Author Topic: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch  (Read 24471 times)

Offline Zakalwe

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1360
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #585 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.
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline Abaddon

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1090
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #586 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.

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1829
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #587 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!
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

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

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3177
    • Clavius
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #588 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1829
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #589 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.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

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

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3177
    • Clavius
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #590 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
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline jr Knowing

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 127
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #591 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

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2877
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #592 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.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline ApolloEnthusiast

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 32
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #593 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...

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2877
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #594 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.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1398
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #595 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.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3177
    • Clavius
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #596 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3177
    • Clavius
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #597 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Zakalwe

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1360
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #598 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.
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline Von_Smith

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch
« Reply #599 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.