|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 31, 2011 10:37:47 GMT -4
Try to stick to the topic rather than jumping back and forth as you do. The topic is the validity of your method. Please do not distract from that, and please be so kind as to answer all the questions being put to you. Is this your analysis, or have you simply copied someone else's work? |
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Oct 31, 2011 10:48:59 GMT -4
So you have these calculations that are the basis of your claim. But why could the Saturn 5 not produce enough trust to reach of acceleration needed to get it into an orbit that people actually saw it in? It seems to me that either the rocket had to be heavier that claimed or the engines were not as powerful than claimed. Or do you have some other explanation?
|
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Oct 31, 2011 10:54:06 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by mcclellan on Oct 31, 2011 10:56:04 GMT -4
You're right: it's not a coincidence that all four methods suffer the same basic flaws to begin with. What "flaws" more specifically are you talking about? I have already said that this method has been validated on Ares X-1. Take a look here... First the original video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lgaW4piSusHere is the velocity info for this moment (4,6 Mach, or 1564 m/s):  Here is the video image frequency (30 fps, you can see it in the upper left corner):  Here is a animation consisting of 11 still images:  Measurement of the Ares X-1 length (36 pixels):  And so the final computation:  Which means that the gas cloud has moved 188 pixels in 10 frames (1/3 of a second). 188 pixels means 5,22 rocket lengths (188/36). Ares X-1 is/was 100 meter long. This means that the distance between frame 2 and 11 is 522 meters (100 x 5,22). This distance was completed in 0,33 seconds (10 frames out of 30). Which means that the rocket had a velocity of 1566 m/s according to this method. NASA claimed that Ares X-1 was going at 1564 m/s. So, 1566 m/s is quite the same velocity, right?Any objections? |
|
|
|
Post by mcclellan on Oct 31, 2011 11:00:07 GMT -4
So you have these calculations that are the basis of your claim. But why could the Saturn 5 not produce enough trust to reach of acceleration needed to get it into an orbit that people actually saw it in? It seems to me that either the rocket had to be heavier that claimed or the engines were not as powerful than claimed. Or do you have some other explanation? Who said that? NASA? According to these calculations Apollo 11 never went to any "orbit". One working theory is that the Saturn V rocket was not fully fuelled (perhaps only stage 1). |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Oct 31, 2011 11:01:45 GMT -4
Yes: the measurements performed in that analysis quite clearly take place at a point after the plume has finished its expansion after nozzle exit and the rocket and the plume are quite clearly moving in the same axis. The Saturn V analysis very obviously uses a part of the plume that is still expanding away from the rocket nozzle and hence is NOT travelling in the same axis as the rocket.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Oct 31, 2011 11:03:10 GMT -4
One working theory is that the Saturn V rocket was not fully fuelled (perhaps only stage 1). The acceleration in the videos you use for the analysis is ENTIRELY due to the first stage performance. If the rocket above stage 1 was not fuelled then the acceleration should be GREATER due to the lower mass. This also fails because stage 2 is quite clearly seen to be firing after staging. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Oct 31, 2011 11:16:22 GMT -4
A further objection: you said in the Saturn V example:
So, he gets the 'wrong' figure for the Saturn V velocity, and further says that it is likely an overestimate anyway because of the backwards motion of the exhaust, but when he applies the method to the Ares-1X and gets almost exactly the right figure for the velocity, this qualification of the result does not come up. Can you explain why he cites a factor that might mess up his numbers in one example but not in another?
It looks to me like he happened to get the right number for one example by chance rather than anything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcclellan on Oct 31, 2011 11:26:09 GMT -4
One working theory is that the Saturn V rocket was not fully fuelled (perhaps only stage 1). The acceleration in the videos you use for the analysis is ENTIRELY due to the first stage performance. If the rocket above stage 1 was not fuelled then the acceleration should be GREATER due to the lower mass. This also fails because stage 2 is quite clearly seen to be firing after staging. The whole NASA saga crashes due to one simple fact -- the rocket plunges into a cirrostratus cloud at an altidude of 6-8 km after 1 min. and 48 secs. Cirka 25 seconds later the rocket makes a sharp turn and starts to fly laterally (if not literally falling down). You can see this manoeuvre at 6:05 in Phil Pollacia's video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnF3O5ZOTnAWhen it is completed the gas cloud looks like this:  7 seconds later we see this:  How would it be possible to reach the orbit from about 15-20 km if you are not going upwards anymore? And how would that be done if the true velocity after 162 seconds is about 1000 m/s instead of NASA:s 2400? |
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Oct 31, 2011 11:27:04 GMT -4
mcclellen, how has this been accounted for? What do you mean by that, "how has this been accounted for"? Everything I see by this method you present has a margin of error from what I can see and looks flawed, from the height of the clouds to the film speeds used and converted to what speeds? There just seems like a lot of lee way in interpreting the information. The result =X plus or minus a certain percent. If you are pushing this then I expect you have looked this up? |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 31, 2011 11:34:34 GMT -4
What "flaws" more specifically are you talking about? Besides those already mentioned? The measurement here takes place several seconds after SECO, at which point the rocket begins to decelerate rapidly due to aerodynamic drag. Your author has validated only that his method consistently estimates rocket velocity too slow. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Oct 31, 2011 11:34:55 GMT -4
Cirka 25 seconds later the rocket makes a sharp turn and starts to fly laterally (if not literally falling down). You can see this manoeuvre at 6:05 in Phil Pollacia's video: No, the rocket does not make a sharp turn at all. It is moving in an arc for the entire duration after it clears the tower. What appears in that video is the passing of the rocket through to point on the arc at which is is moving more or less directly away from the person with the camera and then begins to move in an angle that is lower than the line of sight of that viewer. The rocket is not making any sharp turns, you're just not understanding what you are actually watching. It is going up, but since the Earth is a curve and the rocket is also moving in a curve, it appears to be going down from the point of view of someone at the launch site. I can't believe you don't already know about this effect. Or do you actually think all aircraft you see heading towards you in the sky are ascending and all heading away are descending, rather than maintaining level altitude over a curved surface and converging on the horizon due to your perspective as well? You have yet to show the validity of any method you have proposed that suggests that is so. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 31, 2011 11:36:33 GMT -4
Who said that? NASA? According to these calculations Apollo 11 never went to any "orbit". You have been show how your calculations are in error. You have further been shown other calculations which are not susceptible to the qualitative errors in your method, and which conform to expected rocket performance. |
|
|
|
Post by mcclellan on Oct 31, 2011 11:41:46 GMT -4
What do you mean by that, "how has this been accounted for"? Everything I see by this method you present has a margin of error from what I can see and looks flawed, from the height of the clouds to the film speeds used and converted to what speeds? There just seems like a lot of lee way in interpreting the information. The result =X plus or minus a certain percent. If you are pushing this then I expect you have looked this up? Every calculation has an error margin, including the ones presented here. Claiming anything else would be foolish. But as shown in the example with Ares X-1 the error margin lies in the region of ca 1-2%. But when we apply the same method on Apollo 11 we get a discrepancy of about 100 to 150% between the data we get and data declared by NASA. For me it's more than obvious, that NASA has mooned the world. If you choose to continue to believe their nonsense stories, please, be my guest and do so. It's not my job to educate or to convince anyone. |
|
|
|
Post by mcclellan on Oct 31, 2011 11:42:45 GMT -4
Who said that? NASA? According to these calculations Apollo 11 never went to any "orbit". You have been show how your calculations are in error. You have further been shown other calculations which are not susceptible to the qualitative errors in your method, and which conform to expected rocket performance. You have shown nothing despite of your claims. |
|
