Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[R.Mackey]

"Pogo" is a dangerous behavior in launch vehicles caused when the vertical thrust couples with the inertia of the propellant. This sets up an instability where thrust pushes more propellant than requested into the combustion chamber, which surges, creating additional thrust as well as a backpressure that momentarily opposes additional propellant entering the chamber. The instability can get worse and worse over time, leading to vertical vibration in the rocket itself. Hence, "pogo," accelerating as though on a giant pogo stick.

This is extremely hazardous for several reasons. First, rocket engines are designed to work in only a narrow range of mixture ratios and flow rates. The pogo effect moves you away from the ideal mixture in an uncontrollable fashion. This leads to less efficient combustion, which can quickly lead to heating or erosion of the rocket components themselves, in turn leading to a large, smoky fireball.

Second, the fueling systems upstream of the rocket engine are extremely high performance and fragile. Ever have "water hammer" in your house? Imagine it in plumbing that carries 100,000 gallons a minute, fed by boost pump turbines running at 200,000 RPM. Oh, and the fluid is at cryogenic temperatures. And unlike water, it readily explodes.

Third, the vibration can cause secondary damage in the rocket, and structural vibration coupling can exacerbate the pogo effect even more. Some failure mechanisms are "hard," like rivets coming loose or tanks buckling, but there are also "soft" failures like navigation sensors becoming less accurate and thrust vector control being less precise, which can in turn increase aerodynamic loads and heating on the vehicle.

The Saturn rocket programme implemented many fixes to its rockets to fight the "pogo" effect, most having to do with careful balancing of pipes and inclusion of complicated pressure reservoirs and self-regulating systems. This is part of the cost of doing business in space -- there are still a lot of things we don't know about building good rockets, and quite a few of those things can be deadly. The most famous example was on Apollo 13, where pogo grew so severe that the center engine of the second stage automatically shut down during the burn. Shutting down a rocket engine is a perilous thing... but we got away with it.

---

After reading this thread, I see no evidence that the poor nut who initiated it has any ability to comprehend what the rest of you are saying. It's rather sad.

 

[Patrick1000]

Mackey, with respect to the understanding of basic science fundamentals, I suggest you check the outcome of the telescope magnification debate just concluded. Admittedly it was a minor point, just a warm up. But we are only getting started here. i encourage you to participate. Let's see what you've got. i have surprises galore for you all.

 

[little grey rabbit]

The Saturn rocket programme implemented many fixes to its rockets to fight the "pogo" effect, most having to do with careful balancing of pipes and inclusion of complicated pressure reservoirs and self-regulating systems. This is part of the cost of doing business in space -- there are still a lot of things we don't know about building good rockets, and quite a few of those things can be deadly. The most famous example was on Apollo 13, where pogo grew so severe that the center engine of the second stage automatically shut down during the burn. Shutting down a rocket engine is a perilous thing... but we got away with it.

I am so glad.

 

[R.Mackey]

Mackey, with respect to the understanding of basic science fundamentals, I suggest you check the outcome of the telescope magnification debate just concluded. Admittedly it was a minor point, just a warm up. But we are only getting started here. i encourage you to participate. Let's see what you've got. i have surprises galore for you all.

There is no participation. You do not have the training to even recognize a valid argument.

If you really want to know about how space systems work, go to school. If your previous post about specializing in Galois theory was not a complete lie, then you are about as far removed from the proper training as one can get while still having some techincal grounding.

 

[drewid]

There is no participation. You do not have the training to even recognize a valid argument.

If you really want to know about how space systems work, go to school. If your previous post about specializing in Galois theory was not a complete lie, then you are about as far removed from the proper training as one can get while still having some techincal grounding.

What about the previous post where he's a radar engineer?

 

[Patrick1000]

Food Chain

Sez,

Great question. I am fairly new to this, so haven't spent a lot of time with the question of principals. In the quote above from the Chaikin book, one reads Sam Phillips makes the final decision to move forward with the Apollo 8 mission. My view is that the people that genuinely make these decisions, make the big decisions to "GO" are more likely than not in on it. I say this because in my view this s not a genuine decision point. the person has to say yes. So the person responsible for the BIG YES, perhaps Phillips here, Bales on the "1202 GO", the "GO" flags the guy as a participant. that said, I of course cannot be 100% positive in these cases, so I say more likely than not. So sorry I cannot say more, just haven't really looked all that hard given limits in our lives we all understand. So, perhaps Phillips for the reason just mentioned is the highest up I can point to at this time in my looking at this and say, "He may well be a perpetrator of the fraud". Hope that helps. Imagine I could say much much more in a year or two assuming I stay interested. Great question, thanks.

 

[Patrick1000]

My formal work with Galois was long ago, but it was/is important work. I will say no more about it. Mathematics remains a big part of my life.

 

[Patrick1000]

Mackey, we are a long way from even beginning to assess arguments. In this moment right now we are having trouble establishing there even was an abort contingency for a turn around during the translunar coast phase of an Apollo Mission. So i figure by Christmas i will hopefully be close to having presented my basic argument, fully supported with good references dealing with the Borman illness issue. Honestly, it is fine with me. I am not trying to convert anyone here, just hone my skills and firm up my position in my own mind, learn things from some of the others as well. I see a lot of impatience. Maybe i am wrong, but that is what I see. Just like the telescope magnification issue, the abort issue is very mainstream. Of course it is appropriate to challenge the point if the reader is unfamiliar with its appearance in the Apollo narratives, but as all will see, it very much is in the narratives, so making strong statements about its absurdity leave me wondering what is going on. People are not speaking from any personal reading of source materials. And i am very new to this. That is what I have to say. I mean no disrespect, but it seems again some argue against me not based on any real personal experience with source materials that deal with abort contingency issues. This is a dangerous practice in "debate" situations. Patience is critical. When you laugh in my face in a sense about the abort issue thing, you are taking a huge risk as a participant in the debate.

 

[R.Mackey]

People are not speaking from any personal reading of source materials. And i am very new to this. That is what I have to say. I mean no disrespect, but it seems again some argue against me not based on any real personal experience with source materials that deal with abort contingency issues. This is a dangerous practice in "debate" situations. Patience is critical. When you laugh in my face in a sense about the abort issue thing, you are taking a huge risk as a participant in the debate.

Here's a good demonstration of your lack of comprehension. Maybe you can get some inkling of why no one takes you seriously.

I didn't come in here to listen to you. You have nothing to say. I came here to address a confusion expressed by someone else, someone with the capability to learn.

As for "not speaking from any personal reading of the source materials," I work for NASA. I am more familiar with them than you can possibly comprehend. Some of the arguments you've made in this thread are literally too stupid to be made up -- and I am fully aware that you simply can't help it.

You cannot hold a meaningful conversation on this subject. You don't actually know anything about it. There are plenty of people who believe insane things, like you do, but none of them ever achieve anything. I strongly advise you to find a new hobby.

 

[little grey rabbit]

As for "not speaking from any personal reading of the source materials," I work for NASA. I am more familiar with them than you can possibly comprehend. Some of the arguments you've made in this thread are literally too stupid to be made up -- and I am fully aware that you simply can't help it.

You cannot hold a meaningful conversation on this subject. You don't actually know anything about it. There are plenty of people who believe insane things, like you do, but none of them ever achieve anything. I strongly advise you to find a new hobby.

Mr Mackay, I presume you are under no compulsion to participate or even read this thread?

 

[Patrick1000]

No Big Deal

I'll not belabor this as I did with the magnification issue. I'll present later a reference(s) showing there were cislunar about face abort contingencies. By the way, I have already done that(#302). The first reference i gave is NASA's own. It's not very detailed, so I'll provide another. But it should already be clear the fact of, the reality of, an about face abort contingency has already been presented. A NASA reference no less. I believe my point has been made.

 

[SezMe]

"Pogo" is a dangerous behavior.... <snip for brevity>

Fascinating stuff. I admire rocket engineers that can anticipate these secondary, tertiary, etc. effects and design systems to handle them.

As an aside, as a grad student at Caltech, I got to work at JPL on some very early aspects of the first Mars missions for a couple of summers. We tried to figure out the optimum retro rocket burn profile to land softly given six possible Mars atmospheres. Turned out the thinnest atmospheric profile we were given was way too dense. Oops. Fun stuff. JPL had some really good thinkers. My boss at the time, Tom Barber, remains a admirable mentor to this day.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Fascinating stuff. I admire rocket engineers that can anticipate these secondary, tertiary, etc. effects and design systems to handle them.

As an aside, as a grad student at Caltech, I got to work at JPL on some very early aspects of the first Mars missions for a couple of summers. We tried to figure out the optimum retro rocket burn profile to land softly given six possible Mars atmospheres. Turned out the thinnest atmospheric profile we were given was way too dense. Oops. Fun stuff. JPL had some really good thinkers. My boss at the time, Tom Barber, remains a admirable mentor to this day.

SezMe, you would then be the perfect person to answer a question that has always bugged me.

Why does the Martian sky appear as it does? A sort of red-browny white - or how would characterise it?

 

[nomuse]

SezMe, you would then be the perfect person to answer a question that has always bugged me.

Why does the Martian sky appear as it does? A sort of red-browny white - or how would characterise it?

Ow. It is a good question, but there is a real difficulty in framing the answer. That is; human color perception is not like perfect pitch. It is relational. So to ask "what color does the Martian sky appear?" you first have to ask "What are you, where are you, and what surroundings are your eyes currently habituated to?" Which is to say...we could plot the perceived color of the Martian sky if it were within the current color space of the observer. But if that observer is on Mars, the color space would be different, and thus the sky would be perceived differently.

And that was stated horribly. I worked way too many hours this weekend and I wouldn't be up now if sheer hunger hadn't awoken me (in the middle of the night).

 

[little grey rabbit]

Golly. This is all very Locke-Berkeley. I am not sure there was an observer literally on Mars.

Then again, what do I know? As Nasa might put it (if they felt musically inclined)

I've been everywhere...

Well, I was humpin' my bluey on the dusty Oodnadatta road,
When along came a semi with a high and canvas-covered load.
"If you're goin' to Oodnadatta, mate, um, with me you can ride."
So I climbed in the cabin and I settled down inside.
He asked me if I'd seen a road with so much dust and sand, I said
"Listen, mate, I've travelled ev'ry road in this here land."

Cos "I've been everywhere, man,
I've been everywhere, man.
'Cross the deserts bare, man;
I've breathed the mountain air, man.
Of travel I've had my share, man.
I've been ev'rywhere.

Tullamore, Seymour, Lismore, Mooloolaba,
Nambour, Maroochydore, Kilmore, Murwillumbah,
Birdsville, Emmaville, Wallaville, Cunnamulla,
Condamine, Strathpine, Proserpine, Ulladulla,
Darwin, Gin Gin, Deniliquin, Muckadilla,
Wallumbilla, Boggabilla, Kumbarilla,
I'm a killer.

"Yeah but listen here, mate, have you been to..."

I've been to Moree, Taree, Jerilderie, Bambaroo,
Toowoomba, Gunnedah, Caringbah, Woolloomooloo,
Dalveen, Tamborine, Engadine, Jindabyne,
Lithgow, Casino, Brigalow and Narromine,
Megalong, Wyong, Tuggerawong, Wangarella,
Morella, Augathella, Brindabella, I'm the feller.

"Yeah, I know that, but have you been to..."

I've been to Wollongong, Geelong, Kurrajong, Mullumbimby,
Mittagong, Molong, Grong Grong, Goondiwindi,
Yarra Yarra, Boroondara, Wallangarra, Turramurra,
Boggabri, Gundagai, Narrabri, Tibooburra,
Gulgong, Adelong, Billabong, Cabramatta,
Parramatta, Wangaratta, Coolangatta, what's it matter?

"Yeah, look that's fine, but how about..."

I've been to Ettalong, Dandenong, Woodenbong, Ballarat,
Canberra, Milperra, Unanderra, Captain's Flat,
Cloncurry, River Murray, Kurri Kurri, Girraween,
Terrigal, Fingal, Stockinbingal, Collaroy and Narrabeen,
Bendigo, Dorrigo, Bangalow, Indooroopilly,
Kirribilli, Yeerongpilly, Wollondilly, don't be silly.

I've been here, there, ev'rywhere, I've been ev'rywhere.
"Okay, mate, you've been ev'ry place except one,
and ya don't need my help t'get there."

 

[SezMe]

SezMe, you would then be the perfect person to answer a question that has always bugged me.

Why does the Martian sky appear as it does? A sort of red-browny white - or how would characterise it?

Actually, I'm not at all qualified to speak to the question for at least a couple of reasons. First, we were doing rocketry, not perception analysis. Trying to figure out how to safely land a probe has nothing to do with how the atmosphere might appear to an observer on Mars - or any other planet.

Secondly, to my dismay, I worked at JPL many moons ago...the science, engineering and technology has advanced well beyond my early involvement. Make no mistake, I'm proud of my contribution, however tiny it was...and it was so small as to be invisible now. I stood on the shoulders of giants and the giants stand on the shoulders of all who came before them. We all contribute.

 

[little grey rabbit]

I don't think perception analysis comes into.

After all we don't get tied up in knots when we say the earth sky is blue and the reason for this.

 

[Patrick1000]

Jim "turn it 'round on a whim" Lovell

OK, as promised, let’s quickly dispense with the abort issue so that we may move on. I have already provided a very brief section from NASA’s Apollo 8 Pelaunch Report referencing the “reality” of translunar coast abort contingencies. I thought I’d use a different type of reference here to keep it interesting. I trust all will view it as acceptable, Jim Lovell’s, APOLLO 13. This book is coauthored by Jeffrey Kluger. Originally published in 1994, I own the 30th Anniversary Commemorative Edition which features a preface copyrighted in the year 2000. Though not one of the 20th Century’s better actor’s, Jim Lovell was certainly one of its more important. He sold the rights to make a movie based on the very screen play from which I shall quote and then scored some major bucks when Ron Howard made a film based on this Jim Lovell telling of his pretending to be cold in outer space. By the way, I don’t believe astronaut Haise got very good medical attention either when he got sick on stage while performing his role in this particular episode of our favorite space adventure. But I digress. Let’s get to work. Open your books to page 132 and let’s all read out loud together;

“During an aborted lunar mission, there were a few ways to bring a ship in distress home to Earth. The most straight forward was the so-called direct abort, in which a crew on its way out to the moon would turn their command-service module around so that they were riding tail-forward, then fire their 22,500 pound hypergolic engine at full throttle for better than five minutes. The maneuver was designed to bring the spacecraft-which might be traveling at 25,000 miles per hour- to a complete standstill, and then get it moving just as fast in the opposite direction.”

So I provided a NASA reference and then this one from Jim Lovell himself, albeit out of a book with a cowriter/helper, but I am sure we can all agree, Kluger would not be making up such facts on Jim’s behalf. They indeed are Jim’s facts.

So there ya’ have it ApolloG, 25,000 mph flat out, stop, and crank it up to 25,000 mph in the other direction. Wonder if they ever practiced that maneuver? Or did it just for yuks?

As an aside ApolloG, if I may be so bold, you mentioned your having installed “Orbiter” on your home machine and you were having trouble with your dead-stop turn-arounds on the way to the moon. There really is no mystery here my fellow traveler. We have the world of reality. Then of course we have our “simulations” like your Orbiter. Finally, there are stories we make up where anything sorta’ goes. Well the latter there, that’s Apollo. Again, if this grates upon your scientific sensibilities, relax ApolloG because it is not grounded in science. Again my point, lots of times people are intimidated with regard to looking into Apollo as fraud because there is this sense one needs to understand various scientific concepts well. That is only true up to a point. Take a deep breath and view Apollo as script. Then, it makes perfect sense. ALL OF IT, and it ain’t so hard after all. If ApolloG had done that a dozen or so posts back, he would have realized you CAN turn a 1970 vintage spaceship around, turn it on a dime. That is, assuming it’s a pretend ship. There ya’ go ApolloG, another example of something that makes better sense, at least to you it would, if one viewed Apollo as fraud, not science.

I trust my point about being patient has been made and makes at least some sense to some now.

 

[Patrick1000]

Little Grey, any ideas yourself? I have never been exposed to this issue previously. Would it not be the case, as here on Earth, the "Martian Air" is of a substance(s) which absorbs light of some colors. The balance of the light, the unabsorbed light, that is the Martian Sky's color. Perhaps I am being ever so simple minded here. Is it not a matter of knowing what the sky/atmosphere is made of?

 

[nomuse]

The stupid burns. The Orbiter simulation is based upon the physics of space travel and the same weights and measures (aka ISP, thrust, tankage) NASA claims for the Apollo craft. This isn't the same as saying Apollo must have been real. What it IS saying is that the NASA claims are internally and externally consistent; the "hypothetical" spacecraft is in complete agreement with the same well-tested rules that have been applied to other spacecraft, missiles, even amateur rockets.

There is no lacunae in the description. There is no place within the basic rocketry of Apollo in which you are required to accept a NASA-supplied number. You can work out the performance of the vehicles and the resulting orbital parameters from first principles -- from nothing more than Newton, a basic chemistry textbook, and the rocket equation (and you can even take it a step or two further with such tools as the basic thrust calculations given in any handbook of rocketry -- just like model rocketeers use to estimate performance of engines they personally build and fire.)

(I've got one of those books myself).



Oh, and Patrick? I challenge you to provide the four immediately following paragraphs to the one you quoted.