Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[abaddon]

I have brought this subject up more than once before Jay, about Armstrong avoiding interviews and so forth to not get caught making such a gaffe as that referenced above.

Really? How do you then explain his worldwide speaking engagements?

 

[JayUtah]

If you do take it seriously, well then by all means , have at it...

So you come up with another feeble attempt at a physical and mathematical proof, which you botch horribly -- and not just at the arithmetic level, but also at the deepest conceptual level -- all while ignoring one of the most well-known and innovative features of the LM landing gear. And then when you get called on it, you try to backpedal away from it and say we shouldn't take it seriously.

... would be curious to see your defense of Armstrong.......

I would be curious to see your defense of Whitehouse, and of Patrick1000.

 

[Erock]

By conservation of energy, potential energy before equals kinetic energy after...

mgh=1/2m*v². Both work.

 

[abaddon]

I'll get right on it abadon, have the Thomas Kelly book here with me now along with more stats on the lander than you could shake a fraudulent moon walking stick at.

No I am almost certain that you won't.

The struts were designed for the task at hand.

Kindly provide the engineering numbers for those.

 

[JayUtah]

This is one small step into Patrick's calculation, one giant error already.

Yup, and one that rocket scientists simply don't make. The hallmark of rocketry computations is the notion of the rocket as a variable-mass vehicle. Now we see why Patrick steadfastly avoids almost every invitation to demonstrate his practical knowledge and skill.

If memory serves, the crushable aluminum honeycomb cartridges in the landing struts were good for about 10 fps, but that assumes a flat, four-point touchdown.

 

[JayUtah]

I was going to use an 80,000 ton aircraft carrier for my example?

Believe it or not, I actually have a CSD model of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier in my library, sufficient for localized stress/strain computations. The last heavy-weather sim we ran on it produced a matrix in 10¹⁷ unknowns.

Probably overkill for this purpose, though.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If memory serves, the crushable aluminum honeycomb cartridges in the landing struts were good for about 10 fps, but that assumes a flat, four-point touchdown.

In my case Google has to stand in place of memory, but that agrees with the spec I found. A fall from 40 feet would hit the surface at about double that rated speed (my calculation agrees with Patrick there, so somebody probably ought to check it ).

Then again, I read that the the crushable inserts allowed the struts 32" of travel which is quite a long way. Stopping from 20 fps in 32" is a deceleration of only about 2½ g. What I can't find out is whether the struts were intended to compress by their full 32" stroke in a 10fps impact, in which case a 20fps landing would be a bit more exciting...

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Scientific satire, a Karelesque reference to Jay's comment above.......

Need I spell everything out for you Jack by the hedge?

So you now say your calculation was a joke? Sounds like damage control to me.

Yes, I think you'd better spell everything out for me, please. It makes your errors easier to spot and it might help me discover what you mean by "Karelesque" which I freely admit is not familiar to me.

 

[Patrick1000]

Sure both work Erock, see my explanation above as to where my error was....

By conservation of energy, potential energy before equals kinetic energy after...

mgh=1/2m*v². Both work.

Sure both work Erock, see my explanation above as to where my error was...

So the velocity of the compact is 41 MPH or something in that neighborhood.

The other guys may be correct about the mass of the lander, though I thought 15,000 kg was the mass without the gas.....

The challenge, just to state this explicitly was not/is not serious in any literal sense. However, as a reference to filmmaker Karel and his clever Operation Lune themes, the post about the "Armstrong gaffe" is quite serious.

 

[Patrick1000]

Cool!!!

yup, and one that rocket scientists simply don't make. The hallmark of rocketry computations is the notion of the rocket as a variable-mass vehicle. Now we see why patrick steadfastly avoids almost every invitation to demonstrate his practical knowledge and skill.

If memory serves, the crushable aluminum honeycomb cartridges in the landing struts were good for about 10 fps, but that assumes a flat, four-point touchdown.

cool!!!

 

[Patrick1000]

Roger That!!!!

Believe it or not, I actually have a CSD model of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier in my library, sufficient for localized stress/strain computations. The last heavy-weather sim we ran on it produced a matrix in 10¹⁷ unknowns.

Probably overkill for this purpose, though.

Roger That!!!!

 

[TjW]

Why is he multiplying acceleration by distance as if it were time?

He's calculating the potential energy of the lander. I owe him an apology. I didn't see the divided by six term.

 

[Patrick1000]

No it is not a joke, and the calculation was correct.....

So you now say your calculation was a joke? Sounds like damage control to me.

Yes, I think you'd better spell everything out for me, please. It makes your errors easier to spot and it might help me discover what you mean by "Karelesque" which I freely admit is not familiar to me.

No it is not a joke, and my calculation was for the most part correct.....I used 9.8 m/sec squared once where I should have used "English units", 32 feet per sec squared so the first time I ran the calculation I got 70 mph instead of 40(see above).

The point about it not being literally serious was in a sense well covered by the poster that ran the numbers using a 747. Take a look at the posts about Karel, or better yet, check out the film OPERATION LUNE for yourself and you will see what I was after with the compact car post. At least I think you will.

 

[Robrob]

We should get back to debating the FACTS of Apollo Jay. And i am entitled to introduce any subject material relevant that I choose. My point about the Armstrong gaffe above is a most excellent one, as are all of my other points as well.

Why are you introducing a new claim when you have yet to address any of the questions about your last claim (or any previous claim)?

Doesn't make any sense at all does it now? Put those lunar module legs on a compact car. Secure them any way you like. Run the car into a wall at 76 miles per hour. And, given Armstrong's scenario, what's the likelihood under those circumstances that the thing will hit with one and not 4 legs. A 3750 lb car moving at 76 miles an hour running an Apollo lunar module leg into a solid piece of rock.

I'm no bicycle mechanic but even I know it doesn't matter if the lander first makes contact on one strut or all four. If it hits slightly off level and on one strut, it simply continues to descend and the leg compress, until all four are in contact bearing the lander's weight.

Or did you think it would just balance there, perched on one leg?

I have brought this subject up more than once before Jay, about Armstrong avoiding interviews and so forth to not get caught making such a gaffe as that referenced above.

Really? How do you then explain his worldwide speaking engagements?

I too would like to know that. Pretty obvious conflict here between claim and reality.

Admittedly I did nbot double check, I used mgh for potential energy...and then solved for the little car's velocity using that. I'll check it again. I could easily have gotten it wrong.

So the claim you have been defending for the past so many posts is wrong?

I typically don't use a calculator, not that that should matter necessarily one way or the other.

And yet it does. Maybe other assumptions of yours are equally as flawed?

 

[fess]

Scientific satire, Karel, a double entendres without a risque interpretation....

If you do take it seriously, well then by all means , have at it, would be curious to see your defense of Armstrong.......

Scientific satire? Must be that your definition of satire is different that mine. All of that math, which turned out to be wrong, to be satirical? You have too much time on your hands, but not much of anything else… like knowledge.

And why should I defend Armstrong?

 

[fess]

I solved the problem by solving for the time of the fall. I came up with a fall of roughly 59, 60 feet. Then when I went to solve for the time of that fall, I used 9.8 meters per sec per sec for acceleration and not 32 feet per second squared so my time came out roughly twice what it should have bee. The correct time of fall for the compact is roughly 1.9 seconds and the velocity of course is given by the square root of (2gh), or equivalently as I solved it acceleration X time or 32 x 1.9 gives 60.8 feet per second or 41.5 miles per hour give or take.

Obviously just solving for the square root of 2gh is the easiest most straight forward way, but I was looking to provide all of the details of the event, time of fall and so forth.

Thanks for pointing that out. Your first answer is also incorrect as I am sure you have by now realized.

You sure are spending a lot of time defending a satirical post.

 

[JayUtah]

No it is not a joke, and my calculation was for the most part correct.....I used 9.8 m/sec squared once where I should have used "English units", 32 feet per sec squared so the first time I ran the calculation I got 70 mph instead of 40(see above).

The point about it not being literally serious was in a sense well covered by the poster that ran the numbers using a 747. Take a look at the posts about Karel, or better yet, check out the film OPERATION LUNE for yourself and you will see what I was after with the compact car post. At least I think you will.

Still waiting for an explanation for why you're quote-mining Whitehouse's book and pretending it has any authority.

 

[Patrick1000]

It doesn't have any authority Jay......

Still waiting for an explanation for why you're quote-mining Whitehouse's book and pretending it has any authority.

It doesn't have any authority Jay......How many ways do I need to point it out? It is satire......

 

[abaddon]

40 foot drop of a lunar module could easily break the leg on a lunar module and strand you with Aldrin.

Your point is, of course, entirely moot.

The Eagle dropped less that 6 feet.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No it is not a joke, and my calculation was for the most part correct.....I used 9.8 m/sec squared once where I should have used "English units", 32 feet per sec squared so the first time I ran the calculation I got 70 mph instead of 40(see above).

The point about it not being literally serious was in a sense well covered by the poster that ran the numbers using a 747. Take a look at the posts about Karel, or better yet, check out the film OPERATION LUNE for yourself and you will see what I was after with the compact car post. At least I think you will.

So that error of using metres instead of feet compounded your previous errors of using 15 tons when you should have used 7 and using earth gravity where you should have used lunar? But still "for the most part correct"? You're plainly a believer in generous approximation.

Also, if your "spelling everything out for me" involves your recommending a movie for me to watch to see if I can glean your intended meaning, maybe we'd better drop that approach.