Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 111

Thread: NASA Caught In The Act New Saturn Anomalies count em 14 vers

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    48
    My arguments against the existance of the saturn v are as follows
    1. it was the smokiest rocket ever even smokier than more powerful russian rockets which used the same fuel(the more powerful the more fuel burned the more smoke isn't that logical
    2. the saturn had only five nozzles and russian rockets had over 30 because of extreme temps created by the fuel the bigger the nozzle the more likely it is to burn through
    3. acoustic vibrations resulting in burn anomalies causes the thin metal walls to burn through makes rocket explode thus the saturn was just an light empty shell which was used to convince people a rocket did blast off even though it did not carry a spacecraft
    4. the pogo effect was probably the reason the saturn had to be faked using smaller more proven rockets
    5. the saturn rockets blew up on numerous occasions in the testing stage and as we learned with challenger sometimes rockets do not divulge their problems until it was to late
    6. If the scientists and engineers as you say were confindent that the rocket would not blow up why were they hiding miles away from the launch site why not right next to the saturn
    7. The saturn had hydrogen tamk leaks plague building the program because hudrogen was so untried and dangerous
    8. all the apollo contractor reported problems making welds in metal so light like the saturn was made of
    9. insulation was yet another grand problem
    10. Problems with the contractors. Mainly North American, but also Boeing, Douglas, and Lockheed.
    11. The Baron testimony
    12. Walter Schirra article in Bill Kaysings book
    13. Gus Grissom
    14. Von Braun
    AN EXPLANATION OF NUMBER SIX. WHAT I MEANT IS THAT IF THEY WERE WILLING TO PUT THREE GUYS IN UNTRIED MACHINERY WITH A BAD HISTORY AND THEY WERE CONFIDENT IT WOULD FLY AND NOT BLOW UP THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE HIDING MILES AWAY. BACK IN THE EARLY DAYS OF THE AIR FORCE THEY HAD A POLICY THAT IF YOU BUILT AND DESIGNED SOMETHING YOU WOULD BE THE FIRST TO TEST IT NO MATTER HOW DANGEROUS. THEY DID NOT DO THAT.
    By the way did anyone see the tonight show with Jay Leno? If you did not this is what he said "we are the only country in the world that thinks professional wrestling is real and the moon landings are fake."

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SaturnV on 2002-11-06 22:51 ]</font>



    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SaturnV on 2002-11-10 22:58 ]</font>

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,448
    The Rocketdyne F-1 is one of the most well-documented, well-understood, and oft-cited rocket engine designs in history. LOX/RP-1 is a propellant formulation which produces an incandescent plume and dark particulate aerosol at steady state combustion.

    Those who argue that the F-1 combustion is somehow wrong or anomalous generally cannot claim any special understanding of rocket propulsion, or of the special characteristics of the F-1's performance and fuel formulation. They are generally the subjective opinions of lay persons and are contradicted by a vast amount of engineering documentation.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    16
    I personally know an Aerospace prof who worked on the Saturn project. He'd love to punch you in the face, if he was a little younger.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    12
    >The article read that the saturn was the smokiest rocket ever built even smokier than a higher powered Russian rocket.<

    You shouldn't believe everything you read in the press. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
    If you think that the Saturn is the 'smokiest' rocket ever, I think that you should watch some of the film of one of the launches. That clearly shows very little smoke for an engine that is consuming 15 tons of propellant a second. Much of the 'smoke' you see as it clears the launch tower is in fact steam from the sound suppression water deluge. Once clear of the tower and in flight there is next to no smoke at all.
    You could also compare it to the launch of any Shuttle Orbiter, where the solid fuel boosters (SRB) create more smoke than you could shake a stick at. That might qualify as the 'smokiest'.
    DK

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,254
    Didn't we already do this one? It goes along with the 'black first six feet of the exhaust plume' argument. The F1 engines were cooled by running the relatively cool 800 degrees exhaust from the fuel pumps between the inner and outer skins of the engine bells. Gaps in the inner surface were left 'leaky' to allow this gas to mix with the exhaust gasses along the inside surfaces of the bells. This kept the inner surfaces 'cool'. The fuel pumps ran fuel rich, and the exhaust has been described as the 'dirtiest greasiest gunk imaginable' by an engineer who worked on the pumps. Once mixed with the air, this 'gunk' burns to produce the smokey exhaust of the F1 engines. It also produces the 'black first six feet'.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,468
    Every Apollo launch was watched by hundreds of spectators. Find one who saw any of them go "boom".

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    3,162
    On 2002-11-06 00:40, Irishman wrote:
    Every Apollo launch was watched by hundreds of spectators. Find one who saw any of them go "boom".
    Don't you means hundreds of thousands of people?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    3,162
    On 2002-11-04 17:37, SaturnV wrote:
    I was researching the moon hoax and I came across a site that said that the Saturn V was fake. The article read that the saturn was the smokiest rocket ever built even smokier than a higher powered Russian rocket. I guess they meant that the Saturn should of had less smoke and that means we did not actually make the Saturn because of technical problems associated with a rocket that big. Thus they say the saturn was so smoky because NASA was just trying to impress people and try to make people believe this rocket was more powerful than it really was.
    One severe problem with U.S. rockets was combustion stability.
    This phenomenon is a result of combustion at high flow rates. When hundreds of pounds of propellant are burned in a short time, strange effects take place. Acoustic transients present in this type of "continuous explosion" can trigger resonant conditions.
    In other words, the high noise levels cause anomalies in burning. Standing waves possessing high kinetic content flash back and forth within the chamber. In microseconds, these waves can concentrate high temperatures at certain points within the rocket chamber, burning the thin walls through and causing total engine failure.
    In other words the more powerful the engine the more propellant needed to be burned the more likely the engine was to blow up.
    BOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!
    Other problems with the Saturn
    Welding, Leaking Hydrogen Tanks, Insulation
    If you actually read the history of the F-1 engine and the Saturn V in general you would see that all these problems were known and solved.

    From my own experience, when you've got hundreds of technicians and engineers working on a specific problem, it can usually be solved and the problem fixed.

    Again, I'd love to see you sources.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,448
    I repeat: The Rocketdyne F-1 is one of the most well-understood rocket engines in the industry. It's the '67 Mustang of rocket engines. The combustion instabilities you mention were solved at the appropriate stage in the development process. (In short, Bill Kaysing doesn't know what the heck he's talking about.) The F-1 was eventually so stable that bombs could be detonated in the nozzle and the resulting oscillations would damp out in milliseconds.

    Bill Kaysing is the source for most of these arguments, and it's the most laughable bunch of tripe imaginable. He's simply making it up. First, he has no expertise. His degree was in English literature and he has had no formal technical training. Second, he left Rocketdyne in 1963 for personal reasons, long before the events he "witnessed" actually happened.

    I would like to see the average hoax believer attempt to define any of the terms in the revised initial post. It irritates me when people smugly question Apollo engineering without knowing much if anything about engineering. It's like the patient's mother-in-law standing behind the surgeon and telling him he's doing it all wrong.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,448
    Other problems with the Saturn
    Welding, Leaking Hydrogen Tanks, Insulation


    Are you under the impression that large-scale engineering projects should not encounter problems such as these? Do you know what it means to engineer a rocket booster? Does your site go into any detail about how these problems were overcome?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    6,275
    On 2002-11-06 01:03, JayUtah wrote:
    The F-1 was eventually so stable that bombs could be detonated in the nozzle and the resulting oscillations would damp out in milliseconds.
    Minor quibble, Jay -- the bombs were not detonated in the nozzle, but in the combustion chamber itself. That's where the combustion instability was occurring (not surprisingly).

    This is one of the most fascinating and impressive stories in the whole Apollo project. It's also an example of the "art" of engineering, where computers (of the era) and theory were useless. It was patient experimentation, redesign, and testing that ironed out the stability problem, not an "Aha!" moment or theoretical analysis.

    By the way, does anyone know how powerful the bombs were? Obviously they had to be pretty big, or their effect would be swamped by the energies of the engines themselves. But how would they compare to, say, a stick of dynamite?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    3,162
    Here's a nice link to the Saturn V development.

    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/contents.htm


  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    4,115
    Go to http://groups.google.com/groups?group=sci.space.history and search in the group for F-1 bombing

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,296
    ... the Saturn should of had less smoke and that means we did not actually make the Saturn because of technical problems associated with a rocket that big.

    Which blithely ignores the undeniable fact that Saturn V boosters were built and launched, and that they lifted a very considerable amount of mass into space, and that the payloads were indeed tracked into Earth orbit. This was not fakeable.

    Or perhaps the claim is that the Saturn launches were mass hallucinations? Or just that NASA conspirators switched the CSM/LM stack with a paper-mache mockup while no one was looking?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    3,162
    STS-60,

    Excellent response. This HB statement ranks right up there with the statement that all the technical textbooks through out the world were changed/removed from all the libraries in the world.


  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    168
    On 2002-11-04 17:37, SaturnV wrote:
    Besides that the rockets blew up on the test stand on numerous occasions. If the rockets were safe people would gather around them. If the designers were truly confident they'd be ten feet away from the rocket watching it launch. But that is not what they did instead they were miles away hiding in concrete shelters. Maybe they knew something we don't know about the Saturn.



    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SaturnV on 2002-11-06 16:50 ]</font>
    You don't honestly believe a word you just wrote, do you?

    "Too smokey"? "Why didn't they stand ten feet away"?

    Sigh.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    517
    On 2002-11-06 17:41, Bill S. wrote:
    On 2002-11-04 17:37, SaturnV wrote:
    Besides that the rockets blew up on the test stand on numerous occasions. If the rockets were safe people would gather around them. If the designers were truly confident they'd be ten feet away from the rocket watching it launch. But that is not what they did instead they were miles away hiding in concrete shelters. Maybe they knew something we don't know about the Saturn.



    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SaturnV on 2002-11-06 16:50 ]</font>
    You don't honestly believe a word you just wrote, do you?

    "Too smokey"? "Why didn't they stand ten feet away"?

    Sigh.
    One word? How about the word "not!" [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    276
    Let's see here. Overwhelming evidence that the Saturn V booster worked... hmmm... oh, I know: We could use the MILLIONS OF EYEWITNESSES ALL OVER THE GLOBE who watched the thing launch. Yep, that'll work.

    As far as smokiness, who cares? The "more powerful" Russian booster, the N-1, WAS rated for more thrust, but did it work? In a word, no. Not once, not ever. Here's a site about it: http://astronautix.com/lvs/n1.htm (and by the way, you're allowed to post these, too)

    I have a feeling, though, that we won't be hearing from you about this.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    556
    This is starting to sound like a troll since he's not defending any of his points.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    4
    Why didn't anyone stand ten feet away during a Saturn launch? Saturn V, most people with any sense won't even stand within ten feet of a model rocket once it's lit. Just imagine what damage would be caused by a fully-fueled Saturn containing millions of pounds of propellant should anything go awry. You might want to read up on the Nedelin Disaster or the second N-1 launch (number 5L, I believe) if you want any evidence of how catastrophic launch pad disasters can be. Fortunately, the Saturn V suffered no such eventualities

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Speedy on 2002-11-06 19:35 ]</font>

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    4
    Why didn't anyone stand ten feet away during a Saturn launch? Saturn V, most people with any sense won't even stand within ten feet of a model rocket once it's lit. Just imagine what damage would be caused by a fully-fueled Saturn containing millions of pounds of propellant should anything go awry. You might want to read up on the Nedelin Disaster or the second N-1 launch (number 5L, I believe) if you want any evidence of how catastrophic launch pad disasters can be.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    48
    I obviously need to do some more research.
    Thanks for the info.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,448
    Check some of the more primary sources that have been posted here. In most cases the sources cited by the hoax believers (if they are cited at all) tell not only what problems were encountered during design and development, but how they were overcome as well.

    That's what engineering is: the identification and remedy of problems. To say, "This problem came up," doesn't mean the engineering is floundering. It means the engineers are doing their jobs.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    2,874
    There must be something with SaturnV's posts. Almost everyone but two i have seen are post and then once someone responds he deletes it. Like this one and others. Why? It makes no sense to me!!!! Is this trolling or is my browser messed up? All your other posts come in fine.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    110
    On 2002-11-06 20:10, g99 wrote:
    There must be something with SaturnV's posts. Almost everyone but two i have seen are post and then once someone responds he deletes it. Like this one and others. Why? It makes no sense to me!!!! Is this trolling or is my browser messed up? All your other posts come in fine.
    Yep, a lot of SaturnV's posts are turning up empty for me too. Not sure what to think at this point...


    _________________
    The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once.
    --Albert Einstein

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Superstring on 2002-11-06 20:33 ]</font>

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    276
    On 2002-11-06 20:32, Superstring wrote:
    On 2002-11-06 20:10, g99 wrote:
    There must be something with SaturnV's posts. Almost everyone but two i have seen are post and then once someone responds he deletes it. Like this one and others. Why? It makes no sense to me!!!! Is this trolling or is my browser messed up? All your other posts come in fine.
    Yep, a lot of SaturnV's posts are turning up empty for me too. Not sure what to think at this point...


    _________________
    The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once.
    --Albert Einstein

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Superstring on 2002-11-06 20:33 ]</font>
    I'm glad I'm not the only one who's been noticing that. It's shaken my faith in beer.

    Also--or is it just me?--he's changed the titles of two or three threads more than once. I didn't realize that was possible.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    48
    To the above I can delete my messages freely most of them are back now. Read them. Learn?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    209
    On 2002-11-06 19:32, Speedy wrote:
    Why didn't anyone stand ten feet away during a Saturn launch? Saturn V, most people with any sense won't even stand within ten feet of a model rocket once it's lit. Just imagine what damage would be caused by a fully-fueled Saturn containing millions of pounds of propellant should anything go awry. You might want to read up on the Nedelin Disaster or the second N-1 launch (number 5L, I believe) if you want any evidence of how catastrophic launch pad disasters can be. Fortunately, the Saturn V suffered no such eventualities

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Speedy on 2002-11-06 19:35 ]</font>
    EGGZACTLY, why the heck would you want to stand next to a rocket. Maybe it's just me but I wouldn't have that much certainty on my engineering if I made it.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    48
    My point in the statement that scientists and engineers should stand ten from the rocket Explained
    What I meant was that if the engineers were confident that their work would not blow up and kill the astronauts they would have been much closer. Maybe even 10 feet if they wore protective underpants.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,296
    The Space Shuttle is considered "reliable" and "safe" in relative terms - its launch success rate is over 99%. Everybody but the close-in rescue crew is about 3 miles away, and the "close-in" rescue crew is on the order of a mile away. Exposure to a normal launch would hurt them if they got much closer.

    Yes, the majority are kept 3 miles away in case of an explosion. Does this mean that Shuttle launches are fake? The Saturn V was a more powerful booster than the Shuttle. Why, exactly, should its engineers have been expected to hang around close to an SV launch?

    Followup question: Do you understand why the regulars on this board are not impressed by "challenges" such as "if they are so confident, why don't they..."?

    You might want to try searching the board for threads that have already addressed your question, or check clavius.org, NASA, or related sites first. We regulars love answering questions, but just barging in and whipping out claims that show you don't understand the subject doesn't do much for your credibility.


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-11-07 17:40 ]</font>

Similar Threads

  1. [Busted] NASA caught faking Gemini-10 Spacewalk Photos?
    By Gawdzilla in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 2009-Sep-19, 08:45 PM
  2. UFO's caught on NASA's satellite.
    By Hazzard in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2006-Sep-15, 05:17 PM
  3. Militia of Montana caught the NASA film crew filming ....
    By The Far Side Of The Moon in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2004-Feb-09, 03:24 PM
  4. NASA Caught Recycling Old SOHO Pix (Says Nancy)
    By Sammy in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 2003-Jul-11, 11:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: