|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 1, 2011 14:10:37 GMT -4
McClellan, let me ask you something in all seriousness. Let's say this didn't have anything to do with Apollo. Let's say it had something to do with something you knew something about. And the answer you were getting in one case showed exactly the result you expected, but in another case it did not. Would you assume you were wrong about what you thought you'd known, or would you check to see if there was something wrong with how you were trying to get an answer? Isn't it only sensible that you would, at very least, check a third situation? Isn't that the only intelligent thing to do?
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Nov 1, 2011 16:50:14 GMT -4
I admit as a maths dummy, I don't understand the arguments either side are making. But I do know human nature as well as any other of you apelings, and I must ask, why?
Why would they lie about this? And I don't mean NASA, NASA would actually have fairly little to do with such a lie.
Instead, the people at Rocketdyne and other contractors who built the Saturn V would be the liars.
After all, you still need to send significant payload to the moon to account for the reflectors as well as the spacecraft spotted going to the moon by amateur astronomers world wide.
Quite a sophisticated piece of work, it would have to be able to produce large clouds of gas consistent with not only urinal dump and other waste dumps, but an exploding oxygen tanks as well.
Not only that, but it would also have to relay false telemetry from the moon as it did so. That is going to take a rather weighty set of tapes given the technology of the time.
And finally, assuming, assuming mind, there is some way to keep them from been spotted by amateur satellite watchers who have successfully tracked unlisted National Reconnaissance Office satellites, you need the astronauts in space to film the extended weightless scenes, scenes that include the inside of the LM and CM connected.
In short, you are going to need a bigger rocket, a more powerful launch vehicle than the Saturn V, to pull off the hoax, so the whole idea that for some reason Rocketdyne only made a more measly rocket than they claimed is in fact backwords if you look at it from the perspective of a hoax, if you make a conspiracy theorists assumptions.
|
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 1, 2011 17:04:19 GMT -4
Why would they lie about this? That's the genius of the smoking gun mentality mcclellen presents here. It only requires a single minded focus on one "anomaly." As long as he can keep himself convinced that this one thing he has discovered is true, then all opposition else can be dismissed as a lie without the need to address his critics. He is a hedgehog who knows only one thing. |
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 1, 2011 22:17:24 GMT -4
I am beginning to think the mcclellan like his namesake has been recalled because however good he may have looked on the parade ground he lacked the stomach for the real fight. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 1, 2011 22:26:13 GMT -4
Said namesake didn't understand how numbers work, either.
|
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Nov 2, 2011 10:52:14 GMT -4
Mcclellan If the rocket is travelling at around 108m/s at the time you're talking about, that means it takes about 1 second to travel its own length. Sure doesn't look that slow to me when I watch the footage from www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGNryrsT7OIThen watch your own video first before you state anything crazy. Between 6:10 and 7:08 (when the rocket enters the cloud) the image is being changed 12 times! The video lacks the continuity that we have in Phil Pollacia's video. Yes, Pollacia's video is continuous from launch until the rocket blows its way through the cloud. But there's something odd about it. The first stage burned out 2m 45s after launch, which would be about 6m 30s in the Pollacia video. The second stage engines burned invisibly. Yet in Pollacia's footage the engine glow remains strong after 6m 30s. This leads me to believe the footage may be slowed down. Well, the same sequence occurs in the Pollacia video and the one I linked. We can clearly see the engine plume is narrow, so it must be reasonably low in the atmosphere. According to the Apollo 11 Flight Journal Transcript (http://history.nasa.gov/ap11fj/01launch.htm), shortly after 1m 6s into the flight, velocity was 2195 feet/sec, which is about 670 m/s. Where did you get the 920m/s figure from? Come on, you don't need sarcasm. |
|
|
|
Post by chew on Nov 2, 2011 18:06:38 GMT -4
He used this table for the velocities:  It was accompanied with this telling comment: In their official table NASA claims 920 m/s after 108 seconds, and according to the same table the altitude is already 24 km (!), which is simply fantastic. So instead of running a launch simulation himself to see if the numbers are really "fantastic" he just throws out some incredulity. Which is doubly ironic since he would have immediately recognized the folly of the claim of a partially fueled rocket stage. |
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Nov 3, 2011 2:11:23 GMT -4
According to the Apollo 11 Flight Journal Transcript (http://history.nasa.gov/ap11fj/01launch.htm), shortly after 1m 6s into the flight, velocity was 2195 feet/sec, which is about 670 m/s. Where did you get the 920m/s figure from? 1 m 6 s is 66 sec. He was citing 108 seconds, which is 1 minute + 48 seconds. You apparently got your 2,195 ft/sec figure from the PAO. He began to speak that phrase at T+76 sec when the actual earth-fixed velocity was still much lower. However, it's close to the correct inertial (space-fixed) velocity so that's probably what he was reading. The space-fixed velocity of the launch site was about 450 m/sec or 1500 ft/sec eastward. |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 3, 2011 11:55:48 GMT -4
For what it's worth, my own Saturn V simulation gives the following at the 108 s mark: Altitude = 25,537 m Distance downrange = 18,745 m Space-fixed velocity = 1,263 m/s Earth-fixed velocity = 931 m/s Flight path angle = 26.58 degrees (edit) From the looks of this table: X must be the vertical dimension, Y the cross-range, and Z the downrange. In that case, the values at 108 s are, Altitude = 25,684 m Distance downrange = 18,064 m Earth-fixed velocity = 923 m/s where, V = SQRT( 572.2 2 + 2.6 2 + 724.1 2) To get space-fixed velocity we have to include the velocity added by earth's rotation. Apollo 11 launched from a latitude of 28.5 degrees and with a heading of 72 degrees. Adding the Earth velocity vector to the Vz vector, I get a space-fixed Vz of 1,120 m/s. Therefore, Space-fixed V = SQRT( 572.2 2 + 2.6 2 + 1120 2) = 1,258 m/s And the flight path angle is, Φ = ATAN(572.2 / 1120) = 27.06 oThose numbers are pretty close to my simulation. Yet another good confirmation that my simulation methods are fairly accurate.  |
|
|
|
Post by chew on Nov 5, 2011 14:30:07 GMT -4
One other nail in this coffin is the pitch of the Saturn V. A rocket can only pitch so far over before it starts losing altitude. If, as mcclennan claimed, it was only going 108 m/s after 108 seconds then its acceleration was only 1 m/s over gravity. That would limit pitch to 24.9o. If it was pitched 24.9o it would maintain altitude while accelerating horizontally at 4.5 m/s2. Since the Saturn V was obviously pitched more than 24.9o and not losing altitude the 108 m/s claim is wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on Nov 5, 2011 19:50:17 GMT -4
If the Saturn V didn't make orbit, what was tracked all the way to the Moon by goverments all rouind the world including the Soviets? Something certainly went, if it wasn't the Apollo launch what was it?
|
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Nov 6, 2011 11:44:55 GMT -4
If the Saturn V didn't make orbit, what was tracked all the way to the Moon by goverments all rouind the world including the Soviets? Something certainly went, if it wasn't the Apollo launch what was it? I asked Mcclellan basically the same question. He just tapdanced away from it. |
|
|
|
Post by Tsialkovsky on Dec 13, 2011 20:33:10 GMT -4
To send a manned mission to moon was a political decision and there were no rocket technology at that time to do that. Earlier S-1B engines (8 x H-1) were not powerful (payload 21 ton to LEO) and moon mission required 118 ton LEO (= 47 ton Lunar orbit). This was far too long leap in technology. Saturn V F-1 engines had extensive technical problems and physical limits were met. Russian rocket engineers knew well that Saturn V cannot carry Apollo to Moon. Therefore they sent a fleet of electronic spy ships to the Florida coast 1969 to observe A-11 launch. US Army spent 320 million dollars when trying to block their investigations (called Operation Crossroads b), but they got the information. This information was of course kept secret, but after the collapse of SU some experts published the data (without mentioning spy materials). Pokrovsky certainly knows the results but he published his papers using TV footage as he was not allowed to use spy data.
Rocket engineers know that the one-chamber technology of F-1 was an old fashioned approach. Using these engines it would never have been possible to fly to Moon with the payload of 47 tons. Therefore the capacity of 27 tons (by Pokrovsky) to moon is definitely the uppermost figure possible for Saturn V.
Of course this means that we should accept the idea that the moon missions were automatic mapping missions (probably later Apollos did landing and took scanned photographs from ground). Probably the background of photos were generated using 3D topology (Metric and Panoramic cameras were extremely high quality tools) - and the near landscape with astronauts and equipment in those staging fields well-known in USA. These near landscape pictures were fixed to the coordinate system of the 3D map so it was easy to generate photos with correct geography. The new mapping images show that the topography of the Apollo pictures are too gentle sloping as 100 m contour interval was used (gray scale photo also used in the packground gives some more detailed landscape patterns; the background is B&W but artificially colored).
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Dec 13, 2011 21:10:40 GMT -4
When you can provide some evidence for this fantasy maybe we can begin to discuss it.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Dec 14, 2011 3:28:51 GMT -4
One word Tsialkovsky, Skylab. I've pretty darn sure it weighed far more than your 27 ton figure, are you claiming it was faked as well?
Keep in mind, when it fell out of the sky, people watched it break up and several rather large pieces hit Australia.
|
|
