|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 31, 2011 11:42:56 GMT -4
The whole NASA saga crashes due to one simple fact... No, the "whole NASA saga" is founded upon a mountain of evidence, only one rock of which is Saturn V performance. It is invalid to attempt to reduce a large historical question to one "bellwether" examination. Your analysis of Saturn V performance fails for a number of reasons that have been explained to you. Along what precise trajectory? Do you really understand so little of launch trajectories? Okay, I'm a professional engineer working in aerospace. Rocket performance is part of what I do for a living. Also, part of my training includes forensic engineering (not all engineers study this), which includes photo analysis techniques. It seems that you and the authors upon which you rely have made a number of simplifying assumptions that actually pose a grave challenge to the validity of your method and therefore the reliability of your findings. Is it any wonder that you get the wrong answer? Until you can provide some serious validation of your method, the difference between your findings and those of others is far more likely to be caused by the error in your method than by some supposed hoax on NASA's part. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 31, 2011 11:44:07 GMT -4
You have shown nothing despite of your claims. You have simply ignored all my posts. That doesn't count has having shown nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 31, 2011 11:50:58 GMT -4
Every calculation has an error margin, including the ones presented here. Your method has serious qualitative flaws, caused by failing to account for factors that are known to apply to such an analysis, but which are either unaccounted for in your model or simply acknowledged and assumed not to be significant. The alleged validation was done on a decelerating rocket while the analysis of the Saturn V was done on an accelerating rocket. Why would those be a valid comparison? What are your qualifications in photogrammetric analysis. Might the answer be "obvious" to you because you are unqualified to determine where your authors have erred? I will do so, along with all the other professional engineers in the world. I need no education from you because I do this for a living, and you clearly don't know much about it. As for convincing, that's what you came here to do. You've failed inasmuch as we've easily seen the flaws in your line of reasoning. You may save face if you wish and pretend you were never trying to make a case -- but you clearly were. |
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Oct 31, 2011 12:00:38 GMT -4
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. Not talking about Ares (sp?). The one is the Saturn launch. You say 6-8km for clouds, how does that affect your figures, film speeds accounted for etc. Your claim, you back up. So, for example what was the speed of the film and how has it been converted, what compression used if any to get to the bit used for examination? It may be bang on, I would expect to see this accounted for anyway. The rest is answered above. I am not asking you educate, show your workings out. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 31, 2011 12:09:48 GMT -4
Here are the errors committed to date in the analysis. Let me know when you can intelligently discuss any of them. - use of any part of a fluid plume as an allegedly fixed spatial reference
- use of the edge of a fluid plume as a velocity reference
- use of a reference known to be accelerating along a different axis than the axis of interest, without photogrammetric rectification
- assumption of affine proportions in a projected image space
- use of spatially-quantized measurement units without an error analysis
- use of convenience source for spatial data without control
- use of temporally-quantized data without an error analysis
- use of convenience source for temporal data without control
- validation against a non-propulsive fluid while alleging it to be an analogue
- validation against a solid-fuel rocket plume where a liquid-fueled plume is the alleged disputed analogue
- validation against a rocket in the reciprocal dynamic state with only a single-point velocity reference
- arbitrary application of plume dynamic factors between alleged validation and disputed analysis
- failure of hypothetical model to account for other photographic evidence
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Oct 31, 2011 12:18:38 GMT -4
I still await an acknowledgement of the first point that Bob B mentioned and that I elaborated on: that the speed calculated for the rocket by these various flawed methods is totally inconsistent with the much more clearly discerned acceleration on liftoff as a rocket of a known length accelerates from a standing start past a tower of known height in a timescale directly measured and called out in the flight itself, without recourse to pixel counting and measureing shadows or fluid exhaust plumes.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcclellan on Oct 31, 2011 12:26:14 GMT -4
The topic is the validity of your method. Two faults in one sentence: 1. the method is not mine, and 2. there are not just one method, there are several (at least 5 or even 6 known to me). So you shoud rather use the word "methods" (plural form). Please do not distract from that, and please be so kind as to answer all the questions being put to you. I have replied to all relevant objections. Is this your analysis, or have you simply copied someone else's work? See above - there are 5 different methods by different people (3 by Popov, 1 by Pokrovsky, 1 by SERVER NN). There is also a 6th method, based on the rocket length vs. rocket plume length proportions during the cloud passage after 108 seconds. As you can see in all pictures, these proportions are roughly 1:2 (rocket/flame). When the rocket sticks its head into the cloud it takes almost 3 seconds for the plume to reach the center of the hole. This means that the rocket-flame-length of 300 meters is made during this time, 3 seconds. Which gives us a ca velocity of 100 m/s and confirms Popov's method after 108 seconds. Take a look here: 1. The rocket has just reached the cloud, we don't see the rocket body, but the whole plume is fully visible below.  2. The rocket shadow starts to show to the left and move away from the hole.  3. The end of the plume is visible in the center of the hole, which means that the top of the Saturn V is ca 300 metres above it.  3 seconds have elapsed, and we STILL see the plume just entering the hole. How would THAT be possible if the rocket flew at a speed of 920 metres per second as NASA claims? Wouldn't the plume be ca 1840 meters ABOVE the the cloud level? Come on, let the truth come to you, don't resist the obvious facts. |
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Oct 31, 2011 12:31:24 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). In other words, you have no reliable information on why the Saturn 5 could not get into orbit. The design and power of the J1 engine is known and published information. The engines were designed by non-NASA engineers and constructed by non-NASA craftsmen. The tests of the engines were observed and documented. There were 5 J1s on the rocket and it rose from the pad at a rate that was consistent with the stated gross weight of the rocket. Why is it that these and all other facts must be dismissed because of a few disputed calculations on your part? You need to provide a more comprehensive narrative if you want people to take your ideas seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 31, 2011 12:36:26 GMT -4
Two faults in one sentence: 1. the method is not mine, You're proposing it and defending it. You may not have originated it, but that just means you can't be counted on to understand it and its flaws. The others have already been covered in this thread. No. See the list above. Why does repeating the same flawed methodology constitute a new method? What part of "I do this for a living" did you not understand? Instead of trying to browbeat people into accepting what is clearly a flawed homemade analysis, why don't you actually go learn something about photographic analysis, fluid dynamics, and rocket propulsion? You seem to think we resist your claims because we somehow don't want to "face facts." Instead, consider that we resist your claims because we can conduct a sober technical analysis that shows it to be in error. |
|
|
|
Post by mcclellan on Oct 31, 2011 12:40:53 GMT -4
Okay, I'm a professional engineer working in aerospace. Rocket performance is part of what I do for a living. Also, part of my training includes forensic engineering (not all engineers study this), which includes photo analysis techniques. Ok, so there's the rub, your professional prestige will not allow you to acknowledge that you have been misled all these years. But that's hardly the fault of the information that has been presented here? What you should do is to let go of the prestige and concentrate on the obvious facts. I don't care if I discuss with Albert Einstein himself, as long as the facts available are working against him, I will simply not give in for any authority. So that's good for you that you are a "professional engineer working in aerospace", you have my fullest respect for that. But I still claim that you have misunderstood all the velocity calculations. Your faith in NASA is greater than your sense. |
|
|
|
Post by mcclellan on Oct 31, 2011 12:49:43 GMT -4
The others have already been covered in this thread. Have they? Wrong again. We haven't discussed the Mach cone method, or have we?  Using the Mach angle you can determine the speed of any flying object, in this case the speed of an Apollo rocket. The formula is: sin φ = u/v = 1/МThe angle in this image is misleading, since the rocket is flying slightly away from the observer (the ALOTS airplane). But we know the width of the Saturn V rocket, which is 10 meters. Thus we could straighten out the proportions so they would be 1 to 11, and we get the following image:  Using this picture we get sinφ = 0,33. Then we get М=3 or v= 3u. Thus the velocity of Apollo rocket is Mach 3, or 900 m/s after 162 seconds. There are still other methods we haven't discussed. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 31, 2011 12:54:01 GMT -4
Ok, so there's the rub, your professional prestige will not allow you to acknowledge that you have been misled all these years. Nice try. My professional training and experience allows me to easily spot where you've gone wrong. I've made a list. What you should do is not be led around by the nose by people who pretend to have a technical background but who instead commit elementary errors. Do you have any personal qualifications in the applicable sciences that would allow you to see where your authors have made errors? You're trying desperately to spin this into a political or ideological battle when it's very simply a matter of engineering analysis. Nope. I gave you a handy list of all the things that are wrong with it. Come back when you have answers for all of them. What part of this has anything to do with faith in NASA? I'm just applying my professional expertise. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 31, 2011 12:59:56 GMT -4
So that's good for you that you are a "professional engineer working in aerospace", you have my fullest respect for that. But I still claim that you have misunderstood all the velocity calculations. Your faith in NASA is greater than your sense. What about his ability to tell if rockets fall down? Do you respect that? Because if NASA's information is wrong, that's what would happen. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 31, 2011 13:03:45 GMT -4
Thus we could straighten out the proportions so they would be 1 to 11, and we get the following image: Same basic photogrammetric error committed again. Please address the list I have composed dealing with the analysis you first posted. |
|
|
|
Post by mcclellan on Oct 31, 2011 13:10:36 GMT -4
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). In other words, you have no reliable information on why the Saturn 5 could not get into orbit. Wrong interpretation. I have reliable information that shows that Saturn V did't get into orbit. But... I don't have any reliable information on HOW IT WAS CONSTRUCTED. This we can not know, as none of us was allowed to look inside Saturn V. Don't mix these two things together. But we can have various ideas on how it was built. Maybe only stage 1 was fully fuelled and the others were empty, or maybe stage 1 was fully fuelled and stage 2 was only half-full. One thing is certain, the best rockets at that time, both Soviet and American, could take only 15-20 tons into space. To this we have an exception, the Skylab space station, with its declared weight of 77 tons, delivered into space by a Saturn V rocket. And it stands out as an anomaly in the context of that time. |
|
