|
|
Post by chew on Oct 31, 2011 15:16:17 GMT -4
The boilerplate was recovered in the North Sea. You are claiming it was the Apollo 13 Command Module. Do you have any idea how much delta-v would be required for a plane change for a launch due east from KSC to the North Sea??? Hint: it's a lot more than just reaching orbit, which you claim the Saturn V could not attain. Typically enough the article about "the lost Apollo capsule" doesn't tell the beginning of this story -- you will probably be surprised to know that the "lost Apollo capsule" was picked up by the Soviet boats in the Bay of Biscay, near France. But it was returned to the USA on September 8, 1970 in Murmansk (a completely different place). There was a big Soviet operation going on in the Bay of Biscay around 10-15 of April, during which part of the Soviet fleet was trying to help one of their submarines in an emergency situation. On April 11-12, 1970 there was a heavy storm in that area (the heaviest since the start of the year), which could explain why the Americans didn't found their own "Apollo capsule" first. Also, do you know that the USA carried out so called "Operation Crossroad" on July 16, 1969 in order to prevent Soviet vessels to follow the launch of Apollo 11? Citation needed. None of this answers my question: how much delta-v was needed to conduct a plane change for an easterly launch from KSC to land in the Bay of Biscay? |
|
|
|
Post by twik on Oct 31, 2011 16:31:43 GMT -4
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. So now you're saying Skylab was a fake too? Wow, that must have been a shock to the Australians who had bits of it raining down on their heads in 1979.... You've heard the phrase "the exception that proves the rule"? Well, "prove" means "test". In this case, you have a clear contradiction - you say the Saturn rocket could take no more than 20 tones into space, and yet one took up Skylab, weighing more than 3 times that. How do you reconcile this "anomaly"? To me, it would clearly throw great doubt upon your theory. You can't just shrug, and act like it was a particularly husky young Saturn, possibly with a suspicious steroid intake, that managed to hoist Skylab up to orbit. If one could do it, why should we doubt the abilities of similar rockets? |
|
|
|
Post by mcclellan on Oct 31, 2011 18:50:23 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by chew on Oct 31, 2011 19:07:29 GMT -4
Hope you can read Russian texts then. Nope. But if Google translate is anywhere near accurate it would appear the author of that website just pulled the name "Crossroads" out of his keister. There was never an operation for the US military to interfere with Soviet spy ships during Apollo 11's launch. Then he tried to account for the US press not reporting on it because they wanted to forget it ever happened. Yeah. Right. Sure. The author knows nothing about the US press. And his article is light on references, i.e. he provide none. |
|
|
|
Post by mcclellan on Oct 31, 2011 19:15:26 GMT -4
In this case, you have a clear contradiction - you say the Saturn rocket could take no more than 20 tones into space, There is no contradiction in there. I was talking about the capacities of Saturn IB. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_IBIts capacity was even witnessed by the Soviets during the Soyuz-Apollo mission in 1975. The Soviet cosmonauts estimated the weight of the Apollo 18 module to "about 15 tons". and yet one took up Skylab, weighing more than 3 times that. I re-quote myself: The keyword is "declared". The fact is that no one besides the three American Skylab crews have ever visited this space station. So, again, we have NASA:s "word of honor" that its weight was "77 tons". And no one will ever know anything about the weight of that thing that went down over Australia. Yes, something crashed there, that's for sure. But besides that we only have NASA:s claims about "how heavy it was". |
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Oct 31, 2011 19:25:31 GMT -4
McClellan,
If the third stage never reached orbit, then what did observers see in the sky before, during and after TLI?
|
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Oct 31, 2011 19:25:41 GMT -4
Jason Thompson keeps pointing out, and you keep ignoring, that direct observation of the Saturn V at liftoff proves that it could not have been traveling as slowly as 104 m/s at 108 sec after liftoff.
I verified his measurements by watching commercial TV coverage of the Apollo 11 launch. I repeated his calculations. And I got the same answer.
Our computations are extremely conservative in that they necessarily greatly underestimate the Saturn V's velocity at T+108 sec. Here's why:
1. We assumed a constant acceleration equal to that at liftoff. In reality the acceleration of any rocket increases dramatically as it burns off propellant mass. While the Saturn V's liftoff acceleration was only about 0.2 g, it reached 4 g at inboard cutoff and again at outboard cutoff. But we assumed only 0.2g for the entire 108 seconds so our number can only be substantially less than its actual velocity at that time.
2. At liftoff the thrust of any rocket must exceed its own weight or it isn't going anywhere. Only thrust in excess of weight produces vertical acceleration. This is known as "gravity loss".
But we can clearly see in the TV footage that the Saturn V pitches over as it climbs, thus reducing the gravity loss as thrust no longer has to overcome the rocket's full weight. E.g., at a pitch angle of 45 deg the gravity loss is only sin(45 deg) = .707. The sine of 90 degrees is 0, so when the rocket is flying horizontally gravity loss vanishes altogether. This makes more thrust available to accelerate the rocket, but we've ignored that factor. So again our computed velocity at T+108 sec can only be an underestimate.
Yet despite these conservative assumptions we get a number greater than you do, thus proving that your measurements and calculations are seriously in error.
The longer you ignore this point, the more clear you make it that you're simply not interested in the facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Oct 31, 2011 19:26:04 GMT -4
The keyword is "declared". The fact is that no one besides the three American Skylab crews have ever visited this space station. So, again, we have NASA:s "word of honor" that its weight was "77 tons". And no one will ever know anything about the weight of that thing that went down over Australia. Yes, something crashed there, that's for sure. But besides that we only have NASA:s claims about "how heavy it was". If you think it was something other than the published amounts, it is up to you to show that those figures are wrong. Until you do that then all your declarations are meaningless. |
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Oct 31, 2011 19:39:55 GMT -4
The fact is that no one besides the three American Skylab crews have ever visited this space station. So, again, we have NASA:s "word of honor" that its weight was "77 tons". We have considerably more than that. Anyone could see Skylab in orbit; I myself saw it many times. From those observations, anyone could determine its orbit and watch how it decayed. Two factors affect the decay rate of a satellite in low earth orbit: its ballistic coefficient and the density of the atmosphere at altitude. The ballistic coefficient is equal to the mass of the spacecraft divided by its cross-sectional area. The lighter a spacecraft of a given size, the greater the deceleration from atmospheric drag and the faster the spacecraft will decay. NASA was not the only spacefaring entity in the 1970s. Other countries can and did operate their own spacecraft and make their own measurements of atmospheric density at orbital altitude. They could perform these calculations for Skylab and seen for themselves that, had it been significantly lighter than its advertised 77 tonnes, it would have decayed well before it actually did in 1979. Apollo deniers often assert that one must take this or that piece of information "on faith" from NASA. They simply don't realize (or refuse to admit) that there are many ways to test NASA's information for self-consistency, for compliance with the known laws of physics, and against observations made wholly independently of NASA. |
|
|
|
Post by mcclellan on Oct 31, 2011 19:51:11 GMT -4
Hope you can read Russian texts then. Nope. But if Google translate is anywhere near accurate it would appear the author of that website just pulled the name "Crossroads" out of his keister. There was never an operation for the US military to interfere with Soviet spy ships during Apollo 11's launch. Then he tried to account for the US press not reporting on it because they wanted to forget it ever happened. Yeah. Right. Sure. The author knows nothing about the US press. And his article is light on references, i.e. he provide none. "Operation Crossroad" is mentioned here: www.cosmoworld.ru/spaceencyclopedia/publications/index.shtml?zhelez_32.htmlIt says that the "Operation Crossroad" was only mentioned ONCE in the newspapers, and was then never talked about anymore. Then the author adds that we probably can't even rely on this information, the operation could have had another name. This operation (whatever the name it had) was carried out since the beginning of 1969 and did cost about 230 million dollars. Then the author of this article (A. Zheleznyakov) quotes memoirs from former Soviet seamen, who were in place when it all happened. On July 16, 1969 the Soviet boats were surrounded by many US vessels, the "Orion" airplanes flew in the sky, and US submarines were active nearby beneath the surface. The Russians put their radios on and were instantly interrupted by the radio interference from the Americans. Officially, the US government was "afraid of some kind of a Soviet provocation" against the Apollo 11 rocket. CIA got information that the Soviets were determined not to allow the Americans to go to the Moon. Nixon even issued an order, that if something happened to the Apollo 11, the US fleet would immediately strike against the Russians. The strange thing about this whole story is HOW the Americans expected the Russians to prevent the launch of Apollo 11 from great distance. What means would the Russians have used to achieve that goal? And wouldn't such an act be an open declaration of war against the USA, if the Russians took the Apollo 11 down before all the TV cameras and in front of the whole world? Acting like this would have been absurd. Therefore its hard to believe in this official explanation. The motivation for such an expensive operation against the Soviets must have been something else. |
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 31, 2011 19:54:28 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. You can't derive error bars from one number! Let's say I claim I am psychic. You flip a coin and I call it. If I called it right, by your method my accuracy as a forecaster is 100%. If I called it wrong, again by your method my accuracy as a forecaster is 0%. Yet we all know, given a sufficient number of coin flips I will be right close to 50% of the time! The closeness of your estimate to the Ares velocity might be the product of an accurate method, or the product of pure chance. There is no way to know from this single data point. Now, if you applied your method to 100 flights, you'd start to be able to construct a statistical average. |
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Oct 31, 2011 19:58:06 GMT -4
Speaking of independent observations, here's one that confirms NASA's claimed performance of the Saturn V very nicely.
The Apollo 11 flight report says that Mach 1 (about 343 m/sec) was achieved at T+66 seconds. At that precise time in commercial TV footage of the launch, a very conspicuous shock condensation cloud forms around the top of the S-II stage where the stack "necks down" to the smaller S-IVB above it. At the same time, a smaller shock cloud is also seen to form at the top of the Command Module.
Shock condensation clouds of this type are often seen on aircraft traveling through the lower atmosphere at Mach 1 or above, e.g., on fighter aircraft. That they formed on the Saturn V when they did is an excellent independent confirmation that it really did behave just as NASA said it did.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcclellan on Oct 31, 2011 20:00:58 GMT -4
Now, if you applied your method to 100 flights, you'd start to be able to construct a statistical average. You have been shown the way of how these calculations can be done, so what's the problem, go ahead and apply this model to as many rocket launches as you wish. Let me know if you encounter any problems with this method. Otherwise you are just talking. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 31, 2011 20:01:17 GMT -4
The motivation for such an expensive operation against the Soviets must have been something else. I notice you've conspicuously stepped away from technical arguments and shifted your attention wholly to political arguments. Why is that? |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 31, 2011 20:02:57 GMT -4
You have been shown the way of how these calculations can be done, so what's the problem, go ahead... It's your burden of proof. This is the method you say is valid. It's your responsibility to show the method works. Not ours. Prove your method, otherwise you're just talking. |
|
