|
|
Post by cos on Dec 16, 2011 23:40:18 GMT -4
But the problem here is that most people are religious and not so keen to analyze. I think you'll find that you are the only one with a fixed view. People here can back their up their conclusions with science and evidence not vague hand waving. Perhaps for starters you can tell us how it is possible to film 5 hours of continuous footage in a vacuum and 1/6th g. Or find someone who can show how it is done. Oh don't tell me you haven't watched an entire EVA? Perhaps you should do so. Or perhaps you prefer to waffle some more. Come on, we backward 'religious' people await your scientific erudition. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 17, 2011 0:14:36 GMT -4
If the Saturn V couldn't launch, what did all those people see taking off?
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 17, 2011 0:46:29 GMT -4
The key problems are those mentioned: F-1, LM and docking system Okay, my boss in my first real engineering position worked on the Apollo docking system. Please explain in detail what was wrong with it. No handwaving. I'm an engineer; I'll know if you're bluffing. |
|
|
|
Post by twik on Dec 17, 2011 2:21:38 GMT -4
I for one do not believe you have a PhD in anything. Real academics do not say things like "Russians say...." They say which Russian, when, in what publication. You know, so that others can check and not have to take your (very dubious) word for it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 17, 2011 3:51:33 GMT -4
summarize here where he failed in his calculations and we can evaluate your science. That has already been done, several times here on this thread. The source of his material is actually irrelevant. it is his interpretation that is wrong. I'll ask it again, though: how do you square his calculation of the speed at staging with the observed and easily calculated acceleration of the rocket in the first 12 seconds of the flight? |
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Dec 17, 2011 8:36:20 GMT -4
1. Visual (photo, film and video) material that can successfully be made on Earth, in cinema studios. Wrong. This topic has been discussed ad nauseum here and elsewhere; even now the state of the art simply does not permit faking photographs of astronauts on the lunar surface with the necessary quality and in the necessary quantities. Also wrong. At the time, the only way to produce so many high quality still photographs of the lunar surface was to do exactly what the Apollo astronauts did: to actually go to the moon, take pictures with high quality film cameras, and physically return the exposed cassettes to earth for lab processing. The United States has only ever had one system capable of physically carrying anything from the lunar surface to earth: Apollo-Saturn. And they have never had autonomous humanoid robots capable of bipedal locomotion on the lunar surface at human speeds, setting up equipment, taking pictures, driving core samples, collecting rock and soil samples -- and leaving bootprints. All of which can be seen today in LRO pictures. The technology needed to return pictures of comparable quality robotically (i.e., electronically, like LRO) simply didn't exist until years after Apollo ended. That includes CCD imaging sensors and high speed, error corrected digital radio communications. The cynic might claim that such technology was nonetheless available to secret US government institutions. If so, then why did the US government continue until the mid 1980s to spend huge sums on what now seem like ridiculously unwieldy, slow and impractical film-based reconnaissance (spy) satellites like the KH-9 that exposed film over "denied" areas like the USSR and then physically returned that film in a re-entry capsule that had to be retrieved and processed before any of those images could be seen? The best that could be done in the 1960s was exemplified by the Lunar Orbiter program. It exposed a limited supply of photographic film, developed it on board, scanned and transmitted the images to earth by radio. Although it used film, Lunar Orbiter pictures would never be mistaken for Apollo imagery; they contained numerous artifacts, mainly from imperfections in the automated development process but also from transmission errors. You really should be more careful with your assertions; some of us actually know this stuff. There are only two Soviet laser reflectors on the moon and none on other planets. The links are just barely workable at lunar distances; given the 1/r 4 propagation law for radar/lidar, laser ranging to other planets is well beyond even the present state of the art. |
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Dec 17, 2011 15:19:58 GMT -4
Indeed. If one were an expert word wrangler, one might argue they *sent* three, with only two Lunokhod succeeding, but that is not "tens" by any definition.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tsialkovsky on Dec 19, 2011 17:25:34 GMT -4
Completely wrong - many peolpe (including real experts) have tried to deny Pokrovsky's modeling work, but so far the attempts have been either laughable or just miserable.
If you want to challenge some results of his research, you should make your point. And don't even imagine to be taken seriously if your arguments are at that level as in these pages before. Of course if CIA is paying to you, I can understand that you must try to earn you food.
It is very typical to americans to just say something and wait that the friends are halooballoing and supporting. But this is not the way how in real life questions are discussed.
F-1 engine initially was a serious attempt ordered by Kennedy, but the problem was that at the end it was a piece of sh... . And this was not von Brauns fault - he told that just increasing the size of a rocket does not mean capacity - but nobydy listened ... because already then, the famous wording of Nixon was the only issue "if you cannot make it - fake it".
In this thread we don't talk about pictures - I can prepare similar Apollo pictures in one day per mission - they are topographically accurate and also time of day is considered. The questionms of "no atmosphere" or "1/6ths gravity" have not been seen. If anybody walks on Moon surface, the steps are easily 3-5 m long with the weight of astrionauts - we have not seen anything like that (longest step is 0.5 m). Why they put a nail into the feather?
But they don't demonstrate the more exact topography as it is based on 100 m conour scheme.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Dec 19, 2011 17:35:51 GMT -4
Of course if CIA is paying to you, I can understand that you must try to earn you food. Since making unfounded accusations against members of this forum is against the rules, please show us your evidence that anyone here is being paid by the CIA. |
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Dec 19, 2011 18:03:49 GMT -4
Completely wrong - many peolpe (including real experts) have tried to deny Pokrovsky's modeling work, but so far the attempts have been either laughable or just miserable. You are hilarious. Pokrovsky's conjecture is that, at the point of staging, the Saturn stack designated for Apollo 11 is going at a certain speed, when it should have been going at a different one. Simple enough to check; figure out how fast the vehicle is going, right? The problem is that he bases his claimed velocity not on the motion of the vehicle itself (which has known dimensions and so forth) but on the motion of the edge of a turbulent cloud of exhaust. Why is that bad? Two principal reasons: First, the edge of the exhaust is travelling at an angle to the vehicle (classic "conical spread" pattern) and none of the calculations I've seen even attempt to account for this so the velocity of the smoke, even if it can be accurately determined, is only tangentially (sorry, geometry joke, couldn't help myself) related to the velocity of the vehicle. Second, of course, is the turbulence which makes the edge velocity of the cloud uncertain but almost definitely very much slower than that of the vehicle whilst also making the consistent measurement of the movement of any given portion of the cloud a practical impossibility when based solely on video. Never mind the myriad other issues like the uncertain provenance of his source video (compression artefacts etc make all of the above even worse) and the total failure to account for the constantly varying distance and angle between the vehicle/plume and the camera. Further to all the basic, simple problems with the measurements he made there is the problem that the measured acceleration at lift-off (from ground to clearing the tower) is sufficient to achieve velocities he claims were beyond the Saturn V's engine performance even with the naive (and very conservative) assumption that the vehicle does not lose mass as it travels. That is, to be doing the speeds he claimed the vehicle was doing at staging (because, according to the claim, the engines were simply not powerful enough to achieve greater ones), the engines would have had to have been throttled back from their lift-off thrust. This is exactly the opposite of not having enough power to achieve greater velocity.So, to summarise; Pokrovsky's entire model is full of holes, and the basic premise itself requires utter insanity on the part of Flight Control to be even close to true.  N.B. The above is from my memory of others' posts. Any errors are entirely my own. |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Dec 19, 2011 18:43:35 GMT -4
Completely wrong - many peolpe (including real experts) have tried to deny Pokrovsky's modeling work, but so far the attempts have been either laughable or just miserable. Pokrovsky has been proven wrong. Please read this thread from the beginning. If you take issue with the arguments previously presented, please explain in detail what you believe to be wrong with them. Either supply proof of this claim or retract it. Many people participating in this thread are not American. The F-1 engine was started long before Kennedy was president. It began as an Air Force project in the mid-1950s. NASA took over the project in 1959, and the first prototype thrust chamber was test fired in February 1961, just one month after Kennedy took office. Please explain in detail what you believe was wrong with with the F-1 engine. I thought you didn’t want to stray from the topic of Pokrovsky and rocket technology? Or does that only apply when you’re backed into a corner and trying to evade direct questions? |
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 19, 2011 18:57:59 GMT -4
 This is a complete fantasy. Purely hypothetical with no empirical backing. Others have already done a detailed critique, so all have to add is to say, cite your source or retract you claims.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Dec 19, 2011 19:10:01 GMT -4
Many people have attacked Ponrovsky's work. But they haven't been different attempts to take it apart; they have all been in agreement about the underlying facts and how Ponrovsky got it wrong.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Dec 19, 2011 19:44:16 GMT -4
Completely wrong - many peolpe (including real experts) have tried to deny Pokrovsky's modeling work If you think Pokrovsky is correct, then you need to change your tune and start singing the praises of the F-1 engine, because Pokrovsky's calculations necessitate that the F-1's performance be higher than any chemical engine of its type yet produced. The only way the Saturn V could be going as slowly as Pokrovsky claims is if it accelerated more slowly than publicized. We all know the acceleration at liftoff, as this is easily measured, and we know the F-1 was a fixed thrust engine. Pokrovsky's calculations, therefore, require that the incremental increase in the Saturn V's acceleration during first stage burn be much less than documented by NASA. The only way the acceleration could be as low as Pokrovsky's calculations imply would be if the rocket retained more of its initial mass and burned off propellant more slowly than we've been led to believe. To obtain the observed and measured liftoff thrust-to-weight ratio with a propellant flow rate a low as required by Pokrovsky calculations means that the F-1 engine had a specific impulse well in excess of 400 seconds. POKROVSKY IS WRONG BECAUSE THE F-1 COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY BEEN AS AWESOMELY GREAT AS HE CLAIMS! |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 19, 2011 19:53:02 GMT -4
Completely wrong - many peolpe (including real experts) have tried to deny Pokrovsky's modeling work, but so far the attempts have been either laughable or just miserable. Several have been presented in this thread. Do you care to challenge them on technical grounds, or will you simply sit there brushing it all away with a wave of your hand? What are your technical qualifications? It is very typical of hoax believers on this and other discussion boards to assume everyone who supports the Apollo missions is American. This is the worldwide web, so I suggest you broaden your outlook. Just as well no-one here is doing that then. The way real life questions are handled is nothing like your method of simply making unssupported assertion after unsupported assertion. For the umpteenth time, do you have anything in the way of evidence to bring to this discussion? Prove that claim or retract it. By the time Nixon took office the Apollo program had already made flights of full-sized rockets. Nixon may have been the guy at the top during the most famous phase of the Apollo program, but he was a long way from being so when the actual development and construction work was undertaken. Apollo 4 and Apollo 6 flew before he took office, for instance. Seriuosly, doesn't any hoax believer know how long Apollo actually took to develop and build? |
|
