Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
The Hoax Theory / Re: Doubting the power of the F-1
« Last post by Jason Thompson on September 30, 2022, 06:41:11 AM »
I can't figure out where this guy gets the impression that the S-IC thrust structure is "unbraced."

A combination of thinking 'looking at some pictures' constitutes serious engineering analysis, and a lack of understanding of what 'braced' actually entails would be my guess. It seems a similar phenomenon to those who insist the LM is structurally unsound when all they're looking at is the outer thermal/micrometeoroid protection layer rather than the complex structure underlying it.

Quote
The hold down anchors, which attach to the same structure, are some of the largest aluminum forgings ever made.

It always surprises me that of all the things to point out the 'obvious' weakness of, in no hoax argument I have ever come across has anyone said how 'obviously' absurd it is that the entire upward thrust of the rocket is held back by those four (comparatively) tiny clamps at the base of the rocket. Even knowing what I do and what I have learned from researching it and reading this site over the years, those little hold-down arms still look way too small to do what they do. The difference, of course, is that I understand that this is a complex system designed by specialists and my layman's skills are not enough to decide something can't work because it looks like it can't to me!

Quote
I love the structural "analysis" of people who just look at something and decide it can't be strong enough for the designated purpose. The field of indeterminate statics is daunting, but mastery of it allows us to build things like rockets. It's often non-intuitive.

That's one of the most fascinating things about they physical world to me. There's enough stuff in it that does work exactly how we would expect it to to give a decent foundation to 'intuitive' understanding of things, but there is so much that just doesn't work as we would expect it to at first glance. It's those things I fid the most interesting and the most rewarding to look into. Unfortunately s few seem unwilling to extend their awareness to the notion that their understanding may be incomplete.
2
The Hoax Theory / Re: Brother Bart's at it again...
« Last post by onebigmonkey on September 27, 2022, 03:27:58 AM »
Interesting twist here. One moon hoax loon on Facebook came up with this story bout an air police sergeant reporting a ufo at Cannon Air base

http://www.nicap.org/cannon68xxxxdir.htm

Again, what are the odds?

More digging reveals that one of the names on the list, Arthur Trudeau, has an alleged Roswell link.

So, my new theory is that our original alleged deathbed confessor is a deluded fantasist with a thing for alien stories. Whether his son is a party to that is a different thing.
3
The Hoax Theory / Re: Doubting the power of the F-1
« Last post by JayUtah on September 26, 2022, 06:11:42 PM »
I can't figure out where this guy gets the impression that the S-IC thrust structure is "unbraced." The cruciform structure whose intersection accepts the thrust of the inboard F-1 has both flanges and stringers on its web. It's the same structural principle by which a regular "schedule steel" I-beam works in building construction, only made stronger by stringers. The outboard F-1s are axially coupled more-or-less directly to the cylindrical fuselage.

The hold down anchors, which attach to the same structure, are some of the largest aluminum forgings ever made. Keep in mind this isn't just drink-can aluminum. This is aerospace-grade aluminum alloy. These alloys are, in some cases, stronger than steel. (U.K. readers please mentally adjust the spelling of "aluminum" as needed.)

I love the structural "analysis" of people who just look at something and decide it can't be strong enough for the designated purpose. The field of indeterminate statics is daunting, but mastery of it allows us to build things like rockets. It's often non-intuitive.
4
The Hoax Theory / Re: Doubting the power of the F-1
« Last post by Von_Smith on September 23, 2022, 01:24:25 PM »
Another Scott Manley video (starting up the F-1 engine) has brought out another conspiracy theorist. This one is expressing doubt that the thrust of the F-1 engines could be transmitted to the structure of the rocket through the engine gimbals. His view is that the 700+ tons of thrust pushing upwards from each engine on the gimbal structure would crush it. When asked what sort of engine thrust he could believe in, his reply was:

Quote
I don't believe it can be as much as claimed in the case of the F1 engine.  I don't attest to know the design or characteristics of the other engines that you've mentioned, the only research I've done is specific to the Saturn V and F1 engine.

There are other design features of the Saturn V that lead me to believe it was not as powerful as is claimed.  Firstly if you look at some of the more detailed pictures of the construction of the Saturn V, in particular of the thrust structure at the base of the first stage, you will notice it is constructed of relativity thin unbraced aluminium sections.  This structure is responsible for carrying the entire weight of the complete craft both on the pad and during its violent initial lift off phase.  Now bear in mind the total weight of the Saturn V in launch configuration is around some 2,900 tons!

Also bear in mind at full throttle the combined thrust from the five F1 engines is about 3,750 tons!  In essence the thrust structure is bearing more force than would be exerted if holding the weigh of a fully loaded  Gearing class destroyer!  As mentioned the thrust structure is made of an aluminium alloy and weighs about twenty tons IIRC.  It would be some mean feat of engineering if such weight could be supported by such a lightweight fabrication don't you think?

Also should be mentioned, that load would not be distributed evenly across the entire base of the structure, but rather it would be focused to the five points where the engines attach via the gimbals.

I don't understand the engineering well enough, so I can't debunk his comments. Would anyone like to have a go? Thanks!

Also he questions how much load an aluminum structure can support relative to its own mass.  For reference, a typical empty beer can weighs about 15 grams, yet it takes a surprising amount of force to crush it vertically without compromising the structure (by compressing the sides, for example).  An average-weight man (ca. 70ish kg) can stand on two structurally-intact empty beer cans without them buckling. 

Structure and scale matter.
5
The Hoax Theory / Re: Brother Bart's at it again...
« Last post by JayUtah on September 19, 2022, 10:24:30 AM »
All typical Sibrel. At least the English accountant gave us a more amusing ride along the way.
6
The Hoax Theory / Re: Brother Bart's at it again...
« Last post by onebigmonkey on September 18, 2022, 11:32:54 AM »
Well, the key to all this seems to be Cyrus E Akers' story, and that is proving very difficult to pin down. A quick free trial at ancestry,com is helpful, to a point.

What it reveals is that Staff Sergeant Akers left the military in 1973. That's it!

What we can glean from his widow's records (she is still alive it would seem) is that she didn't seem to stray far from her home state of Michigan until moving to Florida with Cyrus in 1977. There's an interesting record of her returning to McGuire AFB from Germany with her son in 1959, but that's all we get - there's no record of Cyrus travelling with her. The passenger manifest lists the number of military personnel but they don't seem to need to complete entry cards. Her home address listed on the immigration card is a PO Box in Kinross township in Michigan. This township is not far from Rudyard, from whence the Akers' migrated to Florida in 1977. In 1960 she is listed as a book keeper for a company in Sault Sainte Marie, which again suggests she has left the military (both she and her husband were serving at the time of the Korean War). Gene's schools are both listed as in Michigan, and he attended College at Sault Sainte Marie, so it seems likely that he never went to New Mexico.

All of this suggests one of two things. Either Mrs Akers stayed with or near her parents in Michigan while Cyrus carried on working whichever base he was assigned to, or Cyrus was nowhere near Cannon AFB and served at a base in Michigan, such as Kincheloe AFB. He could equally have been serving in Vietnam, as listed on his gravestone. If he was at Cannon, he joined his wife in Michigan in 1974 before they left for warmer climes.

The idea that Cannon AFB was chosen for filming as a quiet and sleepy out of the way place is also nonsense. In May 1968 it was chosen as a training ground for the 4429th Combat Crew Training Squadron, and it was also a training ground for the many pilots being readied for service in Vietnam. It was pretty busy, and as such would have been a monumentally stupid place to pick as a covert filming location.

The idea that Armstrong and Aldrn wre also popping buy to oversee the proceedings is also pretty dumb, given that their training schedule was pretty intense even a year before their mission.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11CrewTrainingSummaries.pdf

in summary: a dead guy says a dead guy said. The original dead guy said it, only then it turns out the other dead guy said it. The notes were stolen, and nothing else, but then a computer was stolen as well. The dead guy still manages to read the notes. All the other evidence was destroyed in a fire that hadn't happened yet. LBJ was there, while simultaneously partying with Hollywood stars and Apollo 11 crew were also there while at the same time training at the Cape. The secret location for all this was a busy training ground for soldiers and air crew.

7
The Hoax Theory / Re: Brother Bart's at it again...
« Last post by onebigmonkey on September 18, 2022, 03:15:47 AM »
Wow. Just wow. Not only did Mr Akers senior's obituary get mysteriously added to the 'find a grave' site not long after Sibrel's video, but now someone has added a screenshot of Sibrel's newly uploaded video, complete with link to Sibrel's site on it.

There's me trying to be respectful to the family by not revealing their details and someone does this!

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/48955542/cyrus-e-akers

8
The Hoax Theory / Re: Doubting the power of the F-1
« Last post by raven on September 15, 2022, 07:46:32 PM »
It's like the claims the onboard computer was not enough. They never say what would be in any qualitative fashion, just that Apollo's wasn't.
But, seriously, if it wasn't and they, say, lightened the load to compensate,  wouldn't they'd need to have to secretly develop entirely new engines for the first stage? As the acceleration of the Saturn V would be all wrong if the F-1 engines were lifting a lighter rocket.
9
The Hoax Theory / Re: Doubting the power of the F-1
« Last post by PDI-11 on September 15, 2022, 12:34:48 PM »
Quote
<-------------------------------------
I was one of them.  My profile picture to the left is me (middle) and my sisters visiting the pad two days before the launch.

At 65 pixels, it is hard to tell anything. Except I can see the shadows are not parallel and therefore must be a studio fake.  ;)
10
The Hoax Theory / Re: Doubting the power of the F-1
« Last post by Count Zero on September 15, 2022, 08:23:21 AM »
Literally thousands of people showed up to watch the launches live (and by "live" I mean *live*, in person, not just on live TV).  I think the only way you cast doubt on the F-1 is to suggest that "that big rocket you all saw" wasn't actually that heavy.
<-------------------------------------
I was one of them.  My profile picture to the left is me (middle) and my sisters visiting the pad two days before the launch.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10