|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 16, 2011 13:09:54 GMT -4
Maybe you want to speak on behalf of WORLD's engineers ..., but if you are one of those, please, summarize here where he failed in his calculations and we can evaluate your science. I am an engineer. Sts60's opinion is congruent with mine on the subject. My analysis appears in this thread and elsewhere on this board. Further, I have worked with a number of former Soviet engineers and they agree that the Saturn V worked as advertised. It appears that Pokrovsy, in addition to being wrong, does not represent the Russian engineering community. Since he is distinctly in a very small minority of the relevant professionals, he bears the burden of proof. And it has been shown clearly how he failed to carry it. There is no small amount -- it is a huge, overwhelmingly convincing body of evidence. You must explain all of it, not just the parts you think you can. And your alternate explanation must provide more solidity that mere Soviet nostalgia.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 16, 2011 1:43:16 GMT -4
This is some CGI from 1974. From the university where I taught computer graphics in the mid-1990s. That was state of the art for anyone. If anyone is claiming NASA had some "magical" computer graphics technology in 1969 to render photorealistic images and physically-based animation, then that's just comically wrong. Really, really, really wrong. As an expert, I can categorically state the Apollo film and video was not produced by computer animation.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 5, 2011 18:01:59 GMT -4
Add me to the list, Playdor.
There are many things I don't know about. I know it takes expertise to understand them, and I also know that I don't have that expertise. Therefore I'm generally open to the notion that my beliefs in those subject areas may be misinformed or simplistic. And if a subject-matter expert corrects me -- and especially if he is willing to educate me in the process -- I consider it a mark of intelligence to accept the correction.
Why therefore do you insist that your freely-admitted ignorance ought to be the basis for a meaningful challenge to the Apollo record? Honestly! Has it ever occurred to you that you just might be wrong? Does it seem more likely that we believe differently than you because we adhere to some "church of NASA," or instead that we possess the proper knowledge to support our belief?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 5, 2011 15:04:31 GMT -4
Fatty may be gone but his thread lives on. he will be pleased! I'm sure he'll try another sock puppet here in order to receive your congratulations. Or generate some.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 5, 2011 15:03:52 GMT -4
Over at the JREF he is saying the Doppler effect can be used to measure a spacecraft's total velocity, not just the radial velocity. ...and carefully avoiding having to answer any practical questions about how that works. The readers here might be amused to hear that he has all but stated that his plan is to repost the same mindless walls of text any time a question is asked. That's especially silly when you consider that he proposed also instrumenting L-4 and L-5 with navigational transmitters in order to compensate for the limited visibility of the Moon for navigation purposes. He doesn't seem to realize that if he refactors his theory as a VLBI system, then all of the transmitters must be visible and functioning.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 2, 2011 15:46:45 GMT -4
Armstrong is the spokesman for all Apollo landing on the moon... Hogwash. The other 11 people who walked on the Moon and their CMPs have equal, if not greater opportunity for observation and recollection. That's their problem. That doesn't give him the authority to trump the equally valid observations of the other participants. You may not generalize the limitations of Armstrong's testimony to restrict others of equal applicability.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 1, 2011 23:45:53 GMT -4
what remains is that NASA has major flaws in the Apollo fantasy No, they don't conform to your naive expectations. No, they don't cater to the wilfully ignorant. Actually the answers to your questions can be found in several standard references. NASA doesn't build its own spacecraft; it contracts that out to companies that have the appropriate expertise. That expertise derives from and then feeds back into academic programs. Your expectation that NASA should have already written some document to address every one of your fundamental misunderstandings is naive. It's a straw man. Read and understand Sutton and Biblarz, Rocket Propulsion Elements. That takes an engineering student typically a year. It will tell you everything you need to know about plume dynamics and the associated chemistry. Then when your expectations are properly informed, you can begin to ask questions. I'm not part of the Star Trek crowd. I'm a professional engineer working in aerospace. This is what I do for a living. This is not make-believe for me.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 1, 2011 23:36:08 GMT -4
JayUtah how does firing a rocket engine in a space affect the light from the ignition? The lack of ambient pressure causes the plume to disperse more rapidly and cool faster. Didn't we cover this 50 pages ago?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 1, 2011 23:34:36 GMT -4
Bob B. Ralph Rene suggests that 3000 psi from rocket engine equates to the power of 6000 x 1/2 psi leaf blowers what is wrong with this analogy? Fluid density. Ralph Rene was a construction worker, not a scientist or engineer. He also thought pi had an exact value in decimal.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 1, 2011 23:31:33 GMT -4
who is NASA answerable to? The Vice President for administrative accountability, and to Congress who sets its budget. They are not answerable to every individual nut job who can't figure out basic science and engineering. Because it's not their job. If you want to know how space works, you're responsible for getting an education. Stars again. Sigh. Why is it so hard for you to take the sentence you just wrote and from that figure out that different astronauts saw stars differently under different circumstances?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 1, 2011 11:45:05 GMT -4
no i am not trying to argue with you about a crater under the lm i am convinced there should have been one. Then you're arguing with him. And losing. Irrelevant. The qualified experts are aware of what NASA has claimed to be the truth, and they agree that it is the truth. What you call "convoluted reasoning" the rest of the world calls "science." You don't get to pretend that the world is as simplistic as you need it to be in order to feel comfortable. And my point is that you have failed to substantiate any of your naive expectations with regard to Apollo. Therefore you don't get to use them to judge whether it was authentic or not. Why should NASA be held responsible for documenting what should be elementary understanding? I recall one on plume effects, but I don't have it on hand and it was mostly a thermal study. My information comes from my basic rocketry textbooks about how plumes behave, and my ability to apply that knowledge to compacted aggregates, as Bob has done. Bob is also an engineer. So if you want to be a rational human being, you can either trust that the engineers know what they're talking about, or you can acquire the necessary information to study the physical world yourself and draw your own conclusions. But you don't have the option of simply asserting something out of ignorance and pretending that still qualifies you as rational. No, and there doesn't need to be. The invisibility of rocket plumes under the conditions in question is the expected effect. Again, basic rocketry textbooks and simple observation. Why do you expect NASA to provide for your basic education in science? They don't have any obligation to defend themselves explicitly against every one of your ignorant suppositions.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 1, 2011 11:35:41 GMT -4
i have posted images of thruster exhaust visible in space You posted images of a solid-fueled rocket. What does that have to do with a N204/A-50 fueled rocket? You do realize, don't you, with your "multiple degrees in science," that different combustion reagents produce different combustion products?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 1, 2011 0:19:30 GMT -4
it looks like it still produces light Yes, when fired in the dark in an atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 1, 2011 0:18:09 GMT -4
was there that much noise in the lm when the descent engine was running? They had their helmets on.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 30, 2011 18:54:43 GMT -4
concerning no exhaust or flame from ascent engine attached is from film Apollo 13 which was supposed to be "really" realistic No. I consulted with Digital Domain on that film, and there was a conscious decision to depict the DPS (not APS) plume as a "traditional" rocket plume. Such decisions are made all the time in the entertainment world -- i.e., to give the audience what it expects to see rather than what would normally be seen. No, the movie Apollo 13 is not accurate in this respect. The fact that it's an artist's depiction and not a documentary observation.
|
|