And in any case you are disputing that they can 'get away with it' because somehow you have seen things that give it away. Do you honestly think that 50 years on you're the only one with special insight?

Quote
Just trying to point out governments can literally get away with murder.

Again irrelevant. What they can and can't get away with as a general notion has nothing to do with this specific instance. I assume you have got away with a few untruths in your time. DO we need to treat everything you say with suspicion because of that, or is it just possible you can lie about some things and tell the truth about others?

Quote
So the photo could be a composite and not as Jay satirically it was created by a couple of guys sitting around building a Rover with a bigger tire.

Your gaming is too obvious. You didn't present any argument for the apparent discrepancy in size, so don't complain when people point out that the alternatives to simple photograhic effects fail due to absurdity. There is no sensible reason why it should be a composite either.

Quote
In any event, I don't really care about this.

Then why even mention it? If you want this discussion to avoid 'meaningless side topics' then don't bring them up in the first place. You're still doing it now.

Quote
If I am wrong, I am wrong. No biggie.

Are you conceding you were wrong about the picture, or about anything else you have brought up?

Quote
I believe many of the photos/films display things that make feel the visuals are less than authentic. Does that make the landings fake? Not necessarily but more likely. And that's why I am here. To bounce thoughts off you guys. Not to get belittled. I can do that for you up front. Odds are, probability wise, I am completely out to lunch. I already know that. But I still have questions.

Questions are fine. However, if you acknowledge the answers you have been given and answer ours simply and concisely you'll get the debate you claim you want. Instead you double down on your 'feelings' and refuse to acknowledge the clear responses you've been given. For one example, you asked a question about a vehicle that thrusts back on its own body and were given an example of such a vehicle by me, but have yet to acknowledge that. You have ignored the lengthy epxlanations for why the plume deflectors do not introduce instability, and you have failed to produce the MIT paper you claimed as evidence that the RCS was easily knocked into an unstable positive feedback loop. Where is it?

Quote
To that point, I don't think anyone has address my contention the LM site and the EVA site maybe the same location other than OneBigMonkey. (his post I will address separately) Why is it so easy to ignore the "meat and potatoes" and rather question character and mock others who thoughts may not be same as your own?

I asked you to give a simple yes or no answer to the question of whether that was your contention and you refused. Now you whine about people not addressing it.

Quote
I think the questions I have asked in this thread have been reasonable and nor naïve.

The questions themselves would be reasonable if you didnt follow them up with rhetoric and absurdity. There's a world of difference between 'just asking questions' and what you are doing.

Quote
I have asked why the flag changed orientation. That's reasonable.

And you were given plenty of explanations and have not acknowledged them. Do you accept the answer that the flag was moved by outgassing from the LM during cabin depress and/or from the RCS test firing?

Quote
I asked why the LM inserted into the Saturn stage looked different. Again reasonable.

And you were given plenty of explanations and have not acknowledged them. Do you accept the answer that work on the LM continued after stacking. You were even given a diagram of the work platform layout inside the SLA and shown a picture of the mobile service structure for working on the vehicle at the pad.

Quote
I asked why the engines thrusted back into the craft and if the deflectors would cause stability issues. Again reasonable.

And you were given plenty of explanations and have not acknowledged them. Do you accept the answer that the plume deflectors introduce minimal instability due to their design and the miminal thrust from the exhaust that would impinge on them when compared to the thrust generated at the engine itself? Do you also acknowledge that another kind of vehcle thrust back on itself all the time and still fies?

Quote
I have asked why NASA would expose a small engine nozzle to the forces of liftoff. That seems reasonable to me.

And you were given plenty of explanations and have not acknowledged them. Do you accept the answer that in that location the forces are not as strong as you imagine, and that if they were they would simply have covered them with a fairing like every other thing that sticks out of the vehicle?

Quote
I have asked why certain A17 site locations seem similar. Reasonable (but so far no response).

Why would you expect sites on the moon that are covered in craters and boudlers not to look similar? Why do you imagine that the background should not look similar?

Quote
I am just literally looking for answers.

You're getting them. The next step is for you to acknowledge them, not brush them under the carpet as 'no biggie'.

Once again, you are playing a big part in how this discussion progresses. You've had this explained to you several times now, so if you want to have a debate then have a debate. Engage with the answers, don't dismiss them and say 'well it still doesn't look right to me'. How much would be required for you to admit your ideas about how it 'should' look are wrong, and that this might just mean your entire conclusion is also wrong?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: gillianren on December 18, 2018, 03:56:10 AM
Why should we care if Bill Clinton says it was possible to fake the Apollo missions?  (Note, he doesn't believe they were fake.)  Unless he can provide actual evidence that they were, it remains opinion.  And he's many things, but he is not, in fact, a rocket scientist.  Or a special effects expert.  Or a geologist.  Or any number of the literally dozens of other fields that would have an informed opinion.  He's saying "governments lie."  Well, duh.  But "literally get away with murder"?

. . . Yeah, sometimes.  Unfortunate but true.  However, in most cases, it's not because no one knows but because no one holds them accountable.  The secrets aren't hidden.  Look how long it took to reveal that a journalist was killed by a leader of a foreign power.  Now, nothing's happening about that, but that is again because of lack of interest in accountability.

However, Apollo was primarily planned and carried out in the administrations of Kennedy and Johnson.  Their successor, Richard Nixon, hated them both and would have loved to show them as lying to the American people and the world, especially if it made him look good in some way.  He didn't have the motivation to keep that secret.  So where did the buck stop?  Who ordered the secret kept?  And why haven't all sorts of scientists uninvolved with Apollo revealed the "truth"?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on December 18, 2018, 04:42:04 AM
and you have failed to produce the MIT paper you claimed as evidence that the RCS was easily knocked into an unstable positive feedback loop. Where is it?


Indeed. Where is it?

Assuming (s)he produces it then we can see if it's relevant, says what (s)he thinks that it says and has been reviewed. Just because its an "MIT paper" doesn't imply that it's correct.
As it stands, it's nothing more than a paper-thin attempt at an appeal to authority. So, jr Knowing, where is the paper?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 18, 2018, 06:09:55 AM
and you have failed to produce the MIT paper you claimed as evidence that the RCS was easily knocked into an unstable positive feedback loop. Where is it?


Indeed. Where is it?

Assuming (s)he produces it then we can see if it's relevant, says what (s)he thinks that it says and has been reviewed. Just because its an "MIT paper" doesn't imply that it's correct.

It also doesn't imply that it has been properly understood. There may well be a scholarly paper that discusses the possibility of instability in an RCS system, because arising instability is a potential problem in absolutely any control system from a spacecraft RCS to riding a bike. Pointing out that the problem exists and saying it is an insurmountable problem requiring absolutely perfect conditions, and that any deviation must inevitably lead to a disastrous loss of control, are two different things, however.

I await jr producing the paper so we can see what it actually says.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Mag40 on December 18, 2018, 07:29:07 AM
Bknight - Truck perspective:

http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/frenat/media/cGF0aDovc2xpZGVfdHJ1Y2tfYmFybi5naWY=/?ref=
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 18, 2018, 07:44:58 AM
and you have failed to produce the MIT paper you claimed as evidence that the RCS was easily knocked into an unstable positive feedback loop. Where is it?


Indeed. Where is it?

Assuming (s)he produces it then we can see if it's relevant, says what (s)he thinks that it says and has been reviewed. Just because its an "MIT paper" doesn't imply that it's correct.

It also doesn't imply that it has been properly understood. There may well be a scholarly paper that discusses the possibility of instability in an RCS system, because arising instability is a potential problem in absolutely any control system from a spacecraft RCS to riding a bike. Pointing out that the problem exists and saying it is an insurmountable problem requiring absolutely perfect conditions, and that any deviation must inevitably lead to a disastrous loss of control, are two different things, however.

I await jr producing the paper so we can see what it actually says.

Indeed, take for instance the combustion instability of the F-1 engines.  It was noted and the engineers worked long and tedious hours without the benefit of supercomputers modeling to solve the problem and allow them to work.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Peter B on December 18, 2018, 07:57:06 AM
Wheels in different directions (All four LRV wheels were independently steered)

All four independently powered, yes.  Steering was pairwise, front and back.  Front and rear pairs could be independently enabled, though.

Can I just check something about the steering, though.

My understanding is that on ordinary cars here on Earth, when you turn the steering wheel, the front wheels turn by a slightly different amount given that the wheel on the inside of the turn has a slightly smaller radius to traverse. Is that so?

Was this the case with the lunar rover? After all, I understand the rover had a tighter turning circle than cars here on Earth, so the effect described above would be more pronounced.

Given that the rover in the photo JR Knowing linked seems to have stopped while turning, that would suggest to me that the rear wheels would logically not be parallel, but out of parallel by perhaps 10-20 degrees.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: ka9q on December 18, 2018, 08:14:59 AM
Indeed, take for instance the combustion instability of the F-1 engines.  It was noted and the engineers worked long and tedious hours without the benefit of supercomputers modeling to solve the problem and allow them to work.
Don't military ordnance people like to say that there's no problem that can't be solved with a suitable application of high explosives?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 18, 2018, 09:00:37 AM
Indeed, take for instance the combustion instability of the F-1 engines.  It was noted and the engineers worked long and tedious hours without the benefit of supercomputers modeling to solve the problem and allow them to work.
Don't military ordnance people like to say that there's no problem that can't be solved with a suitable application of high explosives?

The only ordnance I was involved was in the FA and yes if you wanted to destroy something HE rounds were great. :)
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Abaddon on December 18, 2018, 09:04:39 AM
Wheels in different directions (All four LRV wheels were independently steered)

All four independently powered, yes.  Steering was pairwise, front and back.  Front and rear pairs could be independently enabled, though.

Can I just check something about the steering, though.

My understanding is that on ordinary cars here on Earth, when you turn the steering wheel, the front wheels turn by a slightly different amount given that the wheel on the inside of the turn has a slightly smaller radius to traverse. Is that so?

Was this the case with the lunar rover? After all, I understand the rover had a tighter turning circle than cars here on Earth, so the effect described above would be more pronounced.

Given that the rover in the photo JR Knowing linked seems to have stopped while turning, that would suggest to me that the rear wheels would logically not be parallel, but out of parallel by perhaps 10-20 degrees.

Yes.

Ackerman steering geometry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ackermann_steering_geometry
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Peter B on December 18, 2018, 09:15:38 AM
Hi Everyone,

A couple of things. And again I am not sure why everyone response's revolve around side topics that are somewhat meaningless.

If you do not want people's responses to include 'side topics' then stop bringing them up. The responses have only been to things you bring to the discussion, so quit whining about it and own your agency in this discussion instead of dancing around it and casting it off when it becomes inconvenient to you to admit you were wrong.

...

Quote
In any event, I don't really care about this.

Then why even mention it? If you want this discussion to avoid 'meaningless side topics' then don't bring them up in the first place. You're still doing it now.

...

Quote
I am just literally looking for answers.

You're getting them. The next step is for you to acknowledge them, not brush them under the carpet as 'no biggie'.

Once again, you are playing a big part in how this discussion progresses. You've had this explained to you several times now, so if you want to have a debate then have a debate. Engage with the answers, don't dismiss them and say 'well it still doesn't look right to me'. How much would be required for you to admit your ideas about how it 'should' look are wrong, and that this might just mean your entire conclusion is also wrong?

It's an intriguing aspect of Apollo Hoax beliefs which keeps cropping up - regardless of whether we answer questions or ignore them, the Hoax Believers find both courses of action puzzling/disturbing/suspicious. If we fail to answer then we have something to hide; if we answer them then there must be something we want to deflect attention from.

Come on JR Knowing - you've read enough of these threads to see that the denizens of this place are quite willing to openly admit they've been shown to be wrong. Do you think you can do that with regard to the questions you've airily waved in our direction?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 18, 2018, 09:16:30 AM
Just because its an "MIT paper" doesn't imply that it's correct.

Since it was MIT who designed the system, I'd stipulate that the paper -- taken as a whole -- is almost certainly correct.  The Charles Stark Draper lab produced a host of written materials discussing the theory and practice of three-axis control as it related to Apollo spacecraft.  And why shouldn't they?  They're academics, the premier academic institution for this sort of thing.

But that won't stop someone from quote-mining any of their work and handwaving up a case for overall instability based on it.  Again, the standard work here is Sidi's Spacecraft Dynamics and Control, which presents the generalized MIT solution in a more didactically friendly format and covers the rest of the topic thoroughly.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 18, 2018, 09:27:00 AM
As already mentioned by others, it's because you keep introducing [side topics] (and do so again below).

My impression is that by "side topics" he means the references to the rhetorical games he thinks he's getting away with.  I gather he wants the debate to be solely about fenders and antennas and plume deflectors, not how he's failing at manipulating the discussion so as to avoid intellectual honesty or responsibility.  It's like someone playing football (the kind actually played with the feet) and complaining that the ref keeps stopping the game to penalize him for using his hands.  Let's just play "football" already!  So yeah, he's trying to play more games by shaming people away from noticing all the games he's playing.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 18, 2018, 09:44:51 AM
Yes, the LRV used Ackerman-geometry steering.  Outer wheel can deflect 22 degrees off-axis; inner wheel can deflect 50 degrees off-axis.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Von_Smith on December 18, 2018, 10:07:50 AM
Hi Von_Smith,

At the risk of adding one more meaningless post. My first post tonight was in response to a few days of posts aimed at me talking about the government and the foreshortened Rover. I made it clear in that post that we are off topic and need to get back on track. And the posts since then (including yours)? All off topic. I get it. If you want me to admit I am guilty of introducing side topics. I guess I am. And if Jay wants me to admit that people have given plausible explanations for some of the questions I have asked. Sure.

Can we just move on? Lets focus on the topics and I will do my best to keep on topic.

Very well.  We can start by going back to a question I asked you about the original topic that I have yet to see you answer:

You said in your original post that the deflectors were "problematic" and claimed that an MIT paper had suggested that they would create significant instabilities in anything other than perfect conditions.  Now you're suggesting that the deflectors would have been considered necessary by any competent observers, and so had to be there in order to fool them.  So which is it?  Are the deflectors what one would expect on a legit mission or not?  Are they features that "don't look right" or ones that look exactly the way they need to in order to fool the experts among the audience?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Northern Lurker on December 18, 2018, 10:45:48 AM

You also mention that questioning the moon landings is akin to "smearing one of humanity's great engineering achievement". I get that. That is why I try to tread lightly. I know this means a lot to many people.

I want to clarify that moon landings, Apollo program or space flight in general are not sacrosanct topics which cannot be criticized. We can debate whether they are good use of tax payer's money, are they the best way to make science or what Apollo with today's technology would be.

Smearing which I loathe is efforts of some unnamed entities to cherry pick parts that look weird, parts that look wrong for layman's common sense and (un)healthy dose of bald lies and omission to create hoax narrative and then monetize that by patreon supporters, website ads or selling magazines, books, DVDs and other paraphernalia.

Second form which I loath almost as much are those who want to be something special and accomplish that by pushing others down. Apollo was scientific, management, engineering, manufacturing and Cold War propaganda success story which was founded on talented individuals who accepted mortal risks, sacrificed their family lives and some even their lives.

On the other hand people who have genuine questions about Apollo or space flight in genereal are heartily welcomed. Answering their questions gives opportunity to talk about the thing we are interested about. And it gives satisfaction when someone clears they misconceptions, thank you and either stay to learn more or walk away little bit wiser.

Unfortunately you don't act like the third type. You seem to have preconceived idea that Apollo was faked and when your concerns get addressed, you don't thank for new information and rethink your attitude. Instead you just ignore it and raise another concern. And another. And finally complain that the discussion won't stay in one topic.

Lurky
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 18, 2018, 10:48:33 AM
jr:

I don't understand (something about images) therefore they must be fake.  It doesn't look right to me (something about images) therefore it must be faked.  I can't believe that works(don't understand how it works) therefore it must be faked.  The images are similar therefore they are faked.


Anymore propositions?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on December 18, 2018, 11:57:21 AM
Just because its an "MIT paper" doesn't imply that it's correct.

Since it was MIT who designed the system, I'd stipulate that the paper -- taken as a whole -- is almost certainly correct.  The Charles Stark Draper lab produced a host of written materials discussing the theory and practice of three-axis control as it related to Apollo spacecraft.  And why shouldn't they?  They're academics, the premier academic institution for this sort of thing.

Agreed, but jr Knowing's claim appeared to be little more than a claim from authority. Until we know what the "MIT paper" actually was then I'd just dismiss it, especially in light of the individuals inability to grasp simple concepts.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 18, 2018, 12:47:17 PM
Agreed, but jr Knowing's claim appeared to be little more than a claim from authority. Until we know what the "MIT paper" actually was then I'd just dismiss it, especially in light of the individuals inability to grasp simple concepts.

No argument here.  I want merely to finely slice between two ideas.  I'm happy to accept MIT as an authority on the Apollo guidance system.  That's not the objection.  But without more information, I'm not willing to accept vague references to that authority as proof that plume deflectors would have presented a stability problem.  I know they won't.  Nor do other vague references establish the claim that the guidance problem is precarious.  I know it isn't.  If Jr is getting that from any paper he reads from MIT on the Apollo guidance system, then he isn't understanding it.  We have to see the actual paper in order to determine how he misconceived it.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 18, 2018, 01:44:12 PM
Agreed, but jr Knowing's claim appeared to be little more than a claim from authority. Until we know what the "MIT paper" actually was then I'd just dismiss it, especially in light of the individuals inability to grasp simple concepts.

No argument here.  I want merely to finely slice between two ideas.  I'm happy to accept MIT as an authority on the Apollo guidance system.  That's not the objection.  But without more information, I'm not willing to accept vague references to that authority as proof that plume deflectors would have presented a stability problem.  I know they won't.  Nor do other vague references establish the claim that the guidance problem is precarious.  I know it isn't.  If Jr is getting that from any paper he reads from MIT on the Apollo guidance system, then he isn't understanding it.  We have to see the actual paper in order to determine how he misconceived it.

Very likely judging from current arguments.  And I don't believe he will be able to dig up the document.  It seems like he read a reference to that document but not the actual document. I could be and have been wrong in the past, but the repeated request have brought forth nothing.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 18, 2018, 02:35:02 PM
Would the OP care to explain what is remotely similar about the object on the left and the object in the other two photographs?

(https://i.imgur.com/vWzE5ux.jpg)
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 18, 2018, 03:19:00 PM
Hi Everyone,

Here is one of the MIT documents. I will try to dig up the much more in depth paper. To be clear it states

"Due to the presence of jet plume deflectors on the LM descent
stage, the use of +X thrusting LM jets for pitch or roll attitude control
of the CSM-docked configuration will"  "cause a
serious control instability"

Further it goes onto state that less than ideal conditions will lead to a positive feedback loop that will cause

"the vehicle will spin uncontrollably
in the counter clockwise direction."

Everything I have said is here. I guess all you guys need to argue with MIT and not me. Further one of the more in depth papers I read (I will try to dig up) lays it out even more explicitly stating ideal conditions consisting of weight balance, thrust balance and proper timing are requirements to ensure the craft doesn't become unstable.

Now can we move on and maybe give me a little respect. Thanks

https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/LUM117_text.pdf

Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 18, 2018, 03:37:41 PM
Hi Everyone,

Here is one of the MIT documents. I will try to dig up the much more in depth paper.

This is a memo, not a paper. World of difference between the two things.

It was also written after Apollo 11 landed.

Quote
To be clear it states

"Due to the presence of jet plume deflectors on the LM descent
stage, the use of +X thrusting LM jets for pitch or roll attitude control
of the CSM-docked configuration will"  "cause a
serious control instability"

Yes, it does indeed state that. However, here is where you lose marks for a) intepretation and b) honest representation of the statements.

Point a): the memo is referring to the use of the LM RCS to control attitude in the CSM/LM docked configuration. During normal flight the LM RCS is not used for this, the RCS on the SM is. Only one flight used the LM RCS for any purpose in the docked configuration, and that was Apollo 13.

Point b): it refers to causing a control instability "for some mass loadings" and "if any -X thrusting jets have failed off or have been disabled". Please explain your failure to include those caveats.

Furthermore, having pointed out this specific set of circumstances that will result in automatic control instability, it then goes on to detail exactly how this problem can be overcome by manual crew intervention.

So, in summary, you have taken a memo (not a paper) that outlines a specific problem that may occur in some very specific (and unlikely) circumstances, and explains how to avoid the problem and correct any issues by using manual control, and suggested it somehow proves that the plume deflectors on the LM were a huge problem for successful control of the LM alone.

Quote
Further it goes onto state that less than ideal conditions will lead to a positive feedback loop that will cause

"the vehicle will spin uncontrollably
in the counter clockwise direction."

Yes, in the event that the automatic control is used in a very specific set of circumstances which are very unliley to arise in flight, which have nothing to do with independent LM flight or landing, and assuming the crew takes no manual control of the situation.

Quote
Everything I have said is here.

Yes, but you left out a lot of very important details to make your argument. Why?

Quote
I guess all you guys need to argue with MIT and not me.

No, we will argue with you, because it is your failure to correctly understand and apply this memo (again, not a paper: this is an important distinction) that is under discussion here. This memo in no way applies to control of the LM itself or to its ability to land.

Quote
Further one of the more in depth papers I read (I will try to dig up) lays it out even more explicitly stating ideal conditions consisting of weight balance, thrust balance and proper timing are requirements to ensure the craft doesn't become unstable.

Under what specific conditions?

Quote
Now can we move on and maybe give me a little respect. Thanks

If you want respect then represent the arguments you are using honestly and try to put some thought into how they might actually apply. A memo or paper that points to a possible control instability is not only nothing remarkable, it is to be expected. Any system will have potential scenarios in which control instability arises. The question is not if it happens but if it can be dealt with. This memo covers just that.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Mag40 on December 18, 2018, 03:43:48 PM
Jr - I have read this thread from start to finish. You have failed to earn any respect because of your appalling evasion to answers that not only address your questions and claims, but actually tear apart your naive and not slight ignorance.

The fact it has taken you 15 pages and numerous requests is not impressive.

Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 18, 2018, 03:51:27 PM
Another point on that graph: the shaded grey section is labelled as a region in which deflected jets lead to increased instability, but the lower two-thirds of the graph is described as a region in which the deflected jets actually lead to increased stability of the configuration.

So you have a memo that you think supports your arguments that in actual fact has myriad ways in which it not only does not support them it does not even apply to them. And you want respect for that?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 18, 2018, 03:57:59 PM
"Due to the presence of jet plume deflectors on the LM descent stage, the use of +X thrusting LM jets for pitch or roll attitude control of the CSM-docked configuration will" [important detail omitted] "cause aserious control instability"

Why did you leave out all the important parts?

Quote
Further it goes onto state that less than ideal conditions will lead to a positive feedback loop that will cause

"the vehicle will spin uncontrollably in the counter clockwise direction."

...hence, according to the instructions given in the memo, if the astronauts need to operate the spacecraft under the conditions you leave out (which is rare, if ever), they should disable certain jets to avoid the dangerous condition -- something I told you several days ago was possible to do.  Also, the conditions described in the memo are not merely "less than ideal."  They indicate a disabled spacecraft further operating in a docked contingency mode -- two independent failure modes.

Quote
Everything I have said is here.

All nicely cherry-picked.

Quote
I guess all you guys need to argue with MIT and not me.

I have no argument with MIT because they don't say anything I disagree with.  But I'm definitely going to continue argue with you because your dishonesty is even more apparent in your choices of what to leave out and your indifference to the applicability of the memo.

Quote
Now can we move on and maybe give me a little respect. Thanks

No.  You grossly and deliberately misrepresented your source.  My respect for you is even less than it was this morning.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on December 18, 2018, 03:58:54 PM
Hi Everyone,

Here is one of the MIT documents. I will try to dig up the much more in depth paper. To be clear it states

"Due to the presence of jet plume deflectors on the LM descent
stage, the use of +X thrusting LM jets for pitch or roll attitude control
of the CSM-docked configuration will"  "cause a
serious control instability"

Further it goes onto state that less than ideal conditions will lead to a positive feedback loop that will cause

"the vehicle will spin uncontrollably
in the counter clockwise direction."

Everything I have said is here. I guess all you guys need to argue with MIT and not me. Further one of the more in depth papers I read (I will try to dig up) lays it out even more explicitly stating ideal conditions consisting of weight balance, thrust balance and proper timing are requirements to ensure the craft doesn't become unstable.

Now can we move on and maybe give me a little respect. Thanks

https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/LUM117_text.pdf

Perfect, thank you.

From this I can tell you that you cannot tell the difference between a published paper and a memo. I can also tell that you that your attempt to cherry-pick from this document has further evidenced your incompetence in this subject. I presume that you don't know what a Tindallgram is either?

I'll strike this down to the Dunning Kruger effect. Again.



Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 18, 2018, 04:10:48 PM
It was also written after Apollo 11 landed.

And before Apollo 13 flew.

Quote
The question is not if it happens but if it can be dealt with. This memo covers just that.

This is a testament to how thoroughness of the Draper lab.  For this memo even to become applicable to flight, all of the following would need to happen:

(a) The primary CSM guidance system fails.
(b) The secondary CSM guidance system fails.
(c) One specific RCS jet (out of 16) on the LM fails.
(d) Manual control of the CSM-docked LM is impossible or inadvisable.
(e) A certain specific maneuver is required.

That didn't even happen on Apollo 13.  Only two out of the five necessary conditions for instability arose on the most disastrous of the Apollo flights.  This is the degree to which MIT had to go to find a scenario in which the plume deflectors altered the guidance problem.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 18, 2018, 04:15:46 PM
As a complete non-rocket scientist, can I take a wild stab in the dark that important bit that was deliberately omitted was

Quote
if any -X thrusting jets have failed off or have been disabled.

So, if something breaks, it might cause a problem, here's how you can fix it.

How does the presented document square with the claim that no-one did any research into this stuff, because it  looks like someone kind of did some research into it.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: molesworth on December 18, 2018, 04:21:29 PM
Here is one of the MIT documents. I will try to dig up the much more in depth paper. To be clear it states

"Due to the presence of jet plume deflectors on the LM descent
stage, the use of +X thrusting LM jets for pitch or roll attitude control
of the CSM-docked configuration will"  "cause a
serious control instability"

Seriously?  You've cherry-picked selectively to try to make it sound like this supports your conjecture.  Either you don't understand what it really says, or you do, and are being very dishonest, perhaps hoping nobody would bother to examine it in detail.

Quote
...

Now can we move on and maybe give me a little respect.
Sorry - I didn't have much respect for your approach to "questioning the record" up to now.  With this display I have even less for you going forward...
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 18, 2018, 04:42:19 PM
<snip>
Now can we move on and maybe give me a little respect. Thanks

https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/LUM117_text.pdf

You get a vote of "no confidence"  from me. 
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 18, 2018, 04:48:42 PM
As a complete non-rocket scientist, can I take a wild stab in the dark that important bit that was deliberately omitted was

That, or you could just look at the subject of the memo where the author specifies this to apply only to the CSM-docked flight using the LM autopilot.  And it's only unstable if you also lose a LM thruster.  And the danger is, "It might be unstable, so here's how you fix that."  I mean, it's overkill.  It's like British Motor Corporation writing up a service memo for how to take home one's newly-purchased armchair in a Mini.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 18, 2018, 04:51:56 PM
It's like Cooper writing up a service memo for how to take home one's newly-purchased armchair in a Mini.

Mr Bean has that one covered....

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/VjLRTifjpxA/hqdefault.jpg)
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on December 18, 2018, 05:12:10 PM
the author specifies this to apply only to the CSM-docked flight using the LM autopilot.

I was about to make that very point.

Where in the missions was the CSM/LM stack controlled by the LM RCS? Was it only in the case of an emergency (such as A13)? IIRC, the CSM guidance system had no control over the LM RCS and vice-versa or am I barking up completely the wrong tree here?
I'm pretty sure that the LM DAP could be operated in three modes- CSM+Ascent stage, Ascent+Descent stages stacked and Ascent stage only.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 18, 2018, 05:31:47 PM
Where in the missions was the CSM/LM stack controlled by the LM RCS?

Never, in the nominal flight plan.  It was a contingency flight mode for unaccelerated flight (i.e., cruise/drift).  You can use the LM RCS to control the whole stack, but the c.g. in that configuration is so far off the design assumptions for the LM DAP that the impingement moment on the plume deflector has a much more significant moment arm.  With either the DPS or SPS working, the moment is apparently second-order.  So you'd only consider flight in this mode when you need to use the DAP to reach a precise attitude with the whole docked stack, such as to align antennas or to set up a separation maneuver.  This would be like Appendix Q of any typical Apollo flight plan.

Quote
I'm pretty sure that the LM DAP could be operated in three modes- CSM+Ascent stage, Ascent+Descent stages stacked and Ascent stage only.

If you trace the effects of the memo in question, you find that it was preliminary work for J-type missions using Luminary 3.  The version of the software in LM-5 contained no provision for controlling the whole stack with the LM PGNS or AGS.  This was something being considered only for Apollo 16 or 17, as an available backup flight mode.  And, as you can expect, it wasn't expected to be very useful.  Just survivable.  The points made in the memo were included as two out of 13 "release notes" items for operating the LM DAP in the CSM-docked configuration.  One note was that a certain thruster had to be disabled on the LM if the c.g. was very much in the CM or SM.  This would be a scenario where the SM fuel load was high and the LM DPS fuel load was low, the specific "mass loadings" referred to in the original memo.  The other note was that if one +X thruster was out, and the c.g. was in the CM, then the pilot had to manually disable the other +X thruster in order to keep the DAP out of a positive feedback loop.  Thus configured, the DAP in Luminary 3 was expected to be able to control the whole stack with the LM RCS.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on December 18, 2018, 05:41:21 PM
Great reply, thank you.

it's this that keeps me coming back to this place after all these years. No matter how ridiculous the hoaxie claim, the conversation usually branches off into something really interesting. There's always something new to learn.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 18, 2018, 05:55:53 PM
No matter how ridiculous the hoaxie claim, the conversation usually branches off into something really interesting. There's always something new to learn.

The sheer volume of the materials available in the Apollo record implies several things.  First, no person is likely to know it all.  That makes it a fun group effort.  Second, it's really hard to maintain a hoax where the cover story has been so correctly and meticulously documented.  And third, because so much was documented, it's easy for unscrupulous people to imply ludicrous things like mass starvation from a memo as innocuous as asking to have the vending machine refilled.  "I've seen a memo that says they were running out of food..."
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Allan F on December 18, 2018, 06:17:34 PM
JK - can you tell us how you found that memo? Or did someone find it for you?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 18, 2018, 07:16:27 PM
Hi Allan F,

I have done my research. I know you guys like to think others have no idea about things. The fact is I am the only person who has provided any documentation regarding the workings of the deflectors.

I find it comical on how everyone has twisted this MIT paper to mean nothing. And to suggest that these conclusions have no bearing to the LM flying solo (detached from the CSM). If anything, it is even more problematic for the LM operating solo. Atleast the CSM-LM had the ability of disabling the LM RCS’s if there is a failure or mismatch power issue ( ie one RCS operating at 50 percent of the opposite RCS) and rely on the CSM RCS’s. (That is what happen with Apollo 13, I have the report) But with the LM operating alone there is no backup if there is a failure or mismatch of power between two opposite thrusters and that will result in serious stability issues. And another MIT paper (which I will dig up) not only confirms this but it also asserts for the LM to remain stable the craft must be equally balanced to ensure the plumes don’t create an uncontrollable craft. It was concluded that the LM with deflectors could only maintain stability under optimum specific conditions. I would say the LM missions were very fortunate. Just the fact they had no RCS backups, let alone the deflector issue, it sure seems luck was on their side.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 18, 2018, 08:08:57 PM
The fact is I am the only person who has provided any documentation regarding the workings of the deflectors.

You dredged up a memo where it was mentioned in connection with an unlikely scenario and pretended it was something it clearly isn't.  I gave you a complete and correct analysis of the plume deflectors and their stability effects days ago, which you simply discarded.

Quote
I find it comical on how everyone has twisted this MIT paper to mean nothing.

You blatantly misrepresented the memo.

Quote
And to suggest that these conclusions have no bearing to the LM flying solo (detached from the CSM).

Because they don't.  If you had actually understood the memo, you would have seen that the entire scenario rests on the vehicle center of mass being highly eccentric.  This cannot be the case with the LM flying alone.

Quote
If anything, it is even more problematic for the LM operating solo.

No, you don't know what you're talking about.  And you specifically edited away the qualifying statements from your quotes, where your source contradicts what you're now trying to make of it.  You specifically tried to make the statements seem more general than they plainly were.  Hence you are even more egregiously dishonest than I originally believed.

Quote
But with the LM operating alone there is no backup if there is a failure or mismatch of power between two opposite thrusters and that will result in serious stability issues.

No.  I covered this at length earlier.  You entirely ignored it, and I suspect you still don't understand it.

Quote
Just the fact they had no RCS backups, let alone the deflector issue, it sure seems luck was on their side.

No, I covered at length the issue of "backups," and you did not respond.  Now you're just repeating already-debunked nonsense and trying to insist that we accept your willful ignorance as if it's some kind of authority.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: nomuse on December 18, 2018, 08:10:34 PM
Oh, that's explained in another "paper."

Why am I thinking of the scene in A Day at the Races when Groucho tries to buy a hot tip from Chico's racetrack tout and ends up with a cartload of books?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 18, 2018, 08:31:30 PM
Oh, that's explained in another "paper."

What did you expect from someone who's evidently incapable of admitting error.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Allan F on December 18, 2018, 10:21:37 PM
JK - please describe the PROCESS, which led you to find this memo. Can you do that?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 18, 2018, 10:34:02 PM
Hi Allan F,

I have done my research. I know you guys like to think others have no idea about things. The fact is I am the only person who has provided any documentation regarding the workings of the deflectors.

I find it comical on how everyone has twisted this MIT paper to mean nothing. And to suggest that these conclusions have no bearing to the LM flying solo (detached from the CSM). If anything, it is even more problematic for the LM operating solo. Atleast the CSM-LM had the ability of disabling the LM RCS’s if there is a failure or mismatch power issue ( ie one RCS operating at 50 percent of the opposite RCS) and rely on the CSM RCS’s. (That is what happen with Apollo 13, I have the report) But with the LM operating alone there is no backup if there is a failure or mismatch of power between two opposite thrusters and that will result in serious stability issues. And another MIT paper (which I will dig up) not only confirms this but it also asserts for the LM to remain stable the craft must be equally balanced to ensure the plumes don’t create an uncontrollable craft. It was concluded that the LM with deflectors could only maintain stability under optimum specific conditions. I would say the LM missions were very fortunate. Just the fact they had no RCS backups, let alone the deflector issue, it sure seems luck was on their side.

You still don't understand this paper and/or what it deals with.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 18, 2018, 11:26:35 PM
Hi Alan F

Don't say I don't help you guys. Here is some bedtime reading for you. I have a lot more places to get docs. Happy Reading.

https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/

Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 18, 2018, 11:28:42 PM
https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/

Yeah, that's just the URL you already posted, without the file component.  Are you claiming you've read and understood all those documents?  My response to Zakalwe, which you wrote off as dismissive, was actually a summary of another document in that archive.  Tell me which one it was.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Von_Smith on December 18, 2018, 11:31:43 PM
Hi Allan F,

I have done my research. I know you guys like to think others have no idea about things. The fact is I am the only person who has provided any documentation regarding the workings of the deflectors.

I find it comical on how everyone has twisted this MIT paper to mean nothing. And to suggest that these conclusions have no bearing to the LM flying solo (detached from the CSM). If anything, it is even more problematic for the LM operating solo. Atleast the CSM-LM had the ability of disabling the LM RCS’s if there is a failure or mismatch power issue ( ie one RCS operating at 50 percent of the opposite RCS) and rely on the CSM RCS’s. (That is what happen with Apollo 13, I have the report) But with the LM operating alone there is no backup if there is a failure or mismatch of power between two opposite thrusters and that will result in serious stability issues. And another MIT paper (which I will dig up) not only confirms this but it also asserts for the LM to remain stable the craft must be equally balanced to ensure the plumes don’t create an uncontrollable craft. It was concluded that the LM with deflectors could only maintain stability under optimum specific conditions. I would say the LM missions were very fortunate. Just the fact they had no RCS backups, let alone the deflector issue, it sure seems luck was on their side.


Why would NASA put plume deflectors on Apollo 12, then?  This memo came out three weeks before Apollo 12's launch, meaning that from this point forward the deflectors would no longer serve the purpose of convincing engineers that the missions were legit, right?  Since those same engineers were supposedly now convinced that the deflectors were bad?


Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: nomuse on December 18, 2018, 11:41:03 PM
Hi Alan F

Don't say I don't help you guys. Here is some bedtime reading for you. I have a lot more places to get docs. Happy Reading.

https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/

A reminder;

Most of us here have been reading up on Apollo for a decade or more. Some of us work professionally in the aerospace industry. You aren't finding docs none of us have seen or couldn't find on our own.

What you are doing, is explaining what exactly it is you read that gave you the coobadoodly ideas you've been presenting here.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 18, 2018, 11:44:18 PM
Hi Von_Smith

You would have to ask NASA. But to be clear, the paper doesn't say they won't work, just that there is significant risk using them. Also what would have been the alternative? You had engines thrusting directly onto the lower part of the LM. That certainly would have raised questions on how that was possible without creating perhaps catastrophic issues for the craft. So stick with the deflectors and hope no one questions it?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 18, 2018, 11:46:34 PM
Nomuse,

I was responding to a poster who asked for help.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: nomuse on December 18, 2018, 11:47:08 PM

Why would NASA put plume deflectors on Apollo 12, then?  This memo came out three weeks before Apollo 12's launch, meaning that from this point forward the deflectors would no longer serve the purpose of convincing engineers that the missions were legit, right?  Since those same engineers were supposedly now convinced that the deflectors were bad?

Yeah, it's a variation on Jay's "Hire that astronomer, then!"

If a good engineer could see there was something suspicious about the design, then it behooves you to, well, hire a good engineer to design it in the first place.

I'm convinced this is entirely a problem of ego. The average hoax believer is fine with "anomalies" that are so obvious anyone can see them (anyone but paid dis-informants and of course brainwashed sheeple). Some hoax believers, however, aren't satisfied with that. They want "anomalies" that only they personally are smart enough to have noticed.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 18, 2018, 11:49:35 PM
I was responding to a poster who asked for help.

He was asking for accountability.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 18, 2018, 11:53:29 PM
You would have to ask NASA.

And NASA asks me, because I'm the kind of person NASA would hire if it wanted a working spaceship.  Why won't you listen to me?

Quote
But to be clear, the paper doesn't say they won't work, just that there is significant risk using them.

You're not a competent analyst of risk.  You don't understand the underlying mechanisms.

Quote
So stick with the deflectors and hope no one questions it?

Or stick with the deflectors (which correct a problem with the common case) and address the problems the deflectors raise (which, in your memo, arise only in uncommon cases).
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 18, 2018, 11:59:58 PM
I'm convinced this is entirely a problem of ego. The average hoax believer ... wants "anomalies" that only they personally are smart enough to have noticed.

Jr Knowing has gone over fully into ego-reinforcement mode.  Note how most of his posts lately are just crowing about what a great researcher he is, how he has to "help" his critics, and how he's the one who's winning the debate by producing documents.  Incidentally this is where the Internet Keyboard Warriors differ from serious researchers.  They define success by how many links they can produce, not how well they can understand the concepts.  While they frantically Google, I can pretty much teach these concepts from memory.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Von_Smith on December 19, 2018, 12:01:45 AM
Hi Von_Smith

You would have to ask NASA. But to be clear, the paper doesn't say they won't work, just that there is significant risk using them. Also what would have been the alternative? You had engines thrusting directly onto the lower part of the LM. That certainly would have raised questions on how that was possible without creating perhaps catastrophic issues for the craft. So stick with the deflectors and hope no one questions it?

But that's just it:  according to you, somebody already *had* questioned it.  Your answer makes no sense; why would NASA assume that engineers in the audience would be savvy enough to perceive a need for plume deflectors and at the same time too dumb to work out the stability problems their own engineers had already worked out?  Why not instead fake a new feature that solves both problems?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: nomuse on December 19, 2018, 12:30:16 AM
Yeah. When I ask someone to explain, when I see a link I wonder if they can think for themselves. When that link is to a video I wonder if they can think.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 19, 2018, 12:50:13 AM
The fact is I am the only person who has provided any documentation regarding the workings of the deflectors.

Providing the documentation is one thing. Understanding it is another.

Quote
I find it comical on how everyone has twisted this MIT paper to mean nothing.

Please show us where we have 'twisted' the memo rather than pointing out some pretty significant caveats.

And once again, do you understand the difference between a paper and a memo? This is not trivial.

Quote
And to suggest that these conclusions have no bearing to the LM flying solo (detached from the CSM). If anything, it is even more problematic for the LM operating solo.

The graph in that memo specifically contradicts that assertion.

Quote
Atleast the CSM-LM had the ability of disabling the LM RCS’s if there is a failure or mismatch power issue ( ie one RCS operating at 50 percent of the opposite RCS) and rely on the CSM RCS’s.

No, the stacked vehicle only ever used the RCS on the service module in normal flight. It did not have to 'disable' the LM RCS because they were only intended to be used when the LM was flying solo.

Quote
(That is what happen with Apollo 13, I have the report)

If you have the report how are you making such a fundamental error in fact? On Apollo 13 the CSM was shut down and the LM RCS used to control attitude when required. This is the only time the LM RCS was used to control the stacked vehicle, and it wasn't done by automatic control.

Quote
But with the LM operating alone there is no backup if there is a failure or mismatch of power between two opposite thrusters and that will result in serious stability issues.

No, it won't, for reasons already explained.

Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 19, 2018, 12:54:07 AM
Hi Von_Smith

You would have to ask NASA.

No, we're asking you, because you are the one claiming it was a problem.

Quote
But to be clear, the paper doesn't say they won't work, just that there is significant risk using them.

Under a very specific cet of circumstances that are extremely unlikely to occur. It also illustrates how the problem can be avoided by manual crew intervention. If you disagree with that statement then tell us why.

Quote
Also what would have been the alternative? You had engines thrusting directly onto the lower part of the LM.

Once again, prove this was an issue, and address the response you got to your request for an example of any other vehcle that does this kind of thing.

Quote
That certainly would have raised questions on how that was possible without creating perhaps catastrophic issues for the craft.

No, it wouldn't, for reasons already explained in this thread.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 19, 2018, 12:55:20 AM
Hi Alan F

Don't say I don't help you guys. Here is some bedtime reading for you. I have a lot more places to get docs. Happy Reading.

https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/

No, when someone asks you for a specific book you don't point to a library.

If you want honest debate, as you claim, then answer questions properly.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 19, 2018, 02:40:06 AM
Careful jr, your slip's showing. You've subtly shifted to "you may not have looked at these photos properly" to "I know more than you".

You don't.

The paper does not support your position either that there is a problem with the deflectors or that there is an adequate documentation and research on them. Like each of your vaguely hinted at claims, there is no substance here.

Still waiting for you to provide support for the unnecessary side issue you introduced about the fender, and the fact that the photographs I posted showing that the actual fender and the objects in the Apollo images you posted  look nothing like each other.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Allan F on December 19, 2018, 06:03:13 AM
Hi Alan F

Don't say I don't help you guys. Here is some bedtime reading for you. I have a lot more places to get docs. Happy Reading.

https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/

Obviously, you can't answer the question. That means YOU didn't find it. Somebody spoonfed it to you. What was that persons motivation? To make you look ... silly?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 19, 2018, 06:47:34 AM
Like each of your vaguely hinted at claims, there is no substance here.

Actually there's quite a bit of substance, but none of it supports his claim. It takes either huge chutzpah or simple incompetence to claim something supports an argument when that something, besides all the rest that has been pointed out already, includes a mathematical equation that can be applied.

So, go on, jr, show us you understand the subject by using that equation. It allows you to figure out under exactly what conditions a positive feedback loop leading to uncontrollable spinning would arise with automatic control systems in the event of a failure of a jet. Apply it to the undocked LM. You know the LM dimensions so you can easily calculate a possible range of the values D1 and D2 and see what effect this has on M+X.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Peter B on December 19, 2018, 07:45:26 AM
Hi Alan F

Don't say I don't help you guys. Here is some bedtime reading for you. I have a lot more places to get docs. Happy Reading.

https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/

Cheers, Big Ears!

I followed the link and picked out a document partly at random (because it was small and would therefore load faster): https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/19720017950.pdf

It amused me no end that it was titled "The Application of a Computerized Visualization Capability to Lunar Missions". 'So what?' you might ask.

Well, it was a report about the "...development of a computerized capability to depict views from the Apollo spacecraft during a lunar mission..." In other words, it was a program which allowed people to work out what the astronauts would see when they looked out various windows at various points in a mission. To this end, window frames were drawn on the images.

One use of this program was to help the LM astronauts familiarise themselves with what they'd see during their descent to the surface, looking through the LM's windows...you know, the windows JR Knowing thinks were dangerously small.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Peter B on December 19, 2018, 07:55:23 AM
Wheels in different directions (All four LRV wheels were independently steered)

All four independently powered, yes.  Steering was pairwise, front and back.  Front and rear pairs could be independently enabled, though.

Can I just check something about the steering, though.

My understanding is that on ordinary cars here on Earth, when you turn the steering wheel, the front wheels turn by a slightly different amount given that the wheel on the inside of the turn has a slightly smaller radius to traverse. Is that so?

Was this the case with the lunar rover? After all, I understand the rover had a tighter turning circle than cars here on Earth, so the effect described above would be more pronounced.

Given that the rover in the photo JR Knowing linked seems to have stopped while turning, that would suggest to me that the rear wheels would logically not be parallel, but out of parallel by perhaps 10-20 degrees.

Yes.

Ackerman steering geometry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ackermann_steering_geometry

So, JR Knowing, do you accept there's nothing untoward about the two rear wheels of the rover pointing in slightly different directions when the vehicle has stopped mid-curve?

And, incidentally, do you accept there's nothing untoward about the idea of an astronaut walking over the tracks the rover has produced?

And, incidentally, do you accept there's nothing untoward about the idea that the apparent sizes of the two rear wheels would be affected by the type of lens on the camera?

And, incidentally, do you accept there's nothing untoward about the idea that the wheel of a low weight vehicle might rest against the side of a small piece of uneven ground rather than the ground directly underneath the wheel?

And, incidentally, do you accept there's nothing untoward about the idea that the astronaut taking a photo of the vehicle might be standing on lower ground than the vehicle is itself sitting on?

And, incidentally, do you accept that antenna on the rover is indeed in the shape of an octahedron (otherwise known as a D&D d8)?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 19, 2018, 12:05:52 PM
Hi Jay,

Believe it or not, I just realized who you are and your background. That now helps explain why you and others are so suspicious and paranoid. Call me naïve, I did not know I was walking into a hornets nest. I didn't walk in here to stir things up. Literally, one of my buddies who is really into space travel (I mentioned before), suggested I checkout this website to bounce some of my ideas off. Believe me I am not here to get a rise out of jerking you guys around. I have to respect your dogged persistence over the years defending your position. It does take a lot of patience dealing with people like myself.

Now I am sure you are going to say you are not defending your position but defending the facts as you continually tend to point out. Fair enough. But you have to realize, from an Apollo supporter standpoint, it is very hard defending something with facts that has a dearth of supporting evidence. And that is the problem with the Apollo project. And I have seen that with Apollo supporters and I see that in your answers. For instance, it is one thing to say the nozzle on the RCS will not get rip off on takeoff because the air flow, while turbulent, will not be powerful enough to do damage. Sounds reasonable enough but you offer no supporting evidence. If I said that, there would be 20 posts demanding I show a PHD dissertation on it. But that is problem with Apollo supporters, there is little supporting evidence to back their assertions. Yes there are many generalized docs but little technical info on the actual workings of many things. Case in point, we can dumb down things to some of the big elephants in the room in which even a child may ask about. Since we are talking about the LM in this thread, lets talk LM.

The Lunar Module is perhaps the greatest flying machine humanity has ever witnessed, never seen before, never seen since. A 36000 pound (6000 pound on moon) rocket ship/drone/hovercraft capable of going from 5000 feet per second to a hovering drone in little time in a gravity based environment. Again, if we dumb things right down, as my very own child has asked, why are we not using that drone to go to Hawaii for Spring break now? Given it is 50 years later, it is an obvious and very simple question that I have seen no Apollo supporter adequately answer. Why, in part, because there is no supporting technical documentation for this technical marvel. If so, giddy up. Window seat please. It has gotten to the point, (as I am sure you guys know), someone like Astronaut Pettitt (longest serving Astronaut and probably more qualified than anybody on this forum) rationalizes things by suggesting they lost the technology and it takes a long time to get it back. Uh? What? It took 6-7 years with 60's technology to go from scratch to have a manned drone winging around the moon at 5000 feet per second. And now, 50 years later? The proof is in the pudding. Nothing close. It is obvious to me, someone like Pettitt is coming up with bizarre rationalizations instead of confronting the elephant in the room issue. This should give pause to everyone. This supposed technology was not only in the hands of NASA but many commercial contractors. One would think our world would look a whole lot different today.  It is a crying shame that this technology has not been implemented in this world.  But, as some (very qualified) surmise, we lost it.

My point here is not about this "elephant in the room" issue. It is just to point out that many here demand supporting proofs from others yet show little supporting evidence for their own suppositions. It is almost as if what some say here should be self evident to everyone. It doesn't work like that if one is asking others for supporting evidence to support their claim. It is a two way street.

I would like to thank OneBigMonkey (I also just realized I have been on his website too) for actually responding to my questions unlike almost everyone else. I will use another post to respond to your posts. And hopefully we can get back on track.

Jr
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bobdude11 on December 19, 2018, 12:06:08 PM
Oh, that's explained in another "paper."

What did you expect from someone who's evidently incapable of admitting error.
or even just understanding the memo they have ...
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 19, 2018, 12:07:25 PM
Providing the documentation is one thing. Understanding it is another.

In the Keyboard Warrior world, he who posts the most links wins.  It's like an exercise in competitive Googling or competitive footnoting, even though the claimants often don't read the links and can't understand the material.  It's faux expertise.  The gambit is "See, I can find all these references that mention the topic I'm talking about, therefore I'm so much smarter and more capable than you."  Well, who's the actual expert, the guy who has to Google frantically or the guy who can explain the topics at any length or depth based on his own extensive personal knowledge?

Quote
And once again, do you understand the difference between a paper and a memo? This is not trivial.

In the Apollo collaboration world, there's even a non-trivial difference between memos sent between individuals and memos written for "distribution," as this one was.   The latter is more of an "Oh, by the way" engagement.  Memos for distribution are sent around to the major contractors and supervising entities, where it's one person's job to read them all and see which ones apply to his group and then to see that they get sent to the appropriate people.  It's the 1960s equivalent of an email chain.

In contrast, a serious suggestion that the lunar module might be inherently unflyable wouldn't get that kind of treatment.  It would be the subject of in-person, face-to-face meetings attended by many people -- the kind of thing that can't just fly under the radar.  After LM-5's window blew out during a vacuum test, there was a huge paper trail of interaction between Shea's office and Corning to fix the problem.  Of course that's part of jr Knowing's (circular) argument.  The plume-deflector matter wasn't given the serious attention he is certain it deserved, so that's "proof" that NASA intended to sweep it under the carpet lest anyone get suspicious about the authenticity of the operation.  This is why he's falling all over himself with bluster trying to get us to interpret this memo the way he needs it to read for his argument.  But neither the content nor the meta information surrounding the memo indicates it was a serious problem, or applicable in any way outside the narrow scope in which it was written.

Quote
On Apollo 13 ... wasn't done by automatic control.

Correct; the memo raises a problem only with the automation, not with the inherent dynamics of the docked stack.  The computer program will fail in this one corner case, but that doesn't make the machine unflyable in any other condition or by any other means.  The capability of the autopilot is not synonymous with the dynamic properties of the spacecraft.  Automation is presented to ease the burden of tedious ordinary flight, and in some cases to achieve precision that would be more difficult to obtain otherwise.  The latter is often employed to expand the production envelope of a vehicle.  For example, automation in commercial air travel makes it possible to take off and land in weather that would tax a human pilot -- but only if the take-off and landing is otherwise unremarkable.  It makes sense to automate only the common cases reliably.  If you opened the floodgates to all the contingency cases, you'd not only outstrip the capacity of the computer and its programmers, you'd risk complicating the common case, which would make it overall less reliable.  You've all heard the adage, "Better is the enemy of good."  The memo is from the automation people to the whole Apollo group, saying "This is one case the automation can't handle without some manual intervention."  In no way does it say the plume deflectors make the LM unstable all the time.

Under a very specific cet of circumstances that are extremely unlikely to occur.

Right, Appendix Q of the flight plan.  Jr really wants this to be about the baseline LM performance, but it just ain't so.  If the LM is flying the stack, you're not flying a normal mission at that point.  That scenario would arise only after a whole lot of failures that would have violated mission rules several times over, releasing the crew from any obligation to achieve further mission objectives.  So the requirements here are not precision flying for Moon-landing purposes, but survivable seat-of-the-pants flying for survival purposes, such as was experienced on Apollo 13.  No one would intentionally design a spacecraft with the dynamic characteristics the docked stack had, and which Lovell et al. had to deal with.  Designing something to degrade gracefully under failure is not to dismiss the hazards of degraded capacity.

Quote
It also illustrates how the problem can be avoided by manual crew intervention.

That's what really makes this a tempest in a teapot.  The most dangerous scenario envisioned in the memo can be remedied by simply flipping one single switch in the cockpit.  You don't even have to stay out of the DAP.  You just have to keep the DAP from using the one jet that will cause an unacceptable moment or a feedback loop.  This is actually less serious than how commercial airframes are allowed to degrade, even for passenger-carrying duty.  There are several scenarios in the troubleshooting checklists that end with "Do not use autopilot."  It doesn't make the airplane inherently unflyable.  It just means you can't let the computer fly it, because you've violated one of the assumptions the authors of the computer program were given to rely on.

Real engineering is just not as alarmist as jr Knowing is making it out to be.  Energetically looking for the kind of knowledge reported in the memo is an ordinary engineering activity.  Finding problems in a design does not mean "catastrophic" failure of the design.  You don't wait to fly the machine until all the problems are solved.  You wait to fly the machine until you're convinced the substantial problems are known.  Especially when the design includes both automation and a human operator, problems with the automation don't forestall putting it into production if it's something the operator can correct.

This was actually illustrated by an episode in CM development.  North American had trouble designing the monitor and warning system so that several of the warning annunciators wouldn't light up when the spacecraft was first powered on, ostensibly because the conditions they were monitoring hadn't yet warmed up or reached steady state.  The crews weren't concerned.  If you waited a few seconds and pushed the master reset, the lights would go out.  Powering the CM off and back on again wasn't part of any then-conceivable mission profile.  And besides, that's how the automobiles of the era worked.  When you turned the key, you got several warning lights until the rest of the car caught up with the warning system.  The notion that all this stuff had to work perfectly or else it was a "catastrophe" is just made-up nonsense.  It's what hoax claimants say in order to amplify the importance of whatever niggling detail they've latched onto.

Careful jr, your slip's showing. You've subtly shifted to "you may not have looked at these photos properly" to "I know more than you".

Oh, it's not subtle.  He's been doing this subtly until now, but I guess he's finally figured out that his disguise isn't working.  Days ago, this was why he couldn't admit error, why he had to rewrite pointed questions so as to pretend they were softer.  It's been an ego-reinforcement trip since Day One.  It's why he tells us to keep staring at the pictures until we embark on the "journey" of discovery that he's already purported to have completed.  He's convinced he's got so much more natural insight (and possibly engineering skill) than his critics.  He wants to believe he's discovered something that the very smart people at NASA thought would be hidden forever, thus making him smarter than they.

Quote
The paper does not support your position...
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 19, 2018, 12:33:59 PM
ANother long wall of text from jr that doesn't address the questions put to him and sidesteps the issue of his total failure to grasp what the memo actually says.


Hi Jay,

Believe it or not, I just realized who you are and your background.

I for one don't believe you have 'just realised'.

Quote
But you have to realize, from an Apollo supporter standpoint, it is very hard defending something with facts that has a dearth of supporting evidence.

No, there is bucketloads of supporting evidence, it's just that most of it is tied up in professional expertise. Jay is a professional aerospace engineer. Therefore, when he comes along and givs a lengthy explanation of why plume deflectors were not an issue, along with some mathematical and engineering descriptions, you can assume that answer is actually correct, in the same way you accept a medical diagnosis from a doctor or a report of your car's condition from a mechanic.

Furthermore, the evidence for Apollo is vast. You are presenting a case for fakery, which does require evidence to be presented. So far you have claimed to do just this but your evidence falls very very short of supporting anything.

Quote
For instance, it is one thing to say the nozzle on the RCS will not get rip off on takeoff because the air flow, while turbulent, will not be powerful enough to do damage. Sounds reasonable enough but you offer no supporting evidence.

Exactly what evidence would you accept? Fluid dynamics and aerodynamics are mature sciences not exclusive to Apollo. Additionally, the suggestion that they somehow should be ripped off during takeoff is nonsensical because no engineer would make such a cockup in design. The RCS quads manifestly did not get ripped off the CSM during takeoff, so that's some pretty solid evidence that supports the conclusion that they were engineered to survive the forces they would be exposed to, and since every other engine pipe or fill port that did protrude was covered by an aerodynamic fairing there's clearly a very simple solution even if they couldn't survive, so why wasn't it employed?

You don't get to complain that you're being held to an unfair standard of proof, especially when you fail to meet any standard of proof at all.

Quote
The Lunar Module is perhaps the greatest flying machine humanity has ever witnessed, never seen before, never seen since. A 36000 pound (6000 pound on moon) rocket ship/drone/hovercraft capable of going from 5000 feet per second to a hovering drone in little time in a gravity based environment. Again, if we dumb things right down, as my very own child has asked, why are we not using that drone to go to Hawaii for Spring break now? Given it is 50 years later, it is an obvious and very simple question that I have seen no Apollo supporter adequately answer.

So the 'dumbed down' question is why are we not using a vehcle designed for two men to land on an airless world in 1/6th gravity to ferry people around in an atmosphere in 1g? Really? Does it not occur to you that the LM is designed for a specific purpose and many of those design features therefore cannot be applied to a totally different environment?
 
Quote
Why, in part, because there is no supporting technical documentation for this technical marvel.

Absolute cobblers. Your inability to find documents does not prove they don't exist.

Quote
What? It took 6-7 years with 60's technology to go from scratch to have a manned drone winging around the moon at 5000 feet per second. And now, 50 years later?

You left out the cost. Rather significant factor. It makes no odds how much technology advances if no-one will stump up the cash to pay for it.

Quote
It is obvious to me, someone like Pettitt is coming up with bizarre rationalizations instead of confronting the elephant in the room issue.

It is obvious to us that you are doing similar. Care to address the issues with that memo and the questions you've been asked about it?

Quote
It is almost as if what some say here should be self evident to everyone.

When it comes to responses from a professional engineer, it's as if we accept credentials as a mark of the likely validity of his statements, and that is a pretty standard way to work. WHat you are doing is trying to dismiss a whole massive achievement on the basis that it doesn't look right to you. IN that instance it is appropriate to ask for more supporting evidence for your argument.

Now, get back on track and address a few things, like why you still think that memo proves the LM is unstable. Once again, I'll direct you to the equation used to determine when the problem exists, and if you can apply that to the undocked LM.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on December 19, 2018, 12:44:52 PM

Now I am sure you are going to say you are not defending your position but defending the facts as you continually tend to point out. Fair enough. But you have to realize, from an Apollo supporter standpoint, it is very hard defending something with facts that has a dearth of supporting evidence. And that is the problem with the Apollo project.

Garbage.
The Apollo program was probably the most documented program up to that point (and possibly still is). just because you are incapable of finding that stuff and, based on your interpretation of the memo, incapable of understanding it DOES NOT mean that it is undocumented. There are literally tens of thousands of pieces of documentation available within a second's Google search and uncountably more physically located in the corporate memory of the companies that were involved.


. For instance, it is one thing to say the nozzle on the RCS will not get rip off on takeoff because the air flow, while turbulent, will not be powerful enough to do damage. Sounds reasonable enough but you offer no supporting evidence. If I said that, there would be 20 posts demanding I show a PHD dissertation on it.

Garbage.
You clearly do not understand the burden of proof. You make the claim that the thrusters would be ripped off. The burden of proof is on you to evidence this. There are thousands of pieces of proof to show that the RCS thrusters were not ripped off. You yourself has used images off devices on the moon to support your claims...how exactly did they get there?

Yes there are many generalized docs but little technical info on the actual workings of many things.

Garbage.
Some people on here are employed in this field. They design and BUILD spaceships. Do you think that they do this on the back of a napkin?
Again, just because you are incapable of finding technical documents (not everything is available via Google) does not mean that they aren't availible. And frankly, I would question your ability to understand them if someone put them on your desk.

Case in point, we can dumb down things to some of the big elephants in the room in which even a child may ask about.

Appeal to personal incredulity.
Not every complex problem can by simplified to that level without losing the detail that that thing requires. The fact that you are even asking this shows that you do not understand or have the tools to even formulate the question, much less understand the answer. The Dunning Kruger effect strikes again.


The Lunar Module is perhaps the greatest flying machine humanity has ever witnessed, never seen before, never seen since. A 36000 pound (6000 pound on moon) rocket ship/drone/hovercraft capable of going from 5000 feet per second to a hovering drone in little time in a gravity based environment. Again, if we dumb things right down, as my very own child has asked, why are we not using that drone to go to Hawaii for Spring break now?

Appeal to personal incredulity.
Oh my days! Do you even understand the difference between operating in a thick atmosphere at 1G compared to operating in a vacuum at 1/6thG?


... there is no supporting technical documentation for this technical marvel.
There is. As before, you don't know where, or haven't bothered, to find it. And if it was put in front of you you wouldn't be able to understand it.

But, as some (very qualified) surmise, we lost it.

We haven't lost it.


My point here is not about this "elephant in the room" issue. It is just to point out that many here demand supporting proofs from others yet show little supporting evidence for their own suppositions. It is almost as if what some say here should be self evident to everyone. It doesn't work like that if one is asking others for supporting evidence to support their claim. It is a two way street.

As before, we can add a failure to understand the burden of proof to the growing list of things that you don't understand. Your extraordinary claim = your extraordinary proof.

And hopefully we can get back on track.


You are the only one taking things off track. You are not the first hoax-believer to try the JAQ routine (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions) or to act like a sealion poster. Your schtick is well known around these parts as is your attempt to gish-gallop away from your profound errors. Go answer the questions that you have outstanding please.




(https://rationalwiki.org/w/images/b/b5/2014-09-19-1062sea.png)

At this stage, I'm not convinced that you are not now trolling, especially as you now realise that cannot answer the simple questions that have been asked of you.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 19, 2018, 12:47:36 PM
Hi Jay,

Believe it or not, I just realized who you are and your background. That now helps explain why you and others are so suspicious and paranoid. Call me naïve, I did not know I was walking into a hornets nest. I didn't walk in here to stir things up. Literally, one of my buddies who is really into space travel (I mentioned before), suggested I checkout this website to bounce some of my ideas off. Believe me I am not here to get a rise out of jerking you guys around. I have to respect your dogged persistence over the years defending your position. It does take a lot of patience dealing with people like myself.

Now I am sure you are going to say you are not defending your position but defending the facts as you continually tend to point out. Fair enough. But you have to realize, from an Apollo supporter standpoint, it is very hard defending something with facts that has a dearth of supporting evidence. And that is the problem with the Apollo project. And I have seen that with Apollo supporters and I see that in your answers. For instance, it is one thing to say the nozzle on the RCS will not get rip off on takeoff because the air flow, while turbulent, will not be powerful enough to do damage. Sounds reasonable enough but you offer no supporting evidence. If I said that, there would be 20 posts demanding I show a PHD dissertation on it. But that is problem with Apollo supporters, there is little supporting evidence to back their assertions. Yes there are many generalized docs but little technical info on the actual workings of many things. Case in point, we can dumb down things to some of the big elephants in the room in which even a child may ask about. Since we are talking about the LM in this thread, lets talk LM.

The Lunar Module is perhaps the greatest flying machine humanity has ever witnessed, never seen before, never seen since. A 36000 pound (6000 pound on moon) rocket ship/drone/hovercraft capable of going from 5000 feet per second to a hovering drone in little time in a gravity based environment. Again, if we dumb things right down, as my very own child has asked, why are we not using that drone to go to Hawaii for Spring break now? Given it is 50 years later, it is an obvious and very simple question that I have seen no Apollo supporter adequately answer. Why, in part, because there is no supporting technical documentation for this technical marvel. If so, giddy up. Window seat please. It has gotten to the point, (as I am sure you guys know), someone like Astronaut Pettitt (longest serving Astronaut and probably more qualified than anybody on this forum) rationalizes things by suggesting they lost the technology and it takes a long time to get it back. Uh? What? It took 6-7 years with 60's technology to go from scratch to have a manned drone winging around the moon at 5000 feet per second. And now, 50 years later? The proof is in the pudding. Nothing close. It is obvious to me, someone like Pettitt is coming up with bizarre rationalizations instead of confronting the elephant in the room issue. This should give pause to everyone. This supposed technology was not only in the hands of NASA but many commercial contractors. One would think our world would look a whole lot different today.  It is a crying shame that this technology has not been implemented in this world.  But, as some (very qualified) surmise, we lost it.

My point here is not about this "elephant in the room" issue. It is just to point out that many here demand supporting proofs from others yet show little supporting evidence for their own suppositions. It is almost as if what some say here should be self evident to everyone. It doesn't work like that if one is asking others for supporting evidence to support their claim. It is a two way street.

I would like to thank OneBigMonkey (I also just realized I have been on his website too) for actually responding to my questions unlike almost everyone else. I will use another post to respond to your posts. And hopefully we can get back on track.

Jr

Or there is another probability such as you don't know where to look for documentation or you haven't searched properly for the documentation you desire.  I have only been around for a couple of years and there is information that I don't know where to look, but I'm not in your camp that it doesn't exist. 
There is another behavior you have, the inability to accept that you are incorrect from any number of sources.  You say that you can accept that you are wrong, but the evidence is you don't understand the facts, just a myopic viewpoint of the program that supported the issues that needed to be addressed.  This prevents you from indicating "jr is wrong". Even when presented with evidence of your error.
I believe Jay is the premier source of Apollo facts, although he doesn't know it all, as he posted.  But he will admit when he is wrong(and that isn't very often).

You have failed miserably in attempting to show that Apollo was a fake.

You ask why we don't do the missions that we did 50 years ago.  And this is because NASA doesn't have the funds and political will to do those missions.  The administrator says that we are going, but that is ONLY with support of the Executive and Legislative branches that will provide MONEY.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 19, 2018, 01:00:27 PM
and now, 50 years later? The proof is in the pudding. Nothing close.

Really?

Landing on a comet isn't impressive enough for you?

Circling an asteroid with the intention of landing and returning a sample?

A probe landing on the lunar far side?

Photographs of objects just 10s of centimetres across on the lunar surface?

Probes wandering around the Martian surface?

Two probes in interstellar space?

A detailed view of Pluto? Jupiter?

A modular space station?

Sure not all of those are NASA but do you think these things exist in isolation? That they aren't somehow directly descended from the lessons learned by Apollo?

Boots on the ground are not the only measure of success in space, nor are they the only thing that's being done.

No-one is ever going to be making trips to a holiday camp on the moon. No-one is ever going to be mining Helium-3 there. You're deluded if you think that's the case. If you want to see human beings on the moon you need to either become stupidly rich and pay for it yourself or convince whichever government you pay taxes to that it's a good use of their money.

Oh, and thanks for the appreciation, but I'd appreciate it even more if you actually backed up your assertions with real facts instead of insinuations and suggestions that people haven't actually spent most of their life looking at the same data you have - often as industry professionals, and that when presented with evidence that shows you to be wrong that you acknowledge that.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 19, 2018, 02:11:52 PM
Hi OneBigMonkey,

I will have a much fuller response soon, but in the interim, in your fender comparison you are using a front tire fender flap not a rear tire fender. I have attached a doc that shows the difference. This doc also highlights part of the confusion regarding that Apollo 17 rear fender. Thanks

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LRV_Fender_Extensions.pdf
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 19, 2018, 02:13:05 PM
That now helps explain why you and others are so suspicious and paranoid.

Having failed to bluff your way through the technical argument, it appears you're now resorting to poisoning the well.

Quote
It does take a lot of patience dealing with people like myself.

Answering the technical questions doesn't take much patience.  What takes patience is dealing with all the social engineering nonsense that "people like yourself" can't seem to avoid injecting into the debate.  I can deal with people who simply don't know the material.  Early in my career I also taught college.  I have the skills to lay out difficult concepts in a way that helps people understand them.  It's harder to deal with the bluff, bluster, and outright dishonesty.  That's why I tell people up front simply to be honest, and that this will net them a better experience even if no one ends up convincing anyone else.  You did not take our advice.  You insisted on playing rhetorical games, hence you were treated appropriately.

Quote
...it is very hard defending something with facts that has a dearth of supporting evidence.

Apollo has a mountain of supporting evidence.

Quote
Sounds reasonable enough but you offer no supporting evidence.

Yeah, you tried shifting the burden of proof like this before.

You offered zero argument, evidence, documentation, or analysis that the SM RCS jets were seriously endangered during the ascent.  You just plopped your assumption down on the table and demanded we take it at face value as evidence of a suspicious situation.  Before one tries to argue that the lack of the expected solution to some problem is suspicious, you have to demonstrated that there was even a problem to be solved.  You didn't do that.  You just begged that question.  I even prodded you to look at your argument a little more closely by asking you whether you had done any computations etc. to inform your suspicion.  I was met with stony silence.

I get that you want everyone else to play by the same Internet Warrior rules, frantically Googling for every detail and footnoting every assertion with links.  That's not how actual expertise works in most cases, so you won't undermine anyone's credibility by suggesting they aren't following your playbook.

You based your SM RCS argument principally on two premises, both of which were assumptions you made.  First, you assumed there would be a powerful slipstream.  That is a reasonable layman's assumption, so my argument on that point was not that you were stupid or nefarious.  I simply pointed out a well-known property of aerodynamics that may not be immediately apparent to the layman.  "Boundary layer separation" is not a super-secret property of fluid flow held in some CIA vault, nor is it something that applies only to Apollo or to rockets.  In fact, one can't get very far into the study of fluid flow without encountering the topic of flow separation.  You could simply have done a basic Google search on the words I used in the post, whereupon it would have been quite apparent that this is a common property I'm referring to, one that someone discussing fluid flow should already know and bring to the table.  Not only did you fail to investigate it when it was brought to your attention, you doubled down on your misinformation.  The conscientious student would have recognized that there was something he was expected to have known before issuing his challenge.  So no, you don't get to parlay your incompetence on the subject of fluid flow into something I'm obliged to produce for you as "supporting evidence."  And in any case, I told you that this phenomenon is easily seen by looking at photographs of objects flying at transonic speeds, including the Saturn V.  You were given plenty of information that you could have used to revisit your erroneous assumption using any means at your disposal.

The other principal premise was that the jets themselves were delicate enough to be damaged by substantial laminar flow.  Again, you provided zero detail or evidence or argument to substantiate this suspicion.  You were smart enough to note the altitude of max Q.  Did it occur to you to look up the dimensions of the RCS jets, compute the aspect area, find the mass density of air at that altitude, reckon the velocity of the Saturn V at that point in the flight, and compute the drag?  With the drag force in hand, did it occur to you to compare that to the mechanical structure that fastened the jets to the SM frame?  Or, if your concern was damage to internal components, did you research the pitot effect, which is the guiding principal for flow into a constricted channel?  Did you do any of this before concluding your assumptions were reasonable?  No, you did none of that.  And once again, when you were told about the topics you had ignored in order to form your assumptions, you just doubled down again on your "feelings."

Certainly I know how to do all that.  I can rattle off the equations and models off the top of my head because this is what I do for a living.  Sure, if pressed I can probably point you to various textbooks on aerodynamics and go look up the formulas for you so that you'll have the page number, but I don't habitually do that because I don't have to in order to practice the field.  That's the kind of answer you get when you ask a practicing engineer.  Do you demand that your dentist show you all the elementary dentistry textbooks and all the clinical and research papers for every procedure he's going to perform on you?  Or do you just have the experience that you expect when you consult an expert?

Where are all the supporting documents for the aerodynamics of the SM RCS under laminar flow?  Do they exist?  Can I produce them, point to them, or reference them?  No, because the right answer is that the SM jets were never in the laminar flow.  Your second assumption is rendered moot by your first.  Certainly I can find scale drawings of the precise model of Marquardt motor that was fitted to the SM.  I did, just the other day.  And I know what materials it's made of.  I can certainly do a mechanical design analysis, but why?  It would be an academic exercise.  Why would we develop or look for "supporting evidence" for a condition that didn't arise?

And why would I be obliged do that to provide answers to idle, ill-conceived assumptions?  It's been said that arguments made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.  You provided no evidence whatsoever that your concern for the SM RCS was anything more than idle.  You were given a fully-reasoned, if not fully-documented, answer, which you simply discarded.  You received more than you earned, and now you're whining about it.

Quote
But that is problem with Apollo supporters, there is little supporting evidence to back their assertions. Yes there are many generalized docs but little technical info on the actual workings of many things.

That's not my experience, nor is it the experience of the hundreds -- if not thousands -- of interested amateurs who manage to find just about any technical detail on Apollo they want.  On YouTube there's a guy covering the efforts of a bunch of amateurs to actually rebuild the Apollo guidance computer.  A private collector bought a bunch of Apollo junk at auction and later realized that an AGC was part of it.  There's a team of old-duffer electrical engineers and young whipper-snappers who are (last I checked) within a hair's breadth of powering it up and using it.  And as part of their efforts, they're looking at the original circuit diagrams and mechanical drawings, and comparing it against the as-built hardware.  The only thing they don't have documentation for is the core-rope simulator, which was used for ground testing.  It was a cobbled-up thing that never needed to be documented.

Then there's also Scott Sullivan, a professional engineer who has managed to assemble enough of the mechanical drawings of the spacecraft to produce CAD models of the LM and CSM right down to the nut-and-bolt level.

No, I'm rejecting this claim on its face.  The amount and degree of detail in Apollo technical documentation that is available to the conscientious researcher boggles the mind.  You may be unaware of it, or unable to place it in the correct context.  But you don't get to convert those shortcomings on your part to suspicious behavior in the thing you (refuse to) study.  The world isn't suspicious just because you don't want to delve into it.

Quote
The Lunar Module is perhaps the greatest flying machine humanity has ever witnessed, never seen before, never seen since.

Is that your person opinion, or do you know for a fact that this is how the aerospace industry views it?  See, we're very familiar with the line of reasoning where someone sets an arbitrary (and ridiculously high) standard simply to show that it somehow wasn't met.  That's a "straw man" argument.

"Greatest flying machine" is a broad, non-specific claim.  It was certainly unlike any previous flying machine in many respects.  But that doesn't make it great.  It was never seen before because the steps leading to the only problem such a machine could solve had never been taken.  There's no incentive to build a machine that can land a man on the Moon until you can get someone close enough to the Moon to try.  It was never seen after because it has no general applicability, and the one task it was designed to accomplish was something no one want to shell out the money to do anymore.

Quote
...my very own child has asked, why are we not using that drone to go to Hawaii for Spring break now? Given it is 50 years later, it is an obvious and very simple question that I have seen no Apollo supporter adequately answer.

No, it's a stupid question.

Quote
Why, in part, because there is no supporting technical documentation for this technical marvel.

Your claim that there is "no supporting technical documentation" is simply not true.  Hobbyists have been able to recreate virtually every aspect of it, based on the publicly available information.  I've even assisted in the actual restoration of an actual flight-qualified lunar module, and there was no problem obtaining information.

Quote
...by suggesting they lost the technology and it takes a long time to get it back.

No, "lost the technology" is again too vague.  The technology that is embodied in the lunar module didn't spring out of nowhere and go nowhere.  The technology to build them is another matter.  Building specific vehicles requires specific tools built by the manufacturer and specific skills possessed by the manufacturer's employees.  After about four years of not building those vehicles, the people who were once involved with it will have forgotten how to build it.  Usually within a shorter period, the manufacturer will have torn down and reclaimed the tooling.  The ability to build an aerospace artifact is not the same thing as knowing how it was designed and operated, and being able to adapt components of it from and for other uses.  If you stop building something and need to start building it again some number of years later, the startup cost is very close to the original tooling and startup cost.  This is why we have keepalive projects in aerospace.  If you knew anything about the field, this wouldn't surprise you.

As to whether your source is more qualified than anyone in this forum, I'll posit that Dr. Ed Mitchell, the Apollo 14 CMP, considered me an expert on his missions and referred other people to me to have their technical questions answered.  I do not accept your evaluation of the skills or knowledge of anyone else in this forum.

Quote
Uh? What? It took 6-7 years with 60's technology to go from scratch to have a manned drone winging around the moon at 5000 feet per second.

They didn't go "from scratch."  There's no such thing as a "manned drone."  A drone by definition is unmanned.  And if you're flying in a vacuum, it doesn't matter whether you're flying at 5 fps or 50,000.  You're putting lots of lipstick on your straw man, but that doesn't make your impressions or interpretations have any more evidentiary value than before.

The structure of the lunar module, for example, was designed and fabricated according to the methods commonly used for ordinary airframes.  The innovation was a special approach to fabricating skin-and-stringer modules as integral parts, saving weight.  The environmental system wasn't anything they didn't already know how to make, but getting it down to the right mass and size took a lot of ingenuity.  The value to Grumman in building the lunar module wasn't tied up in the fact that they now had a lunar module.  The value was in the techniques and tricks they developed along the way.  Every project forces you to develop new, competitive, and innovative technology.  Some of it is particular to that project.  Others may transfer.

Quote
And now, 50 years later?

Has there been, at any time in the past 50 years, the need to have a manned lunar landing vehicle?  I look around and see the remarkable things being done in aerospace, both in the private and public sector.  These all have roots in Apollo.  You're trying to tell us that because we don't fly descendants of Apollo lunar modules to and from work, nothing of it survived and that this is suspicious.  That's incredibly naive.

Quote
This should give pause to everyone.

No, because everyone here can see all the silly hidden assumptions you're piling into this travesty of a line of reasoning.  They've heard them all before.  You want to claim as victory the notion that no one has answered these questions.  We take it as victory that no one has been able to defend any of the ignorant assumptions behind them.  You ask, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" and now you're trying to make something out of the fact that people aren't dumb enough to actually answer you.

Quote
This supposed technology was not only in the hands of NASA but many commercial contractors.

None of whom has any use for a manned lunar module.  However, some of the techniques that Grumman developed for manufacturing the LM, such as chemical milling for skin-and-stringer panels, were used for a while in their other projects such as the F-14 Tomcat.  Even that, however, has been supplanted by even newer techniques.  To make an Apollo-era LM today would require rebuilding decades-old chem-milling machines and learning again how to operate them.  That's not any easier than designing and building a new one from scratch using today's knowledge, materials, and techniques.  When we say "the technology was lost," in some cases we are saying there was no longer any use for it.

Quote
One would think our world would look a whole lot different today.

I contend our world does look different today because of Apollo.  Tell us how it would have looked without Apollo, and how you know that.  And name one other customer besides NASA for an Apollo lunar module, for the past 50 years.  Just one.

Quote
It is a crying shame that this technology has not been implemented in this world.

There is no market for an Apollo manned lunar lander, and no real market for anything much like it.  However, I think the F-14 Tomcat would have looked different (or at least built differently) without the lessons its design team learned while building the Apollo lunar module.  Your argument is a straw man.

Quote
It is just to point out that many here demand supporting proofs from others yet show little supporting evidence for their own suppositions.

When you can demonstrate your competence, as I have mine, you will have earned the benefit of the doubt.  When your arguments are instead demonstrated to be merely ignorant supposition, you must supplement them with something before demanding they be taken seriously.  You provided no supporting documentation for anything you claimed.  The memo you have belatedly produced does not say what you claimed it said.  Why is it someone else's duty to document answers to undocumented questions?  You were asked first for documents because you made your claims first.  If your claims fail for lack of substance, there is no need for anyone else to produce anything.

Further, it's one thing to point to the kind of documentation that exists and note that it's complete and consistent with the efforts to design and build something.  That's not to say there's a list of supporting evidence somewhere explicitly refuting the naive claims everyone's going to come up with.  Expecting your ignorance to be directly, specifically rebutted by some external document is yet another straw man.  That's why we have experts, people who can apply the knowledge of the field to specific new questions.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: molesworth on December 19, 2018, 02:19:51 PM
I think others have pretty well summarised your post, and provided the appropriate responses, but picking out just a couple of points :
But that is problem with Apollo supporters, there is little supporting evidence to back their assertions. Yes there are many generalized docs but little technical info on the actual workings of many things.
On the contrary, there is extensive technical documentation on almost every aspect of the Apollo programme.  Everything from the mighty F1 engines, to the ingenious Guidance Computer (AGC), to the trivial but essential CM cabin lighting system, and even the procedures for dealing with human waste in space!...  If you want details on any particular aspect of the mission, it's pretty much all available online, and if you ask politely, someone might even point you at a particular document.

There's no attempt to "hide" anything, no "classified" documents, and no fees to access it.  If you think otherwise, then perhaps you really haven't done the research you think you have.

Quote
It has gotten to the point, (as I am sure you guys know), someone like Astronaut Pettitt (longest serving Astronaut and probably more qualified than anybody on this forum) rationalizes things by suggesting they lost the technology and it takes a long time to get it back. Uh? What? It took 6-7 years with 60's technology to go from scratch to have a manned drone winging around the moon at 5000 feet per second. And now, 50 years later?
Don Pettit has been quoted out of context repeatedly on this.  He perhaps used unfortunate phrasing, but the technology hasn't been "lost" - it has become outdated and expensive.  With modern technology, materials, and engineering, we could develop lunar-capable spacecraft, and we could put humans on the Moon again, but somebody is going to have to pick up the bill for it.

50 years ago there was a lot of motivation to achieve what seemed impossible, and the cost was seen as being worth it.  Now, even though various political figures might be saying it's going to happen, the fact is that there's no budget for it.  (Personally, I think it's going to take an international effort, with governments and private developers involved, to get us to the Moon and on to Mars, but that's another discussion.)

So JR, given that you've apparently misinterpreted everything from photographs of rover wheels to memos about attitude control stability, are you willing to look at the vast amount of technical documentation (which you claim doesn't exist) and perhaps learn something about how this amazing human accomplishment was achieved?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 19, 2018, 02:32:22 PM
I will have a much fuller response soon

And I predict it will do nothing to address the outstanding questions you already have. How about doing the simple bit of mathematics I asked you about, taken from your own evidence regarding supposed LM instability?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: molesworth on December 19, 2018, 02:47:58 PM
One more, minor, point :


And now, 50 years later?
It's only been 15 years since the last flight of Concorde, which was our last supersonic passenger aircraft.  You might ask why we don't have lots of newer and better supersonic transports whizzing all over the earth.  You might wonder why we can't just fire up the production lines and start cranking out Concordes again.

However, the production facilities have gone, companies closed or moved on to other things, engineers have likely forgotten most of the details etc.  And if you wanted to build something similar today, you'd obviously want to use the latest materials and techniques, not just rebuild to past designs.  When we go back to the Moon and beyond, Apollo will be used as a reference, but not as a blueprint.

Another, possibly better analogy for Apollo, was the journey to and eventual settlement of the South Pole.  From Scott's departure in 1912, it was 44 years before anyone returned to set up a permanent base.  You might ask why it took so long?  The challenges were well understood, and the required technology continually improving, so there was no reason it couldn't be done.  Perhaps you can apply your analytical skills to explaining why there wasn't a permanent presence at the South Pole, at least from post WW 1...
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jfb on December 19, 2018, 03:21:27 PM
The Lunar Module is perhaps the greatest flying machine humanity has ever witnessed, never seen before, never seen since. A 36000 pound (6000 pound on moon) rocket ship/drone/hovercraft capable of going from 5000 feet per second to a hovering drone in little time in a gravity based environment. Again, if we dumb things right down, as my very own child has asked, why are we not using that drone to go to Hawaii for Spring break now?

Because airplanes are much cheaper, more efficient, have greater range, and can carry far more people. 

To be fair, SpaceX has floated the idea of using their next-generation launcher and vehicle (formerly MCT, then ITS, then BFR/BFS, now Super Heavy and Spaceship) for suborbital hops on Earth, such that you could get from New York to Sydney in an hour or so.  Personally, I don't see that happening.  Hell, the market couldn't really support a supersonic transport. 

Quote
Given it is 50 years later, it is an obvious and very simple question that I have seen no Apollo supporter adequately answer. Why, in part, because there is no supporting technical documentation for this technical marvel.

Horseshit.  You have just outed yourself as a dishonest interlocutor.  Type "apollo lunar module documentation" into Google, and you get links to a wealth of documents.  The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LMdocs.html) has links to vehicle familiarization manuals (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14-43939523-LM10-LM14-Fam-Manual.pdf), operation manuals (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM_AGS_FP6_OperatingManual.pdf), systems handbooks (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LMSysHandbk.pdf), and assorted other materials. 

Not everything has been digitized and uploaded, but that doesn't mean it never existed

You cannot claim you have done any kind of research if you couldn't be bothered to do one freaking Google search

Quote
If so, giddy up. Window seat please. It has gotten to the point, (as I am sure you guys know), someone like Astronaut Pettitt (longest serving Astronaut and probably more qualified than anybody on this forum) rationalizes things by suggesting they lost the technology and it takes a long time to get it back. Uh? What? It took 6-7 years with 60's technology to go from scratch to have a manned drone winging around the moon at 5000 feet per second. And now, 50 years later? The proof is in the pudding. Nothing close.

What do you call the ISS, chopped liver?

As a space engineering project, the ISS is every bit as ambitious as landing on the Moon, in some ways more so.  So it's not another planet, it's still pretty damned impressive.  And let's not forget the unmanned side of the house, which finally made it to freaking Pluto

We haven't been back to the Moon because there's no perceived need to do so.  We only did it in the first place to beat the Soviets at something that involved large ballistic missiles ("look at how much mass we can throw into orbit, think about what we can throw at you").  Kennedy didn't really care about advancing science or technology, at least not to the extent that he cared about geopolitics. 

The Apollo program cost $25 bn in 1973 dollars, which is well north of $100 bn today, and at its peak employed 400,000 people.  That's not something you just do because you feel like it. 

Quote
It is obvious to me, someone like Pettitt is coming up with bizarre rationalizations instead of confronting the elephant in the room issue.

"Nobody is willing to pay for it" is not a rationalization.  That's reality.  Manned space flight is eye-wateringly expensive when we do it right, and we haven't done it right since the Shuttle.

Quote
This should give pause to everyone. This supposed technology was not only in the hands of NASA but many commercial contractors. One would think our world would look a whole lot different today.  It is a crying shame that this technology has not been implemented in this world.  But, as some (very qualified) surmise, we lost it.

Nothing's "lost".  The hardware is gone, but the knowledge is still there.  When Pettit is talking about not having the technology, he is talking about the physical Apollo hardware. 

SLS + Orion gets us to lunar orbit.  All that's missing is a lander, but Congress isn't going to pay for one because the point of SLS is to keep the legacy Shuttle manufacturing sector employed, not exploration.

Quote
My point here is not about this "elephant in the room" issue. It is just to point out that many here demand supporting proofs from others yet show little supporting evidence for their own suppositions. It is almost as if what some say here should be self evident to everyone. It doesn't work like that if one is asking others for supporting evidence to support their claim. It is a two way street.

I would like to thank OneBigMonkey (I also just realized I have been on his website too) for actually responding to my questions unlike almost everyone else. I will use another post to respond to your posts. And hopefully we can get back on track.

Jr

You have exhibited a number of common tells for trolls/hoax proponents.  And your insistence that your vague gut feelings signify a problem with the Apollo program rather than your own unfamiliarity with the material also indicate that you're not operating in good faith. 

Again, type "apollo lunar module documentation" into Google and tell me that there's no supporting documentation
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 19, 2018, 03:40:19 PM
Jay Dr. Ed Mitchell was the Apollo 14 LMP, Stu Roosa was the CMP and the infamous Alan Sheppard was CDR, IIRC.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 19, 2018, 04:04:32 PM
Jay Dr. Ed Mitchell was the Apollo 14 LMP, Stu Roosa was the CMP and the infamous Alan Sheppard was CDR, IIRC.

Did I type CMP?  Yes, I meant LMP.  And there's only one P in Shepard.  ;D

Obligatory Stu Roosa story:  in the MQF Stu had the top bunk.  Ed said he fell out of it one night, all the way to the floor.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 19, 2018, 04:11:37 PM
Jay Dr. Ed Mitchell was the Apollo 14 LMP, Stu Roosa was the CMP and the infamous Alan Sheppard was CDR, IIRC.

Did I type CMP?  Yes, I meant LMP.  And there's only one P in Shepard.  ;D

Obligatory Stu Roosa story:  in the MQF Stu had the top bunk.  Ed said he fell out of it one night, all the way to the floor.

I stand corrected. :)

I still suffer from CRS.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Peter B on December 19, 2018, 05:08:17 PM
Now I am sure you are going to say you are not defending your position but defending the facts as you continually tend to point out. Fair enough. But you have to realize, from an Apollo supporter standpoint, it is very hard defending something with facts that has a dearth of supporting evidence. And that is the problem with the Apollo project. And I have seen that with Apollo supporters and I see that in your answers. For instance, it is one thing to say the nozzle on the RCS will not get rip off on takeoff because the air flow, while turbulent, will not be powerful enough to do damage. Sounds reasonable enough but you offer no supporting evidence. If I said that, there would be 20 posts demanding I show a PHD dissertation on it. But that is problem with Apollo supporters, there is little supporting evidence to back their assertions. Yes there are many generalized docs but little technical info on the actual workings of many things. Case in point, we can dumb down things to some of the big elephants in the room in which even a child may ask about. Since we are talking about the LM in this thread, lets talk LM.

Seriously?

(a) You provide a link to an archive containing around 1200 documents, and then say there's a dearth of information? I'd hazard a guess that you've read less than 1% of the documents there, so I'd humbly suggest you have no idea what level of information is listed just there.

(b) And have you considered that, actually, not every document ever created has yet been scanned and placed on the Internet. Which libraries and archives have you scoured in order to ascertain this dearth?

(c) You might like to explain how, why and when all those 1200 documents were created if Apollo was faked.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 19, 2018, 05:16:05 PM
I'd hazard a guess that you've read less than 1% of the documents there...

...or anything except the one document he linked to.  He can't even tell us which one of that trove is the only other document to mention plume deflectors.  And since he could have inferred the directory URL from just the one link he had, it's not clear whether he found the trove first and read the documents in it, or was given the URL to one documents and inferred the existence of the trove from it.

I'll venture he doesn't know anything about the NTRS.  Or such comprehensive libraries such as the experience reports.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 19, 2018, 08:14:09 PM
I'd hazard a guess that you've read less than 1% of the documents there...

...or anything except the one document he linked to.

And he can't even understand that one short memo anyway, insisting that the control problem must be even worse for the LM on its own even though there is a not-very-complex-at-all equation in there that makes it very clear the problem simply cannot arise for the LM without the CSM attached.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: gillianren on December 20, 2018, 10:14:40 AM
I sometimes think of myself as the Official Non-Expert around here.  Goodness knows I haven't read much original Apollo documentation and wouldn't understand it if I did.  (I think I've told the story of Why Gillian Doesn't Know Physics Despite Taking It In High School before, but here it is again--my physics teacher in high school had two heart attacks in November.  For the next two months, we had a substitute whose doctorate was in theatre and spent the class period doing things like discussing European architecture and playing board games.  Then we had a two-week stretch with a Cal Tech teacher, or TA, or something, who mostly tried to teach us over our heads.  When my actual teacher returned, my whole class--none of whom really cared about physics so much as we did about having it on our transcript for college applications--decided it was our job to make sure our teacher didn't exert himself too much and put in as little actual work as we could get away with to encourage him to take our class period easy as well.  To the point of having regular in-class potlucks.)  I simply don't have the background.

What I do have is an understanding of how "experts" work.  When someone can demonstrate ability in a field and says, "My expertise in this field is enough for me to know that [thing] is valid," I know to trust them rather than say, "Well, it still doesn't look right to me, so it must be wrong."  Something about the fluid dynamics doesn't make sense to me?  Well, of course it doesn't!  What do I know from fluid dynamics?

That said, of course, I do have a certain understanding of some of the non-STEM issues involved, such as the Cold War context and certain of the psychological aspects, including Buzz Aldrin's depression.  Though who was it who said I don't know as much about film as I think I do, when I provided a detailed explanation of why Kubrick would've been about the worst possible choice to direct Apollo missions?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 20, 2018, 10:51:27 AM
I sometimes think of myself as the Official Non-Expert around here.  Goodness knows I haven't read much original Apollo documentation and wouldn't understand it if I did.  (I think I've told the story of Why Gillian Doesn't Know Physics Despite Taking It In High School before, but here it is again--my physics teacher in high school had two heart attacks in November.  For the next two months, we had a substitute whose doctorate was in theatre and spent the class period doing things like discussing European architecture and playing board games.  Then we had a two-week stretch with a Cal Tech teacher, or TA, or something, who mostly tried to teach us over our heads.  When my actual teacher returned, my whole class--none of whom really cared about physics so much as we did about having it on our transcript for college applications--decided it was our job to make sure our teacher didn't exert himself too much and put in as little actual work as we could get away with to encourage him to take our class period easy as well.  To the point of having regular in-class potlucks.)  I simply don't have the background.

What I do have is an understanding of how "experts" work.  When someone can demonstrate ability in a field and says, "My expertise in this field is enough for me to know that [thing] is valid," I know to trust them rather than say, "Well, it still doesn't look right to me, so it must be wrong."  Something about the fluid dynamics doesn't make sense to me?  Well, of course it doesn't!  What do I know from fluid dynamics?

That said, of course, I do have a certain understanding of some of the non-STEM issues involved, such as the Cold War context and certain of the psychological aspects, including Buzz Aldrin's depression.  Though who was it who said I don't know as much about film as I think I do, when I provided a detailed explanation of why Kubrick would've been about the worst possible choice to direct Apollo missions?

I think t was Pete Conrad talking to Alan Bean after they had lifted off the Moon, "Is this all there is?", or words to that effect.  What is left after a tremendous mission?  Probably why Buzz had depression.  Maybe more of them that either didn't make the headlines or wasn't as bad.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jfb on December 20, 2018, 06:32:21 PM
So, this is obviously not a new find to most people here, but I did my own quick-n-dirty search of documentation on the lunar module, and came across this gem - The Apollo News Reference (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM_%20NewsReference_%28267_pp%29.pdf) put out by Grumman, focusing on the LM.  There is a huge wealth of basic information in this document covering the LM structure, environmental controls, propulsion, guidance, communication, power, instrumentation, lighting, and more, with plenty of drawings and schematics. 

Anyone who says "there's no documentation" hasn't bothered to look, and immediately outs themselves as arguing in bad faith.  Granted, as recently as 10 years ago you kind of had to know where to look, but today there's absolutely no excuse.  I literally just typed "apollo lunar module documentation" into Google and found that document within a couple of minutes. 
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 20, 2018, 06:51:20 PM
...this gem - The Apollo News Reference (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM_%20NewsReference_%28267_pp%29.pdf)

Yep, the ANR has been a go-to reference since back in the days of the Apogee books.  It was included on the companion CD-ROM.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: gillianren on December 20, 2018, 08:34:07 PM
I think t was Pete Conrad talking to Alan Bean after they had lifted off the Moon, "Is this all there is?", or words to that effect.  What is left after a tremendous mission?  Probably why Buzz had depression.  Maybe more of them that either didn't make the headlines or wasn't as bad.

I believe there's family history as well.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Morgul on December 20, 2018, 08:49:01 PM
Thank you, Jay, for answering this.  This is a question I recently had pop into my mind, about how the quads survived liftoff since they weren't covered (that I was aware of).  I kept meaning to post the question on here (in the appropriate forum), but you have saved me having to do that.  I appreciate it!

Now to go read up more on the boundary layer...


...and within the zone of boundary layer separation, thus protecting them from the supersonic slipstream.  The discontinuity where the conical command module becomes the cylindrical service module causes the boundary layer of air there to separate from the side of the service module.  You can see this illustrated by condensation around the stack during transonic flight.  The air in the immediate vicinity of the RCS quads is turbulent, not in laminar flow at high velocity.

This is an example of how many design factors contribute to where RCS jets can be located in a design, and underscoring that there is no "magical" placement for them such that any other position or configuration is dangerous or useless.  You can never place or configure RCS jets such that they have mission-wide optimal dynamics.  Thus no actual spacecraft design tries, nor relies on this being the case.

Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 20, 2018, 09:17:30 PM
Hi jfb,

I think you are confused by the Apollo News Reference. I have had this for years. Its not a technical manual. It is PR written, for the most part, in layman terms to explain things to the public. (The manual even states that) You can't build anything with this. Instructions for Ikea products are even better than this. (which isn't saying much) This perfectly illustrates the misconception out there regarding the "wealth of information" that people think is out there explaining the principles and details of the various Apollo systems and devices.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: ka9q on December 20, 2018, 10:09:42 PM
OK, then how about the Apollo Operations Handbook? They're available for the lunar module and for the CSM. Each comes in two volumes: Subsystems Data and Operational Procedures.

Study them. Yes, there will be a test.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 20, 2018, 10:39:54 PM
Hi ka9q,

The AOH manuals are descriptive and operational in nature and not designed to be technical in nature. (Hence the name Apollo Operations) Tells me what things are and how to use them, it gives very little insight into the actual background/understanding/proofs of the technical aspects. (I have had these too for years. )
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 20, 2018, 11:21:30 PM
Ah, the Goldilocks argument.  One describes how technology works and the other tells you how to use it.  But neither is "technical" in nature.  None of it is "just right."  Can we just assume that no matter what references, documents,or manuals are provided, you'll just claim none of it is "technical?"  The trove you referred us to, at ibiblio.org, is actually the trove amassed by the people who are rebuilding the Apollo guidance computer.  This seems to be enough for a group of enthusiastic outsiders to actually repair, rebuild, and operate the heart of the guidance system.  So by what standard is it not "technical" enough for you?

Also, have you been able to solve the equations in the memo you referred to for D1 and D2 such that the undocked LM is rendered unstable?  Or is that not "technical" enough?  You tried to tell us that single-jet maneuvers were absolutely required, that the jets had to be fired in pairs.  Have you found which of the several documents in your trove refer to the LM minimum-impulse steering modes?  Or is that not "technical" enough for you?  One of the documents in your trove is the post-flight evaluation of the DAP following Apollo 11.  It tends to contradict most of your claims.  Would you care to tell us which document that is?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Echnaton on December 20, 2018, 11:33:30 PM
I've been away form this site for a while and decided to come back tonight.  And look at what I found.  I'll jump in the fray. 

Hi ka9q,

The AOH manuals are descriptive and operational in nature and not designed to be technical in nature. (Hence the name Apollo Operations) Tells me what things are and how to use them, it gives very little insight into the actual background/understanding/proofs of the technical aspects. (I have had these too for years. )



For people that are adept at technology, operations and procedures manuals give a tremendous insight as to the underlying engineering. They are a great help when combed with even the physical hardware alone in understanding the how and why a machine works. Stop pulling out excuses.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 20, 2018, 11:58:38 PM
Hi Jay,

I am not quite sure what you mean when you say "You tried to tell us that single-jet maneuvers were absolutely required, that the jets had to be fired in pairs". I was saying they had to be fired in pairs to maintain stability.

In terms of post flight memos, are you talking about the one that makes the comment "apparently" (as if how was that possible?) with regards to the RCS engine use?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: ka9q on December 21, 2018, 12:14:32 AM
Hi ka9q,

The AOH manuals are descriptive and operational in nature and not designed to be technical in nature. (Hence the name Apollo Operations) Tells me what things are and how to use them, it gives very little insight into the actual background/understanding/proofs of the technical aspects. (I have had these too for years. )
Actually, the subsystems volumes go into quite a bit of technical detail. Ready for your test?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: nomuse on December 21, 2018, 12:15:22 AM
Ridiculous.

There is never going to be a document that explains exactly how you go about building a piece of aerospace hardware, because there is never going to be a case where Robinson Crusoe has to work it all out from a single book.

It would be like expecting house blueprints to include an explanation on how a framing hammer works.

The documents you find will be ones in which people experienced in a field -- with its standard methods, with its history -- can construct, analyze, and otherwise communicate intents and discoveries about devices and procedures.

That's why I make such a point about standard terminology. There won't be a paper that discusses the RCS in detail and the principles of fluid dynamics in detail. If there is something about the RCS that requires a full understanding of fluid dynamics in order to understand, standard terms outlining the parameters of that issue and -- if you are very lucky -- cites to the appropriate references is what you will find.

This is also why the idea of a hoax is so ludicrous. The effect Jay describes isn't kept in a special NASA book they can edit to their convenience. It is the same damned book used by people who are making things which you can sit in and go to LA with.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 21, 2018, 12:17:14 AM
I was saying they had to be fired in pairs to maintain stability.

Yes, that's what you said.  And you're wrong.  And I'm asking you to reconcile your claim with the copious references to the minimum-impulse mode of the LM DAP that employs only a single thruster for control moments in the U-V control plane.  The documents specifically say this was a programmed mode of the Apollo guidance computer, an intentional method of orienting the spacecraft.

I'm also asking you to reconcile your claim that the memo you referred us to substantiates your belief that the LM would be less stable in solo flight than, as the memo descxribed, with the CSM docked, because of the plume deflectors.  The memo contains mathematics that cover all possible cases.  I'm asking you to solve the mathematics for LM solo flight and thus prove your case.

Despite examples of other people finding enough "technical" material to reverse engineer and duplicate significant aspects of Apollo technology -- operating hardware and faithful mechanical models -- you maintain that what's available is not "technical in nature."  You don't specify what you mean by "technical" in this context, but you insist that it is not covered by existing materials.  My questions are designed to determine how much of the existing materials you are familiar with.  You haven't given anyone any reason to accept your standard of sufficiency.  You can't even reconcile your own claims with your own presented sources, so I don't consider you a credible judge of (a) what is available and (b) the extent to which it can be used to test claims such as yours.

Quote
In terms of post flight memos, are you talking about the one that makes the comment "apparently" (as if how was that possible?) with regards to the RCS engine use?

I'm asking you to give me the file name of the post-flight analysis of the Apollo 11 DAP from the site you gave us.  Can you do that?  Have you actually read any significant portion of the documents there?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 21, 2018, 12:39:19 AM
There is never going to be a document that explains exactly...

We can skip to the end and stipulate that there will never be a document that fits Jr Knowing's constantly-moving and ill-defined criteria for being "technical in nature."  No matter what depth or detail we can provide, he can simply declare that it lacks some arbitrary property to make it suitable.  This is why it's important to reference the various efforts to reconstruct, reproduce, and recreate Apollo technology based on the available documents.  If there are people actually succeeding at things, it's hard for someone else to claim the resources aren't there to do it.

Quote
The documents you find will be ones in which people experienced in a field -- with its standard methods, with its history -- can construct, analyze, and otherwise communicate intents and discoveries about devices and procedures.

Correct.  The memo we were presented with earlier presumes a pre-existing knowledge of free-body dynamics.  The mathematics it incorporated are straightforward and familiar to anyone who has knowledge of that field.  Jr Knowing's inability to reconcile his claim of what the memo says about LM dynamics and what the memo actually says in its mathematics reveals the lack of basis for any judgment he might make about its applicability or completeness.  He appears to have only layman's misconceptions about free-body dynamics.

Further, I have given him references to Bate's Fundamentals of Astrodynamics and Sidi's Spacecraft Dynamics and Control, two of the standard works, to fill in the gaps a layman would have in approaching many of the specific expressions in the Apollo record that deal with spacecraft stability and control.  None of the documents produced during actual engineering development of any product will provide introductory or remedial foundations in the sciences that precede it.  They're meant to communicate ideas between people who already know the foundational concepts.  In that respect, a layman might consider some document insufficient.

Quote
This is also why the idea of a hoax is so ludicrous. The effect Jay describes isn't kept in a special NASA book they can edit to their convenience. It is the same damned book used by people who are making things which you can sit in and go to LA with.

Correct.  Free-body dynamics are the same thing taught to student pilots.  Two ailerons are optimal, but you can exert roll control with just one.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 21, 2018, 12:43:51 AM
Actually, the subsystems volumes go into quite a bit of technical detail.

The Bellcomm library goes into excruciating detail.  But it exists only in print form, and you have to go to the National Air and Space Museum to use it.  This is not a problem, of course, for serious researchers or workers in the field.  But if someone doesn't want to be bothered to leave his armchair, then he will find his options somewhat limited.

Quote
Ready for your test?

"Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer..."

Fun fact:  Douglas Rain passed away recently.  He told the story that -- true to reputation -- Stanley Kubrick made him do dozens of takes singing the song in different keys and tempos.  Then he used the first take.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 21, 2018, 02:06:04 AM
 Yeah this is another variation of a well worn theme:

"I demand evidence that I believe doesn't exist"

"This evidence?"

"Erm...No...some other more narrowly defined evidence that doesn't prove me wrong"

"Oh...you mean this evidence then?"

"No..."

And so on in ever decreasing circles...
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 21, 2018, 03:08:06 AM
I'm also asking you to reconcile your claim that the memo you referred us to substantiates your belief that the LM would be less stable in solo flight than, as the memo descxribed, with the CSM docked, because of the plume deflectors.  The memo contains mathematics that cover all possible cases.  I'm asking you to solve the mathematics for LM solo flight and thus prove your case.

As am I.

Let's be clear here: I am not an engineer. I am not an aerospace expert. I am a biochemist. However, I am more than capable of solving the simple equation M+X = 89D1 - 59D2 for the available ranges of D1 and D2 that will a) fit within the dimensions of the LM and b) result in the negative M+X that leads to a control instability for an automated attitude control system. It doesn't take an expert to understand that for M+X to be negative the statement (59 x D2) > (89 x D1) must be true, and that from that it follows that D2 must be significantly longer than D1. It is also obvious that this equation only yields a negative M+X in the case where the centre of gravity lies above the plane of the RCS system.

So, given the size of the LM and the position of the RCS quads, can you find any solution to that equation that produces a negative M+X in the undocked LM? This is the mathematics of the situation you are insisting makes the LM potentially unstable in solo flight. All we are asking you to do is reconcile that statement with the mathematics in the paper that you presented as evidence of your assertion. Since you believe this memo to be evidence of your claim you must be able to do this, yes?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 21, 2018, 03:22:35 AM
Anyone who wants to understand the basis of the paper presented here might do well to look up who the author of the paper is, and what 'Luminary' is in the context of Apollo. It kind of fits in with where that paper was sourced.

Just a hint there.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Echnaton on December 21, 2018, 08:25:03 AM
The Bellcomm library goes into excruciating detail.

I was unfamiliar with that so I looked it up.  The online index has a very nice listing of all the NASA launches and tests from the first Mercury escape test to A17 with a short note for the result for many of them.  It also states the way to access the archive. 

https://sova.si.edu/record/NASM.XXXX.0093#Project%20Mercury%20Launches

A few minutes of browsing this morning led me to references to all sorts of memos detaining small instances that occured in the broad program to reach the moon.  Anyone want to know about:

"A" Camera Noise Spike and Transponder Power Output Drop During Ranger 8 Midcourse Maneuver : teletype to N.W. Cunningham, NASA, 1965 Mar 10 from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory Library and Archives. 

The level of detail contained in the various archives about the broad moon landing program is unprecedented in history.

jr Knowing, if you are concerned about why people might view you as a crackpot; it is your certainty that you have found something that no one else noticed combined with an abysmal absence of knowledge about the information that is available about the topic that causes others to question the reasons for your persistence that there is a problem.   

People here are not "suspicious and paranoid" just knowledgeable and experienced.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on December 21, 2018, 08:28:20 AM
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 21, 2018, 08:52:42 AM
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

Touché :D
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 21, 2018, 09:34:24 AM
Yeah this is another variation of a well worn theme:
[...]
And so on in ever decreasing circles...

Indeed.  No matter what document is produced, it will lack some property that the claimant will have newly decided is essential to understanding the Apollo program fully and answering all the questions of authenticity that a critic could possibly conceive.  This is why, for the time being, I'm sticking to the documents at the one site our claimant has identified.  We all know other sources exist.  All his concerns so far regarding the RCS can be answered from documents residing there.  If he is unable to find them or interpret them, then we will have our answer to the question of whether his standards of documentation are rationally informed.

However, I am more than capable of solving the simple equation M+X = 89D1 - 59D2 for the available ranges of D1 and D2 that will a) fit within the dimensions of the LM and b) result in the negative M+X that leads to a control instability for an automated attitude control system.

When I said the author wrote the memo with the presumption that the reader would understand free-body dynamics, that wasn't strictly true.  The author has given a simple, correct equation that governs one particular issue of a highly eccentric mass distribution, such as would occur when the LM is docked to a heavy-laden CSM.  It takes knowledge of free-body dynamics to know why that equation governs the issue.  But to solve the  equation for different mass properties requires only a teenager's understanding of algebra and geometry.  This is what we're asking Jr Knowing to do.  His claim that the plume deflectors made the LM less stable under solo flight than with the CSM attached is soundly refuted from his own sources.  If he cannot explain why or why not, then we have no obligation to respect his judgment of technical content or applicability.  The longer he stalls or tries to change the subject, the more apparent it is he's bluffing.

Even the free-body dynamics aren't rocket science.  The equation we're talking about is a simple torque calculation.  Rather, it derives straightforwardly from the definition of torque itself -- a specific force acting perpendicular on an arm of specific distance.  Even the most innumerate of humans probably knows how a cheater bar works, or simply that it works.  If you've got Cletus pulling on a wrench in one direction, and his son Bubba pulling the other way on a long cheater bar attached to the wrench, the cheater bar can become so long that Bubba's weaker pull oustrips Cletus pulling harder on a shorter moment arm.

The level of detail contained in the various archives about the broad moon landing program is unprecedented in history.

Yes, when we say that Apollo was the most meticulously documented civil engineering project ever in history, this is what we mean.

One of the sources at the ibiblio.org archive goes into some detail about how the plume deflectors were built, including materials, measurements, and finished assembly diagrams.  It goes right down to the level of how the films were attached to the Inconel substrate, and what tests were done to assure its mechanical and thermal properties.  If I needed to restore an LM to flight condition, i believe I have enough information to get the plume deflectors right.

Similarly, the memos with file names starting with COL and LUM describe the day-to-day revisions of the software and the results of validation tests.  Some of them were written by the illustrious "M. Hamilton," who (I believe) was presented a few years ago with the Presidential Medal of Freedom for her career efforts.  Many here who work in modern information technology will recognize the pattern if not the actual technical content of the memos.  They transmit to the Apollo distribution network the revisions to the software and the results of testing them.  Such information is what today would be curated in source-code repositories and defect-tracking tools.  The bottom line is that to have any greater technical knowledge than what was documented in those memos, one would need to have been an engineer working on the project at the time, because the only significant information lacking from the available body of documentation is what would have been discussed around the water cooler.

And these days the entire source code for Colossus (CSM) and Luminary (LM) is up on Github.  So we do have a context for investigating the content of those updates.

If the documentation that exists is sufficient to enable someone skilled in the field to reproduce it, it's extremely difficult to argue that "technical" detail is lacking.  As Onebigmonkey notes, it then devolves into an exercise of rapidly moving and rapidly narrowing goalposts.  The endgame is usually as absurd as claiming that if you can't tell me the surface finish of the screws that held the FDAI in the LM cockpit, then we can't know enough to know that Apollo wasn't fake.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 21, 2018, 10:53:56 AM
Yeah this is another variation of a well worn theme:
[...]
And so on in ever decreasing circles...

Indeed.  No matter what document is produced, it will lack some property that the claimant will have newly decided is essential to understanding the Apollo program fully and answering all the questions of authenticity that a critic could possibly conceive.  This is why, for the time being, I'm sticking to the documents at the one site our claimant has identified.  We all know other sources exist.  All his concerns so far regarding the RCS can be answered from documents residing there.  If he is unable to find them or interpret them, then we will have our answer to the question of whether his standards of documentation are rationally informed.

...

This sounds an awful inability to understand the documents that led up to usefulness of the PSS, to Baker.  Although jr hasn't mentioned that piece of equipment.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Luke Pemberton on December 21, 2018, 11:50:21 AM
Believe it or not, I just realized who you are and your background. That now helps explain why you and others are so suspicious and paranoid.

... or just very knowledgeable given the background of each of the individuals that frequent these boards.

Quote
Call me naïve

OK, you're naive.


Quote
I did not know I was walking into a hornets nest.

You should have dipped a toe first. Maybe read a few of the old topics, then you would have realised the expertise here.

Quote
I didn't walk in here to stir things up.

Spare us, please.

Quote
I would like to thank OneBigMonkey (I also just realized I have been on his website too) for actually responding to my questions unlike almost everyone else. I will use another post to respond to your posts. And hopefully we can get back on track.

In that case can you respond to my question? Why do think the US hoaxed the moon landings? What exactly made the landings prohibitive?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 21, 2018, 12:04:14 PM
Actually, the subsystems volumes go into quite a bit of technical detail.

And how.  Earlier I was sort of handwaving the RCS control logic, because the detail is tedious and hard to convey accurately in text alone.  The operations handbooks have the actual circuit diagrams, for Finagle's sake.  I should stress that I could build the Apollo RCS control logic using only the information in that source, and from general expertise in aerospace-type control systems (i.e., what voltages apply, what component ratings, etc.).  This is adequate technical documentation.  Full technical documentation beyond that would specify only things that could be reliably inferred by someone skilled in the art.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 21, 2018, 12:16:44 PM
Actually, the subsystems volumes go into quite a bit of technical detail.

And how.  Earlier I was sort of handwaving the RCS control logic, because the detail is tedious and hard to convey accurately in text alone.  The operations handbooks have the actual circuit diagrams, for Finagle's sake.  I should stress that I could build the Apollo RCS control logic using only the information in that source, and from general expertise in aerospace-type control systems (i.e., what voltages apply, what component ratings, etc.).  This is adequate technical documentation.  Full technical documentation beyond that would specify only things that could be reliably inferred by someone skilled in the art.

Now that you have the circuits, could you employ 3-D printing to build the actual nozzle(s)?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 21, 2018, 01:02:07 PM
Now that you have the circuits, could you employ 3-D printing to build the actual nozzle(s)?

I wouldn't need the circuit diagrams to do that.  There's no circuitry to speak of in the actual RCS motors.  They operate by solenoid valves, and require only 28 VDC to energize them on.  If you've seen the jets themselves, the cable lead is skinny and has only a half-inch Bendix connector.  The circuit diagrams are for the control modules that sit between the computer (and the rest of the control instrumentation, such as the SM SEP/JETT switch in the CSM) and the jets.  Yes, a skilled aerospace fabricator, with no special knowledge of space flight or of the command, service, or lunar modules, could build a working breadboard of any of the RCS systems using only the information from the operations handbooks.  The handbooks are that complete.

To the separate question of whether I could fabricate a new RCS motor of the Marquardt 6-something (the actual model/part number escapes me) type using 3D-printing technology, the answer is a little involved.

The solenoid valves are bolt-on assemblies.  I'd have to go check the label to see if Marquardt even made them themselves.  I think they did.  There's nothing inherently remarkable about the valves.  If you've installed a sprinkler system you know what those are.  The ones Marquardt used are just engineered to a higher standard of reliability, but don't work materially different than any of the zillions of other kinds of solenoid valves you can find.  The thrust chambers were machined from molybdenum and then coated with a molybdenum oxide or alloy (I forget which) to protect them from environment effects and the effects of the corrosive propellants.  Molybdenum is a tough metal.  I have a molybdenum wrench set (non-ferrous metals are sometimes used to make tools where magnetic effects would be hazardous).  It would hurt a lot if I threw one of those at you.  The nozzles are machined from cobalt, with integral stiffeners (those ribs).  That metal was chosen for its combination of mechanical and thermal properties.

Could these be fabricated today with additive manufacturing techniques?  Yes.  Not with your home 3D-printer, of course, since the plastics those use wouldn't be suitable.  But suitable metals -- including cobalt-based alloys -- are already candidates for additive methods.  The most "exciting" (i.e., expensive) methods have fine control over deposition and can achieve a variety of crystalline and grain structures and cooling rates.  You'd still have to coat the thrust chamber after fabrication, using ordinary deposition methods, but you could certainly produce the substrate.  And since polymer gaskets don't work well in the presence of the propellants, you might need a finish step on the interface between the thrust chamber and the solenoid valve -- the injector assembly.

This sort of brings up the plume deflectors again.  Prior to them, the driving constraint on RCS duty cycles was the thermal effects of impingement.  With the +X thrusters guarded by deflectors, the driving constraint became the motors themselves, including such things as throat erosion.  This is why all the modes except maximum-impulse alternated which thrusters would be employed to achieve the lesser impulses.  They didn't want the same jets being used all the time, since throat erosion lessens thrust.  They wanted that effect to occur equally over all the related jets.  There is a whole universe of control practice out there that flies (pun intended, I guess) directly in the face of Jr Knowing's insistence that it all has to work perfectly or else the LM becomes unflyably unstable.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on December 21, 2018, 02:36:36 PM
Now that you have the circuits, could you employ 3-D printing to build the actual nozzle(s)?
Not quite the same, but SpaceX has been 3D printing valves and nozzles for a number of years now. The nozzles for the SuperSraco engine is a printed object, complete with cooling chambers.
Rocket Lab have flown an engine with 3D printed parts in 2017.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 21, 2018, 03:03:23 PM
Parts with difficult cavities have always been difficult to obtain by subtractive or composite means.  The F-1 nozzles were built up from the individual tubes and furnace-brazed into a single piece.  The reject rate was very hight.  Ducted impellers such as for propellant pumps were another nightmare to make from traditional machining techniques.  They were extremely difficult to machine even with 5-axis numerically-controlled mills.  Those impellers have to be built to extremely precise tolerances, and out of extremely robust materials.  Additive manufacturing has transformed aerospace.  And this is why we don't built stuff the same way we designed it in the 1960s.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on December 21, 2018, 03:17:02 PM
Parts with difficult cavities have always been difficult to obtain by subtractive or composite means.  The F-1 nozzles were built up from the individual tubes and furnace-brazed into a single piece.  The reject rate was very hight.  Ducted impellers such as for propellant pumps were another nightmare to make from traditional machining techniques.  They were extremely difficult to machine even with 5-axis numerically-controlled mills.  Those impellers have to be built to extremely precise tolerances, and out of extremely robust materials.  Additive manufacturing has transformed aerospace.  And this is why we don't built stuff the same way we designed it in the 1960s.

Absolutely. The whole "the blueprints were lost therefore we couldn't do it again" schtick is such nonsense. Technology, materials knowledge, maching and fabrication techniques have changed so much in the intervening 60 years that no-one in their right mind would build a rocket in the same way that the Saturns of F-1s were built.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-brought-the-monstrous-f-1-moon-rocket-back-to-life/2/
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 21, 2018, 03:35:47 PM
"Blueprints" are a different matter.  During the height of LM design, Grumman was producing 4,000 drawings per week.  Not all of these would be needed to validate the design.  You can, for example, dispense with detailed assembly drawings and manufacturing-step drawings.  You need these if you are going to tell the manufacturing division how to fabricate it.  But you don't need to fabricate it in order to understand how it works.  Each LM shipped with a literal boxcar of design, manufacturing, and test data.  This is largely a legal requirement for suppling equipment to a customer.  It isn't an engineering requirement in order to comprehend its design and operation.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 21, 2018, 04:09:54 PM
But to solve the  equation for different mass properties requires only a teenager's understanding of algebra and geometry.

In some ways it's even more basic than that. I hesitate to say it because we often upbraid HBs for similar aguments, but here we have a ituation where, given that equation, you can in fact just look at the LM and understand why solo flight will not lead to the kind of instability described.

Quote
This is what we're asking Jr Knowing to do.

Yes, I await eagerly his application of the simple mathematics.

Quote
His claim that the plume deflectors made the LM less stable under solo flight than with the CSM attached is soundly refuted from his own sources

Just wanted to repeat that with the emphasis added, because it really is a fundamental problem with his entire argument.

Furthermore, in an earlier post he claimed we can 'dumb down' the questions to really basic ones. Here's a case where the answer is as basic as it can be. The equation is simple and there is even a simple hand-drawn diagram to illustrate it. And yet, he still fails to correctly interpret it.
Quote
Even the most innumerate of humans probably knows how a cheater bar works, or simply that it works.  If you've got Cletus pulling on a wrench in one direction, and his son Bubba pulling the other way on a long cheater bar attached to the wrench, the cheater bar can become so long that Bubba's weaker pull oustrips Cletus pulling harder on a shorter moment arm.

I think part of the problem is people are familiar with the situation to the point they don't even think of it in technical terms, so when we introduce technical temrinology into the conversation we get accused of obfuscation and trying to 'blind wth science'. However, that does not make the argument any less valid.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Abaddon on December 21, 2018, 04:18:36 PM
Hi jfb,

I think you are confused by the Apollo News Reference. I have had this for years. Its not a technical manual. It is PR written, for the most part, in layman terms to explain things to the public. (The manual even states that) You can't build anything with this. Instructions for Ikea products are even better than this. (which isn't saying much) This perfectly illustrates the misconception out there regarding the "wealth of information" that people think is out there explaining the principles and details of the various Apollo systems and devices.
And now you are trolling.

If you had read as much as you claim then you would, for example, be aware that you can build and program your very own AGC. All the specs are there. People do it as a hobby. Right down to 1960's components even though modern components would make it a breeze.

Guess what? It works as advertised.

The very same applies to any other such subsystem. If you are sufficiently motivated, the data is there so that you could build one in your garage.

The simple fact that you claim it isn't demonstrates a very limited set of possible conclusions one can draw. None of them are pretty. 
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 21, 2018, 04:22:34 PM
Hi Everyone,

I think all you guys make some reasonable points. But, if 50 years later, we are left to reverse engineer most things there is something wrong. It is absolutely troubling that the technical insights for many things are lacking. I would love to see, for instance, the technical workings/insights of how the PLSS/spacesuit functions, ie battery components, environment systems, breathing systems (a re-circulating CO-2 scrubber ?) and the how the suit remains a closed environment. All these aspects have huge applicable uses for us today. Just understanding how the materials/components worked to create that durable battery that was able to operate in 1969 would be invaluable. And understanding how the suit remained a closed environment with no less than 7 seal points would also be very helpful given many of these seal points were with zippers. It is truly remarkable that not one astronaut has not perished from exposure to a vacuum over the years. Just to illustrate how dangerous a vacuum is here is someone (idiot) testing a vacuum on his body. 

If that wasn't enough, here is only documented astronaut attempting to use a space suit in a vacuum chamber prior to the Apollo missions. He does a face plant within 10 seconds because of just one loose tube. He is extremely lucky to have survived. 

NASA even had trouble building vacuum chambers because of the damage the vacuum created on doors (seals) yet these suits with their zipper seals (and velcro) seemed to have posed no problems. (I believe A7 didn't even use seals for their boots) How do we reconcile all this? We are not provided with the technical data behind the technology. Further, how do we reconcile the behavior of some of the astronauts on the moon with the dangers of the vacuum? They are one small tear or puncture away from certain disaster yet the way they act at times you would think they are playing football in a park. Look at this video from Apollo 17. It doesn't appear they even have the slightest concern about the vacuum. Check between 1:44 and 1:48:30, Cernan (or Schimitt?) completely destroys an experiment and decides to use his body as a hammer. 1:45:50 is classic. (also note how he seems to levitate at times in these three minutes) Is this remotely how a person would operate in a vacuum knowing death is a small puncture away? 

In any event, I think people are only fooling themselves that all this technology is explainable with scientific verification. People I think rely as much on belief and faith, then a solid technical foundation that this technology operated as advertised. I know others disagree but that is what I think. Again no biggie if you disagree. I respect and acknowledge you have valid points.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 21, 2018, 04:24:52 PM
Sorry, here is the Apollo 17 video. Check between 1:44 and 1:48:30   
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 21, 2018, 04:27:29 PM
Sorry again, here is the Apollo 17 video. Check between 1:44 and 1:48:30 
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 21, 2018, 04:33:44 PM
I think all you guys make some reasonable points.

Then why are you trying to change the subject?  Again.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 21, 2018, 04:36:41 PM
In any event, I think people are only fooling themselves that all this technology is explainable with scientific verification. People I think rely as much on belief and faith, then a solid technical foundation that this technology operated as advertised. I know others disagree...

I disagree because you're essentially telling me I know know how to, and can't, do my job.  You still haven't wrapped your head around the fact that some people know these things.

Quote
I respect and acknowledge you have valid points.

No.  There is no respect here.  You can't bring yourself to admit you are wrong even when it's mathematically proven to your face from your own sources.  All you can manage to say is that your critics have "valid points" but you're just going to continue believing what you want anyway.  That is highly disrespectful, given the feedback you've received.  Your defense boils down to insisting that other people can't possibly know what they know.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on December 21, 2018, 04:41:10 PM
Gish gallop noted.
Instead of trying to change the subject just answer the simple maths question (and the others) that you have been already asked.

No-one is really that interested in your demonstration of your lack of knowledge about pressure suits.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 21, 2018, 04:42:03 PM
Hi Everyone,

I think all you guys make some reasonable points.

No, do not change the subject and try to bring more stuff to the table before addrsssing the questions put to you about the stuff you already have under discussion.

Address the challenge by multiple posters to use the equation in the memo you brought up as evidence to show how it indicates the LM in solo flight is potentially unstable.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 21, 2018, 04:45:21 PM
jr, a small note LO as administer has asked the the number of images be held to a reasonable quantity.  He has to pay for the additional server space.
OK, for over 50 years the science/technology behind the PLSS, has in fact worked for every EVA since that time.  The literature is full of how and why it works, YOU just have to look it up. 

-Now as to the guy with the arm in a vacuum chamber, this is BS from Ralph Rene.  Note that the dfferential is 15 psi pending on the quality of vacuum.  Whereas the Apollo suits had roughly 3.5 psi differential.  In the longer mission the astronauts complained about fatigue in their hands.  But there is quite a big difference.  You need to start analyzing the BS on YT.

The suits were built with a leakage tolerance, again YOU need to look this up as it is there.  No mystery why the suits worked, with the leakage.  Yes one tear would be disastrous, but again the suits were robust, no tears even with the acrobatics of the astronauts. Should they have done what they did, perhaps, perhaps not, but remember these guys were on a landscape 240000 miles from which they grew up with.  And the temptation to push the envelope was in their training.
 
And your Gish Gallop continues.  Why not stick to one subject until you understand?  It is your choice but every argument has been brought up in some manner in some of the forums on the net.  You have provided nothing new, nor shown that Apollo was fake.

ETA 15 before psi
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Von_Smith on December 21, 2018, 04:57:13 PM
Hi Everyone,

I think all you guys make some reasonable points. But, if 50 years later, we are left to reverse engineer most things there is something wrong. It is absolutely troubling that the technical insights for many things are lacking. I would love to see, for instance, the technical workings/insights of how the PLSS/spacesuit functions, ie battery components, environment systems, breathing systems (a re-circulating CO-2 scrubber ?) and the how the suit remains a closed environment. All these aspects have huge applicable uses for us today.

You do realize that spacesuits are still used today, right?  It isn't just Apollo.

Or is it your position that *all* EVAs are fake?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Luke Pemberton on December 21, 2018, 05:36:32 PM
You do realize that spacesuits are still used today, right?  It isn't just Apollo.

Or is it your position that *all* EVAs are fake?

You beat me to it. There was another thread about the sublimator and the PLSS not doing what is said on the tin. If I recall that poster  used similar arguments about poor documentation and how we (as believers) use extrapolation of current technologies as a flawed argument for the evidence of Apollo; i.e. it can be done now so it could be done then.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: molesworth on December 21, 2018, 05:46:24 PM
I think all you guys make some reasonable points.
So are you willing to concede that you were wrong on any specific topics?  Or enter into a rational discussion on them?

Quote
But, if 50 years later, we are left to reverse engineer most things there is something wrong. It is absolutely troubling that the technical insights for many things are lacking.
Do you actually know what "reverse engineering" means?  And have you read any of the posts since your last visit which show just how much detailed technical documentation is available for almost every aspect of the Apollo programme?  You certainly aren't giving the impression that you've understood anything said to you.

Quote
I would love to see, for instance, the technical workings/insights of how the PLSS/spacesuit functions, ie battery components, environment systems, breathing systems (a re-circulating CO-2 scrubber ?) and the how the suit remains a closed environment. All these aspects have huge applicable uses for us today.
Again, all of this in formation is available, if you take the time to look for it.  And do you think today's space suits were developed without any reference to previous designs?  Do you not think the Apollo era systems were improved and adapted over the years?

Oh, and does the name "Gish" mean anything to you?  ;)
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Abaddon on December 21, 2018, 05:51:13 PM
Hi Everyone,

I think all you guys make some reasonable points. But, if 50 years later, we are left to reverse engineer most things there is something wrong. It is absolutely troubling that the technical insights for many things are lacking. I would love to see, for instance, the technical workings/insights of how the PLSS/spacesuit functions, ie battery components, environment systems, breathing systems (a re-circulating CO-2 scrubber ?) and the how the suit remains a closed environment. All these aspects have huge applicable uses for us today.

You do realize that spacesuits are still used today, right?  It isn't just Apollo.

Or is it your position that *all* EVAs are fake?
It's hilarious. JR seems unaware that the very same suits remain in use and documentaries have been made that go down to the individual doing the stitching for the actual suits.

Standby for the inevitable "zips can't hold pressure" claim.

We had the very same with some other twonk some time back. JR is edging to recycle that ball of crap.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on December 21, 2018, 05:55:06 PM
That was Neil Baker...the bloke that went postal, threatens to shoot up Santa Barbara Uni, made bomb threats and spent a long period of time in a mental hospital. He was a vicious anti-Semite too.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: BDL on December 21, 2018, 05:57:27 PM
That was Neil Baker...the bloke that went postal, threatens to shoot up Santa Barbara Uni, made bomb threats and spent a long period of time in a mental hospital. He was a vicious anti-Semite too.
Neil Baker? I feel like I’ve heard that name before but I’m not sure who he is.. is he a conspiracist or something?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Abaddon on December 21, 2018, 06:02:56 PM
That was Neil Baker...the bloke that went postal, threatens to shoot up Santa Barbara Uni, made bomb threats and spent a long period of time in a mental hospital. He was a vicious anti-Semite too.
Neil Baker? I feel like I’ve heard that name before but I’m not sure who he is.. is he a conspiracist or something?
He was a wonky member here. He bought a ban and some "help".
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on December 21, 2018, 06:06:12 PM
That was Neil Baker...the bloke that went postal, threatens to shoot up Santa Barbara Uni, made bomb threats and spent a long period of time in a mental hospital. He was a vicious anti-Semite too.
Neil Baker? I feel like I’ve heard that name before but I’m not sure who he is.. is he a conspiracist or something?

https://www.independent.com/news/2013/dec/12/former-ucsb-employee-neil-baker-sentenced-probatio/?amp=amp
Yes. He believes that the PLSS, specifically the sublimator, could not work. He's also a Holocaust denier and all round nasty piece of work.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: raven on December 21, 2018, 06:12:02 PM

https://www.independent.com/news/2013/dec/12/former-ucsb-employee-neil-baker-sentenced-probatio/?amp=amp
Yes. He believes that the PLSS, specifically the sublimator, could not work. He's also a Holocaust denier and all round nasty piece of work.
Oh, and he believed any reference to the sublimator dated to only a  certain date. Then I linked to NASA's page on them from the Wayback machine. I don't think he ever gave any solid reply to that.
Honestly, I feel sorry for the guy. I would not wish him on himself.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: ka9q on December 21, 2018, 06:46:36 PM
Not quite the same, but SpaceX has been 3D printing valves and nozzles for a number of years now.
As well as lots of other objects. One of the stops on the Hawthorne plant tour (I've been there twice) is their "titanium 3D printer". There is a collection of small parts (mostly gears) for you to examine. Impressive.

I'm not a mechanical or materials person but it looks like the titanium is sintered.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: AtomicDog on December 21, 2018, 07:02:30 PM
Sooo...you are trying to tell us that space suits don't work?  The ISS astronauts would be interested to know that.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: ka9q on December 21, 2018, 07:12:38 PM
I would love to see, for instance, the technical workings/insights of how the PLSS/spacesuit functions, ie battery components, environment systems, breathing systems (a re-circulating CO-2 scrubber ?) and the how the suit remains a closed environment.
Ask and ye shall receive. Go to

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/main.html

and look for "suits and life support equipment". You might also ask an experienced diver what a "rebreather" is.

In many ways, a spacesuit life support system is actually much simpler than a diving rebreather. A spacesuit need operate only at one very low pressure where a pure O2 atmosphere is suitable. Diving rebreathers must operate over a wide pressure range; below about 9 meters, pure oxygen is highly toxic so a diluent gas (usually helium) is necessary. That means extra tanks, valves, control systems and gas concentration sensors. The diluent/O2 gas ratio must vary with depth to keep the partial pressure of oxygen within safe limits.

The Apollo PLSS removed CO2 just like a diving rebreather: with an alkali hydroxide. The only difference is that Apollo used lithium hydroxide to save weight; divers generally use sodalime, mainly calcium hydroxide with a little sodium hydroxide as catalyst.

Quote
All these aspects have huge applicable uses for us today. Just understanding how the materials/components worked to create that durable battery that was able to operate in 1969 would be invaluable.
Apollo/Saturn batteries used silver-zinc chemistry, which has long been an aerospace standard. Maybe, just maybe, you can speculate as to why they're not more widely used outside that industry. (Hint: look at the first word in the name.)
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on December 21, 2018, 07:22:21 PM
Let's not follow the gish-gallop. Jr Knowing, please answer the simple maths question that's outstanding and let's go from there. The Moderator of this place is very forgiving but even he has limits.  Continued evasion and refusal to answer has in the past led others to being placed on moderation to prevent you forking the conversation off into multiple paths.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Dalhousie on December 21, 2018, 08:02:59 PM
Sooo...you are trying to tell us that space suits don't work?  The ISS astronauts would be interested to know that.

And cosmonauts, and Chinese astronauts, and the various universities and private companies building and testing space suit prototypes.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 21, 2018, 08:50:48 PM
Let's not follow the gish-gallop.

I vote likewise.  Jr Knowing promised us he wouldn't do that again.  His sudden interest in space suits has more to do with his inability to reconcile any of his claims regarding the RCS, SM or LM, with the sources he himself has identified.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Echnaton on December 21, 2018, 09:53:28 PM
I would love to see....


Tell us please what you've done to realize this "love?" A whole bunch of Apollo related documentation is available today on the Internet for you to see. More than most of us could actually take the time to read in its entirety.  It doesn't appear that you have looked up, read and worked to comprehend all that much.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Peter B on December 21, 2018, 10:07:01 PM
Hi Jay,

Believe it or not, I just realized who you are and your background. That now helps explain why you and others are so suspicious and paranoid. Call me naïve, I did not know I was walking into a hornets nest. I didn't walk in here to stir things up. Literally, one of my buddies who is really into space travel (I mentioned before), suggested I checkout this website to bounce some of my ideas off. Believe me I am not here to get a rise out of jerking you guys around. I have to respect your dogged persistence over the years defending your position. It does take a lot of patience dealing with people like myself...

G'day JR Knowing

The funny thing about calling us suspicious and paranoid is that we aren't actually unthinking fan boys and cheer girls of NASA. We probably know more about the actual scandals that are part of the history of Apollo than you do (as well as the stunning achievements) such as:

- The decision to locate Mission Control in Houston;

- The process which determined that Mission Control would use IBM computers; and

- The process by which North American won the contract for the construction of the Apollo CSM.

I've had some experience with procurement in the Australian Public Service, and I know for a fact that if anyone today tried to run a procurement process the way those three processes were run, they'd cause political scandals of the first order.

Seriously, you could write a How-NOT-To Guide To Management which could be littered with examples of the bad decisions of NASA managers/management (some of which cost lives, obviously not all from Apollo).

But does this interest you? No! You're more disturbed by the idea of an astronaut walking over the wheel tracks of his rover, or puzzled that we don't use LM technology to fly to Hawaii. So please pardon us for being a little underwhelmed by your insights.

However, given the number of non-show-stoppers you've raised in the course of this thread, I think the time has come to ask the big question: Seeing as you've obviously decided that Apollo was faked, what do you think it was that made it necessary to fake it?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: AtomicDog on December 21, 2018, 11:10:32 PM


We probably know more about the actual scandals that are part of the history of Apollo than you do (as well as the stunning achievements) such as:

- The decision to locate Mission Control in Houston;

- The process which determined that Mission Control would use IBM computers; and

- The process by which North American won the contract for the construction of the Apollo CSM.



Now I'm curious. Care to spin those real NASA scandals off into their separate thread? I'd like to learn more.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Echnaton on December 21, 2018, 11:15:24 PM
If that wasn't enough, here is only documented astronaut attempting to use a space suit in a vacuum chamber prior to the Apollo missions. He does a face plant within 10 seconds because of just one loose tube.

Please tell us how a failure in a testing procedure means that something couldn't be done?  Most would look at this and say, maybe they learned something from this.  Something like how to make better attachments for hoses so it doesn't happen in space? 

BTW, are you contending that there have been no astronaut space walks.  Neither the Soviets or NASA could do that in the sixties?  What about high altitude test pilots in the sixties? 
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: raven on December 21, 2018, 11:36:46 PM
If that wasn't enough, here is only documented astronaut attempting to use a space suit in a vacuum chamber prior to the Apollo missions. He does a face plant within 10 seconds because of just one loose tube.

Please tell us how a failure in a testing procedure means that something couldn't be done?  Most would look at this and say, maybe they learned something from this.  Something like how to make better attachments for hoses so it doesn't happen in space? 

BTW, are you contending that there have been no astronaut space walks.  Neither the Soviets or NASA could do that in the sixties?  What about high altitude test pilots in the sixties?
Heck, pressure suits (the ancestors of modern space suits) date  back to the mid 30's, thanks to a one-eyed aviation pioneer by the name of Wiley Post.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 22, 2018, 01:51:28 AM
This is getting tedious now.

We've moved on to another variant on the "gee it kinda looks funny" theme, that of "I would be really scared on the moon, these guys aren't so it must be fake".

So far you have claimed that no documentation a particular subject exists only to reveal that actually you were aware of and claimed to have been through several sources of documentation. Now you're doing the same for the suits. You clearly know very little about their construction or the testing involved.

Here's a little thought experiment for you: you acknowledge the problems of maintaining a vacuum for testing. How do you reconcile that with the very obvious and large vacuum in which the astronauts were operating?

I'm not even going to dignify it with supplying you with links, you already have sources that give you the information you claim is absent. Go read a book.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 22, 2018, 05:10:45 AM
This is getting tedious now.

We've moved on to another variant on the "gee it kinda looks funny" theme, that of "I would be really scared on the moon, these guys aren't so it must be fake".

Yes, it's the standard 'they're always one tiny ittle mishap from grisly death' argument. It's an absurd exaggeration of reaity. Yes, they were in an inherently hositle environment that would kill them in seconds, but for heavens' sake, the engineers designing and building the hardware knew that and designed and built the hardware appropriately to make these 'tiny mishaps' very unlikely and to mitigate their effects as far as possible. Hell, it was ust that kind of engineering that actually led to the death of the Apollo 1 crew, because a spacecraft hatch designed to fail safe in space sealed them in on the ground as the fire spread.

And that, in itself, supplies a clue as to how any pressure vessel, including a spacesuit, can remain sealed as long as it is pressurised by using the internal pressure to do it....
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: molesworth on December 22, 2018, 09:53:33 AM
This is getting tedious now.

We've moved on to another variant on the "gee it kinda looks funny" theme, that of "I would be really scared on the moon, these guys aren't so it must be fake".

Yes, it's the standard 'they're always one tiny ittle mishap from grisly death' argument. It's an absurd exaggeration of reaity. Yes, they were in an inherently hositle environment that would kill them in seconds, but for heavens' sake, the engineers designing and building the hardware knew that and designed and built the hardware appropriately to make these 'tiny mishaps' very unlikely and to mitigate their effects as far as possible.
There are quite a few other occupations where people involved are operating close to the boundaries, and where equipment failure or mis-operation could be fatal.  Things like saturation diving, mining, forestry, fishing etc. all have high rates of injury and death, but we don't see anyone claiming they're "fake jobs - nobody would ever take those risks".

The Apollo astronauts were brave men, no doubt about that, but they understood the likely risks, and importantly, they understood the equipment they were using, how it was designed and built, and what it could or couldn't do.  Trying to dismiss Apollo, or by inference the whole manned space programme, because it was "risky" is nonsensical.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: mako88sb on December 22, 2018, 10:34:19 AM
Hi Everyone,

I would love to see, for instance, the technical workings/insights of how the PLSS/spacesuit functions, ie battery components, environment systems, breathing systems (a re-circulating CO-2 scrubber ?) and the how the suit remains a closed environment.

Along with what ka9q posted here's a link to a thread started by Dan Schaiewitz who was heavily involved with the PLSS and training of the astronauts in its use. Take the time to read it all.
http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum38/HTML/001957.html

Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 22, 2018, 11:20:39 AM
Do you actually know what "reverse engineering" means?

Clearly he doesn't.

From Goddard to me there is an unbroken line of design and development in aerospace engineering.  We're not "reverse engineering" RCS systems or manned spacecraft or space suits from the Apollo era in order to determine how they worked or how to make similar items work today.  The F-1B program is not about tearing apart a legacy artifact to discover how it works.  It's not about lacking the skill to build a similar thing from scratch.  It's about starting with a classic design to save time, money, and effort.  Very few designs these days are clean-sheet designs, often for defensible reasons.

Quote
You certainly aren't giving the impression that you've understood anything said to you.

Clearly he doesn't.  Not a single thing.

As soon as the discussion becomes even remotely technical, he falls back to his layman's positions:  the situation is still "somehow" way too dangerous, there still "somehow" isn't enough available knowledge to dispute him, his critics aren't take his ignorant fears seriously enough, and he's still somehow justified in keeping his fretful beliefs.

Sadly, evidence suggests this is deliberate.  He knows what parts to leave out of quotes to make them say what he needs.  He knows when his critics have put him in a corner, so that he knows when to try to change subjects.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: gillianren on December 22, 2018, 11:39:55 AM
The two things never clarified in these discussions is any kind of scientific reason why they were faked and any kind of scientific explanation of how it was possible to fake them.  Simply put, they don't know.  Funnily enough, they'll claim they don't have to know how it was faked, because it clearly was, but that kind of trust in people's abilities never extends to their ability to actually successfully carry out a Moon landing.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: nomuse on December 22, 2018, 01:48:11 PM
Not a lot of deviation from the script this time. Pity. The RCS thing was a new one on me and I learned some stuff.

I'm calling the first flounce within 48 hours of now.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Abaddon on December 22, 2018, 04:51:00 PM
A little early to call, but likely we are all meanies. Because reasons.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 22, 2018, 05:00:29 PM
Nah, it's pretty clear we're sheeple.  We can't really know what we think we know; we're just too trusting of the official word.  Therefore it will take a "woke" someone like Jr Knowing to free us from the shackles of our misplaced faith.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Peter B on December 22, 2018, 06:48:47 PM
Nah, it's pretty clear we're sheeple.  We can't really know what we think we know; we're just too trusting of the official word.  Therefore it will take a "woke" someone like Jr Knowing to free us from the shackles of our misplaced faith.

Sheesh! Must be just plain dumb luck all those spacecraft you've helped with actually work... ::)
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Luke Pemberton on December 22, 2018, 08:46:28 PM
It's about starting with a classic design to save time, money, and effort.  Very few designs these days are clean-sheet designs, often for defensible reasons.

A point concreted in history so starkly at the end of the second world war, with the effort to capture the Vengeance weapon sites and the main prize, von Braun and his team. It made sense from a technological view and strategic view. No one in their right mind would give away such an advantage and proclaim 'we'll design it all from scratch, that would be a good idea.'
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Luke Pemberton on December 22, 2018, 08:50:32 PM
The RCS thing was a new one on me and I learned some stuff.

I wish we had more visits for the reason in bold.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 23, 2018, 06:42:12 AM
To return to a couple of topics that have been touched on in this thread, a question on collectSpace about the LM windows made me go to Thomas Kelly's excellent "Moon Lander".

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Moon-Lander-Developed-Smithsonian-Spaceflight/dp/1588342735

There is a section in there on fine tuning the positioning and orientation of the RCS thruster set up on the LM, as well as some background into how the windows came to be designed the way they are. Our protagonist would do well to read that book, it's excellent, but essentially the windows were designed to minimise the amount of glass while maximising visibility, something achieved by the in flight position of the astronaut.

Then this document was posted in the collectSpace thread:

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/apolloSpacecraftWindows.pdf

This, and many documents like it, explores in excruciating detail the design of just one small aspect of the spacecraft. That is how well this project was recorded. How can anyone come here and claim that there is no information on which to base our views?

Th OP has even been to my site and presumably had a look at what was there and still claims that we are taking the Apollo legacy on faith alone, and that no-one has looked at the data seriously.

I'll throw it right back: if you have looked at the documents and data and still believe Apollo was hoaxed, you haven't actually looked.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: mako88sb on December 23, 2018, 11:02:25 AM
I've asked a few HB's that if the missions were faked, why didn't they simply use something for the lunar lander that people would have expected it to look like instead of something that even the astronauts admit to having doubts about when they first see it?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on December 23, 2018, 11:29:23 AM
Not a lot of deviation from the script this time. Pity. The RCS thing was a new one on me and I learned some stuff.

I'm calling the first flounce within 48 hours of now.

I think that he's already stealth flouncing as he's been on every day watching his ass getting whooped.

(https://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/flounce2.jpg)
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: AtomicDog on December 23, 2018, 12:55:09 PM
I've asked a few HB's that if the missions were faked, why didn't they simply use something for the lunar lander that people would have expected it to look like instead of something that even the astronauts admit to having doubts about when they first see it?

Bingo. The public expected an aerodynamic single stage to moon ship with seats and a hull so thick that bullets would bounce off it. If Apollo was fake, it would have been far easier to deliver that fantasy spacecraft than what they came up with.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 23, 2018, 01:14:58 PM
I've asked a few HB's that if the missions were faked, why didn't they simply use something for the lunar lander that people would have expected it to look like instead of something that even the astronauts admit to having doubts about when they first see it?

Bingo. The public expected an aerodynamic single stage to moon ship with seats and a hull so thick that bullets would bounce off it. If Apollo was fake, it would have been far easier to deliver that fantasy spacecraft than what they came up with.

The astronauts' reaction is anticipated.  They were test pilots.  They mostly flew warbirds, airframes meant to be shot to pieces and still bring their crews home.  The Navy pilots especially were accustomed to highly robust airframes, beefy landing gear.  Even those like Neil Armstrong, who had flow spacecraft like the X-15 and previous capsules, were used to structural designs needed to strengthen the craft for its aerodynamic requirements.  This was the first time anyone had flown anything that had no aerodynamic behavior requirement whatsoeve.  From a certain simplistic point of view, it was an aluminum balloon.

Science fiction has fed us for years a diet of robustly built spaceships.  We seem to have forgotten the spindly XD-1 Discovery in favor of the AA Valley Forge (filmed on a decomissioned aircraft carrier), the Nostromo, and a bunch of Starfleet vessels.  I suppose I should talk about the fictional ships of the 1930s through the 1950s, but todays' hoax claimants have a certain ideal in mind.  My experience with the modern designers of Starfleet vessels is that they approach the imaginary construction of their designs as if they were designing oceangoing ships.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: nomuse on December 23, 2018, 01:24:58 PM
And rivets. And fins. Can't forget big circular portholes. And go-faster stripes (although you can always paint it up like one of the V2 test rockets for that classic look).
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: mako88sb on December 23, 2018, 03:06:53 PM
We seem to have forgotten the spindly XD-1 Discovery in favor of the AA Valley Forge (filmed on a decomissioned aircraft carrier),

Hadn't thought of that movie in years. So not just any aircraft carrier but the actual USS Valley Forge or is IMDB wrong about that? I'll have to see about getting the movie for the kids to watch.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Luke Pemberton on December 23, 2018, 03:26:46 PM
Bingo. The public expected an aerodynamic single stage to moon ship with seats and a hull so thick that bullets would bounce off it. If Apollo was fake, it would have been far easier to deliver that fantasy spacecraft than what they came up with.

One only has to watch Earth to the Moon and Moon Machines to understand the design was, well, to achieve the objective of lunar landing. It took real engineers to arrive at those very real solutions, and as Jason pointed out on the Tim Finch thread, if you ask a bunch of engineers to design something, they tend to do just that. If the thing they made didn't work, then you'd have a rather large smoking gun. There's no getting around that very simple observation.

Eta: I'm not suggesting Jason is simple either.  :)
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Luke Pemberton on December 23, 2018, 03:31:58 PM
From a certain simplistic point of view, it was an aluminum balloon.

What would that make the Falcon, other than a rust bucket?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Abaddon on December 23, 2018, 04:08:36 PM
Not a lot of deviation from the script this time. Pity. The RCS thing was a new one on me and I learned some stuff.

I'm calling the first flounce within 48 hours of now.

I think that he's already stealth flouncing as he's been on every day watching his ass getting whooped.

(https://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/flounce2.jpg)
Well, joined in August, lurked for three months, de-lurked and posted a bucket of crap, re-lurked.

Next step in the play book is suicide by mod. Time will tell.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: AtomicDog on December 23, 2018, 04:22:46 PM
Not a lot of deviation from the script this time. Pity. The RCS thing was a new one on me and I learned some stuff.

I'm calling the first flounce within 48 hours of now.

I think that he's already stealth flouncing as he's been on every day watching his ass getting whooped.

(https://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/flounce2.jpg)
Well, joined in August, lurked for three months, de-lurked and posted a bucket of crap, re-lurked.

Next step in the play book is suicide by mod. Time will tell.


*clanking three RCS engine bells together*  jr Knowinnng! Come out to pla-ay!
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Abaddon on December 23, 2018, 05:15:54 PM
On the first day of flouncemas I OCD'd to me,
A strawman in a pear tree.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Abaddon on December 23, 2018, 05:17:56 PM
On the second day of flouncemas I OCD'd to me,
Two talking heads
And a strawman in a pear tree.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Abaddon on December 23, 2018, 05:32:27 PM
On the third day of flouncemas I OCD'd to me,
Three David Percy's
Two talking heads
And a strawman in a pear tree.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Abaddon on December 23, 2018, 05:34:41 PM
On the fourth day of flouncemas I OCD'd to me,
Four Jarrahs yapping
Three David Percy's
Two talking heads
And a strawman in a pear tree.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 23, 2018, 05:44:56 PM
Pretty good for a start.
Marcus Allen
Bart Sibrel
Bill Kaysing
Ralph Rene
Mary Bennett
David Groves
Jack White
Uum gone blank ;)
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: AtomicDog on December 23, 2018, 05:56:26 PM
On the fifth day of flouncemas I OCD'd to me,
Five Duane Damannns!
Four Jarrahs yapping
Three David Percy's
Two talking heads
And a strawman in a pear tree.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on December 23, 2018, 06:03:08 PM
On the sixth day of flouncemas I OCD'd to me,
Six galloping Gishes
Five Duane Damannns!
Four Jarrahs yapping
Three David Percy's
Two talking heads
And a strawman in a pear tree.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Abaddon on December 23, 2018, 06:19:04 PM
Dammit, I thought I might get at least halfway...ROFL
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Abaddon on December 23, 2018, 06:35:43 PM
On the sixth day of flouncemas I OCD'd to me,
Six galloping Gishes
Five Duane Damannns!
Four Jarrahs yapping
Three David Percy's
Two talking heads
And a strawman in a pear tree.
Speaking of which, is Duane still actve?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Dalhousie on December 23, 2018, 06:53:48 PM
On the sixth day of flouncemas I OCD'd to me,
Six galloping Gishes
Five Duane Damannns!
Four Jarrahs yapping
Three David Percy's
Two talking heads
And a strawman in a pear tree.
Speaking of which, is Duane still actve?

Passed away 2013
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Abaddon on December 23, 2018, 07:31:09 PM
On the sixth day of flouncemas I OCD'd to me,
Six galloping Gishes
Five Duane Damannns!
Four Jarrahs yapping
Three David Percy's
Two talking heads
And a strawman in a pear tree.
Speaking of which, is Duane still actve?

Passed away 2013

Didn't know that. Last I saw of him was on EF.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 23, 2018, 07:47:28 PM
On the sixth day of flouncemas I OCD'd to me,
Six galloping Gishes
Five Duane Damannns!
Four Jarrahs yapping
Three David Percy's
Two talking heads
And a strawman in a pear tree.
Speaking of which, is Duane still actve?

Passed away 2013

I believe I chatted with him in 2015 or 2016 on YT.  Still had the Moon chip on his shoulder and he still didn't like most of the guys on EF.  I guess those guys were too hard on him attempting to point out how wrong he was/is.  He told me everything about me that was on my profile, so could read still. 
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: mako88sb on December 23, 2018, 08:08:13 PM
Not a lot of deviation from the script this time. Pity. The RCS thing was a new one on me and I learned some stuff.

I'm calling the first flounce within 48 hours of now.

I think that he's already stealth flouncing as he's been on every day watching his ass getting whooped.

(https://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/flounce2.jpg)
Well, joined in August, lurked for three months, de-lurked and posted a bucket of crap, re-lurked.

Next step in the play book is suicide by mod. Time will tell.


*clanking three RCS engine bells together*  jr Knowinnng! Come out to pla-ay!

Another movie I haven't seen in decades and need to show my girls!  :)

Totally unrelated but we were in Maui a few weeks ago and while driving the road to Hana, which anybody familiar knows how twisty it is, a song I hadn't thought about in decades popped into my head. One of my favorite songs while driving but as I said, I hadn't thought about it in about 35 years, The song was from the Canadian band "Streetheart" titled Action":
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: nomuse on December 23, 2018, 08:45:07 PM
80's movies. Go fig.

Last year our shop had just come back from a long off-site install. We were all walking slowly (wearily) across the parking lot and without realizing it, had ended up side-by-side. Until one of the lads saw us and called out "Warriors, come out and pla-ay!"

Weirder still was when I was doing a children's theater production (nobody in the cast older than tweens) and one day out of the blue they started quoting from Labyrinth. I'm going, "How do you even know of that movie?"
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: gillianren on December 23, 2018, 09:20:23 PM
Their parents.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 23, 2018, 09:47:53 PM
Well a big "Stink, Stank, Stunk" to everyone.  :)

Will he flounce,
And will he pounce.
Don't worry,
He has many more gifts (ideas)
To bounce.

A sincere Happy, Safe, Peaceful Holidays to Little Jay Lou and the other Guardians of the Galaxy children of Moonville,

Merry Christmas,
Jr.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 23, 2018, 11:36:36 PM

He has many more gifts (ideas)

Yeah, it's not the number of topics among which you can aimlessly flit that engages people here.  It's the skill and knowledge you can bring to the topics you dwell on.  On the subject of the RCS, you are clearly unskilled and unaware. Care to own that?

And also Merry Christmas.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Abaddon on December 24, 2018, 04:53:28 AM
Science and engineering called. They want a refund.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 24, 2018, 06:39:11 AM

He has many more gifts (ideas)
To bounce

Just one would do.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 24, 2018, 08:16:28 AM

He has many more gifts (ideas)


Start a new thread and stick to one thought per thread, unless closely associated.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Kiwi on December 24, 2018, 09:23:12 AM
Start a new thread and stick to one thought per thread, unless closely associated.

Yeah. Most hoax-believers are quite incapable of doing that and our current chew-toy didn't do it. Apollos 11 and 17 in one thread.

Can he improve? Does he have the brains? Can he answer all questions in a timely manner?

Merry Christmas to everyone too, and a big thankyou to LunarOrbit for another year in an excellent forum.

Three-and-a-half-hours of Christmas Day have already passed in my part of the planet.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: gillianren on December 24, 2018, 11:45:36 AM
Science and engineering called. They want a refund.

So did poetry.  My article about Dr. Seuss had better rhyming.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 24, 2018, 11:54:45 AM
Start a new thread and stick to one thought per thread, unless closely associated.

Yeah. Most hoax-believers are quite incapable of doing that and our current chew-toy didn't do it. Apollos 11 and 17 in one thread.

Can he improve? Does he have the brains? Can he answer all questions in a timely manner?

Merry Christmas to everyone too, and a big thankyou to LunarOrbit for another year in an excellent forum.

Three-and-a-half-hours of Christmas Day have already passed in my part of the planet.

I second all of Kiwi's thoughts.  8)

I don't know if the lad will start a new thread, but hopefully.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: nomuse on December 24, 2018, 12:32:11 PM
Oh, please no. Multiple threads just gives them more ways to put off responding.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 24, 2018, 01:03:47 PM
Oh, please no. Multiple threads just gives them more ways to put off responding.

I agree.  Multiple threads each with its own topic is hardly more accountable than one thread that allows a Gish gallop.  On the topic of stability and reaction control, I suspect he's brought it to closure in his own mind by saying that we have "reasonable points," but that we're still laboring under the yoke of faith.  The latter gives him room to continue believing he is terribly enlightened on the intellectual dimension and still therefore justified in lecturing to us sheeple.  But what really happened is that it was proven to him using his own sources that he is flat out wrong.  Spacecraft guidance is a ruthlessly mathematical pursuit, and he failed the math.  Not only can he not support his specific affirmative claims using the math from his sources (or from any of the sources I named), but he cannot see how the math in his sources actually proves him wrong.  His failure to acknowledge either that he his wrong, or that he lacks the skill to see how others can know he's wrong, is egregious.  On any topic, when someone is simply unwilling to face facts, there is no point following him to another topic.  There is no reason to suppose it won't just turn out the same way.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 24, 2018, 01:23:32 PM
Oh, please no. Multiple threads just gives them more ways to put off responding.

I agree.  Multiple threads each with its own topic is hardly more accountable than one thread that allows a Gish gallop.  On the topic of stability and reaction control, I suspect he's brought it to closure in his own mind by saying that we have "reasonable points," but that we're still laboring under the yoke of faith.  The latter gives him room to continue believing he is terribly enlightened on the intellectual dimension and still therefore justified in lecturing to us sheeple.  But what really happened is that it was proven to him using his own sources that he is flat out wrong.  Spacecraft guidance is a ruthlessly mathematical pursuit, and he failed the math.  Not only can he not support his specific affirmative claims using the math from his sources (or from any of the sources I named), but he cannot see how the math in his sources actually proves him wrong.  His failure to acknowledge either that he his wrong, or that he lacks the skill to see how others can know he's wrong, is egregious.  On any topic, when someone is simply unwilling to face facts, there is no point following him to another topic.  There is no reason to suppose it won't just turn out the same way.


Did any of the RCS thruster quads fail on any mission?


ETA: Sorry to have thrown a hornets nest into the forum, I just thought that it would be easier to track and debunk each idea, but if the gallery wants all in one, then so be it.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: VQ on December 24, 2018, 01:38:05 PM
Did any of the RCS thruster quads fail on any mission?

This might be more suitable for a separate thread, but Skylab 3 saw issues with two of the four quads. It caused concern that the CSM might not be able to deorbit if an additional quad failed. Not sure if RCS failed on any other missions.

Any thoughts from the hivemind here as to why it wouldn't have been possible, in a contingency situation, to control attitude well enough with either one working quad or the CM RCS to achieve some sort of retrograde burn for deorbit?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 24, 2018, 01:48:30 PM
Did any of the RCS thruster quads fail on any mission?

I don't recall.  I'd have to review the anomaly reports again for each mission.

Quote
ETA: Sorry to have thrown a hornets nest into the forum, I just thought that it would be easier to track and debunk each idea, but if the gallery wants all in one, then so be it.

If we have to cover multiple subjects at once, I agree each should have its own thread.  The question in my mind is whether Jr Knowing has earned the privilege of receiving attention on multiple topics at once.  Since he seems to be using each new subject to distract from the previous one, especially after having been backed into a corner on them, then I vote we press him to finish one topic before starting another.  I'm sure you recall how insistent he was that we look at his Apollo 17 photos after it became apparent he was losing the RCS debate.  He clearly wants to use that tactic.  It's rude and dishonest.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 24, 2018, 03:52:03 PM
An RCS engine failed, I believe, twice prior to A11.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 24, 2018, 05:02:21 PM
An RCS engine failed, I believe, twice prior to A11.

Can you be more specific?  I've been through all the anomaly-report sections for the mission reports from Apollos 4 through 10.  While there are various indications of anomalies in the RCS systems, I see no mention of failure in an RCS jet itself.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Count Zero on December 24, 2018, 09:27:24 PM
I don't have references (or time) handy at the moment, but I remember a memoir (Kranz's or Kelly's?) that said Apollo 5's LM lost a thruster quad.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Dalhousie on December 24, 2018, 10:04:27 PM
On the sixth day of flouncemas I OCD'd to me,
Six galloping Gishes
Five Duane Damannns!
Four Jarrahs yapping
Three David Percy's
Two talking heads
And a strawman in a pear tree.
Speaking of which, is Duane still actve?

Passed away 2013

I believe I chatted with him in 2015 or 2016 on YT.  Still had the Moon chip on his shoulder and he still didn't like most of the guys on EF.  I guess those guys were too hard on him attempting to point out how wrong he was/is.  He told me everything about me that was on my profile, so could read still.

2013 is supported on many sites.  Obituary here https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sandiegouniontribune/obituary.aspx?n=duane-t-gish&pid=163795335
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: AtomicDog on December 24, 2018, 10:33:32 PM
On the sixth day of flouncemas I OCD'd to me,
Six galloping Gishes
Five Duane Damannns!
Four Jarrahs yapping
Three David Percy's
Two talking heads
And a strawman in a pear tree.
Speaking of which, is Duane still actve?

Passed away 2013

I believe I chatted with him in 2015 or 2016 on YT.  Still had the Moon chip on his shoulder and he still didn't like most of the guys on EF.  I guess those guys were too hard on him attempting to point out how wrong he was/is.  He told me everything about me that was on my profile, so could read still.

2013 is supported on many sites.  Obituary here https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sandiegouniontribune/obituary.aspx?n=duane-t-gish&pid=163795335


I had assumed that the Duane being referred to was Duane "Straydog" Daman, who used to be a regular on the Education Forum, and who had the worst attitude of any HB I have ever encountered.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Count Zero on December 25, 2018, 02:02:17 AM
An RCS engine failed, I believe, twice prior to A11.

Can you be more specific?  I've been through all the anomaly-report sections for the mission reports from Apollos 4 through 10.  While there are various indications of anomalies in the RCS systems, I see no mention of failure in an RCS jet itself.

I found the Apollo 5 Anomaly in the mission report: 

"After abort staging, excessive RCS thruster firings occurred because the LM Digital Autopilot was controlling the RCS firings based on the unstaged, fully-loaded LM mass.  Proper vehicle mass update ground commands were not sent.  This anomaly caused unplanned RCS propellant depletion, early RCS switch-over to the APS propellant tanks, ruptured RCS fuel tank bladder, temperature redline exceedances on quads 1 and 3 and failure of the No. 4-up thruster."

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19700024869

See anomalies 2.1.2 and 2.1.12.

So the problem was not during normal operation of the RCS system, but rather because a control error caused excessive use of the RCS.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 25, 2018, 08:19:02 AM
On the sixth day of flouncemas I OCD'd to me,
Six galloping Gishes
Five Duane Damannns!
Four Jarrahs yapping
Three David Percy's
Two talking heads
And a strawman in a pear tree.
Speaking of which, is Duane still actve?

Passed away 2013

I believe I chatted with him in 2015 or 2016 on YT.  Still had the Moon chip on his shoulder and he still didn't like most of the guys on EF.  I guess those guys were too hard on him attempting to point out how wrong he was/is.  He told me everything about me that was on my profile, so could read still.

2013 is supported on many sites.  Obituary here https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sandiegouniontribune/obituary.aspx?n=duane-t-gish&pid=163795335
I was referring to Duane Daman(s?) from EF, not Mr. Gish.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: AtomicDog on December 25, 2018, 08:41:29 AM
An RCS engine failed, I believe, twice prior to A11.

Can you be more specific?  I've been through all the anomaly-report sections for the mission reports from Apollos 4 through 10.  While there are various indications of anomalies in the RCS systems, I see no mention of failure in an RCS jet itself.

I found the Apollo 5 Anomaly in the mission report: 

"After abort staging, excessive RCS thruster firings occurred because the LM Digital Autopilot was controlling the RCS firings based on the unstaged, fully-loaded LM mass.  Proper vehicle mass update ground commands were not sent.  This anomaly caused unplanned RCS propellant depletion, early RCS switch-over to the APS propellant tanks, ruptured RCS fuel tank bladder, temperature redline exceedances on quads 1 and 3 and failure of the No. 4-up thruster."

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19700024869

See anomalies 2.1.2 and 2.1.12.

So the problem was not during normal operation of the RCS system, but rather because a control error caused excessive use of the RCS.

The equivalent of blowing a redlined car engine. When that happens, it's operator error, not the engine's fault.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 25, 2018, 09:48:10 AM
So the problem was not during normal operation of the RCS system, but rather because a control error caused excessive use of the RCS.

Yes, I saw that.  I didn't count that as a malfunction because it was a consequence of misuse -- "pilot error."  But that's why I asked Jr Knowing to be more specific.  I wanted to know what he was counting as a failure, and a failure of what.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 25, 2018, 11:38:02 AM
The equivalent of blowing a redlined car engine. When that happens, it's operator error, not the engine's fault.

And a critic might well point out that regardless of cause, you're still down one engine.  And if it happened on a lonely road in the desert -- which there are a lot of where I live -- you'd be seriously in trouble.  So you need a backup engine right?  For redundancy you need at least two of everything, right?

This is where reading the anomaly reports is instructive.  There were problems with the RCS in several Apollo missions, none having to do with the jets themselves.  The problems were either in the propellant feed systems or in the combinatorial logic -- you know, that giant circuit diagram in the ANR that Jr Knowing says isn't technical enough.  The anomaly investigations describe how the crew (if there was one in that mission) was able to switch things around and get the system working again.  This is how we design for robustness without "backups."  The backup capability is there, just not expressed in the way a layman will naturally recognize without examples.  And then you also get to read the reasoning for what they're going to do to fix the problem, because that's what those flights were for.  Sometimes the fix is just procedural.  You just switch things around until the isolation valve unsticks or the propellant gets fed right.  Or in hindsight some engineer says, "Hey, if we ran a line between these two points we could work around this valve if it sticks on the next flight."

Skylab 3 was a different sort of animal.  The poppet got stuck open because a particle got wedged in the valve seat.  This caused a propellant leak.  Isolating the quad (i.e., shutting off the fuel to it upstream) is the right thing to do, and then the pilot just reports that the ship is somewhat harder to control.  This may be what Jr refers to as "instability."  We've been reading it as alleging a sort of uncontrollable instability, which isn't the case.  Docking is a critical maneuver because it requires both positional and attitude control.  That is very hard to do indeed with one whole quad disabled.  For Apollo it was not as dangerous since either vehicle can become the active vehicle for docking.  Apollo LOR profiles included seventeen different contingency plans to accommodate either the CSM or the LM being unable to maneuver.  Skylab docking is different because the CSM has to be the active vehicle in that case.  Alignment for de-orbit wouldn't have been as big a problem because position is not important -- only attitude.

This does raise an issue I had kind of hoped someone would bring up when we were talking about the fairings during boost.  Skylab 3 was the first time something had got stuck in the poppet that couldn't be blown loose by the fluid flow.  The RCS propellant is under fairly high pressure, and normally if a valve doesn't seat because some debris is caught in it, you just pulse the valve until it knocks the debris loose.  The RCS fuel is highly filtered, so the engineers figured that -- against all odds -- some piece of particulate debris had found its way into the jet, past the pre-ignition cup and into the poppet -- and become so embedded in the Teflon gasket that the normal valve-clearing procedure wouldn't work.  So if you watch STS liftoffs, you see the RCS jets covered with Tyvek taped in place.  It keeps out particle debris while the stack is on the pad (i.e., out in the elements).  But the Tyvek breaks loose on the ascent, or is blown free when the jets are first used in space.

But that sort of graceful degradation of control -- where the ship is harder to fly, but you can still dock it -- is commonplace in aerospace.  Let's say a similar thing happens in a Boeing passenger jet, and a bit of gunk jams a control valve or an actuator.  In that case, the mechanical linkage on the affected control surface is designed to shear.  That means in one scenario that the remaining hydraulic systems can still move the control surface, or in other cases that it will be "safely" frozen in place at its last controllable attitude.  You still have roll authority with one aileron out of commission, but it will require additional control actions to maintain pitch stability.  You still have pitch authority with one elevator dead, but at the cost of an unwanted roll moment.  And if you look carefully at many airframes, the rudder is split so that you have two separate rudders.  That's the only place where you need first-order redundancy.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 25, 2018, 01:05:27 PM
Happy Holidays Everyone,

I checked and I believe I was thinking about Apollo 5 and 9 having significant issues with the RCS's. But looking at the Experience Report it appears the most significant issues/anomalies were with the earlier (unmanned) missions. This report goes through many of the RCS mission anomalies right up to Apollo 11 (which btw had an 18 minute partial failure)  It should be noted A11 was the only mission to that time to employ deflectors. It would interesting to know how some of these prior (less significant) anomalies would have had on a ship with deflectors. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730017174.pdf

Merry Christmas
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on December 25, 2018, 01:51:57 PM
Happy Holidays Everyone,

I checked and I believe I was thinking about Apollo 5 and 9 having significant issues with the RCS's. But looking at the Experience Report it appears the most significant issues/anomalies were with the earlier (unmanned) missions. This report goes through many of the RCS mission anomalies right up to Apollo 11 (which btw had an 18 minute partial failure)  It should be noted A11 was the only mission to that time to employ deflectors. It would interesting to know how some of these prior (less significant) anomalies would have had on a ship with deflectors. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730017174.pdf

Merry Christmas

Nice to see you using these reports. Does this one contain enough technical detail for you? Do you now accept that there were no particular problems with the quads being exposed during launch, or is it now your claim that only parts of this report were real and the rest faked? ::)
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 25, 2018, 04:23:45 PM
Happy Holidays Everyone,

Happy Christmas to you too. I hope it's a good one. :

Quote
I checked and I believe I was thinking about Apollo 5 and 9 having significant issues with the RCS's. But looking at the Experience Report it appears the most significant issues/anomalies were with the earlier (unmanned) missions.

There were no earlier LM flights than Apollo 5, or are you also referring to the other RCS systems on the other spaceaftr too?

Quote
It should be noted A11 was the only mission to that time to employ deflectors. It would interesting to know how some of these prior (less significant) anomalies would have had on a ship with deflectors.

I'll ask again, show us the results of using the equation that was in the memo you provided that demsontrate that the LM in solo flight was unstable as a result of those deflectors.

You brought it to the table, you can support it or you can withdraw your claim. The deflectors simply do not introduce an instability except in the very unusual circumstances which are way off nominal flight conditions described in that memo.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 26, 2018, 05:20:44 AM
Happy Holidays Everyone,

I checked and I believe I was thinking about Apollo 5 and 9 having significant issues with the RCS's. But looking at the Experience Report it appears the most significant issues/anomalies were with the earlier (unmanned) missions. This report goes through many of the RCS mission anomalies right up to Apollo 11 (which btw had an 18 minute partial failure)  It should be noted A11 was the only mission to that time to employ deflectors. It would interesting to know how some of these prior (less significant) anomalies would have had on a ship with deflectors. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730017174.pdf

Merry Christmas

Define 'significant'.

Can you please explain how post-mission reports that identify issues  that were corrected during the missions somehow means that the missions didn't happen?

Have you realised that that the RCS issues identified in the report you linked to were not on the LM?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Von_Smith on December 26, 2018, 09:02:12 AM
Happy Holidays Everyone,

I checked and I believe I was thinking about Apollo 5 and 9 having significant issues with the RCS's. But looking at the Experience Report it appears the most significant issues/anomalies were with the earlier (unmanned) missions. This report goes through many of the RCS mission anomalies right up to Apollo 11 (which btw had an 18 minute partial failure)  It should be noted A11 was the only mission to that time to employ deflectors. It would interesting to know how some of these prior (less significant) anomalies would have had on a ship with deflectors. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730017174.pdf

Merry Christmas

Define 'significant'.

Can you please explain how post-mission reports that identify issues  that were corrected during the missions somehow means that the missions didn't happen?


For that matter, if the malfunctions were real, does that not also means that the missions on which they happened were real?  Or are you saying that real malfunctions happened on fake missions? 


That's like saying that the Lord of the Rings is fiction, but that Frodo really did lose a finger on Mount Doom.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 26, 2018, 10:56:36 AM
...with the earlier (unmanned) missions.

The word you're hunting for is "flight test."  The RCS system was extensively flight-tested prior to attempting a landing mission.  Problems were discovered and fixed, and the whole system was validated as fault-tolerant.  In the history of the Apollo spacecraft, no mission of any kind was aborted or scrubbed due to RCS failure.

Quote
It should be noted A11 was the only mission to that time to employ deflectors. It would interesting to know how some of these prior (less significant) anomalies would have had on a ship with deflectors.

And we've been through that at length.  The only reason you give for the plume deflectors being some sort of problem is your willfully uninformed fearmongering.  Your own sources contradict your claim that jets always had to be fired in pairs, and that to do otherwise would create a positive feedback loop and vehicle instability.  After realizing your source covered only one tiny corner case, you tried to argue it somehow had to be a universal problem.  But the mathematics in your own source entirely preclude that.

Why do we have to keep returning to this?  Because you refuse to admit your error.  Despite your critics having shown a deep understanding of the problem and its solution, and despite their having proved the correctness of their position -- from your sources -- to a mathematical degree of certainty, the best you can manage is that your critics have only "reasonable" points, and that they must somehow still be laboring under misplaced faith.  Your program of overt, ignorant denial is not going to impress this audience.  If you can't forthrightly admit you got something plainly wrong, then others have very little incentive to engage you in any sort of discussion.  They will have correctly realized that you are more interested in pretending to be right than in actually knowing what's true.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 26, 2018, 11:03:57 AM
Happy Holidays Everyone,

I checked and I believe I was thinking about Apollo 5 and 9 having significant issues with the RCS's. But looking at the Experience Report it appears the most significant issues/anomalies were with the earlier (unmanned) missions. This report goes through many of the RCS mission anomalies right up to Apollo 11 (which btw had an 18 minute partial failure)  It should be noted A11 was the only mission to that time to employ deflectors. It would interesting to know how some of these prior (less significant) anomalies would have had on a ship with deflectors. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730017174.pdf

Merry Christmas

Define 'significant'.

Can you please explain how post-mission reports that identify issues  that were corrected during the missions somehow means that the missions didn't happen?

Have you realised that that the RCS issues identified in the report you linked to were not on the LM?

Only if he read it.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 26, 2018, 12:57:22 PM
Hi Guys,

Not quite sure what you guys are reading. The question that was asked by a poster was "did any RCS fail on any mission"? (Not on an LM.) The link I referenced is the Apollo Experience report for the RCS's. It lists the Apollo missions in which the RCS's were used/and or tested.

And to answer some posters, just because something exists or stated doesn't mean it is true, right, or correct. If, for instance, you believe, according to the government, the inflation rate in the US has been 1.5 percent annually for the last ten years carry on. But if you understand how things can be manipulated ie you are being lied to, you will know the government has changed the methodology numerous times over the years to ensure an appearance of a low number. Believe it or not, the real inflation rate, according to 1980 methodology, over the last 10 years has averaged 10 percent annually. Got to go now. Big dinner date. Two can dine for $4.99. I mean $8.99. I mean $12.99. I mean, well you know what I mean. (the second chart on the page)  http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 26, 2018, 01:05:39 PM
The question that was asked by a poster was "did any RCS fail on any mission"? (Not on an LM.)

And your answer was that RCS jets had failed twice prior to Apollo 11.  Do you concede that your answer was wrong?

Your special concern has been the LM RCS, specifically the claim that the plume deflectors made it an unstable craft in the face of diminished RCS capability.  It is not therefore inappropriate for your critics to apply your answers to that special concern.  Do you agree that testing shows the LM RCS to have been suitably reliable?  Do you agree that this makes any adverse effect from the plume deflectors less a danger?

Quote
...you believe, according to the government, the inflation rate...

And if econometrics had anything to do with this discussion your post would merit an answer.  Once again you're deflecting calls for intellectual responsibility by bringing up irrelevant new subjects.  Your critics are not simply relying on the government to assure them Apollo worked as functioned.  They are relying on their demonstrated expertise in the well-established sciences that apply to the problem.  If you're quite finished trying to change the subject (again!), will you admit that you are wrong regarding the RCS and the plume deflectors?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 26, 2018, 02:15:42 PM
My question should have addressed just the LM, but I can't take that back.  However all the CSM/LM issues were not SIGNIFICANT, but did warrant some reconfiguring or redoing the electronics.  If one reads the document that jr provided, one notices that the RCS system worked nominally but did have some minor issues that DID NOT AFFECT the missions.  That should be sufficient for you jr.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: nomuse on December 26, 2018, 04:07:56 PM
Bah again. All this "we can't really know"/"We're all being lied to" stuff -- both in context with the claims he's trying to make about the RCS with or without plume deflectors and this latest off-topic bit about inflation -- only support what I said earlier.

Scientific facts are testable. That's what makes them science.

Word pictures, on the other hand, are fuzzy. "Inflation" has a wealth (sorry...that was totally unintentional) of meanings. If you haven't rigorously defined the statistical models in question you can't claim they conflict. You can only agree that different sortings of the data can give different interpretations.

All of this nib-nobbing about the RCS is the same; instead of going to the math, Knowing is latching on to every adjective, qualification, and outright weasel word in order to try to make it look like someone, somewhere, is lying.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 26, 2018, 04:37:18 PM
And to answer some posters, just because something exists or stated doesn't mean it is true, right, or correct.

There it is, the single statement that essentially puts the goalposts of your discussion on wheels. Now you can use this statement to decide, entirely arbitrarily, which sources you accept and which you don't.

However, the fact remains that you brought up a document as evidence for your assertion that the plume deflectors rendered the LM unstable which in fact mathematcially proves exactly the opposite. Again I ak you to apply that simple equation and prove your assertion using it. If you cannot, admit it and withdraw the argument.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 26, 2018, 05:38:52 PM
Now you can use this statement to decide, entirely arbitrarily, which sources you accept and which you don't.

Again why I limited my use of materials to those he had presented himself.  I can certainly bring to bear many resources, but if one says "Here are my authoritative documents," and I can show him where in those documents his claims are contradicted, then it makes it harder for him to say, "Yeah, I don't accept that as authoritative, and that doesn't mean it's true."

Quote
However, the fact remains that you brought up a document as evidence for your assertion that the plume deflectors rendered the LM unstable which in fact mathematcially proves exactly the opposite.

And it looks like he's trying hard to make the math go away.  Because Newtonian physics is so much like modern econometrics!  Indeed, the equation that's proving to be his Waterloo is nothing more than the literally centuries-old definition of torque.  It's not going to change tomorrow.  It's not something the government can lie about.  It's not something that's made up.  It was, in fact, discovered.  It's an inherent property of our physical universe.  Subsequently he thinks he can gaslight away others' knowledge of how the universe is observed to work.  He's seems so desperate to avoid having to admit he was wrong that he's trying to make the whole concept of wrong go away altogether.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 26, 2018, 06:29:00 PM
Man, you guys are a tough bunch.  :)

It wasn't even my intention to argue more about the RCS's. Just trying to help out another poster with some info. Yes the CSM RCS's cones were not ripped off on liftoff according to Apollo documentation. My point was why would NASA risk this even if there was a slight chance of problems? It would not be the first time a rocket hasn't remained intact through launch. And yes, according to Apollo documentation, there was not a complete absolute failure of an RCS engine. However, according to Apollo documentation, there were partial failures and a myriad of problems during the RCS development. Even Apollo 11 had an 18 minute partial failure. Again, using Jay's analogy, I for sure would not want to lose my steering for 18 minutes down a desolate, dark road.

And as for the deflectors, if you examine some of the early anomalies (such as certain engines running at sub par performance), it would raise certain concerns of the ability of the ship remaining stable through its mission with the addition of these (untested A11) deflectors.  (and before anyone questions whether they were tested for A11, documentation (what little there is) states NASA decided to go with the deflectors untested because testing would have meant postponing the launch for 6 weeks and bringing LM back to Production and Assembly. Seems unbelievable to me but it is the only answer to how those deflectors showed up after Saturn mating. And to be clear, documentation states the deflectors were somehow securely attached on the launchpad and not during Assembly/mating process. Added weight and changing the steering dynamics all literally last second, not to mention re-wrapping the ship in new insulation. I guess it is plausible.)

Again, I am not looking to argue. I have agreed that, according to NASA, no RCS cones were ripped off on liftoff, and there were no complete RCS failures. And it is plausible, albeit questionable (in my mind), that LM's (untested) makeover could have occurred on the launchpad.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 26, 2018, 07:01:42 PM
Man, you guys are a tough bunch.

Yes.  Can you rise to the standard?

Quote
It wasn't even my intention to argue more about the RCS's.

No, it was your intention to bury your ignorant mistakes regarding spacecraft guidance and control by bringing up space suits as a distraction.  We are not finished discussing the lunar module RCS.

Quote
My point was why would NASA risk this even if there was a slight chance of problems?

And your point was addressed.  Admit your fears were naive and uninformed.  Or conversely, address the explanation you were given.

Quote
And yes, according to Apollo documentation, there was not a complete absolute failure of an RCS engine.

A carefully reworded straw man that avoids you having to walk back your claims.  You seem unwilling to admit error, no matter how slight.

Quote
However, according to Apollo documentation, there were partial failures and a myriad of problems during the RCS development.

That's what development means.

Quote
Even Apollo 11 had an 18 minute partial failure. Again, using Jay's analogy, I for sure would not want to lose my steering for 18 minutes down a desolate, dark road.

Not my analogy.  How often do you reckon the RCS is used in any particular Apollo mission?  Given what you have been shown regarding the degraded operation modes in the RCS, how did you reckon that a "partial" failure is a critical problem?  You've shown no talent at engineering risk assessment so far.

Quote
And as for the deflectors, if you examine some of the early anomalies (such as certain engines running at sub par performance), it would raise certain concerns of the ability of the ship remaining stable...

No.  You're simply repeating your ignorant suppositions.  You were shown -- again, in your own source -- the mathematics that governs the stability of the lunar module with the plume deflectors in place.  You are patently unable to reconcile your claims with those mathematics.

On this point you are plainly and provably wrong.  Your unwillingness to admit that error makes it unlikely anyone will take you seriously on any further topic you raise.  Simply admit you're wrong.

Quote
And to be clear, documentation states the deflectors were somehow securely attached on the launchpad and not during Assembly/mating process. Added weight and changing the steering dynamics all literally last second, not to mention re-wrapping the ship in new insulation. I guess it is plausible.)

You've provided no evidence for its implausibility or supposed dangers except for ignorant supposition.  You have thoroughly ignored the experience and explanation of people who do this for a living in favor of your uninformed speculation.  The question is not merely whether your critics have made a "plausible" point.  Your critics have explained to you how spacecraft are actually built and deployed, things you didn't previously know.  You want us to respect your ignorance as equally valuable and valid as knowledge.  Simply admit you were unaware of how spacecraft are actually designed, built, and flown.

Quote
Again, I am not looking to argue.

Then simply admit you made a mistake.  Stop trying to argue passive-aggressively.  You clearly do want to argue, but you don't want to be responsible for arguing from a position of fact and knowledge.  This audience will not validate your ignorance.  Acknowledge that.

Quote
And it is plausible, albeit questionable (in my mind), that LM's (untested) makeover could have occurred on the launchpad.

Since your mind is uninformed and unwilling to admit any error it makes, what does it matter what it questions?  Simply concede your errors in plain language and all this unpleasantness will go away.

You simply can't do it, can you?  You can't take the intellectually mature step of saying "I was wrong about the lunar module's RCS issues."
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: apollo16uvc on December 26, 2018, 07:02:38 PM
You are the participant who keeps changing the subject. It would be better if we began and finished one subject at a time, preferable in their own thread. Several of the topics discussed here deserve their own thread.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on December 26, 2018, 07:41:41 PM
Hi apollo16uvc,

I agree that some of these topics deserve their own thread. I was just tempted to post something in response to Jay which would have convoluted things even more.

Jay, I will leave it at this. You seem to question the importance of RCS’s during the mission by suggesting they are not used that often in that, for instance, an 18 minute failure isn’t critical. By your comments, I don’t think you know how many times the RCS’s are used. During the A11 mission, the RCS’s were used over 5000 times in bursts up to 40 seconds. Virtually every thing the LM did after separation required the RCS’s.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: nomuse on December 26, 2018, 07:59:12 PM
Man, you guys are a tough bunch.  :)

It wasn't even my intention to argue more about the RCS's. Just trying to help out another poster with some info. Yes the CSM RCS's cones were not ripped off on liftoff according to Apollo documentation. My point was why would NASA risk this even if there was a slight chance of problems? It would not be the first time a rocket hasn't remained intact through launch. And yes, according to Apollo documentation, there was not a complete absolute failure of an RCS engine. However, according to Apollo documentation, there were partial failures and a myriad of problems during the RCS development. Even Apollo 11 had an 18 minute partial failure. Again, using Jay's analogy, I for sure would not want to lose my steering for 18 minutes down a desolate, dark road.

And as for the deflectors, if you examine some of the early anomalies (such as certain engines running at sub par performance), it would raise certain concerns of the ability of the ship remaining stable through its mission with the addition of these (untested A11) deflectors.  (and before anyone questions whether they were tested for A11, documentation (what little there is) states NASA decided to go with the deflectors untested because testing would have meant postponing the launch for 6 weeks and bringing LM back to Production and Assembly. Seems unbelievable to me but it is the only answer to how those deflectors showed up after Saturn mating. And to be clear, documentation states the deflectors were somehow securely attached on the launchpad and not during Assembly/mating process. Added weight and changing the steering dynamics all literally last second, not to mention re-wrapping the ship in new insulation. I guess it is plausible.)

Again, I am not looking to argue. I have agreed that, according to NASA, no RCS cones were ripped off on liftoff, and there were no complete RCS failures. And it is plausible, albeit questionable (in my mind), that LM's (untested) makeover could have occurred on the launchpad.

You have no idea what point you are trying to make, do you? You are just throwing paint at a wall and hoping you'll get a Jackson Pollock out of it.

Did NASA test or didn't they? Heck, do you even understand what "test" means? Do you understand the principle of iterative design?

No, honestly...I can't tell if you have a point to make. If there is one, it is well hidden.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 26, 2018, 08:46:52 PM
I was just tempted to post something in response to Jay...

No, it's not my fault you can't stick to the subject.

Quote
Jay, I will leave it at this.

No, you don't get to "leave it at that" and move on.  It's clear you don't want attention focused on your errors, which means that's where I'm going to focus my attention until you give satisfactory answers.  You have made several plain errors regarding the lunar module and its RCS that you simply refuse to acknowledge.  Why are you so deathly afraid to admit even the slightest error on your part?  The math in the document you insisted we examine is unmistakable and unforgiving.  Why are you so afraid of it?

Quote
You seem to question the importance of RCS’s...

Not a claim I made.

Quote
...suggesting they are not used that often in that, for instance, an 18 minute failure isn’t critical.

No, I have made no such claim.  I'm questioning your claim that an 18-minute partial failure should have been more a concern than it was.  My question was for you to lay out your rationale.  Instead you have tried to shift the burden of proof.

Here is the discussion of this "critical" failure in the LM.

Quote from: Apollo 11 Mission Report, pp. 16-18f
16.2.12 Thrust Chamber Pressure Switches
The switch used to monitor the quad 2 aft-firing engine (A2A) exhibited a low response to jet driver commands during most of the mission.  During an 18-minute period just prior to terminal phase initiation, the switch failed to respond to seven consecutive minimum impulse commands.  This resulted in a master alarm and a thruster warning flag, which were reset by the crew. The engine operated normally, and the switch failure had no effect on the mission. The crew did not attempt any investigative procedures to determine whether the engine had actually failed. A section drawing of the switch is shown in figure 16-18.

This failure was the first of its type to be observed in flight or in ground testing. The switch closing response (time of jet driver "on" command to switch closure) appeared to increase from an average of about 15 to 20 milliseconds during station-keeping to 25 to 30 milliseconds at the time of failure. Normal switch closing response is 10 to 12 milliseconds based on ground test results . The closing response remained at the 25- to 3o-millisecond level following the failure, and the switch continued to fail to respond to some minimum impulse commands. The switch opening time (time from jet driver "off" command to switch opening) appeared to be normal throughout the mission. In view of these results, it appears that the most probable cause of the switch failure was particulate contamination in the inlet passage of the switch. Contamination in this area would reduce the flow rate of chamber gases into the diaphragm cavity, thereby reducing the switch closing response. However, the contamination would not necessarily affect switch opening response since normal chamber pressure tailoff requires about 30 to 40 milliseconds to decrease from about 30 psia to the normal switch opening pressure of about 4 psia.  The 30- to 40-millisecond time would probably be sufficient to allow the gases in the diaphragm cavity to vent such that the switch would open normally.

The crews for future missions will be briefed to recognize and handle similar situations.

Now I'm going to explain to you everything that's wrong with your analysis of the problem.

1. Jet A2A is for yaw control only.  It could fail permanently and entirely, and the ability of the LM to maintain yaw control would not be affected.  Its pitch and roll control would be unaffected, and were unaffected by this anomaly.  (Note that the report specifically says this failure had no effect on the mission.)

2. The failure was not of the RCS system as a whole, but was isolated to a single jet that was fully redundant.

3. The failure did not last 18 minutes in the sense that the ship was out of control for 18 minutes.  The data say that a failure was indicated seven discrete times within a given 18-minute period defined by mission phases.

4. The failure was not with the jet, but with the chamber pressure sensor monitoring the operation of the jet.  Its only job is to provide a signal to the computer that the jet has responded as commanded.  The jet was, in fact, firing.  The worst-case outcome if this failure had become permanent would have been a false-positive signal to the RCS logic of a jet failure.  The A2A jet can be lost without any effect on the mission, and actual jet failure can be diagnosed by other means, providing for the crew to override the false indication.

5. The failure was simply a sluggishness in the response of the sensor.  This matters only in minimum-impulse mode, also called pulse-mode.  In this mode the jets are pulsed for only a few milliseconds as a means of fine-grained attitude control.  This is consistent with observations from earlier in the mission where the indicator had been sluggish.  In longer RCS burns the sensor functioned adequately.

Now go back and re-examine your fretful, panicky analogy to losing steering on a dark, desolate road.  Isn't it about time you just admit you really don't understand the engineering behind these spacecraft, and that you're just plain wrong?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Peter B on December 26, 2018, 10:32:56 PM
Man, you guys are a tough bunch.  :)

And what adjective would you apply to yourself?

Quote
It wasn't even my intention to argue more about the RCS's. Just trying to help out another poster with some info. Yes the CSM RCS's cones were not ripped off on liftoff according to Apollo documentation.

"According to Apollo documentation"? What's that supposed to mean? That if they had been ripped off then we wouldn't know any better because NASA could just fib about it in the paperwork? If not, what exactly do you mean?

Quote
My point was why would NASA risk this even if there was a slight chance of problems? It would not be the first time a rocket hasn't remained intact through launch.

Just look at the whole of the Saturn V and get a clue (which has already been given to you by JayUtah): the RCS engines on the Service Module weren't covered; but the equivalent system on the Saturn V third stage was covered by a streamlined fairing.

Why do you think NASA would adopt two different approaches for similar devices in two different locations?

Quote
I for sure would not want to lose my steering for 18 minutes down a desolate, dark road.

Maybe not, but let's make the analogy relevant. What would you do if a warning light came on each time you used an electrical system in your car when you were only a few miles from your Winnebago, and if your car failed totally you could still phone your friend in the Winnebago to drive to you?

Quote
And as for the deflectors, if you examine some of the early anomalies (such as certain engines running at sub par performance), it would raise certain concerns of the ability of the ship remaining stable through its mission with the addition of these (untested A11) deflectors.

Why? Engine performance and vehicle stability are two separate (if related) issues. To play a bit further with your analogy, it's like being worried about the tread on the car's tyres because of issues with the diesel fuel.

In any case, do the maths: the thrust of the LM's RCS engines is 100 lb, and only a portion of the exhaust gases impinge on the plume deflectors. The mass of the fully loaded LM is over 30,000 lb. How much acceleration is going to be imparted by the impingement of part of a single RCS engine's exhaust on a deflector?

Quote
And to be clear, documentation states the deflectors were somehow securely attached on the launchpad and not during Assembly/mating process.

Why add the word "somehow"? You've already been shown the work platforms which could be placed inside the Spacecraft LM Adaptor to allow access to the LM after stacking.

Quote
Added weight...

Of less than 9 pounds on a spacecraft with a loaded mass of >30,000 pounds. That's equivalent to adding half a pound to that hypothetical desert-driving car.

Quote
...and changing the steering dynamics all literally last second, not to mention re-wrapping the ship in new insulation. I guess it is plausible.

Do you worry about the effect on the steering when deciding where to place a one-pint carton of milk in your car?

Quote
Again, I am not looking to argue. I have agreed that, according to NASA, no RCS cones were ripped off on liftoff, and there were no complete RCS failures. And it is plausible, albeit questionable (in my mind), that LM's (untested) makeover could have occurred on the launchpad.

Yeah, but do you accept that the reason no RCS cones were ripped off on liftoff is our understanding of a concept which also applies to ships and aircraft, and other rockets apart from the Saturn V? In other words, do you accept that this is a concept with general application in science and technology, rather than some obscure bit of engineering tricked up just for Apollo?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 26, 2018, 11:59:44 PM
"According to Apollo documentation"? What's that supposed to mean?

That's an easy one.  He's trying to find the smallest thing to concede.  If he merely admits that no catastrophic failure to the SM RCS during boost was documented, then he can still believe his fantasy that he knows best, and that if the missions were real then NASA was either extremely reckless or extremely lucky or both.  If he acknowledges the real design principles, he has to overtly admit there was something he didn't know about and therefore didn't think of.  That's less desirable a position to be in than someone who believes he's outsmarted NASA no matter how cleverly they lied to him.

Quote
Maybe not, but let's make the analogy relevant. What would you do if a warning light came on each time you used an electrical system in your car when you were only a few miles from your Winnebago...

AGS can get the LM to an abort orbit with no yaw control available whatsoever.  In that scenario the CSM becomes the active vehicle for docking.  Not that Apollo 11 was anywhere even remotely close to that contingency.  Unless I miss my guest, the next post from Jr Knowing will be telling us how naive and gullible we are for not taking the 18-minute "RCS failure" as seriously as he does.

Quote
In any case, do the maths...

...which is what the engineers did when they validated the plume deflectors for flight.  Jr Knowing doesn't seem to know how to do any math at all, or recognize its value in design engineering.

Quote
Why add the word "somehow"?

Yup, he still thinks he knows best how to build spaceships.  He hasn't changed since Page 1 of this thread.  We have merely "reasonable" points, but he's the master.

Quote
Yeah, but do you accept that the reason no RCS cones were ripped off on liftoff is our understanding of a concept which also applies to ships and aircraft, and other rockets apart from the Saturn V? In other words, do you accept that this is a concept with general application in science and technology, rather than some obscure bit of engineering tricked up just for Apollo?

Good luck.  I've been trying for days to get him to admit that flow separation is a common physical principle he either didn't know about or failed to apply to his theory.  You will get only very carefully-worded concessions that admit no error, fault, or deficiency on his part.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 27, 2018, 02:15:39 AM

Maybe not, but let's make the analogy relevant. What would you do if a warning light came on each time you used an electrical system in your car when you were only a few miles from your Winnebago, and if your car failed totally you could still phone your friend in the Winnebago to drive to you?


To take the analogy even further: Every time I drive my car the 'stop' warning lights come on. Occasionally the entire dash will light up telling me that the thing will explode if I don't pull over right now. I know from experience, testing and advice from mechanics I know and trust, that it is a false positive. When all the lights come on I know how to manage the engine so that they will go off again.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 27, 2018, 02:17:42 AM
Man, you guys are a tough bunch.  :)

Yes, we are, which is why coming here playing games and trying to score points on a subject in which you are woefully ill-informed really won't work for you.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 27, 2018, 04:46:01 AM
Man, you guys are a tough bunch.  :)

Yes. But that's a natural requirement for the professions many of us are in.

Quote
Yes the CSM RCS's cones were not ripped off on liftoff according to Apollo documentation. My point was why would NASA risk this even if there was a slight chance of problems?

As has already been pointed out, you evidently know nothing of risk management. There is always a 'slight chance' of problems. The question is whether it warrants any action to further mitigate that chance. The SM RCS quads were not in any significant danger from the airflow over the vehicle during launch. That's physics. Not Apollo-specific. Actual, general, fluid physics.

Quote
It would not be the first time a rocket hasn't remained intact through launch.

Yes, failures happen, especially in development flights. That's expected.

Quote
And yes, according to Apollo documentation, there was not a complete absolute failure of an RCS engine. However, according to Apollo documentation, there were partial failures and a myriad of problems during the RCS development.

Yes, that's what happens in development. That's why we have development programs in the first place.

Quote
Even Apollo 11 had an 18 minute partial failure.

It had an intermittent failure over an 18 minute period of one component of the RCS system.

Quote
Again, using Jay's analogy, I for sure would not want to lose my steering for 18 minutes down a desolate, dark road.

You need to work on your analogies. How does the falure recorded during Apollo 11 equate in any way to 'losing the steering'? On Apollo 11 one component of one of four jets used to control one axis of rotation had an intermittent failure for a few minutes. So what?

Quote
And as for the deflectors, if you examine some of the early anomalies (such as certain engines running at sub par performance), it would raise certain concerns of the ability of the ship remaining stable through its mission with the addition of these (untested A11) deflectors.

No, it really wouldn't.

I'll ask again: how does the memo you provided support your claim that the LM in solo flght is rendered unstable by the deflectors? And where is the other, more detailed document you claim states the requirement for perfectly balanced conditions for the RCS to work, or did you think we'd forgotten that one?

Quote
And to be clear, documentation states the deflectors were somehow securely attached on the launchpad and not during Assembly/mating process.

No, not somehow. You've been shown the aparatus used for working on the vehicle post-stacking.

Quote
Added weight and changing the steering dynamics all literally last second

No, not last second. There was over two months between stacking and launch. And once again, please show us how your evidence supports your claim that steering dynamics of the LM in solo flight were significantly altered by the addition of plume defelctors, or at least altered such that instability was a real concern.

Again, here is the equation you brought to the table:

M+X = 89D1 - 59D2

The instability that leads to a positive feedback loop is only present when M+X is negative, as stated in the memo. You agree with that, yes? So given that, please show us any situation with the LM in solo flight where this can actually be the case.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: smartcooky on December 27, 2018, 05:06:48 AM
Every time I'm about drive across a bridge or walk onto a boat or aeroplane I think about it in a similar way. Don't you?

Yes, I flew to Christchurch last week on a Bombardier Q300. When we boarded, I noticed there was a door open on the side, and there was a ladder thing we walked up through another open door. Also, there were metal struts sticking down from the engines with wheels on the end.

However, once we were in the air, I noticed that the doors were closed, and there was no sign of that ladder thing. Even more amazing, the struts with the wheels on the end? well, they were gone!!!?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: smartcooky on December 27, 2018, 05:35:56 AM
Man, you guys are a tough bunch.  :)

If you thought you were going to turn up here with something you thought you had found, and that everyone here was going to be amazed and go "Wow, that's amazing, we never thought of that" then you have come to the wrong forum - try Godlike Productions, Aulis or Above Top Secret for that sort of fawning sycophancy.

Unlike those forums which consist mostly of the ignorant and the stupid, and people who claim qualifications but have none, THIS forum actually has, among its members Physics and Mathematics Professors, Aerospace, Aeronautical, Electronics and Avionics Engineers, Photographers and at least one payload integration engineer, i.e. actual rocket scientists; that is people who actually work on real rockets or at the very least, work on some of the systems used in real rockets.

We're a tough bunch because we are very well versed and very experienced in our respective trades - an amateur is going to have to be very clever and very intelligent to slip one past us. We're also a tough bunch because most of us have seen it all before.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Dalhousie on December 27, 2018, 05:41:52 AM
Man, you guys are a tough bunch.  :)

If you thought you were going to turn up here with something you thought you had found, and that everyone here was going to be amazed and go "Wow, that's amazing, we never thought of that" then you have come to the wrong forum - try Godlike Productions, Aulis or Above Top Secret for that sort of fawning sycophancy.

Unlike those forums which consist mostly of the ignorant and the stupid, and people who claim qualifications but have none, THIS forum actually has, among its members Physics and Mathematics Professors, Aerospace, Aeronautical, Electronics and Avionics Engineers, Photographers and at least one payload integration engineer, i.e. actual rocket scientists; that is people who actually work on real rockets or at the very least, work on some of the systems used in real rockets.

We're a tough bunch because we are very well versed and very experienced in our respective trades - an amateur is going to have to be very clever and very intelligent to slip one past us. We're also a tough bunch because most of us have seen it all before.

Don't forget geologists!
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Luke Pemberton on December 27, 2018, 11:29:58 AM
Don't forget geologists!

Most definitely not, given that the lunar samples support the authenticity so clearly and so starkly. Without their work planning the scientific objectives of the missions and their research after, we would not have a fascinating record of science at our finger tips.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 27, 2018, 01:25:28 PM
Yes. But that's a natural requirement for the professions many of us are in.

And if he wants to play in those fields and tell everyone else what they're doing wrong, he'd better agree to be held to those same standards.  The licensing exam for my profession is 13 hours long, and the result of licensure is that one becomes legally liable for the correctness of one's technical understanding.  This is the standard he must meet or exceed in order to suggest that professional engineers weren't doing it right (and therefore they must not have been doing it for real).

But on a more sinister note, pleas such as "Go easy on me!" and quips such as "You guys are tough!" are social-engineering ploys to defray meaningful criticism.  He's trying to set the stage for a drama in which we're all just good ol' boys sitting around, having a few beers, and talking about space.  In that scenario the conversation should be light and congenial, not confrontational.  You know, "Hey, lighten up, we're just chit-chatting."  Or the slightly more aggressive, "Wow, you guys take everything so seriously.  Don't you know how to have fun?"  He wants there to be a social penalty for rigor, but keep in mind this is the same person who's telling us all how gullible and inappropriately credulous we are not to believe him.  He only wants the social penalty when it's him who's being tested.

Quote
As has already been pointed out, you evidently know nothing of risk management. There is always a 'slight chance' of problems.

Or, "essential risk."  That is, it is never possible to drive risk to zero.  Always taking the straightforward action rather than endure "the slightest chance" of a problem is exactly what engineering is not.

Quote
The question is whether it warrants any action to further mitigate that chance.

"Warrants" here means a cost-benefit analysis, where incurred risk is part of the cost.  The doctrine of essential risk says that you reach a point where the risks incurred by the proposed solution are equal to, or greater, than the inherent remaining risk.  It's the well-known layman's adage, "That will just cause more problems than it solves."  Here there was simply no problem to solve.  The jets were not in the slipstream; they were in the flow separation zone.

Quote
It had an intermittent failure over an 18 minute period of one component of the RCS system.

And not even an essential component.  Many cars today have open-circuit detection that can help the driver know he has a tail light out.  If the open-circuit detector itself fails, that doesn't mean the tail light has failed.  It just means that if you want to know if your tail light is out, you have to do it the old fashioned way.  Oh, and by the way, in this analogy the open-circuit detector fails only when your brakes are doing the anti-lock thing.  It works fine if you just put your foot on the pedal.  What the crew lost intermittently for up to 18 minutes was the ability to detect a jet failed-on or failed-off condition via the electronics, for one redundant jet, while in one RCS operation mode.  If the jet had failed off undetectably while the detector was misbehaving, yaw control would simply have produced a slightly smaller rotation rate.  (And the RCS was in minimum-impulse mode here for a reason; four jets turning the ascent stage alone is far too high a control rate for the situation.  Ed Mitchell called it "sporty.")  If the jet had failed on undetectably, it wouldn't have been undetectable.  A noticeable yaw rate would have ensued.

That's really how minor this was.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: mako88sb on December 27, 2018, 01:35:49 PM

Again, I am not looking to argue. I have agreed that, according to NASA, no RCS cones were ripped off on liftoff, and there were no complete RCS failures. And it is plausible, albeit questionable (in my mind), that LM's (untested) makeover could have occurred on the launchpad.

You might not be aware of this but the preface of Roger Bilstein's book "Stages to Saturn: A Technological History of the Apollo/Saturn Launch V" mentions that the program officials for the development of the Saturn family of rockets fully expected a 50% launch failure rate for the Saturn 1. Actual failure rate was zero. The book doesn't mention what they expected for a launch failure rate for the Saturn 1B or Saturn V, maybe somebody here knows that info, regardless it was the same with 100% launches being successful. Obviously there were issues with some post-launch missions such as Apollo 6 but to achieve 32 successful launches out of 32 attempts with some of the most complex machines built at that time says a lot in, my opinion, of the high standards that were met and exceeded by all the personnel involved. Especially when you have a look at the launch failure rate for USA rockets before the Saturn program which were much smaller and far less complex, and that if I recall correctly the failure rate was as high as 40% with some designs. All one has to do is look at the Soviet's N1 and how they had 4 out of 4 launch failures before their moon landing program was cancelled. Don't you think that maybe, just maybe these folks were competent enough to design RCS & Plume deflectors that would work properly and safely enough to the same standards as those 32 Saturn rockets?

 
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: gillianren on December 27, 2018, 02:59:11 PM
Or the slightly more aggressive, "Wow, you guys take everything so seriously.  Don't you know how to have fun?"

This will almost inevitably be followed by "how dare the astronauts have joked around and shot golf balls and so forth on the Moon!  That was serious."
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: raven on December 27, 2018, 03:21:15 PM
Or the slightly more aggressive, "Wow, you guys take everything so seriously.  Don't you know how to have fun?"

This will almost inevitably be followed by "how dare the astronauts have joked around and shot golf balls and so forth on the Moon!  That was serious."
Another one is 'everything went so flawlessly, how was that possible?' and 'How could they be so reckless with so many problems with the vehicles?' Actually, don't we have a whole stickied thread of conspiracy theorist contradictions?
Anyway, unlike many of the fine people, I am not an engineer or scientist. I do not claim to have any particular skill with math; if anything its below average, but I can still research as well as I can and ask questions from people who do this stuff for a living. I can also point out when hoax proponents make outright lies in their claims. I have learned so much on this forum, and I can say the fine people of this forum are polite and articulate. They only get snarky when some hot stuff pulls out the well (well!) trodden claims and try to pretend they have found something  earth shattering.
Here's a question I'd like answered by  jr Knowing: What is even the point of faking it? If you pull it off, it's a major propaganda coup, but the USSR would have been the very hardest to fool, as they had their own failed moon landing program and an extensive and very successful unmanned lunar exploration program. It's basically the first rule of any successful scammer: know your mark.  If the US realized they couldn't pull it off, why not focus on other things, like the USSR did with space stations and Venusian exploration after the explosive failure of the N1 rocket. If the USSR realized the moon landings were fake, which, from their knowledge they would most certainly have, they would have every motivation to trumpet it to the world as their own propaganda coup.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 27, 2018, 06:00:35 PM
And once again, please show us how your evidence supports your claim that steering dynamics of the LM in solo flight were significantly altered by the addition of plume defelctors, or at least altered such that instability was a real concern.

Again, here is the equation you brought to the table:

M+X = 89D1 - 59D2

The instability that leads to a positive feedback loop is only present when M+X is negative, as stated in the memo. You agree with that, yes?

I don't think he does.  Which is to say I don't get the impression he thinks one can compute stability, or that it makes sense to do so.  I don't think he considers free-body dynamics to be a computable regime.  This is something I run into all the time with hoax claimants trying to bluff their way through specialized knowledge.  They usually don't know what's possible.  Their extrapolation from intuition usually goes down the wrong path.  Here it seems Jr Knowing has only a pidgin, cargo-cult understanding of stability.  "Stability" is the binary condition that arises from pairs of jets placed exactly in opposition, acting exactly through the center of gravity (which can never vary).  "Instability" is the binary condition that happens when any of these "constraints" is violated.

And in his version, one can never know whether one has achieved stability except by demonstration flight.  The problem is solvable practically, but not prescriptively.  This is why we keep pushing the math under his nose and he just keeps trying to figure out how it applies.  It hasn't sunk in that there is a formalized model for this, and that math solves the problem in the abstract, not just individual cases.  He hasn't figured out that engineers can know there will be no stability problem (or, as in the memo, that a certain curious condition will arise in remote circumstances) by working it out on paper.  He doesn't see how math solves what he thinks is a purely practical problem.  The plume deflectors weren't flight-tested, so in his limited pseudo-engineering world they were untried.

We generalize the problem of free-body dynamics for most practical purposes using what's called a linearized state-space model.  It's "linearized" in the sense that all the familiar Newtonian elements of the problem are represented as entities in linear algebra -- matrices and vectors.  More accurately, many elements of the problem are matrix- or vector-valued functions of some other variable such as time.  It's a "state space" in that it's a vector space of all possible inputs, outputs, and states (and their derivatives) that a system can be in, as represented in linear algebra terms.  Ironically, the state-space class of mathematical solutions is also used in econometrics.

The beauty of such a system is that all possible effects are correctly modeled using a homogeneous (and small) vocabulary.  You can abstract concepts like body axes and control axes -- and in the LM's case the control axes don't even have to be orthogonal (at right angles).  Everything boils down to multiplying vectors and matrices.  That's what linear algebra is for.  A layman is probably not going to stumble onto this by himself.  He was either taught it and thereby understands its power and simplicity, or else his concept of the quantitative nature of the problem is likely to be a bewildering melange of special-case formulations that would quickly become intractable for such a problem as controlling a spacecraft.  In this system, the center of mass not being at the center of the control axes isn't a problem, because it's never assumed to be.  Transforming between body axes and control axes is straightforward and never omitted.  There are no special cases to consider.  And the transformation can even be a time-parameterized function (or a function of some other variable such as fuel-on-board) with no loss of elegance.

With these techniques, the additional effect of plume impingement on the deflector simply becomes another vector in the problem, no different than the direct effect of the jet itself.  It has discoverable, deducible physical properties, and these properties can be modeled easily in the language of linearized state spaces.  The equation above is merely a matrix multiplication rendered out in its scalar decomposition.  The fact that it also works out to be the definition of toque (a quantity of force acting a distance from the center of mass) is intentional.  Torque is not some contrived concept.  It's a mathematical expression of how we observe the universe to work.  The algebraic equivalence between the basic expression of the concept and the model we use validates the model.

Apparently unaware of this, Jr not-Knowing figures that the engineers who came up with the plume deflector had no way to determine its effect on the control problem before flight.  And in his world of perfectly-balanced jets and perfectly-located centers of mass and idealized structure, any disruption is disastrous.  And if we can't see this, then we're just not at his level of understanding.  (Well, that's true.  But not in the way he wants.)  The central theorem of state-space dynamics is not that a system rests at equilibrium or returns to it unaided, but rather than a system can be driven to a desired state deterministically.  The whole science of control theory would be obviated entirely if everything worked the way Jr Knowing imagined it does.

And that same misconception is behind the bravado with which he insinuates that we can't know that we're right and that he's wrong.  Yes!  Yes, we can!  The same math by which the engineers originally determined the effect of the plume deflectors and predicted its feedback loop in extraordinary circumstances works just as well for us in determining that no possible location of the LM's center of mass in solo flight reverses the relevant moment.  No, we aren't just gullible or brainwashed.  I know what I know.  I know why I know it.  I know that it works because I see it work.  It's not just a thing I read, or a thing someone told me.  And I'm not alone.  These are common techniques, widely known and broadly applicable.  Jr's ignorance of them doesn't make them invalid, doesn't make them go away, and doesn't make him the insightful genius he hopes to play.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Peter B on December 27, 2018, 07:40:21 PM
Anyway, unlike many of the fine people, I am not an engineer or scientist. I do not claim to have any particular skill with math; if anything its below average, but I can still research as well as I can and ask questions from people who do this stuff for a living. I can also point out when hoax proponents make outright lies in their claims. I have learned so much on this forum, and I can say the fine people of this forum are polite and articulate. They only get snarky when some hot stuff pulls out the well (well!) trodden claims and try to pretend they have found something  earth shattering.

I'd put myself in the same category as Raven. I'm also not an engineer or scientist, but I did enough maths and science at school that I can understand most of the maths discussed here and can follow the rest even if I can't do the maths myself.

I've also been investigating hoax claims for about 20 years, so I'm also wearily familiar with plenty of claims that visitors here think they're the first to bring to our attention.

Having said that, there are still plenty of cases where I learn something new. But in almost every case, it's learning something new about the reality of Apollo, and only occasionally a new hoax claim I haven't heard before.

Quote
Here's a question I'd like answered by  jr Knowing: What is even the point of faking it? If you pull it off, it's a major propaganda coup, but the USSR would have been the very hardest to fool, as they had their own failed moon landing program and an extensive and very successful unmanned lunar exploration program. It's basically the first rule of any successful scammer: know your mark.  If the US realized they couldn't pull it off, why not focus on other things, like the USSR did with space stations and Venusian exploration after the explosive failure of the N1 rocket. If the USSR realized the moon landings were fake, which, from their knowledge they would most certainly have, they would have every motivation to trumpet it to the world as their own propaganda coup.

Yes, something important to understand here - the Russians/Soviets were the masters of fakery and misdirection. In the case of their military forces, the term was maskirovka, but they applied the concept broadly, including in their space program. This was because they recognised both the propaganda value of the space program and the ease with which they could exploit it.

Therefore, the Russians never announced their launches ahead of time. This allowed them to cover up their launch failures, giving them the appearance of a 100% launch success rate when the American failures were there for all to see.

It worked in other ways too: they might make a bland statement about a mission objective, and let the Western media draw whatever excessive implications they wished; so when they announced that Vostoks 3 and 4 would approach to within a few kilometres of each other, Western media assumed the Soviets had worked out how to do a rendezvous in space, which they hadn't...but it played into the image of the Soviet lead in the Space Race.

But almost the biggest success of the Soviet space program was convincing people in the West that they hadn't been racing the Americans throughout the 1960s to get men on the Moon. They successfully pushed the line that all they'd ever been interested in was unmanned exploration of the Moon because it was cheaper and safer. Sure, it was cheaper and safer, but they had certainly been racing the Americans to put actual people on the Moon, and only really gave up when they couldn't make their N1 rocket work.

Now NASA knew most of this, and some of their knowledge of what the Soviets were actually up to influenced some of their decisions. For example, knowing the Soviets had a very large rocket on a launch pad played a part in convincing them to send Apollo 8 to the Moon in December 1968.

But the fact that NASA could see at least part way through the Soviet deceptions also meant they'd have had a good idea that they'd have no hope of getting away with a fake themselves. And in the propaganda context of the Cold War, being caught faking something would be worse than not attempting it at all (which is why the Soviets exploited the propaganda value of what they did, rather than faking anything themselves). (Apart from which, the Americans were quite confident they could go to the Moon.)

So the only options with regard to sending men to the Moon was either (a) don't attempt it (the Soviet decision), or (b) actually do it (the American decision). Option (c), faking it, simply wasn't a viable option.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: smartcooky on December 27, 2018, 09:08:41 PM
Man, you guys are a tough bunch.  :)

If you thought you were going to turn up here with something you thought you had found, and that everyone here was going to be amazed and go "Wow, that's amazing, we never thought of that" then you have come to the wrong forum - try Godlike Productions, Aulis or Above Top Secret for that sort of fawning sycophancy.

Unlike those forums which consist mostly of the ignorant and the stupid, and people who claim qualifications but have none, THIS forum actually has, among its members Physics and Mathematics Professors, Aerospace, Aeronautical, Electronics and Avionics Engineers, Photographers and at least one payload integration engineer, i.e. actual rocket scientists; that is people who actually work on real rockets or at the very least, work on some of the systems used in real rockets.

We're a tough bunch because we are very well versed and very experienced in our respective trades - an amateur is going to have to be very clever and very intelligent to slip one past us. We're also a tough bunch because most of us have seen it all before.

Don't forget geologists!

My most humble apologies. I wasn't aware that we had geologists among our numbers.

And yes, I agree with the later posts: Of all the physical evidence that the Apollo Programme was real, the samples of lunar rocks they brought back is absolute, irrefutable proof positive that at the very least, those rocks cannot have come from the Earth. Lunar rocks and soils show evidence of formation in an environment that was extremely dry, had low gravity and very little oxygen. There is no way that rocks could be formed on Earth in such an environment.

I sometimes hear the spurious argument that NASA could have just sent sample return missions to retrieve such rocks. Well, the Soviets did that: in three sample/return missions (Luna 16, 20 and 24) they were able to bring back a grand total of 300 grammes of lunar material. The most productive of these was Luna 24 which brought back 170 grammes.

The Apollo missions brought back 382 KILOgrammes of lunar material. In order for NASA to have brought that back in sample/return missions of the same efficiency as the best Soviet effort; Luna 24, they would have needed to make about  2250 sample/return missions; to do it between July 1969 and December 1972 (the period of time over which the Apollo programme landed men on the moon), they would have to be secretly launching two lunar launches per day. 
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: MBDK on December 28, 2018, 02:11:56 AM
He's trying to set the stage for a drama in which we're all just good ol' boys sitting around, having a few beers, and talking about space.  In that scenario the conversation should be light and congenial, not confrontational.
I can only speak of my own experience with my own personal friends who have technical and degreed qualifications.  When we sit around and discuss such subjects, although the mood IS light and congenial, there is NOTHING we like better than to show there is a fallacy in one or more of one another's views/ideas/statements.  We don't just pat each other on the back and follow some imaginary "official" doctrine.  We imagine. postulate and debate what is and what could be.  Although beer's influence and flights of fancy are integral components of the evening, logic and scientific facts are what ultimately rule.  If, when conclusively shown their failure(s) in such a debate, any one of us acted as immature and boneheaded as JRK (I do believe his initials are a hint) has, we would be rightfully ostracized.  It takes a little personal integrity to admit one's mistake(s).  My good friends have that quality.  JRK has shown no inkling of such, to date.

Note:  Edited for punctuation.

Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: nomuse on December 28, 2018, 02:18:56 AM
Hrm. Maybe because I've just been thinking of how planning can reach a point of diminishing returns (I assume engineers have a way of identifying that point. I've never found a good one). But it strikes me at this moment that the only utility to drilling down -- to iterating on a claim made by a hoaxie -- is because the subject is interesting.

An average, neutral person (whatever the heck either of those are supposed to mean), when presented with a top-level claim/rebuttal about the purported Apollo Hoax, will realize one is better constructed, better supported, and more probable than the other. "There should have been stars!" "Film has a dynamic range."

The hoaxie that drills down, moving the goal posts or outright changing the character of their claim or throwing up all sorts of chaff in an attempt to find wriggle room...well, it really doesn't matter how many times you work the point/counterpoint, how deep you nest in ever more subtle aspects of the problem, they've proven themselves unreachable at that moment.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: mako88sb on December 28, 2018, 05:52:42 AM
And once again, please show us how your evidence supports your claim that steering dynamics of the LM in solo flight were significantly altered by the addition of plume defelctors, or at least altered such that instability was a real concern.

Again, here is the equation you brought to the table:

M+X = 89D1 - 59D2

The instability that leads to a positive feedback loop is only present when M+X is negative, as stated in the memo. You agree with that, yes?

I don't think he does.  Which is to say I don't get the impression he thinks one can compute stability, or that it makes sense to do so.  I don't think he considers free-body dynamics to be a computable regime.  This is something I run into all the time with hoax claimants trying to bluff their way through specialized knowledge.  They usually don't know what's possible.  Their extrapolation from intuition usually goes down the wrong path. 

Best example I've seen is your thorough dismantling of blunderboys attempt to prove that NASA was reckless with the Apollo missions because of the strong likelihood, his opinion, of a solar event happening that would expose the astronauts to a lethal dose of radiation over at the now shut down IMDB forum. You could tell he was pretty well foaming at the mouth because he was obviously losing and unable to properly answer your pointed questions. Btw, do you have a copy of that exchange? I know it was long but it was great throwing that in his face back on some youtube videos he left messages on.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: molesworth on December 28, 2018, 06:23:11 AM
It's a mathematical expression of how we observe the universe to work.
This one sentence sums up the scientific and engineering approach which HBs and conspiracy theorists often have problems understanding.  It doesn't matter whether it's LM stability, orbital mechanics, radiation exposures, or onward to flat earth and Planet X conspiracies, the mathematical models can be used to demonstrate when the beliefs are wrong (or right!) and what the effects of various changes to the parameters would have.

Mathematical models are a fundamental part of the scientific method, and help in the development of testable theories.  The models are based on "how we observe the universe to work", and are refined and improved through repeated experiment and observation.  And in this case we have a simple equation which can tell us about the stability or instability under different conditions.

My point (since I'm sure most are already aware of the role of maths in science) is to ask JRK why he is avoiding answering questions about the use of this equation, and whether he thinks mathematical modelling is a valid approach to dealing with this type of question.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: smartcooky on December 28, 2018, 06:37:14 AM
An average, neutral person (whatever the heck either of those are supposed to mean), when presented with a top-level claim/rebuttal about the purported Apollo Hoax, will realize one is better constructed, better supported, and more probable than the other. "There should have been stars!" "Film has a dynamic range."

Its a matter of expectations...

If the astronauts came back from the moon and showed me this photograph they took there with a film camera...

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/l3xu7fr47yiwkoq/LunarNoStars.png?raw=1)

...I would have no reason to believe there was anything wrong. As a photographer and photo processor, I would expect such a photograph to look like this, given the known dynamic range of film stock. However, if they show me this photograph...

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/pprt6oom2kxt4g7/LunarStars.png?raw=1)
   
... and claim it was taken on the moon, and I will become deeply suspicious. I will want to know where they obtained a film with such an enormous dynamic range; a film characteristic that has so far been impossible to obtain.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 28, 2018, 10:03:07 AM
And once again, please show us how your evidence supports your claim that steering dynamics of the LM in solo flight were significantly altered by the addition of plume defelctors, or at least altered such that instability was a real concern.

Again, here is the equation you brought to the table:

M+X = 89D1 - 59D2

The instability that leads to a positive feedback loop is only present when M+X is negative, as stated in the memo. You agree with that, yes?



And in his version, one can never know whether one has achieved stability except by demonstration flight.  The problem is solvable practically, but not prescriptively.  This is why we keep pushing the math under his nose and he just keeps trying to figure out how it applies.  It hasn't sunk in that there is a formalized model for this, and that math solves the problem in the abstract, not just individual cases.  He hasn't figured out that engineers can know there will be no stability problem (or, as in the memo, that a certain curious condition will arise in remote circumstances) by working it out on paper.  He doesn't see how math solves what he thinks is a purely practical problem.  The plume deflectors weren't flight-tested, so in his limited pseudo-engineering world they were untried.

We generalize the problem of free-body dynamics for most practical purposes using what's called a linearized state-space model.  It's "linearized" in the sense that all the familiar Newtonian elements of the problem are represented as entities in linear algebra -- matrices and vectors.  More accurately, many elements of the problem are matrix- or vector-valued functions of some other variable such as time.  It's a "state space" in that it's a vector space of all possible inputs, outputs, and states (and their derivatives) that a system can be in, as represented in linear algebra terms.  Ironically, the state-space class of mathematical solutions is also used in econometrics.

The beauty of such a system is that all possible effects are correctly modeled using a homogeneous (and small) vocabulary.  You can abstract concepts like body axes and control axes -- and in the LM's case the control axes don't even have to be orthogonal (at right angles).  Everything boils down to multiplying vectors and matrices.  That's what linear algebra is for.  A layman is probably not going to stumble onto this by himself.  He was either taught it and thereby understands its power and simplicity, or else his concept of the quantitative nature of the problem is likely to be a bewildering melange of special-case formulations that would quickly become intractable for such a problem as controlling a spacecraft.  In this system, the center of mass not being at the center of the control axes isn't a problem, because it's never assumed to be.  Transforming between body axes and control axes is straightforward and never omitted.  There are no special cases to consider.  And the transformation can even be a time-parameterized function (or a function of some other variable such as fuel-on-board) with no loss of elegance.

With these techniques, the additional effect of plume impingement on the deflector simply becomes another vector in the problem, no different than the direct effect of the jet itself.  It has discoverable, deducible physical properties, and these properties can be modeled easily in the language of linearized state spaces.  The equation above is merely a matrix multiplication rendered out in its scalar decomposition.  The fact that it also works out to be the definition of toque (a quantity of force acting a distance from the center of mass) is intentional.  Torque is not some contrived concept.  It's a mathematical expression of how we observe the universe to work.  The algebraic equivalence between the basic expression of the concept and the model we use validates the model.

Apparently unaware of this, Jr not-Knowing figures that the engineers who came up with the plume deflector had no way to determine its effect on the control problem before flight.  And in his world of perfectly-balanced jets and perfectly-located centers of mass and idealized structure, any disruption is disastrous.  And if we can't see this, then we're just not at his level of understanding.  (Well, that's true.  But not in the way he wants.)  The central theorem of state-space dynamics is not that a system rests at equilibrium or returns to it unaided, but rather than a system can be driven to a desired state deterministically.  The whole science of control theory would be obviated entirely if everything worked the way Jr Knowing imagined it does.

And that same misconception is behind the bravado with which he insinuates that we can't know that we're right and that he's wrong.  Yes!  Yes, we can!  The same math by which the engineers originally determined the effect of the plume deflectors and predicted its feedback loop in extraordinary circumstances works just as well for us in determining that no possible location of the LM's center of mass in solo flight reverses the relevant moment.  No, we aren't just gullible or brainwashed.  I know what I know.  I know why I know it.  I know that it works because I see it work.  It's not just a thing I read, or a thing someone told me.  And I'm not alone.  These are common techniques, widely known and broadly applicable.  Jr's ignorance of them doesn't make them invalid, doesn't make them go away, and doesn't make him the insightful genius he hopes to play.

And this is why plume deflectors were added with the knowledge that they won't have an impact of the control/stability of the LM.  Poor jr does not have knowledge about the math and how it proves the concept.  And because he is too hard headed to admit so, he continues the "I have issues believing".
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 28, 2018, 11:03:24 AM
I assume engineers have a way of identifying that point.

We do; it's called a deadline.   ;D

All seriousness aside, no we don't.  In fact, that's one of my interview questions for engineering managers.  It's a trick question in a sense because unqualified candidates think they have a universal answer.  We quip that a project in design engineering has two phases:  too early to tell, and too late to do anything about it.  There is no hard-and-fast point where you markedly shift the approach.  Analysis at the beginning of a project is proven to have the greatest effect on cost and complexity, but it happens before enough of the problem has been explored to really know what to analyze.  It's the manager's job to break the "analysis paralysis" that occurs from trying to reason conclusively with too little data, and then to get the ball rolling.

The "correct" answer to the LM's problem that the plume deflectors were added to solve would have been to take the LM back to its conceptual mechanical design stage and weigh more heavily the jet duty cycle with its thermal effects.  Then the jets could have been positioned to avoid thermal loads on structure over the firing times it became apparent later were wanted for mission planning.  But then you would have had just another set of problems that arose from that systemic arrangement that weren't present in the LM that flew.  The urge to analyze extensively follows the natural urge to find an optimal solution.  In any significant engineering problem there simply does not exist an optimal solution.  The engineer and author Henry Petroski coined the term "satisficing" to address this.  Engineering problem spaces are defined by opposing variables that are always in conflict, always in tension.  A solution for these variables is ever only "good enough."

Quote
The hoaxie that drills down, moving the goal posts or outright changing the character of their claim or throwing up all sorts of chaff in an attempt to find wriggle room.

Which they will eventually find, since no engineering survives all conceivable criticism.  But the key is to determine at what level you've found something that merits criticism and how consequential that is to questions like that of authenticity.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 28, 2018, 11:07:49 AM
Btw, do you have a copy of that exchange?

I don't, and I understand it's gone entirely from IMDB now.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: smartcooky on December 28, 2018, 03:02:15 PM
Btw, do you have a copy of that exchange?

I don't, and I understand it's gone entirely from IMDB now.

Jay

Can you remember what year this was, and what section the discussion was in?

Did you use jayutah or some other username?

What username was the blunder using?

I am prepared to have a trawl through some internet archives to see if I can find it, but I would like some kind of starting point.

Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: apollo16uvc on December 28, 2018, 03:36:08 PM
An average, neutral person (whatever the heck either of those are supposed to mean), when presented with a top-level claim/rebuttal about the purported Apollo Hoax, will realize one is better constructed, better supported, and more probable than the other. "There should have been stars!" "Film has a dynamic range."

Its a matter of expectations...

If the astronauts came back from the moon and showed me this photograph they took there with a film camera...

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/l3xu7fr47yiwkoq/LunarNoStars.png?raw=1)

...I would have no reason to believe there was anything wrong. As a photographer and photo processor, I would expect such a photograph to look like this, given the known dynamic range of film stock. However, if they show me this photograph...

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/pprt6oom2kxt4g7/LunarStars.png?raw=1)
   
... and claim it was taken on the moon, and I will become deeply suspicious. I will want to know where they obtained a film with such an enormous dynamic range; a film characteristic that has so far been impossible to obtain.
If the hoaxers have such a film stock to get the latter images... they should give Kodak and call and the will receive a blank cheque!
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Peter B on December 28, 2018, 05:17:23 PM
I assume engineers have a way of identifying that point.

We do; it's called a deadline.   ;D

All seriousness aside, no we don't.  In fact, that's one of my interview questions for engineering managers.  It's a trick question in a sense because unqualified candidates think they have a universal answer.  We quip that a project in design engineering has two phases:  too early to tell, and too late to do anything about it.  There is no hard-and-fast point where you markedly shift the approach.  Analysis at the beginning of a project is proven to have the greatest effect on cost and complexity, but it happens before enough of the problem has been explored to really know what to analyze.  It's the manager's job to break the "analysis paralysis" that occurs from trying to reason conclusively with too little data, and then to get the ball rolling.

The "correct" answer to the LM's problem that the plume deflectors were added to solve would have been to take the LM back to its conceptual mechanical design stage and weigh more heavily the jet duty cycle with its thermal effects.  Then the jets could have been positioned to avoid thermal loads on structure over the firing times it became apparent later were wanted for mission planning.  But then you would have had just another set of problems that arose from that systemic arrangement that weren't present in the LM that flew.  The urge to analyze extensively follows the natural urge to find an optimal solution.  In any significant engineering problem there simply does not exist an optimal solution.  The engineer and author Henry Petroski coined the term "satisficing" to address this.  Engineering problem spaces are defined by opposing variables that are always in conflict, always in tension.  A solution for these variables is ever only "good enough."

Quote
The hoaxie that drills down, moving the goal posts or outright changing the character of their claim or throwing up all sorts of chaff in an attempt to find wriggle room.

Which they will eventually find, since no engineering survives all conceivable criticism.  But the key is to determine at what level you've found something that merits criticism and how consequential that is to questions like that of authenticity.

In reading this answer, I'm reminded again of Murray & Cox's description of Joe Shea's approach to managing the design of the Apollo and Saturn spacecraft. He used as his maxim that "The good is the enemy of the better", and kept encouraging the engineers to settle for designing a component/system/whatever which was good enough for the job requirement, not perfect.

The particular example they gave was of one unnamed company whose engineers were designing a part which had to pass a humidity test. The engineers got so caught up in the process that they felt the best way to prove they'd be able to pass the humidity test was to make the part survive being immersed in water. However this was proving complex and taking up valuable time, and Shea was startled to discover that in all this design, test and redesign they'd never actually subjected the part to a humidity test...
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: smartcooky on December 28, 2018, 06:58:49 PM
I assume engineers have a way of identifying that point.

We do; it's called a deadline.   ;D

All seriousness aside, no we don't.  In fact, that's one of my interview questions for engineering managers.  It's a trick question in a sense because unqualified candidates think they have a universal answer.  We quip that a project in design engineering has two phases:  too early to tell, and too late to do anything about it.  There is no hard-and-fast point where you markedly shift the approach.  Analysis at the beginning of a project is proven to have the greatest effect on cost and complexity, but it happens before enough of the problem has been explored to really know what to analyze.  It's the manager's job to break the "analysis paralysis" that occurs from trying to reason conclusively with too little data, and then to get the ball rolling.

The "correct" answer to the LM's problem that the plume deflectors were added to solve would have been to take the LM back to its conceptual mechanical design stage and weigh more heavily the jet duty cycle with its thermal effects.  Then the jets could have been positioned to avoid thermal loads on structure over the firing times it became apparent later were wanted for mission planning.  But then you would have had just another set of problems that arose from that systemic arrangement that weren't present in the LM that flew.  The urge to analyze extensively follows the natural urge to find an optimal solution.  In any significant engineering problem there simply does not exist an optimal solution.  The engineer and author Henry Petroski coined the term "satisficing" to address this.  Engineering problem spaces are defined by opposing variables that are always in conflict, always in tension.  A solution for these variables is ever only "good enough."

Quote
The hoaxie that drills down, moving the goal posts or outright changing the character of their claim or throwing up all sorts of chaff in an attempt to find wriggle room.

Which they will eventually find, since no engineering survives all conceivable criticism.  But the key is to determine at what level you've found something that merits criticism and how consequential that is to questions like that of authenticity.

In reading this answer, I'm reminded again of Murray & Cox's description of Joe Shea's approach to managing the design of the Apollo and Saturn spacecraft. He used as his maxim that "The good is the enemy of the better", and kept encouraging the engineers to settle for designing a component/system/whatever which was good enough for the job requirement, not perfect.

The particular example they gave was of one unnamed company whose engineers were designing a part which had to pass a humidity test. The engineers got so caught up in the process that they felt the best way to prove they'd be able to pass the humidity test was to make the part survive being immersed in water. However this was proving complex and taking up valuable time, and Shea was startled to discover that in all this design, test and redesign they'd never actually subjected the part to a humidity test...


Yup... if you want to drive from Los Angeles to San Francisco in under 10 hours, you can do it easily in a Ferrari. You can also do it in A Chevy Spark LS. The Ferrari might be better, but the Spark is good, is cheaper to buy and run and easrier to obtain.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Mag40 on December 28, 2018, 07:43:34 PM
Btw, do you have a copy of that exchange?

I don't, and I understand it's gone entirely from IMDB now.

Jay

Can you remember what year this was, and what section the discussion was in?

Did you use jayutah or some other username?

What username was the blunder using?

I am prepared to have a trawl through some internet archives to see if I can find it, but I would like some kind of starting point.


Here is the dead link -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board/flat/133905495

Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 29, 2018, 11:08:36 AM
Btw, do you have a copy of that exchange?

I don't, and I understand it's gone entirely from IMDB now.

Jay

Can you remember what year this was, and what section the discussion was in?

Did you use jayutah or some other username?

What username was the blunder using?

I am prepared to have a trawl through some internet archives to see if I can find it, but I would like some kind of starting point.


Here is the dead link -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board/flat/133905495

Good find, thanks.  The only thing I'm sure of is that I did not use JayUtah as my user name for that debate.  I don't remember what I did use.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Mag40 on December 29, 2018, 12:44:51 PM
Btw, do you have a copy of that exchange?

I don't, and I understand it's gone entirely from IMDB now.

Jay

Can you remember what year this was, and what section the discussion was in?

Did you use jayutah or some other username?

What username was the blunder using?

I am prepared to have a trawl through some internet archives to see if I can find it, but I would like some kind of starting point.


Here is the dead link -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board/flat/133905495

Good find, thanks.  The only thing I'm sure of is that I did not use JayUtah as my user name for that debate.  I don't remember what I did use.

Is this that bingo moment?

Archive -

https://moviechat.org/tt0446557/A-Funny-Thing-Happened-on-the-Way-to-the-Moon#discover

Two large threads -

https://moviechat.org/tt0446557/A-Funny-Thing-Happened-on-the-Way-to-the-Moon/58c7698a6b51e905f686f522/Could-this-be-one-of-the-most-under-appreciated-films-of-its-time

https://moviechat.org/tt0446557/A-Funny-Thing-Happened-on-the-Way-to-the-Moon/58c7698b6b51e905f686f654/I-dont-know-I-just-dont-know


Adding:

https://web.archive.org/web/http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on December 29, 2018, 12:57:28 PM
Is this that bingo moment?

That seems to be the tread.  Maybe we should ask LunarOrbit to move the IMDB portions of this thread into their own sticky thread.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 29, 2018, 01:12:24 PM
Btw, do you have a copy of that exchange?

I don't, and I understand it's gone entirely from IMDB now.

Jay

Can you remember what year this was, and what section the discussion was in?

Did you use jayutah or some other username?

What username was the blunder using?

I am prepared to have a trawl through some internet archives to see if I can find it, but I would like some kind of starting point.


Here is the dead link -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board/flat/133905495

Good find, thanks.  The only thing I'm sure of is that I did not use JayUtah as my user name for that debate.  I don't remember what I did use.

Is this that bingo moment?

Archive -

https://moviechat.org/tt0446557/A-Funny-Thing-Happened-on-the-Way-to-the-Moon#discover

Two large threads -

https://moviechat.org/tt0446557/A-Funny-Thing-Happened-on-the-Way-to-the-Moon/58c7698a6b51e905f686f522/Could-this-be-one-of-the-most-under-appreciated-films-of-its-time

https://moviechat.org/tt0446557/A-Funny-Thing-Happened-on-the-Way-to-the-Moon/58c7698b6b51e905f686f654/I-dont-know-I-just-dont-know


Adding:

https://web.archive.org/web/http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board
Ah, Good the first link you gave was just to IMDB, not the forums.  Reading the first brought back memories from my first reading.  the Blunder was in rare but consistent error prone statements.

Good one Jay.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: mako88sb on December 29, 2018, 02:19:48 PM
Just had a quick read through of it and I think some of it is missing or maybe Blunderboy deleted more of his responses since the last time I read it? Certainly does show the type of character he is. Anyway, great to see it's not lost forever.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: smartcooky on December 29, 2018, 10:58:01 PM
Just had a quick read through of it and I think some of it is missing or maybe Blunderboy deleted more of his responses since the last time I read it? Certainly does show the type of character he is. Anyway, great to see it's not lost forever.

Its difficult to follow though because the formatting has been removed...its not easy to see where the quotes belong
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: mako88sb on December 30, 2018, 09:59:32 AM
Just had a quick read through of it and I think some of it is missing or maybe Blunderboy deleted more of his responses since the last time I read it? Certainly does show the type of character he is. Anyway, great to see it's not lost forever.

Its difficult to follow though because the formatting has been removed...its not easy to see where the quotes belong

The last supplied link actually brings you to the way it originally looked:
https://web.archive.org/web/http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 30, 2018, 12:23:08 PM
Just had a quick read through of it and I think some of it is missing or maybe Blunderboy deleted more of his responses since the last time I read it? Certainly does show the type of character he is. Anyway, great to see it's not lost forever.

Its difficult to follow though because the formatting has been removed...its not easy to see where the quotes belong

The last supplied link actually brings you to the way it originally looked:
https://web.archive.org/web/http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board

That link does make it easier to read, thanks.

ETA: What is the proper link to the proboards of apollohoax.net?  Th links in the IMDB forum don't take me there.


ETA2:  Never mind I see the link at the bottom of the main page.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: mako88sb on December 30, 2018, 01:06:14 PM
Just had a quick read through of it and I think some of it is missing or maybe Blunderboy deleted more of his responses since the last time I read it? Certainly does show the type of character he is. Anyway, great to see it's not lost forever.

Okay, spent more time going over this and I'm probably wrong about missing content. The series of postings I vividly remember happened earlier than I thought were Jay had blunderboy essentially cornered and unwilling to admit he didn't know how to figure out what was being asked of him occurred during the May 3-4/2009 time-span. Jarrah's last post for awhile was May 4 and he doesn't respond again until mid June. Some of his posts from then onward are deleted either by him or IMDb. At any rate you can see he was often called out for attempting to change the subject instead of directly responding to those pointed questions . Here's a great quote by Jay that sums up the type of person blunderboy is:

"He was given his chance to demonstrate competence, and he refused to do so. That fairly concludes my direct involvement with him. He has evidently retreated back to his walled garden to surround himself once again with his small, sycophantic following. The rest of the world continues onward."

A following that has been significantly reduced because he ticked off a lot of the flat-Earthers and "rockets can't work in space" crowd with his enthusiastic support of SpaceX. I'm pretty sure he knows the Apollo landings were real, whether he knew it all along or figured it out eventually, but as mentioned by some during that debate, it was more about attempting to get the better of Jay, and failing spectacularly, then admitting the truth.

I hope Jr takes the time to go through that debate so he can understand part of the reason why the people here are a tough crowd.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on December 30, 2018, 06:12:31 PM
In reading the last link I find most of page 9 and 10 are not in existence in way back, unless my web is screwing up.  Did any one else have any luck with those last two pages?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: mako88sb on December 30, 2018, 09:48:19 PM
In reading the last link I find most of page 9 and 10 are not in existence in way back, unless my web is screwing up.  Did any one else have any luck with those last two pages?

Try it again later. I was getting the same thing on various other pages and then later they were fine.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Count Zero on December 31, 2018, 01:01:28 AM
Anyway, unlike many of the fine people, I am not an engineer or scientist. I do not claim to have any particular skill with math; if anything its below average, but I can still research as well as I can and ask questions from people who do this stuff for a living. I can also point out when hoax proponents make outright lies in their claims. I have learned so much on this forum, and I can say the fine people of this forum are polite and articulate. They only get snarky when some hot stuff pulls out the well (well!) trodden claims and try to pretend they have found something  earth shattering.

I'd put myself in the same category as Raven. I'm also not an engineer or scientist, but I did enough maths and science at school that I can understand most of the maths discussed here and can follow the rest even if I can't do the maths myself.

I've also been investigating hoax claims for about 20 years, so I'm also wearily familiar with plenty of claims that visitors here think they're the first to bring to our attention.

Having said that, there are still plenty of cases where I learn something new. But in almost every case, it's learning something new about the reality of Apollo, and only occasionally a new hoax claim I haven't heard before.

Quote
Here's a question I'd like answered by  jr Knowing: What is even the point of faking it? If you pull it off, it's a major propaganda coup, but the USSR would have been the very hardest to fool, as they had their own failed moon landing program and an extensive and very successful unmanned lunar exploration program. It's basically the first rule of any successful scammer: know your mark.  If the US realized they couldn't pull it off, why not focus on other things, like the USSR did with space stations and Venusian exploration after the explosive failure of the N1 rocket. If the USSR realized the moon landings were fake, which, from their knowledge they would most certainly have, they would have every motivation to trumpet it to the world as their own propaganda coup.

Yes, something important to understand here - the Russians/Soviets were the masters of fakery and misdirection. In the case of their military forces, the term was maskirovka, but they applied the concept broadly, including in their space program. This was because they recognised both the propaganda value of the space program and the ease with which they could exploit it.

Therefore, the Russians never announced their launches ahead of time. This allowed them to cover up their launch failures, giving them the appearance of a 100% launch success rate when the American failures were there for all to see.

It worked in other ways too: they might make a bland statement about a mission objective, and let the Western media draw whatever excessive implications they wished; so when they announced that Vostoks 3 and 4 would approach to within a few kilometres of each other, Western media assumed the Soviets had worked out how to do a rendezvous in space, which they hadn't...but it played into the image of the Soviet lead in the Space Race.

But almost the biggest success of the Soviet space program was convincing people in the West that they hadn't been racing the Americans throughout the 1960s to get men on the Moon. They successfully pushed the line that all they'd ever been interested in was unmanned exploration of the Moon because it was cheaper and safer. Sure, it was cheaper and safer, but they had certainly been racing the Americans to put actual people on the Moon, and only really gave up when they couldn't make their N1 rocket work.

Now NASA knew most of this, and some of their knowledge of what the Soviets were actually up to influenced some of their decisions. For example, knowing the Soviets had a very large rocket on a launch pad played a part in convincing them to send Apollo 8 to the Moon in December 1968.

But the fact that NASA could see at least part way through the Soviet deceptions also meant they'd have had a good idea that they'd have no hope of getting away with a fake themselves. And in the propaganda context of the Cold War, being caught faking something would be worse than not attempting it at all (which is why the Soviets exploited the propaganda value of what they did, rather than faking anything themselves). (Apart from which, the Americans were quite confident they could go to the Moon.)

So the only options with regard to sending men to the Moon was either (a) don't attempt it (the Soviet decision), or (b) actually do it (the American decision). Option (c), faking it, simply wasn't a viable option.

Those who think a moon-landing hoax is plausible make a mistake that is as common as it is peculiar:  They assume that attempting an actual manned moon-landing has a large possibility of failure, but that executing a hoax would somehow be automatically successful.

This makes no sense.  Flying to the Moon is an engineering problem with known (or knowable) equipment requirements.  You need large, multi-stage rockets, a guidance system that can navigate there & back, a vehicle that can land and take off, and life support systems to keep your crew alive.  You can also send unmanned probes to measure the environment between here & there to help define your craft.  All of these can be built & tested in a methodical, step-by-step process. 

Everything is in the open.  Nobody has to be looking over their shoulder or dealing with attacks of conscience .  If they fail, the root causes can be found & fixed and they can try again.  No honor is lost because everyone knows it is damn difficult.  Even if the government decides it's not worth the cost to continue and pulls the plug, everyone knows it was a good try and at least we learned a lot in the effort.

On the other hand, one slip-up when perpetuating a hoax - one turncoat, one leaked document, one communications gaffe (you can't know who will be listening, or with what equipment), one special effect that's less than perfect - and you are the center of a national disgrace for all time.  America's credibility is shot and very senior officials in the government will be convicted of felony fraud and go to prison for years.  Don't forget that the secret has to be kept for all time:  No matter when it's found out, it will still be a world-wide public-relations storm that would make Iraqi WMDs look like an absent-minded goof.  It doesn't matter how old you are, you can still be put on trial.

For those who think we faked-it to show-up the Soviets, do they really think that an administration that couldn't cover-up a 3rd-rate hotel burglary could keep this secret from the KGB?  Do they think that America's mortal enemy would not use this as the ultimate proof before the entire world of capitalism's perfidity and corruption?

Don't forget  that, as far as we knew, the Soviets were also going to land on the Moon, whether we made it or not.  They didn't cancel their program until 1976.  If we faked it and they did it for real, then who has the technological upper hand?

Any way you look at it, faking it would be more risky and less likely to succeed - with more dire cost to the nation in the event of failure - than actually digging-in, doing the work and going for real.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Rob48 on January 01, 2019, 11:17:39 AM

Those who think a moon-landing hoax is plausible make a mistake that is as common as it is peculiar:  They assume that attempting an actual manned moon-landing has a large possibility of failure, but that executing a hoax would somehow be automatically successful.

This makes no sense.

Not only that, but a hoax would be 100% guaranteed to be found out, and at the time of Apollo the chances were pretty high that it could have been found out very soon indeed.

I mean, the co-ordinates of the landings were and are public knowledge. Any hoax that didn't result in leaving clearly used Apollo descent stages, along with the footprints, science kit, bags of rubbish and all the other stuff documented in the photos, would be guaranteed to be uncovered as soon as anyone revisited the sites, which they will. (And never mind that the fake scenery would also have to match the real moon sites, down to the pebble!)

What kind of idiot would sign off on a hoax that would ensure that one day, the USA would be uncovered as a total laughing stock?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: molesworth on January 01, 2019, 11:55:16 AM

Those who think a moon-landing hoax is plausible make a mistake that is as common as it is peculiar:  They assume that attempting an actual manned moon-landing has a large possibility of failure, but that executing a hoax would somehow be automatically successful.

This makes no sense.

Not only that, but a hoax would be 100% guaranteed to be found out, and at the time of Apollo the chances were pretty high that it could have been found out very soon indeed.

I mean, the co-ordinates of the landings were and are public knowledge. Any hoax that didn't result in leaving clearly used Apollo descent stages, along with the footprints, science kit, bags of rubbish and all the other stuff documented in the photos, would be guaranteed to be uncovered as soon as anyone revisited the sites, which they will. (And never mind that the fake scenery would also have to match the real moon sites, down to the pebble!)

What kind of idiot would sign off on a hoax that would ensure that one day, the USA would be uncovered as a total laughing stock?
Well now, you guys are making the standard mistake of assuming the hoax believers apply any kind of logical reasoning or critical thinking when coming up with their nonsense.

Of course a hoax would be harder to pull off than actually trying to achieve the mission goals, and of course it would eventually be exposed (and far more spectacularly than by eejits posting about plume deflectors on internet forums).  But none of that matters when they have discovered the inner secret that exposes it all!!  ;D
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on January 02, 2019, 11:56:15 AM
Not only that, but a hoax would be 100% guaranteed to be found out, and at the time of Apollo the chances were pretty high that it could have been found out very soon indeed.

The Soviets "captured" a boilerplate CM that landed off target, and had plenty of time to look it over before handing it back to the United States.  If they had any questions about whether the Americans were actually doing the project, I tend to think they would have been addressed there.  Further, I received some correspondence many years ago from someone claiming to be a former FBI agent who attested that the Soviets had moles in the Apollo project.  I haven't been able to confirm this with anyone from the Dept. of Justice, but it seems plausible.  We certainly had a lot of knowledge about the Soviet space program from various intelligence sources.  Given these and other propositions, it seems implausible that the Soviets could have been fooled by a hoax.  Even hoax claimants agree, which is why some of them claim the Soviets had privately agreed to let America hoax the Apollo missions, such as in exchange for grain shipments.

The real problem for me is that people like Shea and Faget and Kelly and "Stormy" were already legends in the field.  These guys were already at the tops of their careers, with many laudable deeds behind them.  They had reputations to protect, as well as company and stockholder confidence.  None of those concerns would have been served by participating in a hoax.  There was plenty of legitimate aerospace work to do, plenty of legitimate cutting-edge research.  These people had zero incentive to become embroiled in a hoax that could wreck their careers, doom their companies, and land them in prison.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on January 02, 2019, 12:28:19 PM
...part of the reason why the people here are a tough crowd.

Part of the reason we're a tough crowd here is that there is so much dishonesty on the hoax claimant's side to deal with.  Their proffered motives never seem to be the real ones.  You've got people like He Who Shall Not Be Named, who don't take long to show that they're just out to trample the reputations of people they don't like or disagree with in order to make themselves look good by comparison.  Dr. Plait and I commiserated over this at one of our first meetings, as he was also the target of whats-his-name's vitriol at the time.  We agreed that even if everything he said about us were true, it would have zero bearing on whether Apollo happened as described.  He was simply attacking people according to whatever he could find to say about them.  It had nothing to do with evidence or making a case.

Then you have people who claim to be experts and who have concluded, "on the basis of the evidence," that Apollo was hoaxed.  And it doesn't take long to see that they are no experts -- in photography, engineering, space science, or whatever they claim.  Maybe in some circles they want to be seen as experts and have been successful to some degree at it.  But all they can manage is a sort of vandalistic approach.  They can point out the "obvious" flaws in what other people have done, but they can't speak about the actual fields of expertise with any sort of broad, experiential knowledge.  And even though they say they used to be Apollo believers and were compelled by the weight of evidence to doubt it, wild horses can't drag them away from their conspiracy claims.  It's clearly what they want to believe, regardless of how flimsy the evidence is for it.

And then you have those self-appointed guardians who pretend they are holding powerful interests accountable by identifying the ways in which the Powers That Be have lied or taken advantage of the public.  But then those same guardians can't manage even a tiny modicum of accountability themselves.  They fancy themselves deep thinkers, free thinkers, moral bulwarks, and so forth.  But they never admit failure, never admit error, never explain or correct their misinterpretations and misrepresentations.  Apparently to that sort, lying is just fine as long as it's not the Designated Enemy who's lying.

Even the innocent-seeming ones who "just ask questions" can't keep up that facade for very long.  Pretty soon they're advocating conspiracies and complaining about how people who challenged that advocacy are coming down on them too hard for what they claim is mere curiosity.

Hypocrisy and dishonesty effectively abrade the goodwill and easy-going nature that otherwise prevails here.  We're tough because we have to be, because the people who claim hoax -- with only singular exceptions -- can't manage to be honest and sincere.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on January 02, 2019, 12:32:16 PM
Speaking of He That Shall Not Be Named, Jay Any answer to my question?

Quote from: JayUtah(Windley)

800209 80024 0531-0536 -21 -48 SN 16648 00010 1

Can you tell me what the unshielded skin dose of this event would have been?


Since I didn't take any space courses and I don't know what the answer might be.  Nether did the Blunder="Let's see given that this one only lasted for 5minutes, I'd say 8.33rem."

So what is the answer and how is it calculated.  If one does not want the calculation on the forum PM me.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on January 02, 2019, 01:13:29 PM
Speaking of He That Shall Not Be Named, Jay Any answer to my question?

Sorry, I didn't see it.  It's a trick question.  The data gives you only the peak measurement; to compute the dose you would need to integrate a finer-grained measurement over time and energy, using calculus to obtain the fluence over those variables.  Naturally you would have to include the attenuation factor of the spacecraft hull.  The right answer should have been, "There isn't enough information in this table to determine that."  This is why we measure radiation exposure for human astronauts instead of trying to compute it.  He failed the test by not knowing what data and mathematical techniques were needed to answer the question, and whether he had/knew them.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bobdude11 on January 02, 2019, 01:29:50 PM


We probably know more about the actual scandals that are part of the history of Apollo than you do (as well as the stunning achievements) such as:

- The decision to locate Mission Control in Houston;

- The process which determined that Mission Control would use IBM computers; and

- The process by which North American won the contract for the construction of the Apollo CSM.



Now I'm curious. Care to spin those real NASA scandals off into their separate thread? I'd like to learn more.
As am I … I think I know the reason for locating in Houston, but I am most curious as to all of them. Even when you know or think you know, you will ALWAYS learn something new!!
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bobdude11 on January 02, 2019, 02:06:42 PM
From a certain simplistic point of view, it was an aluminum balloon.

What would that make the Falcon, other than a rust bucket?
She may not be much to look at, but she's fast.
On the sixth day of flouncemas I OCD'd to me,
Six galloping Gishes
Five Duane Damannns!
Four Jarrahs yapping
Three David Percy's
Two talking heads
And a strawman in a pear tree.
Speaking of which, is Duane still actve?

Passed away 2013

I believe I chatted with him in 2015 or 2016 on YT.  Still had the Moon chip on his shoulder and he still didn't like most of the guys on EF.  I guess those guys were too hard on him attempting to point out how wrong he was/is.  He told me everything about me that was on my profile, so could read still.

2013 is supported on many sites.  Obituary here https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sandiegouniontribune/obituary.aspx?n=duane-t-gish&pid=163795335

I always wondered where 'Gish Gallop' came from. Never realized it was named after someone.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on January 02, 2019, 03:50:48 PM
Speaking of He That Shall Not Be Named, Jay Any answer to my question?

Sorry, I didn't see it.  It's a trick question.  The data gives you only the peak measurement; to compute the dose you would need to integrate a finer-grained measurement over time and energy, using calculus to obtain the fluence over those variables.  Naturally you would have to include the attenuation factor of the spacecraft hull.  The right answer should have been, "There isn't enough information in this table to determine that."  This is why we measure radiation exposure for human astronauts instead of trying to compute it.  He failed the test by not knowing what data and mathematical techniques were needed to answer the question, and whether he had/knew them.

As I looked at it that thought came to me, but wasn't sure.  Does NOAA gather and post a more complete set of data that can be evaluated, instead of just peak values?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on January 02, 2019, 04:07:54 PM
Does NOAA gather and post a more complete set of data that can be evaluated, instead of just peak values?

Yes and no.  You can get a more-or-less continuous stream of x-ray flux and particle energy/flux data regardless of whether an event is in progress.  The data dating from the Apollo era was presented as event data, not a continuous data set.  However, the last time I checked, the free service still only gives you data at 1-minute intervals.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Echnaton on January 02, 2019, 07:15:28 PM

As am I … I think I know the reason for locating in Houston, but I am most curious as to all of them. Even when you know or think you know, you will ALWAYS learn something new!!

Here is the version I know:

LBJ was put in charge of the process because he knew how to wheel and deal in Congress as well as anyone.  He knew that to get approval, the program needed to be spread around.  California already had plenty of aerospace to benefit.  New York had its own aerospace industry and lousy weather.  Alabama had the Redstone Arsenal where rockets were being developed.  Florida was the only place for a launch complex. Texas made the obvious place politically for the Manned Space headquarters. AND it was LBJ's home state.

The location near Houston:

Exxon (actually the predecessor by name) had a large land development south of Houston and needed some industry to lure people southeast of Houston while the Gulf freeway was under construction. The development business was, I think, mostly an offshoot of the relative tax incentives of the time.  Exxon offered the land to LBJ for free.

Any politician with his salt, and LBJ was a salty guy, wouldn't look this gift horse in its mouth. A corporation or a person cannot give a gift like this to the government. So, a deal was worked out for Exxon to give the land to Rice University without encumbrance. Rice then donated the land to the government. It was not in the City of Houston at the time. Houston and Texas are very forward looking and welcomed the investment and jobs.

Clear Lake had plenty of benefits for NASA. A huge tract of flat grazing land. Cheap new housing to move government employees into. Close proximity to Ellington Air Force base. Proximity to a major city with a good international airport. Good year-round weather so you could count on astronauts flying in and out and training at Ellington without problems. LBJ was bosom buddies with the big local engineering and construction companies that could get things done fast without the complications of building in California or bribery needed in New York real estate. (Not that LBJ was above a bit of bribery when needed.)

I'm sure the White House made many promises for unrelated programs in many other states to get the votes needed for Congressional approval in the normal horse trading that goes on in government. There are undoubtedly more details to this that didn’t make it into the papers.  I don’t know what Rice U got out of it directly except perhaps the famous Kennedy “Why does Rice play Texas?” speech. But as a the major research university in the state they must have welcomed it on their back yard. 

BTW, after Kennedy made his speech at Rice Stadium, he went on a tour of the Manned Space Flight Center.  Since the Clear Lake campus was under construction, the center was housed in pre-existing industrial buildings. This is where he did the tour.  https://goo.gl/maps/TE2B5WbUxLT2

This was the headquarters building.  Now the offices of the Houston Parks Department. https://goo.gl/maps/JYksHdbS84F2
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bobdude11 on January 04, 2019, 02:23:22 PM

As am I … I think I know the reason for locating in Houston, but I am most curious as to all of them. Even when you know or think you know, you will ALWAYS learn something new!!

Here is the version I know:

LBJ was put in charge of the process because he knew how to wheel and deal in Congress as well as anyone.  He knew that to get approval, the program needed to be spread around.  California already had plenty of aerospace to benefit.  New York had its own aerospace industry and lousy weather.  Alabama had the Redstone Arsenal where rockets were being developed.  Florida was the only place for a launch complex. Texas made the obvious place politically for the Manned Space headquarters. AND it was LBJ's home state.

The location near Houston:

Exxon (actually the predecessor by name) had a large land development south of Houston and needed some industry to lure people southeast of Houston while the Gulf freeway was under construction. The development business was, I think, mostly an offshoot of the relative tax incentives of the time.  Exxon offered the land to LBJ for free.

Any politician with his salt, and LBJ was a salty guy, wouldn't look this gift horse in its mouth. A corporation or a person cannot give a gift like this to the government. So, a deal was worked out for Exxon to give the land to Rice University without encumbrance. Rice then donated the land to the government. It was not in the City of Houston at the time. Houston and Texas are very forward looking and welcomed the investment and jobs.

Clear Lake had plenty of benefits for NASA. A huge tract of flat grazing land. Cheap new housing to move government employees into. Close proximity to Ellington Air Force base. Proximity to a major city with a good international airport. Good year-round weather so you could count on astronauts flying in and out and training at Ellington without problems. LBJ was bosom buddies with the big local engineering and construction companies that could get things done fast without the complications of building in California or bribery needed in New York real estate. (Not that LBJ was above a bit of bribery when needed.)

I'm sure the White House made many promises for unrelated programs in many other states to get the votes needed for Congressional approval in the normal horse trading that goes on in government. There are undoubtedly more details to this that didn’t make it into the papers.  I don’t know what Rice U got out of it directly except perhaps the famous Kennedy “Why does Rice play Texas?” speech. But as a the major research university in the state they must have welcomed it on their back yard. 

BTW, after Kennedy made his speech at Rice Stadium, he went on a tour of the Manned Space Flight Center.  Since the Clear Lake campus was under construction, the center was housed in pre-existing industrial buildings. This is where he did the tour.  https://goo.gl/maps/TE2B5WbUxLT2

This was the headquarters building.  Now the offices of the Houston Parks Department. https://goo.gl/maps/JYksHdbS84F2

See, I grew up in Texas (well, I am still here … cause why leave? :D) and I didn't know much of that.
At least, I don't recall knowing much of that. It is possible I read about it somewhere, but I feel safe in saying I learnt sumthin' today!!

I wonder if they have any memorabilia in the building? Perhaps some stuff that had been tucked away in a storage closet they found and have displayed … I know, I'll just show up and ask them to show me the NASA stuff from the 1960's … :D
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Echnaton on January 04, 2019, 04:58:00 PM

I wonder if they have any memorabilia in the building? Perhaps some stuff that had been tucked away in a storage closet they found and have displayed … I know, I'll just show up and ask them to show me the NASA stuff from the 1960's … :D

I don't know how many owners or tenants have gone through the building since NASA moved out.  I doubt NASA made a lot of changes in the building because they new it was a temporary arrangement.  Similarly, because to the short tennenancy and moving to a much larger facility, they likely hadn't  accumulated much stuff to leave behind in the closets.  Just my guess. And If I had been the next tennent, I'd have scoured the place for souvenirs.

BTW here's a photo of the NASA headquarters opening and the opening celebration when the Houston Park's Department took over. It's doesn't show anything other than that it is the same sign frame.
 
(https://i.imgur.com/H4tKdFs.png)
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: mako88sb on January 06, 2019, 12:47:29 PM
Looks like Jr might have finally figured out he's in over his head. I think the knockout punch to his version of reality is this great post by Jay.




Here is the discussion of this "critical" failure in the LM.

Quote from: Apollo 11 Mission Report, pp. 16-18f
16.2.12 Thrust Chamber Pressure Switches
The switch used to monitor the quad 2 aft-firing engine (A2A) exhibited a low response to jet driver commands during most of the mission.  During an 18-minute period just prior to terminal phase initiation, the switch failed to respond to seven consecutive minimum impulse commands.  This resulted in a master alarm and a thruster warning flag, which were reset by the crew. The engine operated normally, and the switch failure had no effect on the mission. The crew did not attempt any investigative procedures to determine whether the engine had actually failed. A section drawing of the switch is shown in figure 16-18.

This failure was the first of its type to be observed in flight or in ground testing. The switch closing response (time of jet driver "on" command to switch closure) appeared to increase from an average of about 15 to 20 milliseconds during station-keeping to 25 to 30 milliseconds at the time of failure. Normal switch closing response is 10 to 12 milliseconds based on ground test results . The closing response remained at the 25- to 3o-millisecond level following the failure, and the switch continued to fail to respond to some minimum impulse commands. The switch opening time (time from jet driver "off" command to switch opening) appeared to be normal throughout the mission. In view of these results, it appears that the most probable cause of the switch failure was particulate contamination in the inlet passage of the switch. Contamination in this area would reduce the flow rate of chamber gases into the diaphragm cavity, thereby reducing the switch closing response. However, the contamination would not necessarily affect switch opening response since normal chamber pressure tailoff requires about 30 to 40 milliseconds to decrease from about 30 psia to the normal switch opening pressure of about 4 psia.  The 30- to 40-millisecond time would probably be sufficient to allow the gases in the diaphragm cavity to vent such that the switch would open normally.

The crews for future missions will be briefed to recognize and handle similar situations.

Now I'm going to explain to you everything that's wrong with your analysis of the problem.

1. Jet A2A is for yaw control only.  It could fail permanently and entirely, and the ability of the LM to maintain yaw control would not be affected.  Its pitch and roll control would be unaffected, and were unaffected by this anomaly.  (Note that the report specifically says this failure had no effect on the mission.)

2. The failure was not of the RCS system as a whole, but was isolated to a single jet that was fully redundant.

3. The failure did not last 18 minutes in the sense that the ship was out of control for 18 minutes.  The data say that a failure was indicated seven discrete times within a given 18-minute period defined by mission phases.

4. The failure was not with the jet, but with the chamber pressure sensor monitoring the operation of the jet.  Its only job is to provide a signal to the computer that the jet has responded as commanded.  The jet was, in fact, firing.  The worst-case outcome if this failure had become permanent would have been a false-positive signal to the RCS logic of a jet failure.  The A2A jet can be lost without any effect on the mission, and actual jet failure can be diagnosed by other means, providing for the crew to override the false indication.

5. The failure was simply a sluggishness in the response of the sensor.  This matters only in minimum-impulse mode, also called pulse-mode.  In this mode the jets are pulsed for only a few milliseconds as a means of fine-grained attitude control.  This is consistent with observations from earlier in the mission where the indicator had been sluggish.  In longer RCS burns the sensor functioned adequately.

Now go back and re-examine your fretful, panicky analogy to losing steering on a dark, desolate road.  Isn't it about time you just admit you really don't understand the engineering behind these spacecraft, and that you're just plain wrong?

Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on January 06, 2019, 04:03:35 PM
Yep. I called a stealth flounce a few pages back.
Another willfully ignorant intellectual coward bites the dust.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bobdude11 on January 08, 2019, 12:27:18 PM

I wonder if they have any memorabilia in the building? Perhaps some stuff that had been tucked away in a storage closet they found and have displayed … I know, I'll just show up and ask them to show me the NASA stuff from the 1960's … :D

I don't know how many owners or tenants have gone through the building since NASA moved out.  I doubt NASA made a lot of changes in the building because they new it was a temporary arrangement.  Similarly, because to the short tennenancy and moving to a much larger facility, they likely hadn't  accumulated much stuff to leave behind in the closets.  Just my guess. And If I had been the next tennent, I'd have scoured the place for souvenirs.

BTW here's a photo of the NASA headquarters opening and the opening celebration when the Houston Park's Department took over. It's doesn't show anything other than that it is the same sign frame.
 
(https://i.imgur.com/H4tKdFs.png)
Thank you for this. I love to learn new things and you have helped immensely.

Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on January 08, 2019, 01:13:14 PM
Yep. I called a stealth flounce a few pages back.
Another willfully ignorant intellectual coward bites the dust.

...or has figured out that he needs to wait longer before trying to come back and change the subject.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: grmcdorman on January 08, 2019, 04:42:08 PM
Yep. I called a stealth flounce a few pages back.
Another willfully ignorant intellectual coward bites the dust.

...or has figured out believes that he needs to wait longer before trying to come back and change the subject.
FTFY.

I know none of us, and you in particular, would let him get away with that game.

* Off topic: ISF has 'strikeout' tags; apparently they're not available here? (Looks like it must be a phpBB extension, not a standard code).
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on January 08, 2019, 05:07:53 PM
Yep. I called a stealth flounce a few pages back.
Another willfully ignorant intellectual coward bites the dust.

...or has figured out believes that he needs to wait longer before trying to come back and change the subject.
FTFY.

I know none of us, and you in particular, would let him get away with that game.

* Off topic: ISF has 'strikeout' tags; apparently they're not available here? (Looks like it must be a phpBB extension, not a standard code).
Are these what you're looking for?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: grmcdorman on January 08, 2019, 05:15:32 PM
Yep. I called a stealth flounce a few pages back.
Another willfully ignorant intellectual coward bites the dust.

...or has figured out believes that he needs to wait longer before trying to come back and change the subject.
FTFY.

I know none of us, and you in particular, would let him get away with that game.

* Off topic: ISF has 'strikeout' tags; apparently they're not available here? (Looks like it must be a phpBB extension, not a standard code).
Are these what you're looking for?
Yes! Thank you; it's of course different than other BB implementations. ("Nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from" :D )
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Obviousman on January 08, 2019, 10:38:29 PM
Hehe. Reminds me of the old joke: Engineers were concerned that there were four different standards for the same item. They got together in a meeting with all the stakeholders in order to resolve the issue. They finished up the meeting.... now there were five standards.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on March 30, 2019, 10:19:47 PM
Since Jr Knowing claims he didn't stealth-flounce, I'm bumping this thread to remind him that he has questions to answer now that he's returned.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on March 31, 2019, 06:23:36 PM
Jr Knowing :--

You abandoned this thread some time ago without reconciling the claims you made in it with the facts brought forward by others, often from your own sources.  You disputed the explanation of your departure that opined you were unable to respond.  Instead, you have told us you were merely busy elsewhere and were detained from shouldering your end of this debate.  If your story is true, then we have no reason to believe you have lost interest in this topic.  Those of us who put considerable time and effort into correcting your misconceptions would consider it to have been less a waste of our time if you would pick this topic up where you left off.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 02, 2019, 09:05:40 AM
Jr Knowing :--

Since you posted in the other section of the forum regarding the Apollo 11 documentary, may we presume that you noticed that the ascent footage of the Saturn V clearly showed the flow separation boundary at the CM-SM joint?  And that the flow didn't reattach to the fuselage until nearly the SM-SLA joint?  Will we finally get an admission from you that the RCS jets on the SM were quite well protected inside the separation boundary and therefore needed no special fairings?

Any love at all for this former topic, which you claimed you didn't abandon in frustration?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on April 02, 2019, 12:14:25 PM
Hi Jay,

Actually it is not quite the way I saw it when I watched the movie. I thought the flow separation occurs part way down the Service Module and the RCS are right at the top of the module. I would think there would be a lot of turbulence right where the RCS's are located. Here is the Apollo 11 trailer, check around the 55 second mark. As you can see the air flow bows out part way down the silver SM section.



Also, btw check out the 1 minute mark of the trailer. It shows the LM being transported from production to mating. It is almost unrecognizable versus the LM we see in space. The legs are different, the undercarriage and sides are different, the ladder is wrapped differently and there are no plume deflectors. And yes there is some minimal documentation, mainly third party and after the fact, that suggests the LM got a complete makeover on the launch pad. Maybe so, but it does seem unusual to make all these literally last minute changes and add all this additional weight. I thought they were offering $50000 bonuses to the manufacturers to eliminate one pound of weight and here they go tacking on a bunch a weight post production.   

Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on April 02, 2019, 12:35:38 PM
Hi Jay,

Actually it is not quite the way I saw it when I watched the movie. I thought the flow separation occurs part way down the Service Module and the RCS are right at the top of the module. I would think there would be a lot of turbulence right where the RCS's are located. Here is the Apollo 11 trailer, check around the 55 second mark. As you can see the air flow bows out part way down the silver SM section.

<snip>   

No the separation begins where the CSM is attached to the SM, your eyesight fails in your interpretation.

ETA  IIRC this separation occurs at each change in geometry of the vehicle.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on April 02, 2019, 12:55:34 PM
I thought
I would think

but it does seem unusual
I thought

See where you troubles lie? You are thinking and imagining about things that you have zero experience in and little knowledge of. This stuff is not common-sense or intuitive and as long as you continue to think that you can apply common-sense to it you will continue to flounder and trash around.

The legs are different, the undercarriage and sides are different,
I have to ask....you do realise that the legs are folded in to fit into the LM storage area? And that they were extended after the CSM/LM stack performed a successful LOI?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on April 02, 2019, 01:00:31 PM
Hi Bknight,

I am looking at it on a 55 inch 4K screen right now.  The separation appears to take place part way down the Service Module. And I have good eyesight.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 02, 2019, 01:01:34 PM
I thought the flow separation occurs part way down the Service Module...

No.  That is not how flow separation works.  Your observation and interpretation are in error.

Quote
I would think there would be a lot of turbulence right where the RCS's are located.

That is correct, but turbulence is not an issue for projecting structures as it would be for structures that extend into a supersonic slipstream, as was your original concern.  Turbulence imposes several orders of magnitude less drag loading.  You're changing horses trying to find anything that you can claim to be a problem without knowing whether it really would be.

Quote
As you can see the air flow bows out part way down the silver SM section.

No, that's where the visible condensation begins in that particular case.  Where the condensation begins is not necessarily where the flow separation begins.  The flow separation begins where there is a discontinuity in the geometry of the projectile -- namely where the conical CM abruptly transitions to the cylindrical SM.  If the flow manages to follow that, there is no reason for it suddenly to separate partway down the SM at some arbitrary place along the continuous surface.  You are floundering about, cargo-cult fashion, trying to pretend expertise you clearly do not have.   That is not a valid basis from which to question the authenticity of the Apollo project.

Quote
Also, btw check out the 1 minute mark of the trailer. It shows the LM being transported from production to mating. It is almost unrecognizable versus the LM we see in space. The legs are different, the undercarriage and sides are different, the ladder is wrapped differently and there are no plume deflectors.

Asked and answered.  At the time it is depicted in the trailer, it is not finished being built.  You were told this multiple times earlier in the thread.  You have a completely ignorant expectation for construction and integration methods.

Quote
...but it does seem unusual to make all these literally last minute changes and add all this additional weight.

Asked and answered.  You are not an expert on how spacecraft are designed and built.  Therefore your opinion as to what to expect from such a process is utterly useless as a yardstick by which to measure evidence.  Do not simply ask again that we validate your poorly-informed speculation.

This was all previously covered in this thread.  Now that you have returned to the thread and are paying attention to it now, do not waste your critics' time by simply starting it over de novo and attempting to re-litigate all the prior arguments we determined were based on ignorant expectations.  You were given specific questions to address once you returned to this thread.  Here they are, for your convenience.

Insisting it is suspect that the LM looks different between stacking and landing, despite being shown the apparatus and documentation relating to work done on the pad after stacking.

Insisiting it is suspect that the RCS quads on the service module are exposed even after being informed of why they were not at risk of being damaged by airflow during take-off.

Failing to acknowledge the difference between a paper and a memo

Failing, after several times of saying you had it, to provide a 'more detailed' paper that you say proves the RCS system required perfect balance to operate correctly.

Failing to address the clear and evident fact that the memo you used to support your argument that the plume deflectors introduce instability actually says exactly the opposite for all but one very unlikely scenario.

Getting mixed up between LM and CSM RCS systems used on Apollo 13.

I notice that with respect to the first one you have simply doubled down on your ignorant expectations, despite having been thoroughly instructed about how the LM was built.  You complain that you are being subjected to a "hornet's nest" of criticism.  This clearly dishonest behavior on your part may be why you feel that way.  Contrary to your protests, you are not behaving reasonably.  Kindly correct your behavior.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 02, 2019, 01:02:28 PM
And I have good eyesight.

Do you have any formal qualifications in aerodynamics, especially in the transonic and supersonic regimes?  A simple yes or no answer will suffice.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 02, 2019, 01:04:25 PM
I am looking at it on a 55 inch 4K screen right now.

Big deal, I saw it twice in IMAX.  Plus, I am formally, professionally qualified in the sciences that govern what we're all seeing on the screen, and am in a position to interpret authoritatively what is being depicted.  Which of us is more likely to be correct regarding where the flow separation (as opposed to the visible condensation that is occasionally a consequence of flow separation) is occurring?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on April 02, 2019, 01:06:21 PM
Hi Zakalwe,

I have no idea what your are talking about? Take a look at the legs for instance. On the moon the pads are completely different and legs were wrapped completely different. That’s not my opinion, that is a fact.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 02, 2019, 01:10:46 PM
That’s not my opinion, that is a fact.

What is your opinion is that these various differences in the appearance of the LM during the various phases of preparing it for flight is somehow suspicious.  Zakalwe is correctly pointing out that your suspicion is based on expectations you hold, which are in turn based on abject ignorance of how spacecraft are actually built.  It's not a problem that you are not well informed about how to build spacecraft, and it is not a problem that you develop poorly-informed expectations.  What's a problem is that you resist tooth-and-nail being educated by people who know these things as a matter of professional training and practice, and prefer instead to cling to your ignorance.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 02, 2019, 01:18:36 PM
Hi Jay,

Actually it is not quite the way I saw it when I watched the movie. I thought the flow separation occurs part way down the Service Module and the RCS are right at the top of the module. I would think there would be a lot of turbulence right where the RCS's are located. Here is the Apollo 11 trailer, check around the 55 second mark. As you can see the air flow bows out part way down the silver SM section.



Also, btw check out the 1 minute mark of the trailer. It shows the LM being transported from production to mating. It is almost unrecognizable versus the LM we see in space. The legs are different, the undercarriage and sides are different, the ladder is wrapped differently and there are no plume deflectors. And yes there is some minimal documentation, mainly third party and after the fact, that suggests the LM got a complete makeover on the launch pad. Maybe so, but it does seem unusual to make all these literally last minute changes and add all this additional weight. I thought they were offering $50000 bonuses to the manufacturers to eliminate one pound of weight and here they go tacking on a bunch a weight post production.   

Gee, do you think those extra pieces might just have been accounted for in the sums? Do you really imagine that they weighed the thing without all these 'extras' and then went "oh crap..."?

No-one suggests the LM got a 'complete makeover' on the pad, that is not what was said to you.

Finally, what you see in the clip is an LM being carried along, Where do you see it say that it's being taken to the final mating? Are you absolutely certain that is the Apollo 11 LM?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 02, 2019, 01:29:23 PM
Finally, what you see in the clip is an LM being carried along, Where do you see it say that it's being taken to the final mating? Are you absolutely certain that is the Apollo 11 LM?

Indeed, it's just a random shot of a lunar module being hoisted through the VAB low bay.  All the rest is just assumption on Jr Knowing's part -- assuming it's LM-5, that it's on its way to mating, that it's supposed to be completely finished and closed out before any mating occurs.  Zakalwe and many others have tried to bring to his attention just how much he is assuming in all these arguments, but to no avail.  He just barges obliviously ahead.  There is very little hope until such time as he can separate assumption from fact.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 02, 2019, 01:34:06 PM
And just for fun, assuming we are seeing the Apollo 11 LM, here's a nice compare and contrast:

(https://i.imgur.com/jWFDKDd.jpg)

I see no foil or contact probes on the feet (no point adding the former until the latter are on) and lots of red flags that say "Do stuff here".

I see no difference in the wrapping of the legs.

Correction: My mistake, the probes are there, just folded back out of the way with a small amount foil as in this image at the ALSJ:

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/ap11-S69-32396.jpg
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on April 02, 2019, 01:49:55 PM
Hi Onebigmonkey,

100 percent that is the Apollo 11 LM. There are photos and video with documentation. This is not a random as Jay suggests. At the start of this thread, the very first post, I attached the NASA photo that accompanys this video. Further I attached a NASA photo of the LM already inserted in the sleeve being hoisted up to mates to the Saturn stage. They did not change in appearance.

I think you need to look more closely to the photos. The legs, for instance, were not even wrapped part way up the leg pre flight. And wrapping post flight is different colour and material. Take a close up of the ladder. Wrapped completely different pre vs post. The undercarriage is also wrapped differently etc etc. Plus the plume deflectors were added. Should I go on?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 02, 2019, 01:52:24 PM
One sure-fire way to identify LM-5 is to recall that it's the only one with a two-tone forward hatch.  An ECO was issued for the latch in the design, and it was determined that LM-5 could be retrofitted safely.  The forward hatch skin was cut open and the latch mechanism was upgraded.  When they went to patch the skin, they discovered the newer supplies of the sheeting were of a slightly lighter shade.

Similarly, no two Saturn Vs for Apollo flew the same roll-evident patterns.  Ron Howard got in a bit of hot water for using the wrong paint scheme on Apollo 13's launch vehicle.  If you look closely in Apollo 11 and notice details like that in all the hardware, you can see where other missions stand in for 11.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 02, 2019, 01:57:01 PM
There are photos and video with documentation.

Then you should be able to provide links to them.  Specifically, for your claim that the clip in the trailer is LM-5 on its way to be mated.  Not that it would matter a whole lot, as there is no rule that say you can't continue assembly after mating.  That "constraint" is just something you made up.  Your initial post certainly is of LM-5, but it tells us nothing about the Apollo 11 trailer.  Do you really think that every picture of an LM on the low-bay hoist is the specific flight article you think it is?  Do you really think that every transit of the LM on the hoist is for the purpose you envision?  You have a serious problem with the important notion of "what proves what."

Quote
Should I go on?

No, you don't need to go on showing various views of various LM in different phases of preparation.  It has already been stipulated that the LM would appear differently depending on what stage of the process it's in.  It's your claim that this is somehow suspicious.  What you do need to do is substantiate the expectations upon which your suspicions are based.  In other words, you should answer the actual questions you're being asked instead of merely belaboring your wrong expectations.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on April 02, 2019, 02:04:39 PM
Hi Jay,

Is that all you got? My credentials are stellar, so I am right? Come on. You seem to concede that the air flow seems to have the appearance it starts part way down the SM but it really starts higher up at the CM-SM joint. Really?

I would think the most obvious answer here, is the bowing of the air flow is actually being caused by the RCS’s protruding out and disrupting the airflow. Not saying I am right or wrong but just saying it could be a reasonable assumption.But Of course, admitting to this would compromise your argument, would it not? But nothing to worry about, I don’t have your credentials to back that up.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 02, 2019, 02:07:33 PM
Actually it is not quite the way I saw it when I watched the movie. I thought the flow separation occurs part way down the Service Module and the RCS are right at the top of the module.

Why do you think you can see where the flow separation occurs, rather than where a condensation cloud sits? The two are not the same. Once again, you can't just look at something and draw conclusions from it if you lack the foundational understanding of the forces at work. Fluid dynamics is a mature science well-studied.

Quote
I would think there would be a lot of turbulence right where the RCS's are located.

So what? Turbulent flow is nowhere near as problematic as laminar supersonic flow. ANd again I ask, since there is a clear solution to the problem that is employed litetrally everywhere else on the vehicle where something sticks out (protective fairings), why would this not have been employed if air flow was a problem?

Quote
And yes there is some minimal documentation, mainly third party and after the fact, that suggests the LM got a complete makeover on the launch pad.

How much research have you done to make that claim? Specifically, how have you concluded the documentation is 'minimal', that it is 'third party', that it was 'after the fact' and that it claims the LM got a 'complete makeover' rather than additional work.

Quote
Maybe so, but it does seem unusual to make all these literally last minute changes and add all this additional weight.

To you. Why are NASA personnel obliged to share your views?

Quote
I thought they were offering $50000 bonuses to the manufacturers to eliminate one pound of weight and here they go tacking on a bunch a weight post production.

How much?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 02, 2019, 02:11:39 PM
Hi Jay,

Is that all you got? My credentials are stellar, so I am right?

No, his credentials are relevant, and therefore do support his conclusions. Yours have no such support other than 'ot looks weird'.

Quote
You seem to concede that the air flow seems to have the appearance it starts part way down the SM but it really starts higher up at the CM-SM joint.

No, what he said was that the visible condensation is not the same as the actual flow separation.

Quote
I would think the most obvious answer here, is the bowing of the air flow is actually being caused by the RCS’s protruding out and disrupting the airflow. Not saying I am right or wrong but just saying it could be a reasonable assumption.

No, that is not at all an answer, or a reasonable assumption. As I said before, fluid dynamics is a mature science, and since Jay happens to have professional experience as an aerospace engineer, you are literally trying to tell a qualified and experienced person he is wrong about a fundamental element of his job.

Shame you are just proving you can't argue from a reasoned position. You are, quite simply, wrong. Now, how about addressing the other questions put to you on this thread. Specifically I await your use of the equation in the memo you provided earlier to show that the LM is unstable in solo flight.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 02, 2019, 02:20:26 PM
Is that all you got? My credentials are stellar, so I am right?

Don't get all butthurt just because you don't know what you're talking about.  I'm professionally qualified in aerodynamics.  You are not.  I'm pointing out the errors that you're making, from my position as a qualified expert, citing the relevant details that someone who is an expert in the field would be expected to know.  You can't answer any of that, so now you're trying to bluster your way past it.

Quote
You seem to concede that the air flow seems to have the appearance it starts part way down the SM...

I've conceded no such thing.  I've specifically disputed it, and given reasons pertinent to the science of aerodynamics that reinforce my point.  As I explained already, you're mistaking the point at which visible condensation forms as the point at which flow separation starts.  There is no rule that says they have to start at the same place.  In fact there can be flow separation without any condensation at all.  In Florida, where the air is very humid, condensation is more likely.  In Utah, where the air is dry, condensation rarely forms from supersonic flow separation.  The flow separation nevertheless occurs, because flow separation doesn't depend on humidity.  It occurs every time you fly supersonic.

Quote
I would think the most obvious answer here...

No, you're just making up more ignorant nonsense.

Quote
Not saying I am right or wrong...

I'm saying you're wrong.

Quote
...but just saying it could be a reasonable assumption.

You have no basis for knowing whether that assumption is reasonable or not.  You're just frantically throwing stuff out there.

Quote
But Of course, admitting to this would compromise your argument, would it not? But nothing to worry about, I don’t have your credentials to back that up.

No, you don't.  So you don't grasp that this is not about your assumptions violating my supposedly precious worldview, but rather about your assumptions violating the well-understood principles of sciences you don't know anything about, and I do.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on April 02, 2019, 02:22:05 PM

I think you need to look more closely to the photos. The legs, for instance, were not even wrapped part way up the leg pre flight. And wrapping post flight is different colour and material. Take a close up of the ladder. Wrapped completely different pre vs post. The undercarriage is also wrapped differently etc etc. Plus the plume deflectors were added. Should I go on?

The LM was installed into the SLA with unwrapped pads. The original leg design had the lower legs unwrapped as the the LM landing profile called for the descent engine to be shut off when the contact probes touched the surface and for the craft to fall the last couple of metres to the surface. The astronauts felt uncomfortable with this and asked for an option to keep the engine burning until touchdown. NASA agreed, but then had concerns that the unwrapped lower legs would be exposed to additional thermal loads.

As a result, an additional 18Kgs of insulation was required. As LM-5 was already installed into the SLA and to prevent having to roll the stack back to the VAB to remove the LM they used LM-6 to test that the additional wrapping was not going to foul any of the mechanism. once proven, identical additional thermal insulation was attached to LM-5 whilst it was still in the SLA. Other last minute changes were the addition of the plume deflectors and the removal of the contact probe on the leg under the egress hatch.

This picture shows Alan Contessa beside the +Y leg inside the SLA. Contessa was one of the team that were charged with wrapping the legs and any subsequent unwrapping to check things or install new kit. The Kapton and Iconel thermal protection had yet to be installed and you can see that the leg and pad are bare aluminium.


(https://i.postimg.cc/QdD3YgNt/Alan-Contessa.jpg)

Source:Countdown to a Moon Launch.


Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 02, 2019, 02:23:07 PM
...you are literally trying to tell a qualified and experienced person he is wrong about a fundamental element of his job.

Oh, no, he's being very courteous and reasonable.  He told us so himself.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: mako88sb on April 02, 2019, 02:31:28 PM
Maybe so, but it does seem unusual to make all these literally last minute changes and add all this additional weight. I thought they were offering $50000 bonuses to the manufacturers to eliminate one pound of weight and here they go tacking on a bunch a weight post production.   

The weight reduction was an important part of the LM development but what people who question what seems like superfluous add-ons to them don't seem to know is that the Saturn V engines were up-rated during their development which allowed more payload and this was passed on to Grumman as well as the fact that they would need to modify the design to allow for the possible inclusion of a proposed lunar rover or jet packs to enhance exploration. That's why when they settled on the lunar rover, it was a simple matter of moving items from one quadrant of the descent stage so that the lunar rover could be stored there.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on April 02, 2019, 02:33:34 PM
This was the original leg thermal protection as flown on A-9 and A-10

(https://i.postimg.cc/kgLhhqvy/Leg.jpg)
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 02, 2019, 02:46:25 PM
The weight reduction was an important part of the LM development...

And it's important to realize that eliminated weight that could be safely lost.  It isn't to eliminate weight at all costs, but at an acceptable cost.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 02, 2019, 02:52:26 PM
the Saturn V engines were up-rated during their development which allowed more payload and this was passed on to Grumman as well as the fact that they would need to modify the design to allow for the possible inclusion of a proposed lunar rover or jet packs to enhance exploration.

Clearly that can't be right, because it implies all the various subcontractors actually developed hardware and talked to each other. You know, instead of just blindly building what those fakers at NASA told them to....
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: mako88sb on April 02, 2019, 03:39:07 PM
The weight reduction was an important part of the LM development...

And it's important to realize that eliminated weight that could be safely lost.  It isn't to eliminate weight at all costs, but at an acceptable cost.

Yes, excellent point. Thanks for the clarification.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jfb on April 02, 2019, 05:36:30 PM
Hi Onebigmonkey,

100 percent that is the Apollo 11 LM. There are photos and video with documentation. This is not a random as Jay suggests. At the start of this thread, the very first post, I attached the NASA photo that accompanys this video. Further I attached a NASA photo of the LM already inserted in the sleeve being hoisted up to mates to the Saturn stage. They did not change in appearance.

I think you need to look more closely to the photos. The legs, for instance, were not even wrapped part way up the leg pre flight. And wrapping post flight is different colour and material. Take a close up of the ladder. Wrapped completely different pre vs post. The undercarriage is also wrapped differently etc etc. Plus the plume deflectors were added. Should I go on?

I thought we covered this already - work continued to be done on the LM after it was encased in the SLA, and IINM continued to be done after the whole stack was rolled out to the pad.  Plume deflectors, extra insulation, and other external items were added after mating. 
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: gillianren on April 03, 2019, 11:40:11 AM
I can't get beyond "if it was fake, why would they do something you claim proves it was fake?"  Because if all this is a proof the missions were faked, it's so obvious.  This isn't hidden.  This isn't revealed after extensive effort, because it's quite clear no effort has been expended to understand the Apollo missions.  This is a whole bunch of readily available information.  So either NASA was spectacularly bad at faking a Moon mission yet somehow fooled everyone who had a reason to want to make NASA look bad at the time or else the whole idea that it proves a hoax is based on faulty expectations.  Now, I ask you--which is the more logical answer?

Though I expect jr Knowing to ignore me again.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2019, 12:10:31 PM
other external items were added after mating.

Internal items too.  There is no "rule" that says the vehicle is immune or exempt from further work after rollout.  In fact, there's a whole service structure -- a major piece of engineering -- that was built to facilitate work that was planned to take place after rollout.  One for the space shuttle too, although it worked differently.  The LM design calls for a half-dozen or so pyrotechnical items to facilitate its staging.  For various safety and mission-assurance reasons, you always wait until the last minute to install the pyros.  You design your ship and the supporting equipment to allow access to those pyros after assembly and integration, but before launch.  To install the umbilical guillotine, for example, you had to reach under the forward-hatch porch, but it was designed so you could do it while the LM was enshrouded in the SLA, on the pad, the morning of liftoff.

Jr Knowing is simply making up new "rules" for how to build and operate spacecraft and then expecting the industry to obey him.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on April 03, 2019, 12:20:44 PM
other external items were added after mating.

Internal items too.  There is no "rule" that says the vehicle is immune or exempt from further work after rollout.  In fact, there's a whole service structure -- a major piece of engineering -- that was built to facilitate work that was planned to take place after rollout.  One for the space shuttle too, although it worked differently.  The LM design calls for a half-dozen or so pyrotechnical items to facilitate its staging.  For various safety and mission-assurance reasons, you always wait until the last minute to install the pyros.  You design your ship and the supporting equipment to allow access to those pyros after assembly and integration, but before launch.  To install the umbilical guillotine, for example, you had to reach under the forward-hatch porch, but it was designed so you could do it while the LM was enshrouded in the SLA, on the pad, the morning of liftoff.

Jr Knowing is simply making up new "rules" for how to build and operate spacecraft and then expecting the industry to obey him.

It doesn't look right, therefore it is fake.
I don't understand it, therefore it is fake.
Take your pick.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: mako88sb on April 03, 2019, 01:06:11 PM
I thought they were offering $50000 bonuses to the manufacturers to eliminate one pound of weight and here they go tacking on a bunch a weight post production.   

Mind explaining were you got that $50,000 per lb of weight eliminated figure from and also explain why it differs so much from Tom Kelly's "Moon Lander: How We Developed the Apollo Lunar Module" book that states the bonus was set at $10,000 per lb of weight reduction?

Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2019, 01:43:08 PM
I can't get beyond "if it was fake, why would they do something you claim proves it was fake?"  Because if all this is a proof the missions were faked, it's so obvious.  This isn't hidden.  This isn't revealed after extensive effort, because it's quite clear no effort has been expended to understand the Apollo missions.  This is a whole bunch of readily available information.  So either NASA was spectacularly bad at faking a Moon mission yet somehow fooled everyone who had a reason to want to make NASA look bad at the time or else the whole idea that it proves a hoax is based on faulty expectations.  Now, I ask you--which is the more logical answer?

[Applauds.
Yes, this is the inherent contradiction of almost every conspiracy theory.  The alleged perpetrators were clever enough to fool so many people for so long, including eminent practitioners of the various professions, trades, and sciences that pertain to it.  But those same perpetrators can't fool some particular claimant who has little if any correct understanding of the facts or the relevant sciences and trades.  The ways in which various claimants explain it, if they address it at all, is often comedy gold.

Before I point those ways out, I reiterate that the purpose of conspiracism (or really any fringe theorization) is rarely to establish an alternative narrative on its own merits.  It's almost always instead ego reinforcement for the claimant.  He wants to elevate his status within a particular worldview.  You point out that the claim is not based on deep research because the claimant here, true to form, hasn't done any deep research.  And that's because the ego-reinforcement objective requires the elevation of status based on the knowledge the claimant presently has.  It's not that he can become an eminent commentator on the validity of space exploration, but that he already is.  Thus any theory that requires substantial extra effort doesn't fit the bill.  The mission to buttress the claimant's ego is much easier served by supposing that the circumstances must change to accommodate his knowledge.  Whatever little knowledge he now possess, or can Google-and-regurgitate with little mental effort, must be sufficient to fully discuss the authenticity of Apollo.

Now back to how claimants respond to the core contradiction.  Continued bluster is usually the first defense.  "Is that all you've got?  Parading your degrees and real-world experience around as if that means anything or challenges my opinions in any way!"  The pawn of this argument is usually a premise along the lines, "Common sense says..." or "It's obvious that..."  Begging the underlying expectations in this way suggests that no special understanding is needed to see egregious flaws in the conventional narrative.  But this eventually runs afoul of the core contradiction again.  It just kicks that problem down the road a few more meters.  And it ultimately fails to reinforce the ego, since all that comes of it is that the claimant feels he is more commonsensical than some.

Sometimes a claimant will aspire to different knowledge.  This is where Jr Knowing seems to be, and it's the rationale that operates most commonly in alternative medicine.  In this mode of reasoning, the claimant plainly affirms that his knowledge and understand are somehow inherently more attuned to questions of authenticity.  In its mildest form, it's the argument that goes, "If you were more of a free thinker like I am, you'd be open to this new evidence."  This hits the ego-reinforcement target a little more center-mass because no matter what facts are presented, the claimant can still believe that the "right" conclusion would be reached by anyone operating according to his enhanced paradigm of thought.  If his critics can't see his special genius, it's just because they're too constrained by conventional thinking.  Since most opposition to fringe theories comes from mainstream sources, a certain congruence emerges.

The problem comes, as it has in this case, when the claimant has first made arguments that allude to mainstream knowledge.  Jr Knowing asserted that the science of free-body stability precluded a stable lunar module with the plume deflectors attached.  In his other thread he asserted that the behavior of aerosols and projectiles guaranteed his expectations.  When one has started out on that footing, transitioning to the wholly opposite footing is a blatant shift.  If the rebuttal is a learned treatise on how the sciences actually work, the claimant can't credibly excuse his ignorance by saying that others are just defending their worldview.  The mathematics of free-body dynamics don't suddenly change or stop being predictive just because of a mental paradigm shift or a socio-political epiphany.

The last recourse in resolving the core contradiction is sometimes just to do deeper down the rabbit hole.  People can't see the "obvious" truth of the conspiracy because they've been brainwashed not to.  In the case of relevant professionals like me, this extreme argument has even gone so far as claiming that we were all ushered into a room at some point and told about the terrible consequences of revealing the truth about Apollo.  And we spend our whole careers looking over our shoulders for the agents shadowing us, and we fulfill our dark duty by coming onto these forums and arguing a bunch of pseudo-technical mumbo jumbo to keep the masses fooled.  Granted that's the vivid extreme of such an approach, but paler version of it sometimes rear their ugly heads even when the discussion is otherwise reasonable.  Any argument fits this pattern if it boils down to expanding the alleged conspiracy as wide as it needs to be to substantiate the claimant's belief in himself as a lone genius.

Quote
Though I expect jr Knowing to ignore me again.

My hard questions challenge his fantasy.  Your hard questions shatter it.  I ask hard questions that come from certain specialized fields of knowledge that apply to his claims.  Paradoxically those are easier for him to argue around.  He can just make up new speculative rules or properties for those fields that restore his belief.  Who's to know they won't work?  "Well maybe it's the RCS jets themselves that are causing the visible flow separation."  Ludicrous, if you know the field.  But -- as he insinuated -- sufficiently reasonable(-sounding) if you don't.  That's how science fiction works.  The Epstein drive sounds plausible enough to people with a smattering of science knowledge.  But its real purpose is just to get people around the Expanse series solar system in days or weeks instead of years.  It only needs to be plausible enough to tell that story, not to actually work.  In like manner, Jr Knowing is writing a science fiction novel in his head.  Who's to know that most of it is implausible, if not downright impossible?  It doesn't matter, as long as it serves a compelling story.

Instead you ask hard questions that come from ordinary critical thinking.  You bare the inherent contradictions in his narrative that are rightly in everyone's ken.  There's no way to argue around them because everyone can see them for what they are.  Readers don't need special training or degrees to see that his story makes fundamentally no sense.  Since he can't build a plausible alternate reality as a pretext to answering your questions, your questions just don't exist in his universe.  Yes, we have magical storytelling devices that get us easily to other planets and stars, but you point out that the circumstances and characters he's built the plot around are absurd and contradictory.  That's far more fatal to his narrative than whether plume deflectors are plausible technology.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2019, 02:12:35 PM
In fact, there's a whole service structure -- a major piece of engineering -- that was built to facilitate work that was planned to take place after rollout.

Indeed, I made this point way back on page 2 of this thread, complete with a picture illustrating that this service structure is even bigger than the umbilical tower (not to get at you for pointing it out again, some thirty pages later I'm not expecting everyone to remember that!)

Quote
For various safety and mission-assurance reasons, you always wait until the last minute to install the pyros.

What, you don't want your vehicle full of explosives while it's in the assembly building or rolling out to the pad? It's health and safety gone mad, I tells ya! :)
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on April 03, 2019, 02:22:02 PM

SNIP

A very good post.
A much, much shorter version is Pigeon Chess (https://pics.me.me/arguing-with-idiots-is-sun-gazing-com-like-playing-chess-with-a-7743622.png)

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2019, 02:35:01 PM
It doesn't look right, therefore it is fake.
I don't understand it, therefore it is fake.
Take your pick.

According to some ways of thinking about it, I don't have to pick.  "It doesn't look right," naturally invokes some set of expectations.  Expectation is based on knowledge.  Thus the reduced premises are the completeness and accuracy of the knowledge.  The apparent changes in the LM's appearance don't "look right" because the expectation is that the spacecraft will be completely finished before it is attached to the rocket and rolled out to the pad.  The relevant "knowledge" in that case is wrong.  Ditto the plume deflectors and the RCS quads on the SM.  All that boils down to knowledge that is either incomplete or incorrect or both.  As I wrote in response to Gillianren above, Jr Knowing wants the resolution of that suspicion to be "Apollo was faked," not "I don't know what I'm talking about."  The answer can never be that his knowledge is provably wrong.  "Doesn't look right" has to resolve as "What I think should look right is based extensive correct understanding."  Or, stated more bluntly, it has to resolve to "I'm really smart."

Clearly such smarts won't hold up in the real world.  If you don't actually know how to drive a Formula 1 racing car, then attempting it will almost certainly result in expensive and painful failure.  But if you were instead to claim Formula 1 racing is fake, and you limited your audience to people who don't know any better, there is actual activity you can pursue that focuses attention on you.  If we allow that each person in the world aspires to greatness, but defines greatness in different ways, then there will be people who find some measure of greatness in skipping all that pesky, time-consuming experience-gathering and finding a shortcut to the illusion of erudition -- if erudition is how they define greatness for themselves.  There are people who build temples and people who spray-paint El Barto on those temples.

"I don't understand" can mean a few things in conspiracism.  Often it means, "Well, I don't understand this, but neither do you.  Therefore I have just as much chance as you do of being right."  This feeds into the different-thinking excuse I mentioned to Gillianren.  The claimant is willing to concede the facts, and even compromise a little bit on the interpretation.  Slightly less often, as I see it, it means "I don't understand your explanation, therefore I'm not responsible for it."  This is what I think you intended.  Jr Knowing doesn't understand free-body dynamics in linearized form, so he doesn't have to accept that someone using those tools can conclusively refute his beliefs.  He's therefore free to keep believing that the LM is inherently unstable with the plume deflectors attached.  Or he doesn't understand Prandtl's fluid mechanics, so he doesn't have to believe that the RCS quads are in the lee of a separated flow.  Or that the flow separates where Prandtl says it must, and can therefore separate at any arbitrary point that fits his belief.

What's really being said there is, "I don't believe you."  The facts stated do not incorporate well into the set of desired beliefs, so it devolves into the same audience-choosing exercise as in the previous case.  If I claim Formula 1 racing is fake based on a simplistic treatment of it, then someone who can show that a more accurate, more detailed treatment resolves the "anomalies" I've identified, then that someone is not the audience I seek.  I would prefer my simplistic interpretation because (1) it takes less effort to arrive at, and (2) it makes me and my beliefs special in contrast to the millions of rubes who accept Formula 1 racing as authentic.  It's surprisingly easy for claimants to get third parties to buy into simplicity over correctness.  Lay audiences want to be taught a little, but not too much.  If I can convince someone I'm teaching him more about Formula 1 than he knew before, even though I don't really know much more than a layman, then I endear him to me.  I still get to believe, "I'm really smart."

Mostly, I think "I don't understand" is a veiled accusation.  "I don't understand how that was supposed to work" -- the unstated corollary being, "...and my understanding is probative."  That interpretation is the same as saying, "It doesn't look right to me."  It speaks to the notion that people like to understand the world around them, and largely the world doesn't present them with problems they can't reason through.  If you accept that, then it's not hard to extend it to mean that everything you observe should have a simple enough explanation.  I think people reach for the paranormal, the spiritual, the diabolical, and the supernatural to soothe themselves when their reason fails.  Here, the quite-understandable inability to grasp the gritty details of our species' greatest accomplishment in space is answered by an appeal to the diabolical:  it's not easily seen how it was done, therefore there was trickery.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2019, 03:02:24 PM
Indeed, I made this point way back on page 2 of this thread, complete with a picture illustrating that this service structure is even bigger than the umbilical tower (not to get at you for pointing it out again, some thirty pages later I'm not expecting everyone to remember that!)

Our zealous persuasion that Jr Knowing pick up his flounced thread was answered by his having simply reset it.  And now his failed regolith thread has gone fallow.  In any case, I expect there will be a group effort in re-raising all the prior rebuttals he has ignored in order to create the illusion of progress.

Speaking of the LUT -- they had to drop the "Saturn" from the front of the acronym -- there's a peculiar way we cope with vertical integration and fueling, the American idiom of rocket-launching.  The LUT is integrated to the MLP, but the MLP is, of course, mobile.   Hence the M.  The pad service facilities await the arrival of the MLP, which inches its way into final position and is lowered on jacks to the pad supports.  But then begins the whole process of connecting the ground services to the MLP, which necessitates checkouts and adjustments along the entire height of the stack, from the tail fins to the top of the LES.  There was no presumption whatsoever that rollout ended all the installation, adjustment, and repair activity in all parts of the vehicle.  For Jr Knowing to keep presuming this is, at this point, just plain absurd.

Yes we are belaboring this, but apparently we have to.

Quote
What, you don't want your vehicle full of explosives while it's in the assembly building or rolling out to the pad? It's health and safety gone mad, I tells ya! :)

Sure, there are safety concerns.  If the umbilical and service structures are full of people working, you don't want accidental discharge of a pyro device to possibly hurl metal fragments at bullet speeds into them.  But from a practical perspective, you don't want lightning strikes or mistakes in electrical wiring to detonate them prematurely even if there are no people around.  If the interstage guillotine or docking-lug shears go off prematurely, the lunar module is ruined.  You can't fly it without disassembling it and rewiring all those miles of hard connections that were severed, or remachining the frame that sported the lugs.  For situations like the staging and range safety charges, the explosives must be built into the structures they are meant to sever and can't be charged easily on the pad.  But the detonators for them aren't present until just prior to launch.

These are examples of things that must be addressed after rollout.  If there are mandatory post-rollout activities, then the notion that the rolled-out configuration of the vehicle is somehow inviolate is immediately a non-starter.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on April 03, 2019, 03:03:43 PM
It doesn't look right, therefore it is fake.
I don't understand it, therefore it is fake.
Take your pick.

<snip for brevity>

Well spoken and differentiated.  :)
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2019, 03:40:12 PM
There was no presumption whatsoever that rollout ended all the installation, adjustment, and repair activity in all parts of the vehicle.  For Jr Knowing to keep presuming this is, at this point, just plain absurd.

Indeed, it makes no sense. Even the fact that the vehicle was stacked some two months prior to launch should be indicative that other things were being done after this point. In JR's world they apparently just had a fully prepped vehicle sitting around for weeks doing nothing.

Quote
For situations like the staging and range safety charges, the explosives must be built into the structures they are meant to sever and can't be charged easily on the pad.  But the detonators for them aren't present until just prior to launch.

Yes, those are the ones I was thinking of. The idea that you'd have anything like a staging or range safety pyro device primed and ready before the last practically possible moment is absurd. Especially things like the range safety charges, the whole purpose of which is to split open the fuel and oxidiser tanks on the vehicle and destroy it. I know I wouldn't want to be looking at the rocket on the pad weeks before launch only to see it suddenly and unexpectedly split down the side and crumple like a house of cards!

Quote
If there are mandatory post-rollout activities, then the notion that the rolled-out configuration of the vehicle is somehow inviolate is immediately a non-starter.

And it follows that if there are mandatory post-rollout activities, there is also the possibility of 'last minute' alterations that can be carried out because the infrastructure in place for the mandatory activities allows it. So, the work platforms inside the SLA may not have been put there specifically so technicians could add more thermal foil wrapping to the legs, or add plume deflectors, but when the suggestion that these things were required was made, the fact that such structures exisited made it practical and possible to make those alterations post-rollout.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2019, 03:57:13 PM
It speaks to the notion that people like to understand the world around them, and largely the world doesn't present them with problems they can't reason through.  If you accept that, then it's not hard to extend it to mean that everything you observe should have a simple enough explanation.

Being a scientist, this I think is the key point. People do like to understand the world around them, but people can satisfy themselves with different levels of understanding. I took my desire to understand into the biological realms, primarily. I'm a biochemist. I deal with things on the molecular scale that explain why I can, say, mix a blood plasma sample from a person with a bunch of liquids in a plastic plate that will create a colour change that allows me to say that person has a particular illness. I chose to deepend my understanding via years of academic study and professional experience, and continuing interest in the developments in the field. On the other hand, I am happy to be typing this on a computer with a touchscreen and wi-fi and be blissfully ignorant of precisely how this thing works, whether that be the semiconductor quantum physics that makes the little magic black boxes with metal legs on that green board with copper lines all over it work, or the complex software coding that makes all this stuff do what I tell it to through tapping on this alphanumeric keypad or running my finger over the screen.

There is nothing wrong with this selective depth of understanding. There is far too much in the world for anyone to have a good depth of understanding of all of it. The difference comes in what I do with those different levels of knowledge. If someone wants my views on the subject of biochemistry I can talk quite a lot about it and be reaosnably confident that I am right (though open to correction or double checking). If someone wants my opinion on how to build a computer, I would have to decline and point to someone else I know who is more knowledgeable. With a conspiracist mindset, however, I'd insist I could build one because I read a book once and can google up some advice, and then I'd blame the operator when it failed because it must be right because my understanding is obviously enough, so if reality fails to behave as I expect some external force must explain it.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on April 03, 2019, 04:01:02 PM
It speaks to the notion that people like to understand the world around them, and largely the world doesn't present them with problems they can't reason through.  If you accept that, then it's not hard to extend it to mean that everything you observe should have a simple enough explanation.

Being a scientist, this I think is the key point. People do like to understand the world around them, but people can satisfy themselves with different levels of understanding. I took my desire to understand into the biological realms, primarily. I'm a biochemist. I deal with things on the molecular scale that explain why I can, say, mix a blood plasma sample from a person with a bunch of liquids in a plastic plate that will create a colour change that allows me to say that person has a particular illness. I chose to deepend my understanding via years of academic study and professional experience, and continuing interest in the developments in the field. On the other hand, I am happy to be typing this on a computer with a touchscreen and wi-fi and be blissfully ignorant of precisely how this thing works, whether that be the semiconductor quantum physics that makes the little magic black boxes with metal legs on that green board with copper lines all over it work, or the complex software coding that makes all this stuff do what I tell it to through tapping on this alphanumeric keypad or running my finger over the screen.

There is nothing wrong with this selective depth of understanding. There is far too much in the world for anyone to have a good depth of understanding of all of it. The difference comes in what I do with those different levels of knowledge. If someone wants my views on the subject of biochemistry I can talk quite a lot about it and be reaosnably confident that I am right (though open to correction or double checking). If someone wants my opinion on how to build a computer, I would have to decline and point to someone else I know who is more knowledgeable. With a conspiracist mindset, however, I'd insist I could build one because I read a book once and can google up some advice, and then I'd blame the operator when it failed because it must be right because my understanding is obviously enough, so if reality fails to behave as I expect some external force must explain it.

Isn't that how it always is?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on April 03, 2019, 07:35:40 PM
I can't get beyond "if it was fake, why would they do something you claim proves it was fake?"  Because if all this is a proof the missions were faked, it's so obvious.  This isn't hidden.  This isn't revealed after extensive effort, because it's quite clear no effort has been expended to understand the Apollo missions.  This is a whole bunch of readily available information.  So either NASA was spectacularly bad at faking a Moon mission yet somehow fooled everyone who had a reason to want to make NASA look bad at the time or else the whole idea that it proves a hoax is based on faulty expectations.  Now, I ask you--which is the more logical answer?

Though I expect jr Knowing to ignore me again.

Hi Gillianren,

What you say does make sense if you believe people in this world operate as one expects. But this world doesn't always operate this way. Overt, blatant, caught on film actions of governments such as the Saudi murder of the Washington Post columnist or literally 40 Mossad agents conspiring to kill a Hamas leader in a hotel barely creates a peep from governments even unfriendly governments. Why is that? And that is overt, blatant actions, what about less obvious actions? Hmmm... Hell you can have a complete genocide of millions of Rwandans and all countries become blind, deaf and dumb. To this day, you would probably be hard pressed to find even get 1 American in 100 that can tell you that Rwanda is even a country let alone the atrocity that went on. And you wonder how 6 or 7 fake manned flights to the moon might have been glossed over by other countries? Not saying it happened but countries, don't kid yourself, operate in ways we will never understand. So remember when Russia states they didn't shoot that Ukrainian passenger airline out of the air, they really didn't, wink wink, nudge nudge because the US government would have been all over them. 
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2019, 08:08:34 PM
What you say...

None of that irrelevant rant makes a dent in what she says, nor in what I said in response.  Your claims regarding Apollo are patently self-contradictory, and all you have to say about that boils down to "Well, that's just the way it is."  If you want this forum to take you seriously, you need to provide something more substantial than Alex-Jones-style spewage.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on April 03, 2019, 09:13:33 PM
Hi Jay,

Just to be clear I am not part of some flat earth, ufo loving, conspiracy bat crazy brigade. I am just a polite, peaceful Canadian :) looking to have a dialectic discourse on some questions I have. Whether the landings were real or not really don't mean much in the end. It is not going to change our lives one way or another. I just find it a fascinating subject. And I am not here to crush people's love of the subject or their idols. And to that end, believe it or not, I think Armstrong is one of the most decent, complex, and interesting individuals I have come across. Whether he actually went to the moon or faked it for his country, I would have loved to hang out with that guy. JR.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: VQ on April 03, 2019, 09:35:15 PM
Hi Gillianren,

What you say does make sense if you believe people in this world operate as one expects. But this world doesn't always operate this way. Overt, blatant, caught on film actions of governments such as the Saudi murder of the Washington Post columnist or literally 40 Mossad agents conspiring to kill a Hamas leader in a hotel barely creates a peep from governments even unfriendly governments. Why is that? And that is overt, blatant actions, what about less obvious actions? Hmmm... Hell you can have a complete genocide of millions of Rwandans and all countries become blind, deaf and dumb. To this day, you would probably be hard pressed to find even get 1 American in 100 that can tell you that Rwanda is even a country let alone the atrocity that went on. And you wonder how 6 or 7 fake manned flights to the moon might have been glossed over by other countries? Not saying it happened but countries, don't kid yourself, operate in ways we will never understand. So remember when Russia states they didn't shoot that Ukrainian passenger airline out of the air, they really didn't, wink wink, nudge nudge because the US government would have been all over them.

This is a bit OT and I have no idea if you are American and going from personal experience, but we discussed the Rwandan genocide for several days in High School world history. I think your "1 in 100" number is probably too pessimistic. But even if Americans are largely ignorant of historical events, there is a clear historical record that those events happened, that can be verified by anyone.

But in any case, on what planet are these arguments that a hoax on the scale of Apollo was feasible? Saudi Arabia can't get away with a single murder so therefore Apollo was fake??

ETA, just saw your last post. North American, got it.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2019, 10:00:41 PM
Just to be clear...

Nothing about what follows is a clarification.  You're simply trying to tell people you're one thing while you behave like something else.  You're trying to schmooze your way out of being repeatedly called on that misbehavior.

Quote
I am not part of some flat earth, ufo loving, conspiracy bat crazy brigade.

Your behavior is indistinguishable from theirs.  When cornered on the implausibility or downright factual incorrectness of your claims and beliefs, you simply spew nonsensical conspiracy-minded drivel.  In any case, that there may exist points of view and behaviors farther out on the fringe does not mean you're entitled to be excused for yours.  If you are unwilling to take intellectual responsibility for the truth or falsity of your beliefs, you will not get much respect here.

Quote
I am just ... looking to have a dialectic discourse on some questions I have.

No.  Today especially you have provided ample evidence that you have no interest in an honest dialogue.  None of your behavior is consistent with an honest exchange of ideas or an honest test of your beliefs.  Your questions have been amply answered.  You reject the answers, insult the people who volunteered for them, sneer at people who know things you don't, and insist that your ongoing ignorance be respected as erudition.  I can't imagine who you think you're fooling.

Quote
Whether the landings were real or not really don't mean much in the end.

Of course it matters.  The truth always matters.  And when it's a truth that, for many, defined a decade if not a century, it matters even more.  It stands as an example of what people can accomplish if they are well-qualified, well-funded, and well-led.  You are pulling out all the stops to find fault with it, so it clearly matters to you that it should be disbelieved.  And no, you don't get to excuse your misguided attacks by insisting that your target is unimportant.  That's just a common pre-flounce rhetoric; you feel better abound abandoning a debate that you've lost if you can convince yourself it didn't matter in the first place.

Quote
It is not going to change our lives one way or another.

You clearly don't believe that, because you classify faked-Apollo along with a whole bunch of other occurrences you say exemplify inhumanity, dishonesty, and corruption on an international scale.  As Gillianren correctly specified, you can't make a coherent, consistent argument to save your life.

Quote
I just find it a fascinating subject.

No.  The regulars here, whom you try to write off as ideologues, are curious and fascinated by the subject.  Instead, you grasp at every straw trying to demean and discredit it.  Even when posting "inadvertently," you simply bounce from one desperate hoax argument to the next.  You think that by attacking it, you will appear erudite and sophisticated -- "woke."  Nobody is buying that.

Quote
And I am not here to crush people's love of the subject or their idols.

No.  Writing off your critics as idol-worshipers doesn't help you.  People here defend Apollo not because the people involved are their "idols" but because they honestly care for what's true.  You claim you are respectful, but you can't resist all the little digs against your critics.  Therefore no one is obliged to treat you as friendly.

Now quit trying to curry favor with your critics.  Quit trying to pretend you're aligned with them.  Get on with answering the pertinent questions -- in this thread, those that regard your attacks on the legitimacy of the lunar module.  We're tired of this insincere posturing that's taken up most of your posting today.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on April 03, 2019, 10:54:14 PM
Hi VQ,

Judging by your comments you are youngster who wasn't around in the 60's and 70's. Yes, it is probably much harder to pull the wool over peoples eye's now than it was then. Access to information for the average individual (even country) is like night and day compared to 50 years ago. But even today, with reams of information at people's fingertips countries are able to "bury" anything if they really want to. You have to remember Countries, Press etc have mandates and agendas, (even posters here as Jay points out :) ) and they will direct the discussion what ever way they feel fit. And when that happens, people are left at the fringes to mumble about what they believe is really going on.

And getting back to the 60's, do you know the networks did not have a direct feed to the moon landings? They literally had to record the footage off a video monitor. Talk about access to information.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2019, 11:12:24 PM
But even today, with reams of information at people's fingertips countries are able to "bury" anything if they really want to.

No.  The topics you're bringing up in your misguided attack are not things that can simply be held secret by NASA or by some single government.  You claimed the lunar module would be inherently unstable if the thrust axis weren't perfectly maintained.  You claimed the plume deflectors would make them even more unstable.  You may be unaware of linearized free-body dynamics, but it is no secret to the rest of the world.  You claimed the SM reaction control thrusters would be endangered by the slipstream on the ascent.  You may be unaware of the detailed mechanics of flow separation, but it is no secret to the rest of the world.

The Apollo missions are widely studied in engineering and science schools all over the world.  The principles upon which the missions were based are well-known and cannot be lied about without consequence.  You need to get used to the idea that some questions do have right and wrong answers, no matter what you might choose to believe instead.  Not everything can be credibly lied about, and your arguments are rife with those things.

Quote
And when that happens, people are left at the fringes to mumble about what they believe is really going on.

No matter what the facts say, there will always be people mumbling on the fringes.  Right now you're quite clearly painting yourself as one of those.  You have shown yourself to be impervious to fact, not just innocently ignorant of it.  And right now we can't even keep you on one subject.  You seem to be eager to bring up all manner of new topics, probably because you have figured out that you can't bluff your way past the ones in this thread.  The regulars here -- those who are truly interested and curious about space travel -- have proven themselves to be far better informed than you on almost every topic you raise.  All you appear to have left is muttering on the fringe.  In your rush to pontificate about access to information, you aren't dealing well with everyone else here clearly being more informed than you.

Quote
And getting back to the 60's, do you know the networks did not have a direct f[ed to the moon landings? They literally had to record the footage off a video monitor...

You're changing the subject again.  If you want to talk about the slow-scan converter, start a new thread on it.  This thread is about your ignorant claims regarding the lunar module, which you are clearly unable and unwilling to defend.

By the way, before you start that television thread you might well be warned that one of our regulars literally wrote the book on the history of Apollo television.  Are you confident that you have your facts in order?  Or, like everyone else, are you just pilfering predigested tidbits from the conspiracy web sites and pretending that this makes you "really smart?"
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on April 04, 2019, 12:02:59 AM
Jay,

I am not trying to wind you up. Dial it back, please. Its not worth it. Its not like we are on National TV debating. It is a conversation with like only 10 of us talking among ourselves. I get your passion and your frustration of guys like me. But I am meaningless in the end. I love to debate ( as you can see :) ) but I want it to be a healthy debate where we can still have a beer together at the end of the day. Sometimes people will just agree to disagree on things. That's life.

Truth to me is always a moving target. What is true today, might not be true tomorrow. Creationist vs evolutionist.  Atheism vs religion. Science vs science fiction. Or put another way, in the immortal words of Captain Kirk himself,"all science is science fiction". In other words, nobody has a monopoly on truth. And one's views should be tempered with that thought. And if you follow that, as I do, I never take anything so serious it clouds my judgement and empathy about others and their thoughts. Regards JR.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 04, 2019, 12:14:22 AM
I am not trying to wind you up. Dial it back, please.

Stop trying to shame people away from criticizing your arguments.  If you cannot rise to the rigor of the debate you started, man up and admit it.

Quote
I get your passion and your frustration of guys like me.

Passion less so than frustration.  And not frustration so much as despair at the sheer arrogance you insist on displaying.  No, I will not indulge your hubris.  And no, I will not "dial back" my criticism.  You are treading on my profession, with a plethora of ignorant claims.  You will either rise to the appropriate rigor or I will hand you your head.  I work in a profession whose qualifying exam is 13 hours long.  I work in a profession in which I am literally legally liable for the strength of my findings.  I work in a profession where my skill is something I ask people to trust their lives to.  You're questioning one of the seminal events in that profession.  Do you think I have the least bit of patience for your ignorant waffling?  If you want to play engineer, do it somewhere else.

Quote
I want it to be a healthy debate where we can still have a beer together at the end of the day.

We are not friends.  It is not my goal to have a beer with you.  It is my goal to test your claims against our best knowledge.  This is a forum where hoax claims are presented, debated, and tested.  You have a right to be treated civilly.  You do not have a right to curry favor in order to dissuade criticism.

If you are not up to the challenge, just leave.  Don't try to convert this to a touchy-feely exercise where your arrogance is simply disregarded.

Quote
Sometimes people will just agree to disagree on things. That's life.

No, there are such things as facts.  You have grossly misrepresented those that bear on your beliefs and the arguments you're presenting in favor of them.  I will not indulge you in that.

You've spent the whole day in frantic attempts at social engineering.  I take this to mean you have no response to the evisceration of your claims regarding the lunar module.  Am I correct?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 04, 2019, 01:24:45 AM
I love to debate ( as you can see :) )

No, you don't. Or rather you don't understand where debate is appropriate and where it is not. Moral and ethical and political issues are open for debate. The facts around the physics of space flight, fluid dynamics, engineering and other such Apollo-related subjects that you started this discussion on are not.

Quote
but I want it to be a healthy debate where we can still have a beer together at the end of the day.

No-one is interested in having a beer with you. And you have been told how a healty debate works. One element of it involves conceding where you have made errors of facts, or where you are challenged to support your assertions but cannot. Neither of those has been forthcoming from you in any significant manner.

Quote
Sometimes people will just agree to disagree on things. That's life.

That's true where there is reasonable ground for thinking both sides may have merit. Designers of things like the LM don't 'agree to disagree' on the physics of how it works. Reality doesn't allow that.

Quote
Truth to me is always a moving target. What is true today, might not be true tomorrow. Creationist vs evolutionist.  Atheism vs religion. Science vs science fiction.

No, that is not a collection of examples of changing truth.

Quote
In other words, nobody has a monopoly on truth. And one's views should be tempered with that thought. And if you follow that, as I do, I never take anything so serious it clouds my judgement and empathy about others and their thoughts.

Waffle. Get back to dealig with the questions directly put to you. Once again I will ask you to show how that memo you brought to the discussion supports your argument about the LM stability, and where the second 'more detailed' paper that shows the RCS system needed perfect balance to work is. People here are not fooled or distracted by your pointless drivel about truth and debate. You brought things here to support your arguments, so stand by them or else retract the claim. THAT is how a reasoned debate on the subjects you claim to want to talk about actually works.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 04, 2019, 01:42:04 AM
No, you don't. Or rather you don't understand where debate is appropriate and where it is not. Moral and ethical and political issues are open for debate. The facts around the physics of space flight, fluid dynamics, engineering and other such Apollo-related subjects that you started this discussion on are not.

I'll subscribe to this.  Was Apollo a good idea, politically speaking?  That's a debatable subject.  Did Apollo fulfill its objectives?  That's a debatable subject.  Did the flow separate at the CM-SM boundary or at the individual SM RCS quads?  That is not.  Was the LM unstable because of the plume deflectors?  That is not.  Knowing how to debate the debatable topics is important.  Trying to debate matters of objective fact simply brands one as a crackpot.

Quote
No-one is interested in having a beer with you. And you have been told how a healty debate works. One element of it involves conceding where you have made errors of facts, or where you are challenged to support your assertions but cannot. Neither of those has been forthcoming from you in any significant manner.

This is very important.  Our claimant wants to levy material challenges at the legitimacy of the Apollo missions.  But when the rebuttals start coming in, only then does he want this to be a friendly banter among drinking buddies.  No.  That's just a fairly common tactic for defusing criticism.

Quote
Designers of things like the LM don't 'agree to disagree' on the physics of how it works. Reality doesn't allow that.

In engineering, reality vigorously bitch-slaps us if we get things wrong.  This is why I have no patience for the kind of posturing Jr Knowing is attempting. If he cannot rise to the rigor of the sciences he is invoking, then he deserves no attention.  I absolutely will not apologize for holding his feet to the fire.  Success in the professions that apply to space exploration requires stoking that fire to utmost.

Quote
Waffle. Get back to dealig with the questions directly put to you.

Agreed.  All we've seen lately from Jr Knowing is shameless posturing.  He has raised concerns about the engineering of the lunar module.  It's obvious at this point he's incapable of supporting those concerns.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: gillianren on April 04, 2019, 12:54:14 PM
Leaving aside that I don't drink beer, I don't participate in friendly activities with people who call me either stupid or a liar.  And if the Apollo record is as shoddily faked as all that, I've got to be one or the other to accept it.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 04, 2019, 01:30:12 PM
This thread has covered, and attempted to recover, several loosely related topics.  Summarizing it in the hopes of getting it back on track is problematic.

The suspicion raised regarding different appearance of the lunar module during various stages of construction, integration, checkout, and flight seems based on a premise that its configuration should be "locked off" at some point apparently prior to stacking/integration, and certainly prior to rollout.  This premise was not substantiated, and has been thoroughly rebutted by ample evidence.  Jr Knowing's rejoinder has been lately simply to restate the original argument and allude to the original premise as if it was never challenged.

The suspicion raised regarding modifying the lunar module after rollout seems based on two largely unstated premises: first that it was not possible to do that, and second that it was inadvisable to do that.  The former has been conclusively refuted.  It is simply factually incorrect, as evidenced in a plethora of sources.  The second requires more discussion, since it touches on several subsequent questions specifically pertaining to the RCS plume deflectors.  It is substantiated that certain operations that could be classified as assembly, integration, and checkout were due to be performed on the pad with the LM in the SLA, and that engineered tooling was provided to facilitate this.  The question whether that can extend to ad hoc installations such as additional footpad insulation or RCS plume deflectors seems moot.  The documented tooling was generalized for all manner of work inside the SLA.  Jr Knowing provides no evidence that the RCS plume deflectors and the associated insulation cannot have been installed on the LM while it was in the SLA.

We can separate that from the question of adding the plume deflectors to the design at all, regardless of when or where they were installed.  Jr Knowing has asserted several propositions along those lines.  He states one premise that the LM DPS axis must be maintained precisely, else the LM becomes uncontrollable.  The relevant science here is free-body dynamics.  The most common way of employing free-body dynamics is to linearize the effects on dynamic stability and solve the relevant matrices for moment, moment of inertia, and error rate.  Jr Knowing has not done this to substantiate his DPS axis argument.  Likewise he has asserted that the LM RCS must function perfectly in order to maintain stability.  This is similarly unsubstantiated.  Jr Knowing says it is suspicious that RCS failures prior to Apollo 11 were not considered when adding the plume deflectors.  This was thoroughly addressed, and he did not rejoin.  Instead, he claims that "peer-reviewed" documents from the design team substantiate his claims of instability.  He presented only one document, a memorandum, and failed to address the free-body dynamics discussion it contained that refuted his claim as it related to the plume deflectors.  He then claimed a separate documented existed, which he has not produced.

In other RCS news, Jr Knowing claimed it was suspicious that the SM jets were not provided with a fairing to protect them during the ascent.  He did not respond to requests that he quantify or characterize the expected degree of risk or damage.  When confronted with the fact that the high-energy flow separated at the CM-SM joint, he confessed to not knowing what that was.  This became a problem later when he mistook the condensation field evident in some separated flows as the flow itself.  Then he claimed, with no support such as a Prandtl diagram, that the flow actually separated at the RCS quads themselves.

The open issues requiring Jr Knowing's action seem to be:

That's quite a list of open questions.  What are the chances we'll get movement on any of them, instead of another day of shameless social engineering foibles?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: mako88sb on April 04, 2019, 02:47:08 PM
Hi Jay,

Just to be clear I am not part of some flat earth, ufo loving, conspiracy bat crazy brigade. I am just a polite, peaceful Canadian :) looking to have a dialectic discourse on some questions I have.

Well, since I'm also Canadian I feel the only appropriate thing to do is to apologize to everybody here for my fellow countrymen's discourteous, dishonest behavior and blatant trolling as well as his refusal to answer most questions put to him plus his obvious inability to admit to being wrong about most of his pet theories that have been blown out of the water.

Which reminds me jr, mind explaining were you got that $50,000 per lb of weight eliminated figure from and also explain why it differs so much from Tom Kelly's "Moon Lander: How We Developed the Apollo Lunar Module" book that states the bonus was set at $10,000 per lb of weight reduction?

and 

I'll ask you again for the third time to come up with plausible explanations for the Apollo 16 House Rock video including how they could fake the science of kinematics that would be capable of fooling experts in that field from around the world for the past 5 decades who have examined the live TV broadcast footage to validate the fact that those astronauts and lunar rovers interaction with the regolith is in a vacuum and a 1/6th G environment. Plus there's the science of telecommunications and the experts in that field will tell you that it would have been impossible to fake hours of live TV broadcasts that clearly shows them in a vacuum and 1/6th G plus video footage of what is obviously taken from some much higher elevations during the 3 J-missions.

No surprise at all to hear your on the other side. I didn't believe for one second when you said you thought there was a 99% chance the landings actually happened.


Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Abaddon on April 04, 2019, 05:17:38 PM
Jay,

I am not trying to wind you up.
Yes you are. Your problem is that you did not expect the vast range of subject matter expertise here.

Dial it back, please.
Facts are facts. One cannot dial them back, nor big them up. They are facts.

Its not worth it. Its not like we are on National TV debating. It is a conversation with like only 10 of us talking among ourselves.
It is worth it. This here is one of the top hits for Apollo Hoax malarkey. We collectively have a responsibility to ensure BS like yours does not go unchallenged. What is it you actually want? You want us to "dial it back" so that you can create the illusion that there even is a debate. Well, no soup for you. There is no debate.

I get your passion and your frustration of guys like me.
Frustrated? No. More astonished that anyone could possibly be so disconnected from reality.

But I am meaningless in the end.
Yup.

I love to debate ( as you can see :) ) but I want it to be a healthy debate where we can still have a beer together at the end of the day. Sometimes people will just agree to disagree on things. That's life.
There is nothing healthy about propagating lies and I would not share anything with anyone who willingly does so.

Truth to me is always a moving target. What is true today, might not be true tomorrow. Creationist vs evolutionist.  Atheism vs religion. Science vs science fiction. Or put another way, in the immortal words of Captain Kirk himself,"all science is science fiction". In other words, nobody has a monopoly on truth. And one's views should be tempered with that thought. And if you follow that, as I do, I never take anything so serious it clouds my judgement and empathy about others and their thoughts. Regards JR.
Good grief. Your philosophical source is Star Trek.

Well guess what. Most of us here are qualified in the fields in which you hold forth. That means we can spot and point out the egregious BS of any poster immediately. Your downfall was really your assumption that we were all as ignorant as you apparently are.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 05, 2019, 12:31:28 AM
Well, since I'm also Canadian I feel the only appropriate thing to do is to apologize to everybody here for my fellow countrymen's discourteous, dishonest behavior and blatant trolling as well as his refusal to answer most questions put to him plus his obvious inability to admit to being wrong about most of his pet theories that have been blown out of the water.

Rest assured my image of Canadians is portrayed more by Col. Hadfield than by Jr Knowing.

Since he's abandoned this thread (again) to go jump up and down on Wernher von Braun's grave, I think it's safe to say he knows he can't rehabilitate any of his engineering-type arguments here.  So we can declare his claims rejected.  Strange: someone who claims he wants friendly discourse -- and is, you know, Canadian -- would be expected at least to come back and say, "I guess you guys know this stuff better than me, and I'll give it the benefit of the doubt."  Instead he seems to prefer slinking away quietly.  More face-saving than honest discourse, I'd say.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: ka9q on April 05, 2019, 07:50:41 PM
Also, btw check out the 1 minute mark of the trailer. It shows the LM being transported from production to mating. It is almost unrecognizable versus the LM we see in space. The legs are different...
You forgot to mention all those little red tags fluttering from various parts on the LM in the VAB that aren't on the lunar surface. Do you consider that a revealing "problem" too?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: raven on April 05, 2019, 10:43:16 PM
Yes, the legs look 'different'. They were designed to unfold and lock into the landing position since they wouldn't fit in the adapter attached to the third stage of the Saturn V otherwise. Someone with an even cursory knowledge of Apollo would know that, but I am not at all surprised you didn't jr Knowing.
As a fellow Canadian, I am ashamed at your behaviour. You may try to distance yourself from the spam bot we have gotten recently, but your attempts at 'logic' are just as fallacious as there's.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Dalhousie on April 06, 2019, 03:24:16 AM
Yes, the legs look 'different'. They were designed to unfold and lock into the landing position since they wouldn't fit in the adapter attached to the third stage of the Saturn V otherwise. Someone with an even cursory knowledge of Apollo would know that, but I am not at all surprised you didn't jr Knowing.
As a fellow Canadian, I am ashamed at your behaviour. You may try to distance yourself from the spam bot we have gotten recently, but your attempts at 'logic' are just as fallacious as there's.

Does  Jr find aircraft unrecognisable once they have retracted their undercarriage?  What about carrier aircraft folded for stowage?

How does he or she cope with a Buccaneer, Gannet, or Osprey?  Are they almost recognisable and therefore clearly fakes?

Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 06, 2019, 12:07:03 PM
If you re-read the initial post, I don't think the Jr's concern was with the difference between the undercarriage in its stowed and extended positions.  He's talking about various temporary wrappings on the footpads and then the ultimate difference between the insulation and other surface coverings/coatings as seen during checkout and then in flight.  We know additional insulation was fitted after rollout, as well as the plume deflectors.  Jr was unaware that the SLA interior was accessible to the ground crew.  He thought once the LM was inside the SLA and integrated with the launch vehicle, the LM could not be accessed again.  Of course that's entirely mistaken.  Not only could workers get to the LM while the Saturn was on the pad, that was part of the plan all along.  It's also an an easy thing to find out -- especially if one approaches the web search with that specific question.  We've learned from his threads that he prefers his own speculation, supposition, and deduction in place of actual fact.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on April 06, 2019, 06:11:29 PM
It'd blow his tiny mind if he learned that they installed pyros to cut holes in the SLA to provide emergency egress for the crew working in the SLA if there was a hyperbolic spill.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 06, 2019, 06:30:25 PM
"Hypergolic," but dramatic either way. [emoji16]
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on April 07, 2019, 02:38:00 AM
"Hypergolic," but dramatic either way. [emoji16]

Autocorrect strikes again!
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Mag40 on April 07, 2019, 04:57:37 AM
"Hypergolic," but dramatic either way. [emoji16]

Autocorrect strikes again!

Don't you just hat that?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on April 07, 2019, 06:21:34 AM
"Hypergolic," but dramatic either way. [emoji16]

Autocorrect strikes again!

Don't you just hat that?

you need a spill chucker....
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: ka9q on April 07, 2019, 07:07:29 AM
It'd blow his tiny mind if he learned that they installed pyros to cut holes in the SLA to provide emergency egress for the crew working in the SLA if there was a hyperbolic spill.
I've been studying Apollo for years and never knew this. Learn something new every day, even things that happened a half century ago.

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

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

Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Peter B on April 07, 2019, 07:23:52 AM
It'd blow his tiny mind if he learned that they installed pyros to cut holes in the SLA to provide emergency egress for the crew working in the SLA if there was a hyperbolic spill.
I've been studying Apollo for years and never knew this. Learn something new every day, even things that happened a half century ago.

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

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

I likewise had no idea.

My question is, how was this monitored? Did they have the LM partially powered up to use its systems to detect a leak through a decrease in fuel volume or weight, or did they have sniffers of some sort, or did it rely on the crew themselves detecting a leak?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: ka9q on April 07, 2019, 07:40:58 AM
I don't actually know, but they almost certainly used hazardous gas sniffers. Even a tiny leak could be very hazardous to people in a confined space. Consider what happened to the ASTP crew just before splashdown.

Although both propellants have strong odors (hydrazine is "fishy" and NTO is acrid) you can't safely rely on them to detect leaks. Hydrazine is carcinogenic even in small concentrations, and NTO poisoning can be insidiously delayed. You feel fine, and then die of pulmonary edema the next day. Specialized detectors were almost certainly the only option.

The LM was supplied with umbilical power to keep heaters and a few other small loads going without digging into the LMs own batteries. The CSM took over this function during the cruise to the moon. But I don't think the LM had any instrumentation for detecting propellant leaks, certainly not tiny ones that could still be extremely dangerous.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 07, 2019, 12:47:02 PM
When were the LM and CSM fueled?

Around L-30 days, or starting June 16 for Apollo 11.  LC-39 is basically evacuated for a week, because you have to fuel the SM, two stages of LM, and the S-IVB APS, and (as you note) a single chemical at a time.  In his book, Jonathan Ward has a great diagram of the work platforms for working on the LM inside the SLA, as well as Polaroids of workers installing the insulation on the footpads and the commemorative plaque.  That's why the ladder taping differs in pre-rollout photos.

In order to meet the Kennedy end-of-decade deadline, integration and rollout schedules during 1969 were greatly overlapped and -- in a sense -- compressed.  Stacking for Apollos 12 and 13 were arranged such that if Apollo 11 failed to land, 12 (and possibly 13) could be rolled out and prepared at greatly accelerated schedules.  Keep in mind the VAB could stack four Saturn Vs simultaneously.  Part of this was because there were originally going to be pads C and D at LC-39.  But the real goal was to shift as much work as possible to the pad and the MSS so that a high bay in the VAB could be freed up to stack another Saturn V in case they needed to launch a new mission fast.

Quote
Once the tanks are loaded everyone treats it as a live bomb, carries a gas mask, and practices evacuation drills.

Jeff Quitney's YouTube channel had several excellent videos on procedures for handling hypergols.  Sadly the Copyright Gods seem to have smitten his whole channel from existence.  If only there were another way for him to share his vintage videos... (cough, Vimeo, cough).  In addition to ASTP, there was a post-flight accident while safing the Apollo 15 command module.  Even after the all-jets firing during the final descent, enough propellant remains in the CM hypergol tanks to cause severe injury.  This is also why Texas residents were warned to stay away from Columbia debris.  Even a tiny amount of these chemicals can be injurious.

At this point we have to remember the Titans.  The whole point of that system was to have "storable" propellants so that the missiles could be kept ready for launch at a moment's notice.  That whole infrastructure was stolen adapted to provide the safety protocols as well as the engineering.  The Air Force had a whole program for extending hypergol storage -- piping, seals, valves, etc.  And, of course, the specialized gas-sniffers you mention.  This all fed into Apollo, and this is what allowed them to load the propellants so early.  If you're thinking in terms of constraints, the constraint is, "When we are actively loading propellants, we have to evacuate the pad for a week."  When you schedule that week depends on many factors, and storability skills learned from Titan gives you more flexibility.in scheduling.  And yes, everyone who worked on the LUT or MSS after about June 22 had to be Propellant Hazards qualified.

Quote
Somewhere I have pictures of some friends jumping into the emergency chute from the top of the Ariane V gantry in Kourou during one of those drills.

Jonathan covers the escape chute and "rubber room" for LC-39 in some detail.  Fireproof, shockproof, self-contained, food and water for 24 men for a day.  He's the guy who probably knows more about Apollo launch preparations than anyone living today.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 07, 2019, 07:06:49 PM
you need a spill chucker....

See, I was going to go in a different direction.  Something like, "We'd like you to give the pathos and sarcasm tanks a stir."
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: dwight on April 08, 2019, 12:45:18 PM
And getting back to the 60's, do you know the networks did not have a direct feed to the moon landings? They literally had to record the footage off a video monitor. Talk about access to information.

Are you aware this statement is wrong?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on April 08, 2019, 12:56:23 PM
It'd blow his tiny mind if he learned that they installed pyros to cut holes in the SLA to provide emergency egress for the crew working in the SLA if there was a hyperbolic spill.
I've been studying Apollo for years and never knew this. Learn something new every day, even things that happened a half century ago.

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

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

This was new to me also, you do learn something every day if you keep an open mind.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: twik on April 17, 2019, 02:59:15 PM
Hi VQ,

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

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

Or the murder of Mr. Khashoggi, of which nearly complete details (down to the instructions to play music to drown out the noise of the bone saws) are known?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 29, 2019, 01:05:46 AM
Bumping this thread (again) since our poster has returned.  Jr Knowing, do you concede that you were wrong about the question of LM stability with the plume deflectors?  Can you explain the math in the document you referred us to in light of your claim?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 29, 2019, 03:17:04 PM
Let me elucidate a bit more on where we stand in this thread, given contributions in other threads by Jr Knowing and his critics.  Gillianren appropriately pointed out that no, we aren't obliged to agree-to-disagree amicably when the matter at hand can be factually resolved.  So what are the facts here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's see if Jr Knowing is able to reconcile his claims of LM stability with the mathematics presented in his own evidence.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: gillianren on April 30, 2019, 10:38:05 AM
Frankly, to me, claiming the Apollo record is hoaxed is itself discourteous.  It puts the person making the claim on a different level than everyone else.  It assumes that, regardless of their knowledge and expertise, they aren't smart enough to have spotted the hoax.  It assumes that everyone involved in the hoax was either not themselves smart enough to figure it out or else willingly in on it, neither of which are exactly compliments.  It's saying that people lied in the most extraordinary fashion.  It is, to be blunt, vile to claim.  It simply wasn't possible to fake the Apollo landings with 1969 technology, but even if it had been, it's arguable that anyone knowingly involved in it should have gone to prison.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: ApolloEnthusiast on April 30, 2019, 11:10:06 AM
Frankly, to me, claiming the Apollo record is hoaxed is itself discourteous. 
I agree with this 100%.  It is one thing to state that you don't understand how it could have been done, and to genuinely ask questions with an honest intent to learn.

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

That type of "debate" is, as you point out, inherently discourteous.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on April 30, 2019, 11:44:38 AM
It is another thing entirely to make a ridiculous claim like this without presenting extraordinary evidence supporting that claim, which of course, never happens.

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

I'm okay in the abstract with someone claiming the Apollo record was hoaxed.  But I don't stay okay if the claimant is unaware of the standard of proof he has to meet in order to make that a reasonable objective interpretation of the record, or is unwilling to meet it.  That's where we stand now.  Jr Knowing is utterly on the wrong side of the facts in this thread, yet is unwilling to concede that he is wrong.  This is someone who knows he cannot meet a reasonable standard of proof, but will not take responsibility for it.  He'd rather make stuff up, avoid the issue, and change the subject.  That is eminently discourteous.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jfb on April 30, 2019, 12:05:00 PM
The thing I tell people who claim it was all shot on a soundstage is to provide evidence for that soundstage - pictures of it in development, financial records, employment records, something.  These things don't get built for free, money has to change hands somehow.  You have to hire people to build it, to work it.  Equipment has to be purchased and maintained.  That income has to be reported for tax purposes. 

That's where HBs need to be looking, not at the imagery. 
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: ApolloEnthusiast on April 30, 2019, 01:36:20 PM
The thing I tell people who claim it was all shot on a soundstage is to provide evidence for that soundstage - pictures of it in development, financial records, employment records, something.  These things don't get built for free, money has to change hands somehow.  You have to hire people to build it, to work it.  Equipment has to be purchased and maintained.  That income has to be reported for tax purposes. 

That's where HBs need to be looking, not at the imagery.
And this is precisely where a hoax of this magnitude would inevitably fall apart.  Even if it were possible to convincingly fake a moon landing, how could anyone possibly hide the resources, both human and material, necessary to perpetrate it?  It takes hardly any research to find an enormous list of much smaller conspiracies, with far fewer people involved, that fall apart within weeks or maybe months at best.  It's been 50 years without any hint of the sound stage, contractors, crew, or equipment that would need to exist to validate the claim of hoax. 
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on April 30, 2019, 02:19:00 PM
The lack of sound sets won't stop the willfully ignorant from posting nonsense.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Northern Lurker on May 01, 2019, 09:22:59 AM
Also hoax narrative doesn't have any internal consistency. It is common to see a short clip and have claim that this was faked by wires. Next clip - slowed down film. Clip after that - Vomit Comet. While all the clips are from the same hours long telecast which makes it impossible to move the actors from Vomit Comet to sound stage or rearrange wire rigs for the next take.

Lurky
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: gillianren on May 01, 2019, 09:55:22 AM
The simple fact is, we literally do not have the technology to fake the hoax as it is documented.  The combination of film, photography, and physical evidence is not possible to fake and is considerably more complicated than just, you know, going to the Moon.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on May 01, 2019, 11:23:53 AM
The simple fact is, we literally do not have the technology to fake the hoax as it is documented.  The combination of film, photography, and physical evidence is not possible to fake and is considerably more complicated than just, you know, going to the Moon.

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


and

Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 01, 2019, 02:21:44 PM
The simple fact is, we literally do not have the technology to fake the hoax as it is documented.  The combination of film, photography, and physical evidence is not possible to fake and is considerably more complicated than just, you know, going to the Moon.

And yet this does not stop several hoax believers from arguing that NASA could do it because they had access to unlimited funds and secret tech. Why that makes it impossible to use such funds and tech to go to the Moon I don't know....
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: raven on May 01, 2019, 03:32:08 PM
The simple fact is, we literally do not have the technology to fake the hoax as it is documented.  The combination of film, photography, and physical evidence is not possible to fake and is considerably more complicated than just, you know, going to the Moon.

And yet this does not stop several hoax believers from arguing that NASA could do it because they had access to unlimited funds and secret tech. Why that makes it impossible to use such funds and tech to go to the Moon I don't know....
Searing radiation hell that no space agency corroborates, or, in Jr  knowing's case, bonking into that solid firmament, no doubt.
***
Look, Jr, you make much of the fact of you being 'polite'. Personally I find you condescending and passive aggressive, but let's say you are,  in fact, polite. Well, congratulations, you  win at basic human decency. Here's your ticker tape parade and women (or your genders of choice) who will flock to you like it's an Axe commercial.
Oh wait, that's not how life works. 
Now, I agree that being polite and level headed in discussions on contentious topic is valuable skill, but it doesn't change facts. It doesn't change you being right or wrong. So why don't you stop bragging about how 'polite' you are and start answering the fine people of this forum's questions.  I am no expert, unlike most of the fine people here, but I do know that someone who Gish gallops from topic to topic is probably not much of an expert either.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on May 01, 2019, 04:25:09 PM
Well, congratulations, you win at basic human decency. Here's your ticker tape parade...

The social engineering is a bit more subtle than that, I wager.  The unspoken addendum to the defense, "I've been kind and polite," is "...while you guys have not."  It's the age-old ploy of trying to soften an opponent's criticism by making it socially or morally undesirable to offer it.  His references to his own virtue are contrasted against shaming his critics for disrespecting someone whose views differ -- again, forcing the discussion to be about moral approbation rather than fact.  Seen in the light of it being no more sincere than a rhetorical ploy, I'm inclined more toward the "condescending and passive-aggressive" interpretation.  I don't give praise for insincere politeness.  If he's doing what amounts to calling me a bald-faced liar, then no apparent sweetness can be genuine.

Quote
Now, I agree that being polite and level headed in discussions on contentious topic is valuable skill, but it doesn't change facts.

Delivering factually bankrupt speculation and supercilious opinions coated in counterfeit sugar doesn't do it for me.  That's just the Dolores Umbridge version of politeness.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on May 04, 2019, 12:35:52 PM
All right, Jr.  Let's momentarily table everything except LM stability with the plume deflectors added.  It's not the original topic of the thread, but it's the topic on which I think we've reached the clearest moment of truth.

You told us there was a "paper" that proved the LM was unacceptably unstable with the plume deflectors attached.  Specifically you told us that an unacceptable feedback mode would arise.  You also specifically invoked the special nature of a "paper" in conveying, via such exercises as peer review, a sense of rigor and reliability in its findings.  You then produced this document.

The first thing we noticed is that it was not a paper (as scientists use the term, and as you intended it to be received) but rather a technical memo circulated among the usual suspects.  (Circuit memos were the 1960s equivalent of today's email chain.)  At that point you needed to have conceded that the document did not convey the degree of authority you purported.  But you did not.  You asserted, without evidence, that you must have been thinking of some other documentary source, which you still have not produced.  No critic is obliged to consider evidence that the proponent merely imagines exists.  Further, we who know the science are skeptical such a document exists because we can ascertain via other means that the conclusion you purport that it reaches is precluded by other facts.

One of those facts is clearly presented in the document you did produce.  The dynamic properties of any freely moving and rotating vehicle are strictly governed by Newton's laws of motion.  Those laws can be considered quantitatively by linear algebra, which provides a way to represent various rotational phenomena as vectors and matrices.  (Tensors too, in many cases, but we don't need that just yet.)  The forces that arise naturally, and which we apply artificially, can be modeled as "linearized" elements (i.e., rendered as the constructs over which linear algebra is defined).  This includes the effect of plume deflectors.  It's not a mystery.  This is what the memo has done.  While the memo deals specifically with the case of the docked CSM-LM, it refers to mass properties in a way that applies also to the LM alone in all cases -- namely the location, direction, and strength of the force supplied by the plume deflector.  That is invariant.  What varies in the problem is where the  rigid-body center of mass lies.  The physical arrangement of any body limits where the center of mass can lie.  That in turn limits the extent and orientation of moment vectors.  This is as mathematically rigorous and inarguable as 1+1=2.

Linearized dynamics problems are not unique to spacecraft engineering, or even to engineering in general.  But they are not commonly taught in general education.  We do not expect a layman to have experienced them.  Therefore you can be forgiven for not knowing this technique exists, and for not understanding how it works.  But you should have conceded that you didn't understand the relevant topics.  But instead of doing that, you just double down on your claim.  If you don't understand how the mathematics work, and specifically how they constrain where the center of mass can be in order to result in positive feedback, say so.  Don't keep avoiding the issue and riding the current of ambiguity.  And don't keep whining about an improper standard of proof. If your claim is submissible to a mathematically rigorous level of modeling, then that is the standard that applies regardless of your desires otherwise.  Your ignorance of the standard or your inability to meet it don't somehow let you off the hook.  You don't get to reject the standard just because it rejects your desired belief.

You tried a handwaving rejoinder (i.e., lots of performance but no substance) alluding to what you felt was the inherent fragility of any free body's dynamic behavior, and of the reliability of the Apollo RCS system.  The former simply doubles down on your "different view" without addressing any of the contravening fact.  The latter was thoroughly investigated from the documented engineering responses to the occurrence.  We discovered that you egregiously misrepresented both the nature of the RCS failures and their ability to present a hazard and affect mission success.  This is excusable by itself, since it involves equipment and principles of operation that are not common knowledge.  If you don't understand the engineering implications of what you read then you should concede as much, especially when corrected by professional practitioners who do know the equipment.  But you did not.  Further statements from the trove your memo was drawn from cast doubts upon your interpretation.  These were brought to your attention, but you simply ignored them as if they didn't exist.

Not knowing things such as (a) what a "paper" is, (b) the difference between positive and negative feedback, (c) what mathematics and physics govern free-body stability, (d) how to read and properly interpret technical material, (e) what other principles and facts are presented in your sources -- all that poses a problem.  Your incidental behavior in these debates cannot fail to persuade your critics to create an interpretational canon for your case.  Your critics will apprehend that you really don't know what you're talking about, but that you are easily willing to bluff; that you are more interested in promoting your belief than in discovering the truth.  This canon inevitably colors how they receive your statements, even those you fully intend to be innocent and forthright.  All your pleas for lenience and your complaints against your critics will be heard under that canon and, as you have seen, dismissed as mere posturing.  You don't get to engage in that sort of behavior and then ask not to have to deal with its consequences.  If you want congenial home, don't [expletive] the bed.

The quantitative stability of the LM is a ruthless matter of fact.  Your "different view" to the contrary is irrelevant.  You need to warm up to the notion that things you might have an opinion on are, to the contrary, matters of discernible fact -- and that your concerns really do have objectively discoverable right and wrong answers.  The items in boldface above need special attention from you.  The answer could legitimately be, "I guess I don't understand the math well enough to defend my belief, so I withdraw the claim."  You don't get to pretend that your ignorance is a safe position from which to rationally continue believing something.  If you can't address the math -- and it's clear you can't -- then you have to actually admit that you're wrong.  You have no reason to ask for friendly debate from others if you are unwilling to do that in this case.  Ignorance of fact is simply not a valid point of view.

Come on, Jr.  Prove you're actually as honest and virtuous as you proclaim yourself to be.  Close out this topic like a man.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Abaddon on May 04, 2019, 01:02:58 PM
Come on, Jr.  Prove you're actually as honest and virtuous as you proclaim yourself to be.  Close out this topic like a man.
Wait a minute, do we know for a fact that gender even exists among trolls?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on May 04, 2019, 01:51:59 PM
Come on, Jr.  Prove you're actually as honest and virtuous as you proclaim yourself to be.  Close out this topic like a man.
Wait a minute, do we know for a fact that gender even exists among trolls?

Good point.  Regardless, I wondered whether the phrase sounded sexist.  "...like a man" to me means something regardless of gender, but it could be considered inherently stereotypical.  The sentiment I wish to express is to rise to the occasion, regardless of hardship.  Apologies if anyone is offended.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on May 04, 2019, 02:45:01 PM
All right, Jr.  Let's momentarily table everything except LM stability with the plume deflectors added.  It's not the original topic of the thread, but it's the topic on which I think we've reached the clearest moment of truth.

You told us there was a "paper" that proved the LM was unacceptably unstable with the plume deflectors attached.  Specifically you told us that an unacceptable feedback mode would arise.  You also specifically invoked the special nature of a "paper" in conveying, via such exercises as peer review, a sense of rigor and reliability in its findings.  You then produced this document.

The first thing we noticed is that it was not a paper (as scientists use the term, and as you intended it to be received) but rather a technical memo circulated among the usual suspects.  (Circuit memos were the 1960s equivalent of today's email chain.)  At that point you needed to have conceded that the document did not convey the degree of authority you purported.  But you did not.  You asserted, without evidence, that you must have been thinking of some other documentary source, which you still have not produced.  No critic is obliged to consider evidence that the proponent merely imagines exists.  Further, we who know the science are skeptical such a document exists because we can ascertain via other means that the conclusion you purport that it reaches is precluded by other facts.

One of those facts is clearly presented in the document you did produce.  The dynamic properties of any freely moving and rotating vehicle are strictly governed by Newton's laws of motion.  Those laws can be considered quantitatively by linear algebra, which provides a way to represent various rotational phenomena as vectors and matrices.  (Tensors too, in many cases, but we don't need that just yet.)  The forces that arise naturally, and which we apply artificially, can be modeled as "linearized" elements (i.e., rendered as the constructs over which linear algebra is defined).  This includes the effect of plume deflectors.  It's not a mystery.  This is what the memo has done.  While the memo deals specifically with the case of the docked CSM-LM, it refers to mass properties in a way that applies also to the LM alone in all cases -- namely the location, direction, and strength of the force supplied by the plume deflector.  That is invariant.  What varies in the problem is where the  rigid-body center of mass lies.  The physical arrangement of any body limits where the center of mass can lie.  That in turn limits the extent and orientation of moment vectors.  This is as mathematically rigorous and inarguable as 1+1=2.

Linearized dynamics problems are not unique to spacecraft engineering, or even to engineering in general.  But they are not commonly taught in general education.  We do not expect a layman to have experienced them.  Therefore you can be forgiven for not knowing this technique exists, and for not understanding how it works.  But you should have conceded that you didn't understand the relevant topics.  But instead of doing that, you just double down on your claim.  If you don't understand how the mathematics work, and specifically how they constrain where the center of mass can be in order to result in positive feedback, say so.  Don't keep avoiding the issue and riding the current of ambiguity.  And don't keep whining about an improper standard of proof. If your claim is submissible to a mathematically rigorous level of modeling, then that is the standard that applies regardless of your desires otherwise.  Your ignorance of the standard or your inability to meet it don't somehow let you off the hook.  You don't get to reject the standard just because it rejects your desired belief.

You tried a handwaving rejoinder (i.e., lots of performance but no substance) alluding to what you felt was the inherent fragility of any free body's dynamic behavior, and of the reliability of the Apollo RCS system.  The former simply doubles down on your "different view" without addressing any of the contravening fact.  The latter was thoroughly investigated from the documented engineering responses to the occurrence.  We discovered that you egregiously misrepresented both the nature of the RCS failures and their ability to present a hazard and affect mission success.  This is excusable by itself, since it involves equipment and principles of operation that are not common knowledge.  If you don't understand the engineering implications of what you read then you should concede as much, especially when corrected by professional practitioners who do know the equipment.  But you did not.  Further statements from the trove your memo was drawn from cast doubts upon your interpretation.  These were brought to your attention, but you simply ignored them as if they didn't exist.

Not knowing things such as (a) what a "paper" is, (b) the difference between positive and negative feedback, (c) what mathematics and physics govern free-body stability, (d) how to read and properly interpret technical material, (e) what other principles and facts are presented in your sources -- all that poses a problem.  Your incidental behavior in these debates cannot fail to persuade your critics to create an interpretational canon for your case.  Your critics will apprehend that you really don't know what you're talking about, but that you are easily willing to bluff; that you are more interested in promoting your belief than in discovering the truth.  This canon inevitably colors how they receive your statements, even those you fully intend to be innocent and forthright.  All your pleas for lenience and your complaints against your critics will be heard under that canon and, as you have seen, dismissed as mere posturing.  You don't get to engage in that sort of behavior and then ask not to have to deal with its consequences.  If you want congenial home, don't [expletive] the bed.

The quantitative stability of the LM is a ruthless matter of fact.  Your "different view" to the contrary is irrelevant.  You need to warm up to the notion that things you might have an opinion on are, to the contrary, matters of discernible fact -- and that your concerns really do have objectively discoverable right and wrong answers.  The items in boldface above need special attention from you.  The answer could legitimately be, "I guess I don't understand the math well enough to defend my belief, so I withdraw the claim."  You don't get to pretend that your ignorance is a safe position from which to rationally continue believing something.  If you can't address the math -- and it's clear you can't -- then you have to actually admit that you're wrong.  You have no reason to ask for friendly debate from others if you are unwilling to do that in this case.  Ignorance of fact is simply not a valid point of view.

Come on, Jr.  Prove you're actually as honest and virtuous as you proclaim yourself to be.  Close out this topic like a man.

I was not offended by the comment.  In fact as opposed to some I don't use terms such as "xxxman" as gender enduring.  I know I'm a dinosaur from the past and don't wish any retribution from those who may be more politically correct than I.

I, as an engineer, don't have the teachings of an aerospace degree so I can't speak to the math required to solve these equations.  But since I'm not looking for fakery or fraud, I take for granted that the institutions involved in the Apollo program hired individuals that had those backgrounds to solve issues.  Sure they made mistakes, but not fundamental in nature, so that the missions were conducted as envisioned, addressing certain unforeseen problems as they flew.  jr if you read the missions you would have read they were not problem free and need solutions. to issues that cropped up.  Your videos of LM rendezvous with CM are a classic example of poor analytical skills.  From ALJ on Apollo 12:
Quote
142:03:49 Conrad: Lift-Off.
142:03:50 Conrad: And away we go.
142:03:52 Bean: Boy, did it fire.
142:03:55 Conrad: Yawing? Looks pretty good
142:03:56 Bean: [Garble] our descent stage - holding on.
142:03:58 Conrad: Looks good. ALSEP looks good.
142:04:01 Bean: [Garble] It didn't get the ALSEP.
Public Affairs Office - "Looking good."
142:04:03 Carr: Intrepid, Houston. Copy ignition; guidance looks good.
142:04:06 Conrad: Pitchover's looking good. Okay. Boy, you sure do [garble].
Public Affairs Office - "316 feet above the lunar surface."
142:04:15 Bean: Nice and quiet, isn't it?
142:04:16 Conrad: Firing like I don't know what.
142:04:18 Conrad: Mark.
142:04:19 Conrad: Thirty seconds. Thirty seconds; 177, 984.6, and out at 1900 feet.
Public Affairs Office - "1,594 feet above the lunar surface."
142:04:28 Bean: That's pretty good.
142:04:29 Conrad: We're on our way.
142:04:30 Bean: And at 1 minute, yaw right 20, Pete.
142:04:32 Conrad: Okay.
Public Affairs Office - "Velocity building up now, 264 feet per second."
142:04:38 Bean: Boy, there's that.
Public Affairs Office - "Coming up on 1 minute."
142:04:43 Conrad: Say again? Pitch program looks good.
142:04:50 Bean: Kind of wobbles around up here [garble].
142:04:51 Conrad: [Garble].
142:04:52 Carr: Intrepid, Houston. Looking good at 1 minute.
142:04:57 Conrad: Okay. We've yawed right 20. Keeping right down the pike.
142:05:02 Bean: Okay.
142:05:04 Conrad: What a nice...
142:05:05 Bean: Both tank pressures look good, Pete.
142:05:06 Conrad: What a nice ride!
142:05:07 Bean: RCS, right in there.
Public Affairs Office - "That's Conrad reporting they're going right down the pike."
142:05:10 Conrad: Yes.
142:05:11 Bean: Sure jumps every time those thrusters fire.
142:05:13 Conrad: Yes.
142:05:14 Bean: Flies smooth.[Garble] part of it.
142:05:20 Conrad: Mark, 1 plus 30, 745, 156. We're out at 9000 feet.
Public Affairs Office - "Presently 9000 feet above the lunar surface."
142:05:32 Bean: Too jumpy.
142:05:36 Conrad: Okay. It's just changing CG.
142:05:38 Bean: I know it. It's still smooth.

The RCS system on the LM corrected the changing CG, as Pete said, and it was a little "jerky"(my phrase), but not uncontrollable as jr would have us believe as he seems to believe.  No instability but controlled three dimensional movement.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on May 04, 2019, 03:14:59 PM
 Stealth flounce and hope for a fringe reset in 3,2,1........
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Dalhousie on May 04, 2019, 07:13:54 PM
Delivering factually bankrupt speculation and supercilious opinions coated in counterfeit sugar doesn't do it for me.  That's just the Dolores Umbridge version of politeness.

Excellent. I'll save that line.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: gillianren on May 05, 2019, 11:20:46 AM
Good point.  Regardless, I wondered whether the phrase sounded sexist.  "...like a man" to me means something regardless of gender, but it could be considered inherently stereotypical.  The sentiment I wish to express is to rise to the occasion, regardless of hardship.  Apologies if anyone is offended.

Not offended, but I'd suggest not using it.  Perhaps "an adult" would be a better version?  Because the whole point is that he needs to be responsible for his own actions, surely one of the important aspects of adulthood and something, I suggest, that I'm better at than any number of men.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on May 05, 2019, 11:24:46 AM
Not offended, but I'd suggest not using it.  Perhaps "an adult" would be a better version?

Yep, there it is.  Thanks!
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 05, 2019, 01:58:49 PM
To save everyone digging around for earlier comments, this is what jr knowing wrote about this specific document. JR, I have pointed out where there are outstanding questions for you to answer in bold.

Hi Everyone,

Here is one of the MIT documents.

The document provided is a memo, not a paper.

Do you understand there is a difference between a paper and a memo, and concede that this document is not what you present it as?

Quote
I will try to dig up the much more in depth paper.

It is months later, so where is this 'more in depth' paper?

Quote
To be clear it states

"Due to the presence of jet plume deflectors on the LM descent
stage, the use of +X thrusting LM jets for pitch or roll attitude control
of the CSM-docked configuration will"  "cause a
serious control instability"

This is what it actually states, and I have highlighted the bits you failed to quote:

Due to the presence of jet plume deflectors on the LM descent stage, the use of +X thrusting LM jets for pitch or roll control will, for some mass loadings, cause a serious control instability if any -X thrusting jets have failed off or been disabled.


Why did you snip those out of your quote?

I have attached an image of the text from the memo as well.

As is made quite clear, this instability ony arises in certain cases, where a very specific combination of mass loading of a CSM-LM docked spacecraft and failed or disabled -X RCS jets occurs. This is not an inherent instability of the craft caused by plume deflectors as jr mischaracterises it by his selective quoting.

Quote
Further it goes onto state that less than ideal conditions will lead to a positive feedback loop that will cause

"the vehicle will spin uncontrollably
in the counter clockwise direction."

What it actually says is that in very specific circumstances (not 'less than ideal', which makes it sound like the circumstances under which stability is achieved are the anomalous ones) a positive feedback loop will result under automatic control.

The memo includes a diagram (also attached) and a very simple mathematical equation to describe the circumstances where this instability will arise. The equation is:

M+X = (89lb)D1 - (59lb)D2

M+X is the net rotational moment (clockwise in relation to the diagram) around the centre of gravity caused by a jet plume from the RCS jet on the left side of the diagram that impinges on the plume deflector, assuming the one on the right is not working. Treating the spacecraft stack as vertical with respect to the LM (so the CSM is 'on top of' the LM) D1 is the horizontal distance between the centre of gravity and the RCS nozzle (essentially half the width of the LM and to all intents and purposes a constant in this equation), and D2 is the vertical height of the centre of gravity above the plane of plume impingement on the deflector. Because of the changing fuel and consumable loads of the two vehicles during the mission, D2 is the variable.

It can be seen that if D2 is long enough then the result for M+X can be negative. In this case the spacecraft stack will actually rotate in the opposite direction than intended. Under automatic control of course the system would try to compensate by firing the jet more and hence increasing the rotation in the wrong direction.

JR, do you understand that the memo is referring to the stacked spacecratf only?

Do you understand that the instability only occurs if a -X jet is not working or has been disabled?

Do you understand that this instability only occurs under automatic control?


Now we can do a little bit of mathematics ourselves. If:

M+X = 89D1 - 59D2

It follows that M+X is negative (the condition under which the control instability occurs) only if 59D2 > 89D1. This can be re-written as D2 > (89/59)D1. 89/59 is near enough 90/60, or 1.5, so M+X is only negative where D2 > 1.5D1.

JR, do you accept that or not, and if not why not?

JR claims that this control instability must be worse for the LM in solo flight, but you can see from the mathematics that instability only occurs when the centre of gravity lies more than 1.5 times the horizontal radius of the LM RCS system above the plane of impingement of the jet plume on the deflector. This places it above the docking hatch of the LM, so you can see that this instability can only occur with the CSM docked.

There is also a graph (again attached) that shows the region of instability in terms of mass and centre of gravity and total spacecraft mass, and again you can see that the LM alone does not fall into this zone of instability. What's more, the zone outside the grey area is described as a zone of increased stability in the case of diabled or failed -X jets.

Fially, the memo finishes with an instruction on how the crew can avoid the instability by using manual control and siabling other jets to avoid it in the first place.

JR, do you accept that this instruction is included in the memo?

With all of this information in this one document, I expect JR to be able to show how it actually supports his contention of LM instability caused by the plume deflectors, or to concede it does neither.

JR, which of these will you do?

And here is the ink to the memo itself:

https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/LUM117_text.pdf (https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/LUM117_text.pdf)
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on May 05, 2019, 03:02:59 PM
Jason, I believe that jrk will not accept the premises and will continue to splash about in his CT contortions.  But excellent recount of what has been posted.  :)
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: molesworth on May 05, 2019, 04:28:10 PM
Thanks for the excellent summary of the "paper", aka memo, Jason.
Quote
To be clear it states

"Due to the presence of jet plume deflectors on the LM descent
stage, the use of +X thrusting LM jets for pitch or roll attitude control
of the CSM-docked configuration will"  "cause a
serious control instability"

This is what it actually states, and I have highlighted the bits you failed to quote:

Due to the presence of jet plume deflectors on the LM descent stage, the use of +X thrusting LM jets for pitch or roll control will, for some mass loadings, cause a serious control instability if any -X thrusting jets have failed off or been disabled.


Why did you snip those out of your quote?

I have attached an image of the text from the memo as well.
I'm actually surprised that JRK made such a blatant attempt to misrepresent the contents of the memo, since it was pretty much certain that it would be examined in detail.  However, it's not an uncommon tactic for hoax-believers.

The memo includes a diagram (also attached) and a very simple mathematical equation to describe the circumstances where this instability will arise. The equation is:

M+X = (89lb)D1 - (59lb)D2

M+X is the net rotational moment (clockwise in relation to the diagram) around the centre of gravity caused by a jet plume from the RCS jet on the left side of the diagram that impinges on the plume deflector, assuming the one on the right is not working. Treating the spacecraft stack as vertical with respect to the LM (so the CSM is 'on top of' the LM) D1 is the horizontal distance between the centre of gravity and the RCS nozzle (essentially half the width of the LM and to all intents and purposes a constant in this equation), and D2 is the vertical height of the centre of gravity above the plane of plume impingement on the deflector. Because of the changing fuel and consumable loads of the two vehicles during the mission, D2 is the variable.

It can be seen that if D2 is long enough then the result for M+X can be negative. In this case the spacecraft stack will actually rotate in the opposite direction than intended. Under automatic control of course the system would try to compensate by firing the jet more and hence increasing the rotation in the wrong direction.

JR, do you understand that the memo is referring to the stacked spacecratf only?

Do you understand that the instability only occurs if a -X jet is not working or has been disabled?

Do you understand that this instability only occurs under automatic control?


Now we can do a little bit of mathematics ourselves. If:

M+X = 89D1 - 59D2

It follows that M+X is negative (the condition under which the control instability occurs) only if 59D2 > 89D1. This can be re-written as D2 > (89/59)D1. 89/59 is near enough 90/60, or 1.5, so M+X is only negative where D2 > 1.5D1.

JR, do you accept that or not, and if not why not?

JR claims that this control instability must be worse for the LM in solo flight, but you can see from the mathematics that instability only occurs when the centre of gravity lies more than 1.5 times the horizontal radius of the LM RCS system above the plane of impingement of the jet plume on the deflector. This places it above the docking hatch of the LM, so you can see that this instability can only occur with the CSM docked.
Unfortunately JRK seems to avoid doing any kind of calculation, even one as simple as this, which leads me to suspect his understanding of maths and physics is very limited.  I've pointed out to him that the science and engineering beats any "feelings" and "expectations" every time, and challenged him to produce some mathematical basis for his claims, but I don't expect to ever see a response.

I suspect that's also the reason for the Gish-gallop - he's very quickly out of his depth on any topic, so has to keep changing tack.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on May 05, 2019, 06:54:41 PM
I'm actually surprised that JRK made such a blatant attempt to misrepresent the contents of the memo[.]

Indeed.  I've been giving him the benefit of the doubt and suggesting merely that he doesn't understand the underlying science or procedure.  But there's always something suspicious about an author who knows exactly what to leave out.

Quote
I've pointed out to him that the science and engineering beats any "feelings" and "expectations" every time...

Some people simply don't want to acknowledge that the world works in that particular way, because they are not proficient with math and believe themselves instead to be highly intuitive.  In other words, they convince themselves that their common sense is finely honed to serve a variety of needs, even if a more objective and rigorous process disagrees.  I think this is why he so quickly shifts over into advocating "different thinking" and trying to shame people who don't appreciate the fresh, enlightened perspective he's bringing to the subject.

Quote
I suspect that's also the reason for the Gish-gallop - he's very quickly out of his depth on any topic, so has to keep changing tack.

Because the ultimate goal is ego reinforcement.  He has to show that his "different thinking" method and layman's observation get the right answer on at least something.  When he fails to keep the discourse steered in the direction of "common sense" observation and intuition, he has to abandon that ship and try again.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Dalhousie on May 05, 2019, 07:32:24 PM
Because the ultimate goal is ego reinforcement.  He has to show that his "different thinking" method and layman's observation get the right answer on at least something.  When he fails to keep the discourse steered in the direction of "common sense" observation and intuition, he has to abandon that ship and try again.

And if he can prove himself right on one thing, he can convince himself he is right about the others.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on May 05, 2019, 08:19:22 PM
And if he can prove himself right on one thing, he can convince himself he is right about the others.

Yes.  He figures it might take him several tries, but "finally' he'll prove that his particular brand of deep thought trumps everyone else's sheepish book-larnin'.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on May 06, 2019, 04:22:15 AM

Quote
"Due to the presence of jet plume deflectors on the LM descent
stage, the use of +X thrusting LM jets for pitch or roll attitude control
of the CSM-docked configuration will"  "cause a
serious control instability"

This is what it actually states, and I have highlighted the bits you failed to quote:

Due to the presence of jet plume deflectors on the LM descent stage, the use of +X thrusting LM jets for pitch or roll control will, for some mass loadings, cause a serious control instability if any -X thrusting jets have failed off or been disabled.


Why did you snip those out of your quote?

An excellent post, thank you.

Why did he cherry-pick the memo? To me, it is simple. He doesn't understand the maths or the first principles on which the memo is based. He has no interest in learning or doing the "hard miles" needed. All he is interested in doing is confirming his internal biases. One of his conspiricist friends on some YT video or on some forum will have shown him this memo and his desire to show the Apollo program as a hoax makes it easy for him to join the words into a sentence that appeals to his bias. His actions are really nothing more than confirmation bias, ignorance (of the maths and the principles that govern the motion of the LM), rank laziness (or possibly a lack of talent needed to learn the maths) and ego (his "commonsense" outranks trained professionals in this field).

In other words, exactly the same characteristics of the scores of other blowhard hoaxies who have had their arses handed to them over and over on these pages.

I doubt that we'll be seeing much of him again.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Abaddon on May 06, 2019, 07:35:44 AM
Come on, Jr.  Prove you're actually as honest and virtuous as you proclaim yourself to be.  Close out this topic like a man.
Wait a minute, do we know for a fact that gender even exists among trolls?

Good point.  Regardless, I wondered whether the phrase sounded sexist.  "...like a man" to me means something regardless of gender, but it could be considered inherently stereotypical.  The sentiment I wish to express is to rise to the occasion, regardless of hardship.  Apologies if anyone is offended.
I wasn't offended.

Nevertheless, I do pay attention to such detail. My eldest daughter is now my eldest son and I am a volunteer on the transgender family support lines. One of my bugbears is that pronouns fundamentally do not matter so stop getting hung up on those or so I try to tell them. Or explain to them as best I can.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: gillianren on May 06, 2019, 10:11:02 AM
Yep, there it is.  Thanks!

You're quite welcome!  I may not contribute much to the engineering end of the conversation, but I've got 42 years' experience in being female!
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on May 06, 2019, 11:40:01 AM
Nevertheless, I do pay attention to such detail.

As should we all.  I hope to acquire the skill of translating outmoded expressions into ones that offend only in the ways they were meant to.  ;D

Quote
My eldest daughter is now my eldest son and I am a volunteer on the transgender family support lines.

Good on you!  We have a serious problem here in Utah with vulnerable groups like that living in the shadow of a powerful conservative religion.

Quote
One of my bugbears is that pronouns fundamentally do not matter so stop getting hung up on those or so I try to tell them. Or explain to them as best I can.

I see the pronoun debate as a proxy for taking seriously the larger identity debate.  Which is to say, I see why it's important to those who try to make it important to others.  When enough time passes that general respect for the preferred gender is normalized in our culture, we probably won't be as hung up about the pronouns.

You're quite welcome!  I may not contribute much to the engineering end of the conversation, but I've got 42 years' experience in being female!

Indeed, plus the skill of analyzing the written word to know what people mean to say.  My sister is a West Point graduate and later an M.P.  She definitely wouldn't buy into the notion that "...like a man" should imply that only men are expected to be responsible adults.  On the flip side, as part of the 21st century social landscape, we have to pay closer attention also to toxic masculinity.  "...Like a man" reinforces silly male stereotypes of requisite stoicism.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: gillianren on May 07, 2019, 09:53:05 AM
Simon's got long blond curls, and he doesn't like being misgendered--he gets called a girl a lot, and it bothers him.  Because he knows he's not a girl.  How hard it must be when that happens because you don't feel you belong in the body you were born with.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on May 07, 2019, 11:57:20 AM
My college-age brother-in-law is slender and gracile.  Even though his genetics don't really allow for it, he does his best to grow facial hair in hopes of not being constantly misgendered.  My experience with gender dysphoria is limited to friends in my circle, but it runs the gamut from people who are simply misgendered because of their appearance all the way to people who live full-time as a gender other than that into which they were biologically born.  It makes for some fascinating conversation.

ObDynamics:  "Did you just assume my stability?" -- Lunar Module, probably
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: jr Knowing on May 08, 2019, 12:26:07 PM
Hi Jay,

I surrender. But to be clear, that MIT paper states plume deflectors can and will create serious stability issues under certain circumstances to the point it will go into "an uncontrollable spin".  Yes, the MIT paper deals with a different situation but I think it can be apply to other situations too. Having said this, this is only one paper by one person. They could be dead wrong on his conclusions. But that is not the point. There are reasoned viewpoints by qualified individuals that appear to have differing opinions than the 'mainstream' viewpoint. Case in point, I can dredge up numerous papers from a contingent of qualified people prior to the Apollo missions (and after) who felt the VAB issues were and are insurmountable. But obviously they are wrong because the missions went off without any hitches regarding the VAB's. But that is not the same thing as proof. Just because we are told it occurred doesn't mean it is true or verified. Otherwise, yes, Moses did part the Red Sea, inflation has only been 1 percent a year for the last decade, and eggs are good for you (or not) (I am not looking to go down the VAB, religion, government, health rabbit holes. These are just examples to show things are not always black and white). JR
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on May 08, 2019, 12:46:34 PM
Hi Jay,

I surrender. But to be clear, that MIT paper states plume deflectors can and will create serious stability issues under certain circumstances to the point it will go into "an uncontrollable spin".  Yes, the MIT paper deals with a different situation but I think it can be apply to other situations too. Having said this, this is only one paper by one person. They could be dead wrong on his conclusions. But that is not the point. There are reasoned viewpoints by qualified individuals that appear to have differing opinions than the 'mainstream' viewpoint. Case in point, I can dredge up numerous papers from a contingent of qualified people prior to the Apollo missions (and after) who felt the VAB issues were and are insurmountable. But obviously they are wrong because the missions went off without any hitches regarding the VAB's. But that is not the same thing as proof. Just because we are told it occurred doesn't mean it is true or verified. Otherwise, yes, Moses did part the Red Sea, inflation has only been 1 percent a year for the last decade, and eggs are good for you (or not) (I am not looking to go down the VAB, religion, government, health rabbit holes. These are just examples to show things are not always black and white). JR

Since you are surrendering your on The LM, Don't bring up another issue within this thread as it if off topic start a new thread or better yet answer questions poised in the other threads you have created.  I'm not going to even add an answer.  Others may choose to do so.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: ApolloEnthusiast on May 08, 2019, 01:15:54 PM
He didn't "surrender".  Immediately after "surrendering" he misrepresented the MIT memo as a paper again, restated exactly what he had previously and incorrectly claimed was in the memo, and went on a diatribe about non-mainstream viewpoints being valid because of unnamed papers by unnamed authors that we must accept are qualified and relevant for reasons.

By his definition of "surrender" Pickett surrendered to the Union forces at Gettysburg...
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: bknight on May 08, 2019, 01:41:58 PM
He didn't "surrender".  Immediately after "surrendering" he misrepresented the MIT memo as a paper again, restated exactly what he had previously and incorrectly claimed was in the memo, and went on a diatribe about non-mainstream viewpoints being valid because of unnamed papers by unnamed authors that we must accept are qualified and relevant for reasons.

By his definition of "surrender" Pickett surrendered to the Union forces at Gettysburg...

As pointed out several times the issue was with the LM/CSM combination, whether he understands is another matter.  The continuing diatribe is at tempt to further the "discussion", however bring up the VAB is off topic.  He needs to concentrate on answering the questions in the other threads and then start a new one, IMO.  Nothing further to post in this thread.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 08, 2019, 01:56:40 PM
Hi Jay,

I surrender. But to be clear, that MIT paper states plume deflectors can and will create serious stability issues under certain circumstances to the point it will go into "an uncontrollable spin". 

That's right, under very specific circumstances. Circumstances you neglected to mention when you were finally persuaded to produce the paper that you were relying on for your big 'aha' moment.

Quote
Yes, the MIT paper deals with a different situation but I think it can be apply to other situations too.

Nope, that's not how it works, you can't pull a rabbit out of the hat twice. Especially when it's dead. What you think is irrelevant.

Quote
Having said this, this is only one paper by one person. They could be dead wrong on his conclusions.

The paper you were pinning all your hopes on isn't what you hoped so you're abandoning it? Does your neck hurt from the whiplash change of view?

Quote
But that is not the point.

Then why bring it up? If you think the paper could be wrong, or know of any others that prove your shiny new point of view about its contents then let's see them. Otherwise the point that everyone here made is true: you were wrong, both factually and in your attempt to cherry pick quotes in the hope no-one would notice.

And deflection in 3..2..1.....

Quote
There are reasoned viewpoints by qualified individuals that appear to have differing opinions than the 'mainstream' viewpoint.

Name them.

Quote
Case in point, I can dredge up numerous papers from a contingent of qualified people prior to the Apollo missions (and after) who felt the VAB issues were and are insurmountable.

Let's see them. Let's also see if their view changed once there was an adequate supply of data. Let's see if there are any modern qualified people who think the VAB 'issues' are insurmountable .

Quote
But obviously they are wrong because the missions went off without any hitches regarding the VAB's.

Yes, they were.

Quote
But that is not the same thing as proof.

Apollo missions using safe pathways through the VAB without killing the crew isn't proof that they used safe pathways through the VAB and nobody died?

Quote
Just because we are told it occurred doesn't mean it is true or verified.

It is verified. You are making the typical mistake of every HB of trying to latch on to a single issue (and failing) as if it is the only thing that acts as a source of proof. There is a mass of consistent evidence, with no contradictions in any of it, that supports the Apollo missions as historical fact. From live TV showing Earth to Chinese lunar probes showing evidence of human activity. You have barely scratched the surface of it.

Quote
Otherwise, yes, Moses did part the Red Sea, inflation has only been 1 percent a year for the last decade, and eggs are good for you (or not) (I am not looking to go down the VAB, religion, government, health rabbit holes. These are just examples to show things are not always black and white). JR

Yes, they are. Apollo went to the moon. It's that simple. There is no "might" or "possibly" or "could have" - they did. Fact. Your examples are just feeble attempts to hide your failure here.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on May 08, 2019, 02:00:30 PM
Yawn.  Oh, look, the same old rhetorical stunts.

I surrender.

Except that the whole rest of your post is you not surrendering, but instead restarting all your failed arguments.  If you had truly intended to surrender, you would have ended your post there.  Hence I infer that you're not surrendering, but just trying to soften criticism.

Quote
But to be clear, that MIT paper states plume deflectors can and will create serious stability issues under certain circumstances to the point it will go into "an uncontrollable spin".  Yes, the MIT paper deals with a different situation...

The "certain circumstances" and "different situation" mentioned in the memo are so laughably remote that they didn't even come up during Apollo 13, the project's worst encounter with circumstance.  It has been painstakingly explained to you how improbable those circumstances are, and it has been shown to you -- with a proof that attains mathematical rigor -- that the LM is suitably stable in all other circumstances, including under manual control in the extreme failure modes mentioned in the memo.

It's clear by now that you simply don't have the mathematical understanding to determine to what extent this memo supports your belief.  I think an honest person would have admitted he didn't understand the math, and would have conceded something to the people who do.  I don't think you are an honest person.  Instead you're simply trying to say that the memo must somehow still actually be as alarming as you need it to be, math be damned.  An actual surrender would have said, "I confess I don't understand the math, but you seem to get it, so your opinion is probably better informed than mine."

Quote
...but I think it can be apply to other situations too.

Ignorant and wishful thinking.  The mathematics that govern whether it can apply to other situations have been presented to you, and it's clear you don't understand.  But rather than owning up to that, you double down on it as if your critics also must not know enough about the problem to be able to rationally say you're wrong.

You're wrong.

Quote
Having said this, this is only one paper by one person. They could be dead wrong on his conclusions.

This is your source.  You cited it as proof the lunar module would be uncontrollably unstable with the plume deflectors attached.  You wrongly characterized it as a peer-reviewed paper, and you still can't seem to take responsibility for that mistake.

That said, your source was thoroughly examined and determined by experts not to argue the conclusion you seem to have drawn from it.  Further, the experts have shown you how your source actually refutes the belief you intended it to support.  It's not clear what you're trying to do, but it looks like you want to discredit the source because it turns out now not to support your belief.  Wouldn't a more rational approach -- especially from a would-be plaintive capitulant -- be to say simply, "I guess I misunderstood the source?"

Quote
There are reasoned viewpoints by qualified individuals that appear to have differing opinions than the 'mainstream' viewpoint.

As usual, you are trying to convert the argument from being about facts, knowledge, and skill to being one about attractive or trendy modes of thinking.  You optimistically thought you could start this thread out by showing how smart you were about space engineering and science, and how your knowledge of it would show that Apollo must have been a fake.  Even recently you were still doing this, trying to bluff your way through a discussion of fluid dynamics.  But then when you realized just how far in over your head you were, you had to quickly find a new way of being smart.  And like every other conspiracy theorist before you, you played the, "I'm just a different thinker and thus smarter in a different way," card.  Either way, it's about you stroking your fragile ego, not a legitimate search for the historical and mathematical truth.  You get a different answer than the majority, therefore you must be special in a good way.  Instead of just factually wrong.

You tipped your hand, too.  You are trying to draw a contrast between "qualified individuals" and your critics here.  I submit that I am more qualified on the subject of spacecraft stability than the person who wrote that memo.  How?  Because the science on which it is based is well-understood by many people, including me and my colleagues.  But more so, because in the decades between when the LM was designed and now, we've succeeded in creating linear models for many more of the physical effects that contribute to stability.  I further submit that some of the other regulars here are at least competent, if not formally qualified.  This is not a question of the experts versus ApolloHoax.

Chest-thumping aside, this is a problem in your whole approach here.  Despite protesting that you respect your critics, you consistently fail to give them credit for knowledge and proficiency that they can demonstrate at will.  (Again, I think this arises because this is an ego-reinforcement exercise for you, and you can't bear the thought that you're not the smartest guy in the room -- regardless of how you define "smart.")  It simply doesn't enter into your thinking that you could actually be talking to people for whom linearized free-body dynamics are as familiar as a 10mm socket is to an auto mechanic.  You don't see any of your critics as proficient or competent; all you see in them are the examples of complacent mainstream belief that conspiracy theorists demonize.  You seem to have prejudicially rejected all the well-reasoned, factually fertile corrections of your critics as merely mindless support of majority convention, even if you don't understand it all.  Until you disabuse yourself of that selfish fiction, you should expect continued mockery.

And no, your fervent, anti-mathematical desire that the conditions warned of in your memo should apply more generally than they do does not result in a case of the experts contradicting the mainstream.  Your interpretation of the memo is not the expert's interpretation.  As much as you want this to be about the oppressive mainstream beating down the free thinkers, this is really about you not knowing what you're talking about, knowing that you don't know what you're talking about, and yet trying to bluff your way along anyway in hopes that someone will give you approval.  None of your critics here will oblige that.

You claimed you would admit it when you were wrong.  You've just amply proven that that was a lie.

Quote
...the VAB issues...

And there's the very predictable attempt to change the subject.

Obvious troll is obvious.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on May 08, 2019, 02:02:58 PM
Let's see if there are any modern qualified people who think the VAB 'issues' are insurmountable .

Thanks for the contribution, but please don't let him change the subject.  This is the thread about lunar module stability, and Jr Knowing desperately wants not to talk about that.  In the spirit of LunarOrbit's prohibition against him starting new threads for new topics, let's not let him hijack this thread as a way of getting around it.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Zakalwe on May 08, 2019, 02:32:48 PM

 but I think it can be apply to other situations too.
What you think is irrelevant outside your skull. Either show that it applies or admit that you are thrashing about in waters where you are totally out of your depth.

The rest of your post is nothing more than a display of weasel words. Shame on you.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Von_Smith on May 08, 2019, 04:36:17 PM
He didn't "surrender".  Immediately after "surrendering" he misrepresented the MIT memo as a paper again, restated exactly what he had previously and incorrectly claimed was in the memo, and went on a diatribe about non-mainstream viewpoints being valid because of unnamed papers by unnamed authors that we must accept are qualified and relevant for reasons.

By his definition of "surrender" Pickett surrendered to the Union forces at Gettysburg...

For just a fleeting moment, I thought he was talking about the Vehicle Assembly Building, which could actually have been referring back to the original topic of this thread, after all. 
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on May 08, 2019, 04:59:59 PM
For just a fleeting moment, I thought he was talking about the Vehicle Assembly Building, which could actually have been referring back to the original topic of this thread, after all.

And once we get some closure on the issue of the lunar module stability with the plume deflectors, I would love to talk about operations in the VAB and on the pad.  I even went up to the attic and got the definitive references on the subject, not just for this debate but because they're legitimately fascinating engineering topics.  Rocket science isn't just about the bit that flies.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 08, 2019, 05:56:59 PM
Hi Jay,

I surrender.

Except you clearly don't. Stop trying to weasel out of owning your mistake and actually answer the questions put to you.

Quote
But to be clear, that MIT paper

How many more times, do you understand that is a memo, which is NOT a 'paper'?

Quote
states plume deflectors can and will create serious stability issues under certain circumstances

Yes, but you presented it without including those circumstances. Why?

Quote
to the point it will go into "an uncontrollable spin".

To the point where the stacked CSM/LM spacecraft configuration will go into an uncontrollable spin under automatic control and IF one of the opposite jets has been disabled or has failed.
 
Quote
Yes, the MIT paper

MEMO!

Quote
deals with a different situation but I think it can be apply to other situations too.

I don't care what you think. The mathematics of the situation were presented in that memo along with a graph that allows you to see that the situation actually cannot possibly apply to the LM in solo flight, which was your original contention.

Quote
Having said this, this is only one paper by one person. They could be dead wrong on his conclusions.

Pathetic. THere is no other word for it. This memo was a document YOU brought to the discussion in support of YOUR argument. Now it is painfully clear you don't even comprehend what it actually says you dismiss it. That is pretty much a textbook example of intellectual cowardice. You can't even stand by your own presented evidence.

Quote
But that is not the point.

No, it isn't. The point is you have been asked some very simple questions and have demonstrated you are unable to either substantiate your views with anything approaching significant rigor, and unwilling to concede you do not know and are in fact wrong. You started this post saying you 'surrender', then tried to defend your stance again.

Quote
Case in point, I can dredge up numerous papers

I doubt that, since you still refuse to grasp there is a difference between a paper and a memo.

Quote
(I am not looking to go down the VAB, religion, government, health rabbit holes. These are just examples to show things are not always black and white)

Mathematics is. The simple equation in the memo you cited is. But you can't actually grasp it enough to use it even when being spoon fed can you?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on May 08, 2019, 06:35:46 PM
Yes, but you presented it without including those circumstances. Why?

If memory serves, he actually redacted the quotes to omit the references to special circumstances.  Am I getting that right?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 08, 2019, 07:36:42 PM
Yes, but you presented it without including those circumstances. Why?

If memory serves, he actually redacted the quotes to omit the references to special circumstances.  Am I getting that right?

Yes. Here it is:

Quote
Quote
To be clear it states

"Due to the presence of jet plume deflectors on the LM descent
stage, the use of +X thrusting LM jets for pitch or roll attitude control
of the CSM-docked configuration will"  "cause a
serious control instability"

This is what it actually states, and I have highlighted the bits you failed to quote:

Due to the presence of jet plume deflectors on the LM descent stage, the use of +X thrusting LM jets for pitch or roll control will, for some mass loadings, cause a serious control instability if any -X thrusting jets have failed off or been disabled.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on May 08, 2019, 08:14:40 PM
Yes.

Thanks.  For me that materially changes the moral calculation.  It suggests a deliberate attempt to mislead.  It's one thing not to understand the technical details and therefore not understand what conclusions can reasonably follow.  It's quite another thing to recognize the conditional statements that must be excised in order to convert a specific warning to an illusion of general applicability.  That's not different thinking; that's just lying.  Jr Knowing isn't being oppressed because of his different view; he's being rightly held accountable for deliberate attempts to deceive.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: raven on May 08, 2019, 09:30:54 PM
Yes.

Thanks.  For me that materially changes the moral calculation.  It suggests a deliberate attempt to mislead.  It's one thing not to understand the technical details and therefore not understand what conclusions can reasonably follow.  It's quite another thing to recognize the conditional statements that must be excised in order to convert a specific warning to an illusion of general applicability.  That's not different thinking; that's just lying.  Jr Knowing isn't being oppressed because of his different view; he's being rightly held accountable for deliberate attempts to deceive.
Reminds me of video from some of our equally morally and intellectually bankrupt old 'friends' which claim the Earth in the  spacecraft window was a cutout or transparency, but juuuust manage to leave out parts where it slips out of view of the window, something a transparency or cutout simply couldn't do.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 09, 2019, 04:05:45 AM
Yes.

Thanks.  For me that materially changes the moral calculation.  It suggests a deliberate attempt to mislead.

I agree. Worse, the fact he also included the original memo with the text and calculations intact suggests either he is totally unable to actually comprehend it and assumes we are as well, or he knows damn well it does not support his conclusion and is just trolling. Consistently misrepresenting it as a paper is not helping his case.

JR, I took you through the mathematical equation and its significance earlier. Either admit you don't understand it, use it to prove your point, or concede that it shows you to be in error. This is physics, not opinion, not debate. It is applying literally centuries-old knowledge of force and rotation to the (then) new spacecraft systems.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: Abaddon on May 09, 2019, 11:57:29 PM
jrK is not posting so much because of some other commitment. He is posting less because his goto tactic of Gish galloping and starting a new, unrelated topic as a fringe reset has been removed from him. As a result, he doesn't know how he might proceed. He can't sustain his position in this thread, and he can't divert attention by starting a new one.

Whatever shall he do?
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on May 10, 2019, 09:22:45 AM
Whatever shall he do?

Clearly saying, "Huh, I must have been wrong about that; thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding," isn't on the table either.  Which bodes ill for anyone wanting to engage him on other topics.  In a friendly debate, which is what Jr Knowing insists this is, one states a concession on points that one feels he would otherwise have won, for the sake of preserving the friendliness over the need to be right.  Here the need to be right -- even just a little bit right -- overcomes everything.  There is no reason to believe Jr actually considers this a friendly debate.
Title: Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
Post by: JayUtah on May 10, 2019, 09:49:22 AM
JR, I took you through the mathematical equation and its significance earlier. Either admit you don't understand it, use it to prove your point, or concede that it shows you to be in error.

That's why I pared away all the other issues raised in this thread, including the titular one, and focused on LM stability.  In this case it comes down to simple mathematics, the declaration and use of it being supplied by his own sources.  It is an issue on which there can be no factual question of his error, no credible impeachment of the source, and no wiggle room in the math.  He is as wrong as it is ever possible to be.  Hence on the one hand it could be a test of his mathematical skill.  Failing that, it becomes a test of his honesty.  Failing that, he should expect little in the way of further serious attention on any  topic.

Quote
This is physics, not opinion, not debate.

His approach really is quite insulting.  It's not enough for him to indicate an inability to understand the math.  He has to suggest that no one else can either.  He's so desperate to promote his beliefs as somehow still reasonable that he denies the ability for there to exist a conclusive answer.  If he cannot admit error when the question is so very black-and-white as this, then there is little hope for honest debate on anything else.

Quote
It is applying literally centuries-old knowledge of force and rotation to the (then) new spacecraft systems.

Correct; this simply as straightforward as angular momentum gets.  The effect on moment arms of a shifting center of mass is the introduction to the science, such as would have been taught in Newton's time.  We have developed it to a fine degree of precision in the intervening centuries.  There are no shades of gray on this particular point.