NASA currently refuses to quote a neutral point.There is no
de facto "neutral point."
And that is know as the neutral point.No. That construct has no meaning in astrodynamics. The transfer orbit was a patched conic derivative which did not rely upon that formulation.
Many have tried to obfuscate that point.No. The problem is that conspiracy theorists try to simplify it down to their understanding, leading to concepts which have easy algebraic formulations, but no relevance to any real-world operations. You either understand astrodynamics or you do not.
Could you please direct me to the video of where Armstrong leaps to the third rung in a single bound?Apollo 11 live downlink, approximately GET 111:37.
history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.v1113715.movFrame captures are here on my site:
www.clavius.org/gravleap.htmlThose coordinates are nowhere near 400 miles SSW of Wake Island...But your evidence is only hearsay that NASA characterized the location of those coordinates. Just because Bill Kaysing says NASA has said something doesn't necessarily mean that NASA really said it. In order for your claim (Kaysing's claim, anyway) to have merit, there has to be a reference to where NASA has taken responsibility for that statement.
Many conspiracy arguments are based on what the authors
claim NASA has said, when NASA has said no such thing.
Dust would settle on the pads just as its allegedly settled everywhere else.Dust does not "settle" in vacuum the same way it does in air. The dust in this case was being entrained in an exhaust flow moving at more than 2,000 meters per second. Dust moving at that speed does not "settle" any more than a bullet settles when it hits a rock. There is no aerosol behavior in the entrainment regime.
I have looked carefully at all photos of the area directly under the alleged rocket engine and I can find no evidence of any ray pattern distinct or not.Well, so far you have used only the low-resolution thumbnail JPEGs from JSC. I submit you have not made a careful examination.
Explain the linear striations in AS11-40-5918, -5920, and -5921. Explain the discoloration in AS11-40-5921.
Not only where they visible on the test bed that Armstrong bailed out of...First, the rocket engines on the LLRV and LLTV were hydrogen peroxide monopropellant engines, not hypergolic bipropellant engines. Those produce vapor clouds as part of their operation.
In general regarding hypergols, your observation is confounded by the presence of an atmosphere. The hydrazines and their preferred oxidizer, nitrogen tetroxide, each reach with air to create a characteristic vapor cloud.
Further, any rocket firing in air can optimally expand its plume because the exit plane static pressure can be non-zero. This keeps the plume columnar and, by ordinary gas laws, at its peak incandescence and visibility. Since the engines we're discussing produce gaseous exhaust products, opacity is irrelevant; hydrazine bipropellant plumes are visible at steady state only through incandescence.
In a vacuum every nozzle underexpands its plume because no nozzle can practically achieve a zero exit-plane static pressure. This means the plume disperses and loses heat due to ordinary gas law behavior. It loses heat rapidly and does not incandesce.
The LLTV is not an appropriate comparison.
Also please reconcile your claims with Chapter 18 of Sutton and Biblarz,
Rocket Propulsion Elements, a standard introductory textbook for propulsion engineering. Among many statements, they say (p. 646), "The third or upper stage, which operates at very high altitudes, as very low emission intensity, because it has a relatively very low gas flow or thrust and because only the inviscid portion of the exhaust gas flow near the nozzle is hot enough to radiate significant energy."
...but they have been visible on every other rocket using hypergolic fuels.Not in a vacuum. Show
any hypergolic-fueled rocket firing at steady-state in a vacuum that displays a visible plume. In fact, show a steady-state firing of a rocket in a vacuum using any fuel, that shows a visible plume.
Here is the video gallery of a private space launch company. Note in its test flights 2 and 3, the RP-1 plume (one of the "dirtiest" in the liquid-fueled business) thins out as the vehicle reaches vacuum, until the point where it is no longer visible. In test flight 3, the staging failed and the second stage did not ignite. In test flight 2, the second stage ignites and does not produce a visible plume at steady-state.
www.spacex.com/multimedia/videos.phpPlease watch the following launch video very carefully.
www.chron.com/content/interactive/space/vdo/astronomy/mars/odyssey/launch1.ramThis shows a Boeing Delta II launch vehicle carrying Mars Odyssey. Note that its LOX/RP-1 first-stage plume disperses with altitude, as we expect. However, note carefully the steady-state combustion of the second stage. This model of Delta II used the Aerojet AJ10-118K engine in its second stage.
This motor is virtually identical to the Apollo ascent engine. It burns exactly the same propellant (nitrogen tetroxide and Aerozine 50). Yet it produces no visible plume in a vacuum.
The LOX/RP-1 and solid strap-on plumes are visible initially, as is the second-stage ignition transient. They are not ever entirely invisible because of, e.g., being obscured by the vehicle fuselage. But no steady-state plume during second-stage flight.
Keep in mind that launch vehicle analysis and support is one of the things I do for a living. You may be able to hoodwink the general public into thinking you have some knowledge of rocketry. But you cannot fool me. This is my bread and butter. Plume fluid and thermodynamics are hot topics now (pun intended), because rockets can be tracked back to their source by their plumes. Since most rocketry today is for military purposes, there is a market in modeling and analyzing plume behavior.
Not exactly: (AS11-44-6574)Your expectation of where the fuel tanks should be located and visible does not match the published design of the lunar module.
So out of 63 minutes I don't see too much exercising...You are the one claiming they shouldn't have been able to walk appropriately. You have the burden to prove this. Simply announcing your expectations as if they were fact does not suffice.
You know, a great big moon party...I fail to see how either the lack or providence of a party has any bearing on the question of authenticity. It seems as if you're simply loading down the question with random criticism, hoping to read something into the vague subjective impression of impropriety. This suggests that your conclusion is not the product of evidence, but rather that your conclusion is preconceived and is being buttressed even to absurd lengths.
Yes, like they murdered Thomas R. Baron.Where is the evidence that Thomas Baron was murdered?
There were 4 in the capsule that day.Name the fourth astronaut who died in the Apollo 1 fire.
I don't know about you but I'd be looking for a chair after that.Above I computed the acceleration load as increasing from 0.17 G and having a theoretical maximum of 0.68 G. Please either show how this computation is in error, or explain why two-thirds normal Earth gravity would be considered taxing.