ApolloHoax.net

Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Daggerstab on December 27, 2012, 01:11:15 PM

Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on December 27, 2012, 01:11:15 PM
All you need to do is to convince a certain engineer that a flight to the Moon is possible:

http://www.members.tripod.com/heiwaco/moontravel.htm
Quote
Reason why human Moon (or future Mars) travel is not possible as per the NASA Apollo fairy tale is that, with given heavy, great mass m of various modules and inefficient rocket engines, sufficient rocket fuel to enter/brake into Moon orbit (event #6), to get/accelerate out of Moon orbit (event #15) and to brake in Earth's atmosphere before splash down (event #19) on Earth cannot be carried along.

Actually only way to go to Moon and back is using very light weight robots and modules and to chose a long, slow velocity path through space using Sun's gravity, so that arrival speeds and energy requirements are minimum to reduce fuel consumption for braking and accelerating. Prove me wrong and earn € 1 000 000:-. Only fools believe human space travel is possible at all ... and there are many such persons, incl. PhDs of all kind.

Just a quick warning, though: he also doubts a) the Space Shuttle , b) Soyuz, c) the Mars Science Laboratory, and d) nuclear weapons (http://www.members.tripod.com/heiwaco/bomb.htm), among other things. :D
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on December 27, 2012, 01:12:51 PM
My browser won't let me visit that page; it says it's been distributing malware.  Still, I don't think he's actually an engineer.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on December 27, 2012, 01:22:16 PM
My browser won't let me visit that page; it says it's been distributing malware.

Oh, crap. :( I didn't get any warning, probably because I'm using Linux.

Still, I don't think he's actually an engineer.
He claims to be a "M.Sc. Naval Architect and Marine Engineer", "with more than 40 years experience of oil tanker and ferry design, construction and operations worldwide".
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: darren r on December 27, 2012, 01:44:43 PM
What did he design, the Exxon Valdez?

He also thinks Neil Armstrong's spacesuit 'doesn't look airtight'. I'm convinced.

On a less frivolous note, he also makes a tasteless remark about Gabrielle Giffords. First class a***hole in my opinion.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on December 27, 2012, 03:36:11 PM
That's Anders Björkman.  He's no engineer.  He's a blowhard conspiracy theorist who goes around pretending to investigate engineering incidents (especially maritime incidents like the Estonia accident) and writing popular books attributing them to conspiracies.  There's no point drooling over the million Euros because he doesn't have it and there's no talking him out of his delusions.  He's about as woo as they come.

His fuel "study" is based on his personal inability to discover the published parameters and his inability to work the rocket equations properly and to understand astrodynamics.  He attributes these, his personal failures, to NASA and claims NASA is hiding things.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on December 27, 2012, 07:02:50 PM
Did he actually attempt the calculations?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on December 27, 2012, 08:58:56 PM
Did he actually attempt the calculations?

He attempted something:
Quote
To reduce the speed of a mass of 43 000 kg from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s you need 75.47 GJ brake energy! If 1 kg rocket fuel produce 1.63 MJ energy it seems you need 46 300 kg fuel for this maneouvre. You should wonder, where it was carried.

Gigajoules??? 75 gigajoules???
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: DataCable on December 27, 2012, 09:05:47 PM
ONE POINT TWENTY-ONE JIGGAJOULES!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on December 28, 2012, 09:09:56 AM
There's no point drooling over the million Euros because he doesn't have it and there's no talking him out of his delusions.  He's about as woo as they come.

Yes, the thread title was pretty much tongue-in-cheek, that's why I added the winking smiley.

The disturbing part for me is that he shares views (even LEO human spaceflight is fake) with one mass shooter (Loughner), and a first name with another (Breivik). Though I guess "Anders" is a common name in that part of the world.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: darren r on December 28, 2012, 09:18:57 AM
Someone calling themselves 'Heiwa' has just joined the board. If it's him, perhaps he's come here to discuss his views.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: grmcdorman on December 28, 2012, 09:20:15 AM
He's also firmly in the "tall buildings cannot collapse" camp (according to him, they will self-arrest). He had a similar "challenge" on that; there's a long thread in the JREF 9/11 conspiracy forums with him on it. Again, failed engineering. (He's no longer a JREF member, by the way; banned some time ago for membership agreement violations.)
Title: Re: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on December 28, 2012, 12:00:39 PM
He's also firmly in the "tall buildings cannot collapse" camp (according to him, they will self-arrest). He had a similar "challenge" on that; there's a long thread in the JREF 9/11 conspiracy forums with him on it. Again, failed engineering. (He's no longer a JREF member, by the way; banned some time ago for membership agreement violations.)

You just know that if the builders of the old twin towers had used concrete instead of drywall allowing the buildings to withstand the fire, the conspiracy theory would have been about how strange it was that the buildings could take such an assault rather than how easily they gave in.

In conspiracy world, science and engineering is whatever they need to be to point to a conspiracy.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 28, 2012, 12:26:46 PM
Someone calling themselves 'Heiwa' has just joined the board. If it's him, perhaps he's come here to discuss his views.

I noted some visitors to my popular web site from Apollohoaxforum so I decided to join. My name is actually Anders Björkman but on Internet forums I am Heiwa. My company is Heiwa Co. A am evidently an engineer and work scientifically using first principles all the time. I am not in conspiracy theories. I just report my observations and calculations and results. If you do not like them, tell me what is wrong with them.

Do not worry. The MONEY is there for anyone, incl. NASA, JPL, SPACEX, ESA, to show that human moon travel is possible, à la Apollo 11 1969. Just copy paste the Apollo 11 NASA data and demonstrate that it really works and the money is yours. IMHO it was a hoax 1969.

Like the 9/11 2001 WTC tower global progressive collapses from top down shown live on five US TV channels. Cannot happen in the real world, i.e. it was another Apollo 11 type hoax. I pay anybody €1M to prove me wrong there too.

You see, I am a generous person. And pls follow the forum rules when replying. Do not shoot at the piano player. Listen to the music and say what's wrong with it.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on December 28, 2012, 12:30:58 PM
Are you the same Anders as on the David Icke forum?  If so then I don't believe you have the money or are an engineer of any type.  That person has shown repeatedly they are completely unreasonable.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 28, 2012, 12:53:14 PM
Are you the same Anders as on the David Icke forum?  If so then I don't believe you have the money or are an engineer of any type.  That person has shown repeatedly they are completely unreasonable.

Probably not. What you believe is evidenly off topic. You have to visit my web site, link given in post #1 and then continue to the Heiwa Challenges web page and then start working showing that you are more clever than me.

Re Moon travel you have, e.g. to show how you brake to get into Moon orbit and not fly bye into eternity and, after having planted the flag on the Moon, etc, you have to show how to accelerate to get out of Moon orbit direction Earth (and not into eternity).

Every change in speed or direction during Moon travel requires energy and your job is to show you have that energy with you during travel from start. You are the Master of the space ship and must know you have enough energy (fuel) to do the job. If you cannot do that, you die.

As a Moon travel safety consultant I do not want that to happen to you. 

I evidently do not believe space ship Master Neil Armstrong of space ship Apollo 11 carried enough energy (fuel) to get to the Moon and back 1969. I think he made it up to impress people. Like any drunken sailor. You know anything happens at sea but a lot doesn't happen at sea ... or in space.

And pls do not call me a conspiracy theorist, if you you ever get that idea. I am a safety consultant.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on December 28, 2012, 01:03:57 PM
Rather interesting word choices here. Heiwa, do you use some kind of machine translation?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on December 28, 2012, 01:13:56 PM
Probably not. What you believe is evidenly off topic. You have to visit my web site, link given in post #1 and then continue to the Heiwa Challenges web page and then start working showing that you are more clever than me.

No.  As I said, my browser says that your site is distributing malware and won't let me visit.  Besides, why should I bother tracking yet another ignorant claimant around the internet when the evidence shows he won't listen to evidence anyway?

Quote
As a Moon travel safety consultant I do not want that to happen to you. 

To whom?  This is clearly a job title, and if so, you can obviously give information as to who you serve as travel safety consultant to.  Or are you making this claim to make yourself seem more important to people even more ignorant than you are?

Quote
And pls do not call me a conspiracy theorist, if you you ever get that idea. I am a safety consultant.

You are proposing a conspiracy.  By definition, you are a conspiracy theorist.  Why should I care if you don't like the term?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 28, 2012, 01:15:33 PM
Is all space travel fake, then, Heiwa? There have been a large number of probes that have orbited the moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn. According to you they cannot have done so with the fuel they had on board.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on December 28, 2012, 01:40:17 PM
Someone calling themselves 'Heiwa' has just joined the board. If it's him, perhaps he's come here to discuss his views.

I noted some visitors to my popular web site from Apollohoaxforum so I decided to join. My name is actually Anders Björkman but on Internet forums I am Heiwa. My company is Heiwa Co. A am evidently an engineer and work scientifically using first principles all the time. I am not in conspiracy theories. I just report my observations and calculations and results. If you do not like them, tell me what is wrong with them.

Do not worry. The MONEY is there for anyone, incl. NASA, JPL, SPACEX, ESA, to show that human moon travel is possible, à la Apollo 11 1969. Just copy paste the Apollo 11 NASA data and demonstrate that it really works and the money is yours. IMHO it was a hoax 1969.

Like the 9/11 2001 WTC tower global progressive collapses from top down shown live on five US TV channels. Cannot happen in the real world, i.e. it was another Apollo 11 type hoax. I pay anybody €1M to prove me wrong there too.

You see, I am a generous person. And pls follow the forum rules when replying. Do not shoot at the piano player. Listen to the music and say what's wrong with it.


But if the piano player clearly has no idea how to read music, uses the footpedals as the keyboard, and doesn't even realize he's playing an out-of-tune instrument, surely he can't be too surprised when someone does shoot?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 28, 2012, 02:45:24 PM
Is all space travel fake, then, Heiwa? There have been a large number of probes that have orbited the moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn. According to you they cannot have done so with the fuel they had on board.

You are a little off topic but it is evidently possible to shoot up satellites of all kind from Earth in all directions, e.g. orbiting Earth.
Problem is to get them into orbit around the Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn because the gravity of the Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn may pull them down at arrival, so they crash before they start orbiting, or they miss the Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn all together. You can try to use the Sun gravity to maneuvre but it is difficult. Manned space trips is evidently impossible due to lack of fuel to just heat and light up the space ship and provide oxygene, get rid of shit, etc.

Topic is mainly the Apollo 11 manned moon trip 1969 that, IMO, was a hoax due to lack of fuel with three drunken sailors making up a story. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on December 28, 2012, 03:20:52 PM
You are a little off topic but it is evidently possible to shoot up satellites of all kind from Earth in all directions, e.g. orbiting Earth.
Problem is to get them into orbit around the Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn because the gravity of the Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn may pull them down at arrival, so they crash before they start orbiting, or they miss the Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn all together. You can try to use the Sun gravity to maneuvre but it is difficult. Manned space trips is evidently impossible due to lack of fuel to just heat and light up the space ship and provide oxygene, get rid of shit, etc.

Please explain how you got this 75.47 GJ result:
Quote
To reduce the speed of a mass of 43 000 kg from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s you need 75.47 GJ brake energy! If 1 kg rocket fuel produce 1.63 MJ energy it seems you need 46 300 kg fuel for this maneouvre. You should wonder, where it was carried.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 28, 2012, 03:22:44 PM
Is all space travel fake, then, Heiwa? There have been a large number of probes that have orbited the moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn. According to you they cannot have done so with the fuel they had on board.

You are a little off topic but it is evidently possible to shoot up satellites of all kind from Earth in all directions, e.g. orbiting Earth.
Problem is to get them into orbit around the Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn because the gravity of the Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn may pull them down at arrival, so they crash before they start orbiting, or they miss the Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn all together. You can try to use the Sun gravity to maneuvre but it is difficult. Manned space trips is evidently impossible due to lack of fuel to just heat and light up the space ship and provide oxygene, get rid of shit, etc. 

Please provide your calculations to prove that.



Quote
Topic is mainly the Apollo 11 manned moon trip 1969 that, IMO, was a hoax due to lack of fuel with three drunken sailors making up a story.

And quit with the libellous ad hominem attacks.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 28, 2012, 03:29:12 PM
You are a little off topic

Not at all. Apollo does not exist in isolation. The principles that apply to Apollo apply to all space flight, manned or otherwise. You don't get to ignore any and all related topics when you can't answer them just because they are not specifically related to Apollo 11.

Quote
Problem is to get them into orbit around the Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn because the gravity of the Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn may pull them down at arrival, so they crash before they start orbiting, or they miss the Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn all together.

And yet we seem to have managed it. I repeat, do you claim that probes such as Lunar Orbiter, Surveyor, Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, Clementine, Lunar Propspector, Selene, Kaguya, Galileo, Cassini, Magellan and many more are also fake? If not, what is so specifically hard about a manned lunar orbiting craft?

Quote
Manned space trips is evidently impossible due to lack of fuel to just heat and light up the space ship and provide oxygene, get rid of shit, etc.

You don't need fuel to provide any of those things, but even so we await your calculations to prove your assertion.

Quote
Topic is mainly the Apollo 11 manned moon trip 1969 that, IMO, was a hoax due to lack of fuel with three drunken sailors making up a story.

And what of the other Apollo flights? You know there were others, right?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on December 28, 2012, 03:43:41 PM
For the benefit of the random spectators, here's some commentary about specific claims on Heiwa's page. I'll leave the physics "calculations" to the more qualified and focus on the various lapses of basic knowledge in the text. The whole thing is an example of why conspiracy theorists should be familiar with the "mainstream version" before "criticizing" it.

http://www.members.tripod.com/heiwaco/moontravel.htm

It's a bit hard to decide where to start, but:
Quote
How much fuel is required to get to the Moon and back after having left Earth?

The below presentation is compiled using info from the following sources about the Apollo 11 Moon/Earth 1969 trip: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1969-059A , http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1969-059C and http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/apollo11.html .

The first two are entries for the Apollo 11 CSM and LM in the spacecraft catalog of the National Space Science Data Center. Due to its nature, these are short, encyclopedia-style descriptions of the spacecraft, not full blown treatises on the Apollo system. The last link is a short layman-level description of the Apollo 11 mission on NASA's main website. It's unclear if Björkman thinks that this is everything NASA has to offer about the Apollo program, or if he just can't be bothered to find more.

Quote
The NASA info is evidently incomplete or wrong, e.g. masses of modules differ and the velocity to orbit the Moon, 3 000 m/s according NASA, cannot be correct and a good reason to doubt that a manned Moon/Earth space trip took place 1969.

It's unclear why he thinks that the masses of modules differ, or where did he get that orbital velocity. I couldn't find it in the linked pages.

He also appears to be unaware of the CSM's maneuvering thrusters, which makes docking with the LM a problem in his world, requiring repeated emphasis on their relative positions during launch and flight:
Quote
[illustration caption]

Apollo 11 on way to the Moon; the lunar module (LM) was then connected to the top of of the command module (CM). At departure from Earth the lunar module (LM) was connected to the bottom of the service module (SM).
No, it wasn't. It was just above it. The CSM was attached to the last stage of the Saturn via the Spacecraft Lunar Module Adapter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_%28spacecraft%29#Spacecraft_Lunar_Module_Adapter_.28SLA.29).

Quote
On way to the Moon the lunar module was, one way or other, shifted to above the command module (CM) so that two asstronuts could move into it through a hatch in the top.

Note that the CSM only carried 17.500 liters of fuel of unknown density to get into and out of orbit of the Moon. The SM engine is obstructed by the lunar module (LM) fitted below it at departure, so the LM must be shifted underway.

Just a sidenote: is is that hard to find out that the main engine used a combination of Aerozine 50 and N2O4? I believe that their densities can be also easily found...

Quote
At some time on the flight to the Moon the lunar module, LM, was shifted from below the SM to the top of the CM. How it was done is unclear.

Using the thrusters of the reaction control system, the CSM turns around, docks with the LM and extracts it. There is an illustration of it in the SLA article linked above, and a separate article - Transposition, docking and extraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition,_docking,_and_extraction) that has video of the process. The process was even portrayed in Apollo 13. How is possible for someone to pretend to comment on Apollo without knowing this?

Quote
0n July 17, a scheduled midcourse correction programmed for the flight took place. The launch had been so successful, we are told, that the other three scheduled corrections were not needed. Event # 4. If the LM decent engine or the SM rocket engine was used for the midcourse correction is unclear.

It's the main engine of the CSM. It's mentioned in the page about the CSM linked by Björkman himself. ("...mid-course correction burn of the main engine was performed...") Failure in reading comprehension or he just didn't bother to read it?

Quote
Eagle undocking and decent on the Moon
(...)
How the undocking was done is not clear as LM and CSM had same speed and engines at opposite ends.
:o Yep, he doesn't know that both the CSM and the LM had maneuvering thrusters, a.k.a. the Reaction Control System (16 thrusters on the LM, 12+16 on the CSM).

Quote
On the Moon

Almost four hours later asstronot Neil Armstrong emerged from the Eagle and deployed the TV camera for the transmission of the event to Earth. At about 109 hours, 42 minutes after launch, Armstrong stepped onto the undisturbed Moon soil where temperature was 150°C. Armstrong's shoes didn't melt. About 20 minutes later, asstronut Aldrin followed him. The space suits worked well and provided 20°C fresh air inside with the sun blazing on from outside. The glass screens in the helmets didn't crack!

[citation needed] for the temperature of the spot under Armstrong's feet. :D I'm also curious why Heiwa thinks that Armstrong's "shoes" should have melted. Materials able to withstand 150°C are not inconceivable even for Earth conditions (what shoes do firefighters and metalworkers wear?)

The spacesuits were well-insulated against thermal radiation. Internally generated heat was collected by the Liquid Cooling Garment and discarded by a sublimator in the backpack.

Another major research failure is the assertion that the helmets or the visors (I assume this was meant by "screens") were made of glass (it was plastic).

Anyway, the heat claim is pretty much a standard canard of Moon conspiracy theorists. It has been addressed on Clavius:
http://www.clavius.org/envheat.html

Quote
Four hours later, the LM was jettisoned and remained in lunar orbit, where it should still be today as there is no friction stopping it. How the jettisson was done is unclear with engines at both ends.
Another research failure: low lunar orbits are unstable due to the uneven gravity field of the Moon. And yes, Heiwa is definitely ignorant of the fact that spacecraft have reaction control systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_control_system).

Quote
It is also possible as you use the third stage of the start rocket but not really recommended with people aboard!

Why?

Quote
How to separate the Apollo 11 modules from the third stage is not clear - they have the same velocity and it is assumed that the third stage also flew towards to Moon. NASA has no clue what happened to the third stage.

The CSM used its RCS to detach from the S-IVB stage. The stage was steered aside and sent into a heliocentric orbit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V#S-IVB_sequence for a start. After Apollo 13, the S-IVB stages were sent to impact the Moon to provide seismological data.

Quote
In order to enter the Moon orbit and not to miss or fly by the Moon into eternity... (...) It is the only way to quickly brake or change direction in space. If you forget to brake you will end up at the end of the Universe!

Actually, no, if they missed the brake burn, they would be on a free return trajectory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_return_trajectory) to Earth. Even if they were not, they would still be in heliocentric orbit subject to perturbations by the Moon and the planets.

And this is the point where I got bored. :)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on December 28, 2012, 03:45:32 PM
You have to visit my web site, link given in post #1 and then continue to the Heiwa Challenges web page and then start working showing that you are more clever than me.

No.  Your reputation precedes you.  You are obviously no engineer.  I am a qualified engineer working for more than 20 years in the U.S. aerospace community.  You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when it comes to operating spacecraft in space.  Since you are the lone individual challenging an entire multi-billion dollar industry, you have to show that your objections are based upon more than your ignorant misunderstanding of a highly technical field.

Quote
Re Moon travel you have, e.g. to show how you brake to get into Moon orbit...

Your objection on this point is based on requirements you simply invent.  You do not enjoy a priori credibility.  You do not properly derive or validate your expectations, therefore there is no point in asking someone to explain how those expectations should be met.  You bear the burden to prove you have analyzed this dynamics problem correctly, in contravention of the findings of the entire rest of the industry.  You are not a lone genius.

Quote
As a Moon travel safety consultant I do not want that to happen to you.

You are not a "Moon travel safety consultant."  You have practically no useful knowledge of orbital mechanics or astrodynamics.

Your claim that NASA does not discuss fuel requirements for its Apollo missions is factually false.  You are using the wrong dynamic models for the spacecraft.  Your assumptions about what should instead be the case is simple layman's preconceptions.

Correct those egregious errors first, and only then will it make sense to discuss anything else you've written.

Quote
And pls do not call me a conspiracy theorist, if you you ever get that idea. I am a safety consultant.

No, the only activity we can discern for you here or anywhere is promoting conspiracy theories, some of which you promote for profit.  You are a conspiracy theorist.  If you are unable to face the essential nature of what you do and what you propose, then there is no point in attempting to discuss anything further with you.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on December 28, 2012, 04:32:03 PM
All, and I do mean all, of the information he wants is available in the following documents:

Apollo 11 Mission Report: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11mr.html
AS-506 (Apollo 11) Saturn V launch vehicle flight evaluation report: http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19900066485

Of particular interest is the "Mass Properties" table on page 212 of the first report. It gives the exact mass, center of gravity and moments and products of inertia for the Apollo spacecraft at every significant point in the mission. This is more than enough to calculate, given the known performance of the various rocket engines and the propellants consumed, the delta-V generated during every rocket burn.

Pages 74-76 of the same report list every maneuver and its velocity change. Again, given the known performance of each engine one can compute how much propellant was required, compare it to the mass properties table and see that the numbers are all perfectly consistent.

Of course, this requires a basic understanding of physics and orbital mechanics that our friend seems to totally lack, as evidenced by the few (and remarkably clueless) calculations of the fuel required for various maneuvers. I'd tell him to start with the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation -- or even F=ma -- but there is so much more that he needs to know that it seems hopeless. Especially since he doesn't want to learn.





Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on December 28, 2012, 04:42:10 PM
The mass properties for the Saturn V rocket used to launch Apollo 11 are given in the Saturn V launch vehicle flight evaluation report starting on page 20-1. The numbers are given in exquisite detail, including even the masses of frost formed on the outsides of the cryogenic propellant tanks.

Using the propellant consumption figures from this table and the known performance of the F-1 and J-2 rocket engines, one can compute the performance of each stage and see that it provided the necessary delta-V to first get Apollo 11 into earth orbit and then on its way to the moon.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on December 28, 2012, 05:06:38 PM
I'd tell him to start with the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation

Tsiolkovsky schmiolkovsky. Everybody knows the unit of measure of momentum is the joule.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: DataCable on December 28, 2012, 05:08:55 PM
Every change in speed or direction during Moon travel requires energy
False.  Changes in speed and/or direction can be, and frequently are, caused by gravitational attraction alone.  Orbit itself is a constantly changing direction and, with the exception of perfectly circular orbits, constantly changing speed as well.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ChrLz on December 28, 2012, 05:10:13 PM
Do not worry.
What, me worry?  I am simply amused/bemused by what I see on forums..

Quote
The MONEY is there for anyone
Well, as someone who is moderately experienced and 'professional', you should know the ways in which you can PROVE that the money is there, and that the rules of engagement will be fairly applied.  Others have now addressed much of what you have posted here, but let's cut to the chase on the challenge.

Q. 1  You will now show the PROOF that the money is there.

Q. 2 Are *you* the sole arbiter of the challenge?
 2a If not, who else is involved and what are the terms?
 2b If you are 'it', do *you* think it is a fair and reasonable challenge, given what does appear to be a significant bias on your part and the fact that the alleged money is .. yours..?

Quote
As a Moon travel safety consultant
I'm sorry .. what?

Q. 3 WHO are you consulting for?

Q. 4 Did you consult for the only people who have gone, to date? (That would be NASA..)  Evidence please.

Q. 5 Please link to whatever you think is the *best* example of an analysis *you* have done regarding moon travel.  It should be thorough and comprehensive (and I hope it isn't what you have already posted..).


Anders, I'm afraid I have doubts about the existence of the money, and I also *highly* doubt your qualifications/experience/knowledge.  As you have now come to this forum of your own volition, the onus is now on YOU.  If you expect to be taken seriously here, but do not fully and properly answer all of the questions above, then I think the implication is VERY obvious.

If you do answer them satisfactorily, then perhaps I (or even a group of AHers) might consider your challenge...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on December 28, 2012, 05:52:04 PM
That's a new one. Conspiracy theorists have said some crazy things over the years, but this is the first time I heard that Armstrong's crew just made it up for bragging purposes in the pub.

Truly we have entered a new realm of illucidity.

In fact, the ignorance of the very basics of the mission design, such as transposition and docking, remind me of the Nasascam website.

Heiwa, do you think it was only three drunken sailors? Do you know the names of the other 18 drunken sailors who have been to the Moon.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on December 28, 2012, 06:18:09 PM
Are you the same Anders as on the David Icke forum?  If so then I don't believe you have the money or are an engineer of any type.  That person has shown repeatedly they are completely unreasonable.

Probably not.  What you believe is evidenly off topic.
Probably so.  And doubtful it is off topic. 

You have to visit my web site, link given in post #1 and then continue to the Heiwa Challenges web page and then start working showing that you are more clever than me.
I don't HAVE to do anything.  I am 99% certain you are the same person and know that any effort would like pearls before swine.  Why should I waste my time when I know the result will be more handwaving from your side?
And pls do not call me a conspiracy theorist, if you you ever get that idea. I am a safety consultant.

I didn't call you that, but you are.

I'll give you point for not being a seagull though.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on December 28, 2012, 06:26:37 PM
Is all space travel fake, then, Heiwa? There have been a large number of probes that have orbited the moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn. According to you they cannot have done so with the fuel they had on board.

You are a little off topic but it is evidently possible to shoot up satellites of all kind from Earth in all directions, e.g. orbiting Earth.
Problem is to get them into orbit around the Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn because the gravity of the Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn may pull them down at arrival, so they crash before they start orbiting, or they miss the Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn all together. You can try to use the Sun gravity to maneuvre but it is difficult. Manned space trips is evidently impossible due to lack of fuel to just heat and light up the space ship and provide oxygene, get rid of shit, etc.

Topic is mainly the Apollo 11 manned moon trip 1969 that, IMO, was a hoax due to lack of fuel with three drunken sailors making up a story.

Engineers aren't as stupid as you think they are.  The math has been done.  It is out there.  Again, not worth it to bring it to you because you evidently don't want to see it.  If you really cared you would have found it already or done the research and figured it out yourself.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: BazBear on December 28, 2012, 06:44:59 PM
Is all space travel fake, then, Heiwa? There have been a large number of probes that have orbited the moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn. According to you they cannot have done so with the fuel they had on board.

You are a little off topic but it is evidently possible to shoot up satellites of all kind from Earth in all directions, e.g. orbiting Earth.
Well that's a relief, otherwise GPS, satellite communications, weather satellites etc. wouldn't work quite as well as they do.
Quote
Problem is to get them into orbit around the Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn...
Yep, that is a problem; one that was figured out and mastered close to five decades ago.
Quote
...because the gravity of the Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn may pull them down at arrival, so they crash before they start orbiting, or they miss the Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn all together.
Some have crashed; at times deliberately, at other times due to mechanical fault or human error. Most of the time they orbit and/or land just as planned though; like I said above this stuff was figured out long ago.
Quote
You can try to use the Sun gravity to maneuvre but it is difficult.
Yeah, using the sun is better if you're a comet
Quote
Manned space trips is evidently impossible due to lack of fuel to just heat and light up the space ship and provide oxygene, get rid of shit, etc.
I say you are wrong, and I have a mountain of evidence backing my position. All you seem to have is faulty calculations. I'm also not sure why you think a space traveler needs fuel to take a dump.

Quote
Topic is mainly the Apollo 11 manned moon trip 1969 that, IMO, was a hoax due to lack of fuel with three drunken sailors making up a story.
Sorry, Armstrong was the only Navy man aboard, Aldrin and Collins were USAF.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on December 28, 2012, 07:32:05 PM
On the subject of sailors telling stories: is there a term for those peculiarly Navy tall tales?  Like the one about a destroyer spreading blue paint on the ocean; the submarines it was chasing would get paint all over the periscope when they tried to take a look topside and would think they were still underwater.  They'd keep blowing ballast until they were a few hundred feet in the air, at which point the destroyer would open up on them with anti-aircraft guns.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Count Zero on December 28, 2012, 07:40:44 PM
is there a term for those peculiarly Navy tall tales?

"Sea stories" is what we call them.

The difference between sea stories and fairy tales (a master-chief told me before boot camp) was that one begins, "Once upon a time..." and the other begins, "Hey, this is a no-shitter..."
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on December 28, 2012, 09:15:45 PM
is there a term for those peculiarly Navy tall tales?

"Sea stories" is what we call them.

The difference between sea stories and fairy tales (a master-chief told me before boot camp) was that one begins, "Once upon a time..." and the other begins, "Hey, this is a no-shitter..."

Thanks!  I knew there was some formulaic phrase...but I couldn't even formulate how to ask about it.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 28, 2012, 10:17:08 PM


Please explain how you got this 75.47 GJ result:
Quote
To reduce the speed of a mass of 43 000 kg from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s you need 75.47 GJ brake energy! If 1 kg rocket fuel produce 1.63 MJ energy it seems you need 46 300 kg fuel for this maneouvre. You should wonder, where it was carried.

43000*(2400²-1500²)/2

It is basic physics. See table at end of article in link given in post #1, where all is explained.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on December 28, 2012, 10:18:24 PM
How did you get those numbers?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 28, 2012, 10:34:31 PM
Every change in speed or direction during Moon travel requires energy
False.  Changes in speed and/or direction can be, and frequently are, caused by gravitational attraction alone.  Orbit itself is a constantly changing direction and, with the exception of perfectly circular orbits, constantly changing speed as well.

Of course - evidently the Apollo 11 space ship - its mass - slowed down going to the Moon due to Earth (and Sun) gravity force and then, at the end (after 90% of distance travelled), accelerated again due to Moon gravity force being stronger than Earth gravity acting on the Apollo 11 mass. Same happens on the return trip - after getting out of Moon orbit (you need extra force for it) and away from Moon gravity force, Apollo 11 accelerates all the time due to Earth gravity force (and arrives with great velocity at Earth < 11200 m/s they say). Problem is to change the actual velocity/direction when this happens during space travel applying another force (by your rocket engine!) and ... Apollo 11 lacked fuel for it, as I show in my presentation (link in post #1).
Drop anything, e.g. from the top of the tower of Pisa, and you will see how Earth gravity force accelerates mass, i.e. changes the velocity.
The above is basic - now try to show the errors in my presentation.


Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 28, 2012, 10:39:49 PM
How did you get those numbers?

2400 m/s is the arrival speed at the Moon according NASA.

1500 m/s is the speed in orbit around the Moon according NASA.

43000 kg is the mass of the space ship at arrival according NASA.

Evidently it changes when fuel is consumed - but I keep it constant as NASA cannot inform how much fuel or energy was consumed to reduce the speed from 2400 to 1500 m/s to get into orbit.

FGS, just read my presentation where all info is given.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on December 28, 2012, 10:46:02 PM
Problem is to change the actual velocity/direction when this happens during space travel applying another force (by your rocket engine!) and ... Apollo 11 lacked fuel for it, as I show in my presentation (link in post #1).
Drop anything, e.g. from the top of the tower of Pisa, and you will see how Earth gravity force accelerates mass, i.e. changes the velocity.
The above is basic - now try to show the errors in my presentation.

What happens if I throw a ball from the surface of the Earth at a 45° up angle at 20 m/s? Will the ball follow a parabolic arc or will it continue up at a 45° angle until gravity stops it moving upward and forward and then it falls straight to the ground?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on December 28, 2012, 11:12:02 PM
The above is basic - now try to show the errors in my presentation.

You used the wrong equations and made-up values for the quantities expressed by the equations you did use.  No further discussion is possible until you correct those errors.  In fact, when one uses the wrong model and the wrong initial values, there is not much more to the problem to get wrong.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Grashtel on December 28, 2012, 11:27:11 PM
Evidently it changes when fuel is consumed - but I keep it constant as NASA cannot inform how much fuel or energy was consumed to reduce the speed from 2400 to 1500 m/s to get into orbit.
Yeah, its not like they have a downloadable report (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11mr_NoMissingPages_19700008096.pdf) on a webpage (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11mr.html) that you have been pointed at earlier in this thread (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg7884#msg7884) that on page 335 of the PDF has a table that details the mass, center of mass, moment of inertia, and product of inertia of the CSM and LM at various key points of the mission including immediately before and after the lunar orbit insertion burn and then the later circulrisation burn done to get it to the final orbit.

In fact for ease of reference here are the numbers that NASA doesn't tell us in that non-existant report:

Lunar Orbit Insertion:
Ignition: 96061.6 lb
Cutoff: 72037.6 lb

Circularization:
Ignition: 72019.9 lb
Cutoff: 70905.9 lb

(I'm leaving the values in pounds because that is what the report has them in and I have held your hand more than enough already).
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on December 28, 2012, 11:29:57 PM
I think Grashtel deserves the 1 million Euro.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on December 28, 2012, 11:32:11 PM
2400 m/s is the arrival speed at the Moon according NASA.

"Arrival" is not a recognized technical term in astrodynamics.  Please use appropriate terminology, and specify at what point along the orbit this "speed" occurs.

Quote
1500 m/s is the speed in orbit around the Moon according NASA.

The initial orbit after LOI-1 and before LOI-2 is elliptical, not circular.  Please give more specific information about the orbit you envision the spacecraft to have entered.

Also, "according to NASA" is rhetorical nonsense, since the principles of orbital mechanics predate NASA by 100 years or more and are not dictated arbitrarily by them.  The Apollo orbits are dictated by this century-old science and derived according to it.  No need to try to accuse NASA at every turn.

Quote
43000 kg is the mass of the space ship at arrival according NASA.

Evidently it changes when fuel is consumed - but I keep it constant...

Then you did the problem spectacularly wrong.  You cannot pretend using the wrong propulsion model will give you the right answer.  The mathematical management of the variable-mass property of a space vehicle is what separates the real engineer from the incompetent amateur.  A real engineer can derive the mass changes based on the known properties of the propulsion system, or the change in the dynamic state (accurately, including the change in mass) based on the known expenditure of propellant.  The fact that you can do neither, and don't even try, indicates you don't know what you're doing.  Your oversimplification is fatal to your claim.

Until you demonstrate even minimal competence, there is no point dissecting the rest of your "presentation" in depth.

Quote
as NASA cannot inform how much fuel or energy was consumed to reduce the speed from 2400 to 1500 m/s to get into orbit.

Factually false.  Detailed pads for all burns have been available for more than 10 years.  Someone so inept in his research does not enjoy a priori credibility.  You bear the burden to prove you have solved the problem correctly, and you frankly admit you have not.  It is not the job of your critics to educate you properly in the correct principles of spacecraft dynamics.  You have claimed to be an expert.  You will either therefore demonstrate expertise to our satisfaction, or you will be dismissed.

Quote
FGS, just read my presentation where all info is given.

Your presentation is undocumented and proceeds from false premises and pretenses that I have outlined and asked you to correct here.  Until those are corrected here, you have no reason to compel others to read a lengthy page of nonsense.  Your egregious mistakes are made early enough on that the rest of your "presentation" is nonsense.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on December 28, 2012, 11:35:44 PM
I think Grashtel deserves the 1 million Euro.

Split 50/50 with Jay. ;)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 28, 2012, 11:38:49 PM
The above is basic - now try to show the errors in my presentation.

You used the wrong equations and made-up values for the quantities expressed by the equations you did use.  No further discussion is possible until you correct those errors.  In fact, when one uses the wrong model and the wrong initial values, there is not much more to the problem to get wrong.

No, I use the correct, but simple, equations and values obtained from NASA reports to get a feel of the problem as shown in my presentation. Pls show your equations and values to obtain the energy/force/time, etc, required to get into Moon orbit on arrival Moon and out of Moon orbit on departure Moon, so we can discuss seriously. 

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 28, 2012, 11:48:07 PM


Your presentation is undocumented and proceeds from false premises and pretenses that I have outlined and asked you to correct here.  Until those are corrected here, you have no reason to compel others to read a lengthy page of nonsense.  Your egregious mistakes are made early enough on that the rest of your "presentation" is nonsense.

No, my presentation is documented as references are given at start of presentation and values used are taken from these references and all calculations are correct. Of course the NASA references are full of errors some of which I point out. Nobody is compelled to read my presentation or to get upset about it.

If you want to win €1 000 000:- (topic) you just have to do your own calculations of energy (fuel) required and present them, e.g. copy/paste from a suitable NASA report. Shouldn't that be easy?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on December 28, 2012, 11:49:10 PM
No, I use the correct, but simple, equations...

No.  You simplified away the most important part of the relevant equations -- the terms that deal with the change in spacecraft mass as fuel is consumed.  Use the correct equations.

Quote
...and values obtained from NASA reports...

As previously stated, you give velocity figures without citation ("according to NASA" is not sufficient documentation), and without placing them in an appropriate orbital dynamics context.  As such they are useless in computation.  I have asked you to correct those errors.  Please explain why you have not done so, and correct them immediately.

Quote
Pls show your equations...

There are no "my" equations; there are only the proper equations.  Your "simplifications" based on your obviously limited knowledge of astrodynamics do not suffice.  I've given you the hint:  you must consider the natural logarithm of the ratio of start and end masses.

I will not spoon feed you information that you should know according to your claim to be an engineer.  You have the burden to show you know what you're talking about.  I will give you a reference however to Sutton and Biblarz as authors of some note on the subject.  Reconcile your claims with the first few chapters in any of their books and return here.

Also, I will require proof that you are prepared to pay one million Euros on demand or else this conversation will not proceed.  Please deposit the sum in escrow in a bank of your choice and post its account number here along with the name of the escrow agent, and (in a private message) the PIN to verify the amount.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on December 28, 2012, 11:56:13 PM
No, my presentation is documented as references are given at start of presentation...

No.  I have asked you specific questions about the context of your quoted values.  You are unable to answer them, indicating you do not understand them.

Quote
...all calculations are correct.

No.  By your own admission the spacecraft is a variable-mass vehicle, and you have specifically omitted that property in your computations.  You have already admitted that you are using a simplified model, not a correct model.  Either use the model you know you to be correct, or perform an error analysis to show that the difference between the correct model and your simplification is insignificant.

Quote
Nobody is compelled to read my presentation or to get upset about it.

Nobody does read it.  Claims that Apollo missions are phony, especially those based on admittedly imprecise computations, are simply dismissed as absurd in the industry.  Since you have challenged an entire industry and its subordinate sciences based upon nothing but your personal say-so, you bear considerable responsibility to answer questions and defend the basis of your claims.  Trying to shift the burden of proof to force your critics to educate you is profoundly unfair.  You are hubristically claiming superior understanding.  You will therefore demonstrate it at my request or else concede.

I have pointed out the initial errors in your presentation.  The rest of it is pointless verbiage until you correct those basic errors.

Quote
If you want to win €1 000 000:- (topic) you just have to do your own calculations of energy (fuel) required and present them, e.g. copy/paste from a suitable NASA report. Shouldn't that be easy?

No.  Your offer is to show what you did wrong.  We have done that.  You are obviously unwilling and unable to pay up.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on December 29, 2012, 12:23:27 AM


Please explain how you got this 75.47 GJ result:
Quote
To reduce the speed of a mass of 43 000 kg from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s you need 75.47 GJ brake energy! If 1 kg rocket fuel produce 1.63 MJ energy it seems you need 46 300 kg fuel for this maneouvre. You should wonder, where it was carried.

43000*(2400²-1500²)/2

It is basic physics. See table at end of article in link given in post #1, where all is explained.

First of all, that is the wrong equation. It takes x amount of fuel to accelerate by 900 m/s in free fall (neglecting relativistic effects) regardless of your initial speed, whether it be 0 or 100,000 m/s. According to that equation, it will take 23 times as much fuel to accelerate from 10,000 to 10,900 m/s than from 0 to 900 m/s and that is just wrong.

Second, your energy density is for hydrazine used as a monopropellant. The SPS used Aerozine 50 as the fuel and nitrogen tetroxide as the oxidizer. In rocket propulsion, the proper units you want to use are specific impulse or exhaust velocity. Aerozine 50/N2O4 had about a 50% higher Isp.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 02:14:30 AM
At departure Earth the Command Module and the Service Module are together loaded on top of the Saturn rocket with the Lunar Module stored below the Service Module, actually below the rocket engine outlet of the Service Module.

After lift off and one orbit Earth the space ship is sent off towards the Moon and one way or another the Lunar Module is shifted to the top of the Command Module, so that later, in Moon orbit, two persons can enter it via the hatches. Can anybody explain how the transfer of the Lunar Module from below the Service Module to the top of the Command Module was done?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 02:24:40 AM


Please explain how you got this 75.47 GJ result:
Quote
To reduce the speed of a mass of 43 000 kg from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s you need 75.47 GJ brake energy! If 1 kg rocket fuel produce 1.63 MJ energy it seems you need 46 300 kg fuel for this maneouvre. You should wonder, where it was carried.

43000*(2400²-1500²)/2

It is basic physics. See table at end of article in link given in post #1, where all is explained.

First of all, that is the wrong equation. It takes x amount of fuel to accelerate by 900 m/s in free fall (neglecting relativistic effects) regardless of your initial speed, whether it be 0 or 100,000 m/s. According to that equation, it will take 23 times as much fuel to accelerate from 10,000 to 10,900 m/s than from 0 to 900 m/s and that is just wrong.

Second, your energy density is for hydrazine used as a monopropellant. The SPS used Aerozine 50 as the fuel and nitrogen tetroxide as the oxidizer. In rocket propulsion, the proper units you want to use are specific impulse or exhaust velocity. Aerozine 50/N2O4 had about a 50% higher Isp.

Sorry, you are wrong. To start with you have to decelerate, i.e. slow down at arrival Moon and get into orbit there in order not to crash on or simply fly bye, and according NASA you slow down from 2400 to 1500 m/s and for that you need 75.47 GJ energy (assuming constant mass 43 000 kg while slowing down).
As it seems 1 kg rocket fuel produces 1.63 MJ energy you need 46 300 kg fuel to slow down. The question is, where to store it?

The fuel burnt in the Service Module rocket engine evidently produces a force, unit Newton, that slows down the space ship from 2400 to 1500 m/s during a certain time t (seconds), while the space ship moves a certain trajectory/distance (meter). During this deceleration maneuver also the direction of the space ship is changed probably also helped by Moon gravity. Another question is how to control the direction of the force during this maneuver so that you neither crash nor fly bye the Moon. Any ideas?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 29, 2012, 02:36:43 AM


Please explain how you got this 75.47 GJ result:
Quote
To reduce the speed of a mass of 43 000 kg from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s you need 75.47 GJ brake energy! If 1 kg rocket fuel produce 1.63 MJ energy it seems you need 46 300 kg fuel for this maneouvre. You should wonder, where it was carried.

43000*(2400²-1500²)/2

It is basic physics. See table at end of article in link given in post #1, where all is explained.

First of all, that is the wrong equation. It takes x amount of fuel to accelerate by 900 m/s in free fall (neglecting relativistic effects) regardless of your initial speed, whether it be 0 or 100,000 m/s. According to that equation, it will take 23 times as much fuel to accelerate from 10,000 to 10,900 m/s than from 0 to 900 m/s and that is just wrong.

Second, your energy density is for hydrazine used as a monopropellant. The SPS used Aerozine 50 as the fuel and nitrogen tetroxide as the oxidizer. In rocket propulsion, the proper units you want to use are specific impulse or exhaust velocity. Aerozine 50/N2O4 had about a 50% higher Isp.

Sorry, you are wrong. To start with you have to decelerate, i.e. slow down at arrival Moon and get into orbit there in order not to crash on or simply fly bye, and according NASA you slow down from 2400 to 1500 m/s and for that you need 75.47 GJ energy (assuming constant mass 43 000 kg while slowing down).
As it seems 1 kg rocket fuel produces 1.63 MJ energy you need 46 300 kg fuel to slow down. The question is, very to store it?

Two things.

1. Assuming constant mass is incorrect, as Jay already pointed out.  Jay is an aerospace engineer.

2. Even if using 1/2 m v2 was right (it's not) you have done the operations in the wrong order to get your answer.  You have calculated delta(v2) when it should be (delta v)2 as Chew already explained.

If you refuse to accept corrections to your mistakes from experts in the field, there is no point debating you.  I'd be annoyed if I wasn't laughing so hard.  A child would not make such mistakes as you have.

Further, I do not believe you have a million Euros, or would be willing to pay it over if you did.

Lastly, it is considered very poor form here to start posting new questions and demands while ignoring old ones.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on December 29, 2012, 02:38:38 AM
At departure Earth the Command Module and the Service Module are together loaded on top of the Saturn rocket with the Lunar Module stored below the Service Module, actually below the rocket engine outlet of the Service Module.

After lift off and one orbit Earth the space ship is sent off towards the Moon and one way or another the Lunar Module is shifted to the top of the Command Module, so that later, in Moon orbit, two persons can enter it via the hatches. Can anybody explain how the transfer of the Lunar Module from below the Service Module to the top of the Command Module was done?

1)  This was already answered in this thread.

2) This isn't some secret flaw NASA has been careful not to mention.  It is a well-documented part of the spacecraft operations.  Described in detail by Walter Cronkite to the world audience and all.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 02:43:02 AM


Nobody does read it.  Claims that Apollo missions are phony, especially those based on admittedly imprecise computations, are simply dismissed as absurd in the industry.  Since you have challenged an entire industry and its subordinate sciences based upon nothing but your personal say-so, you bear considerable responsibility to answer questions and defend the basis of your claims.  Trying to shift the burden of proof to force your critics to educate you is profoundly unfair.  You are hubristically claiming superior understanding.  You will therefore demonstrate it at my request or else concede.

I have pointed out the initial errors in your presentation.  The rest of it is pointless verbiage until you correct those basic errors.

Quote
If you want to win €1 000 000:- (topic) you just have to do your own calculations of energy (fuel) required and present them, e.g. copy/paste from a suitable NASA report. Shouldn't that be easy?

No.  Your offer is to show what you did wrong.  We have done that.  You are obviously unwilling and unable to pay up.

Actually Chew read it and ask real questions.

In order to win €1 million (topic) you must evidently use the correct equations, masses, velocities, forces, trajectories, times, etc to explain the Moon trip. As NASA has done it several times it seems you only have to copy/paste from the NASA reports and there  you are. I have not been able to do it, maybe because I am a stupid engineer? Or a conspiracy terrorist?
Actually I am neither. I am just curious how much energy you need to do do the trip and where to store it.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 02:45:58 AM


Please explain how you got this 75.47 GJ result:
Quote
To reduce the speed of a mass of 43 000 kg from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s you need 75.47 GJ brake energy! If 1 kg rocket fuel produce 1.63 MJ energy it seems you need 46 300 kg fuel for this maneouvre. You should wonder, where it was carried.

43000*(2400²-1500²)/2

It is basic physics. See table at end of article in link given in post #1, where all is explained.

First of all, that is the wrong equation. It takes x amount of fuel to accelerate by 900 m/s in free fall (neglecting relativistic effects) regardless of your initial speed, whether it be 0 or 100,000 m/s. According to that equation, it will take 23 times as much fuel to accelerate from 10,000 to 10,900 m/s than from 0 to 900 m/s and that is just wrong.

Second, your energy density is for hydrazine used as a monopropellant. The SPS used Aerozine 50 as the fuel and nitrogen tetroxide as the oxidizer. In rocket propulsion, the proper units you want to use are specific impulse or exhaust velocity. Aerozine 50/N2O4 had about a 50% higher Isp.

Sorry, you are wrong. To start with you have to decelerate, i.e. slow down at arrival Moon and get into orbit there in order not to crash on or simply fly bye, and according NASA you slow down from 2400 to 1500 m/s and for that you need 75.47 GJ energy (assuming constant mass 43 000 kg while slowing down).
As it seems 1 kg rocket fuel produces 1.63 MJ energy you need 46 300 kg fuel to slow down. The question is, very to store it?

Two things.

1. Assuming constant mass is incorrect, as Jay already pointed out.  Jay is an aerospace engineer.

2. Even if using 1/2 m v2 was right (it's not) you have done the operations in the wrong order to get your answer.  You have calculated delta(v2) when it should be (delta v)2 as Chew already explained.

If you refuse to accept corrections to your mistakes from experts in the field, there is no point debating you.  I'd be annoyed if I wasn't laughing so hard.  A child would not make such mistakes as you have.

Further, I do not believe you have a million Euros, or would be willing to pay it over if you did.

Lastly, it is considered very poor form here to start posting new questions and demands while ignoring old ones.

I am evidently comparing the kinetic energy of the mass at two different speeds, 2400 and 1500 m/s, so my formula and calculations are correct.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 02:50:13 AM
At departure Earth the Command Module and the Service Module are together loaded on top of the Saturn rocket with the Lunar Module stored below the Service Module, actually below the rocket engine outlet of the Service Module.

After lift off and one orbit Earth the space ship is sent off towards the Moon and one way or another the Lunar Module is shifted to the top of the Command Module, so that later, in Moon orbit, two persons can enter it via the hatches. Can anybody explain how the transfer of the Lunar Module from below the Service Module to the top of the Command Module was done?

1)  This was already answered in this thread.

2) This isn't some secret flaw NASA has been careful not to mention.  It is a well-documented part of the spacecraft operations.  Described in detail by Walter Cronkite to the world audience and all.

?? So how was the Lunar Module shifted from below the Service Module rocket outlet to the top of the Service Module in space?
Did Walter Cronkite do it? How? How was the Lunar Module actually connected to the Service Module at departure (below the Service Module rocket engine outlet)? And how was the Lunar Module disconnected and then shifted to the top of the Command Module? Any link to NASA reports about that?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 29, 2012, 02:50:55 AM


Please explain how you got this 75.47 GJ result:
Quote
To reduce the speed of a mass of 43 000 kg from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s you need 75.47 GJ brake energy! If 1 kg rocket fuel produce 1.63 MJ energy it seems you need 46 300 kg fuel for this maneouvre. You should wonder, where it was carried.

43000*(2400²-1500²)/2

It is basic physics. See table at end of article in link given in post #1, where all is explained.

First of all, that is the wrong equation. It takes x amount of fuel to accelerate by 900 m/s in free fall (neglecting relativistic effects) regardless of your initial speed, whether it be 0 or 100,000 m/s. According to that equation, it will take 23 times as much fuel to accelerate from 10,000 to 10,900 m/s than from 0 to 900 m/s and that is just wrong.

Second, your energy density is for hydrazine used as a monopropellant. The SPS used Aerozine 50 as the fuel and nitrogen tetroxide as the oxidizer. In rocket propulsion, the proper units you want to use are specific impulse or exhaust velocity. Aerozine 50/N2O4 had about a 50% higher Isp.

Sorry, you are wrong. To start with you have to decelerate, i.e. slow down at arrival Moon and get into orbit there in order not to crash on or simply fly bye, and according NASA you slow down from 2400 to 1500 m/s and for that you need 75.47 GJ energy (assuming constant mass 43 000 kg while slowing down).
As it seems 1 kg rocket fuel produces 1.63 MJ energy you need 46 300 kg fuel to slow down. The question is, very to store it?

Two things.

1. Assuming constant mass is incorrect, as Jay already pointed out.  Jay is an aerospace engineer.

2. Even if using 1/2 m v2 was right (it's not) you have done the operations in the wrong order to get your answer.  You have calculated delta(v2) when it should be (delta v)2 as Chew already explained.

If you refuse to accept corrections to your mistakes from experts in the field, there is no point debating you.  I'd be annoyed if I wasn't laughing so hard.  A child would not make such mistakes as you have.

Further, I do not believe you have a million Euros, or would be willing to pay it over if you did.

Lastly, it is considered very poor form here to start posting new questions and demands while ignoring old ones.

I am evidently comparing the kinetic energy at two different speeds, 2400 and 1500 m/s, so my formula and calculations are correct.

You really don't see the difference between

2400^2 - 1500^2 = 3,510,000

And

(2400-1500)^2 = 810,000

Because that is but one error you have made.



Or that the mass changes as fuel is used?

?????  Really?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Count Zero on December 29, 2012, 02:53:43 AM
At departure Earth the Command Module and the Service Module are together loaded on top of the Saturn rocket with the Lunar Module stored below the Service Module, actually below the rocket engine outlet of the Service Module.

After lift off and one orbit Earth the space ship is sent off towards the Moon and one way or another the Lunar Module is shifted to the top of the Command Module, so that later, in Moon orbit, two persons can enter it via the hatches. Can anybody explain how the transfer of the Lunar Module from below the Service Module to the top of the Command Module was done?

Cripes!  He doesn't even know about the transposition, docking & ejection maneuver (which was illustrated in everything from the original press kits to a major a major motion picture, and was televised live during the missions) and he wants to lecture us on Apollo?!  :D

He probably senses he's getting into trouble with his fake rocket equations (the bluff isn't working), and is trying to change the subject.  Let the Gish-Gallop begin...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on December 29, 2012, 02:54:00 AM


Please explain how you got this 75.47 GJ result:
Quote
To reduce the speed of a mass of 43 000 kg from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s you need 75.47 GJ brake energy! If 1 kg rocket fuel produce 1.63 MJ energy it seems you need 46 300 kg fuel for this maneouvre. You should wonder, where it was carried.

43000*(2400²-1500²)/2

It is basic physics. See table at end of article in link given in post #1, where all is explained.

First of all, that is the wrong equation. It takes x amount of fuel to accelerate by 900 m/s in free fall (neglecting relativistic effects) regardless of your initial speed, whether it be 0 or 100,000 m/s. According to that equation, it will take 23 times as much fuel to accelerate from 10,000 to 10,900 m/s than from 0 to 900 m/s and that is just wrong.

Second, your energy density is for hydrazine used as a monopropellant. The SPS used Aerozine 50 as the fuel and nitrogen tetroxide as the oxidizer. In rocket propulsion, the proper units you want to use are specific impulse or exhaust velocity. Aerozine 50/N2O4 had about a 50% higher Isp.

Sorry, you are wrong. To start with you have to decelerate, i.e. slow down at arrival Moon

To emphasize "deceleration" is just another one of your blunders that proves you are not an engineer. A real engineer would know that "acceleration" simply means a change in velocity. Everything else you said is just as wrong as the first time you said it. Learn the difference force and energy.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on December 29, 2012, 02:55:14 AM

I am evidently comparing the kinetic energy of the mass at two different speeds, 2400 and 1500 m/s, so my formula and calculations are correct.

Why?  Why wouldn't you just use the Ke of the difference?  Your method gives different answers for the same change in velocity, depending on starting conditions!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on December 29, 2012, 02:58:22 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/sMOBc.jpg)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on December 29, 2012, 03:01:58 AM

?? So how was the Lunar Module shifted from below the Service Module rocket outlet to the top of the Service Module in space?
Did Walter Cronkite do it? How? How was the Lunar Module actually connected to the Service Module at departure (below the Service Module rocket engine outlet)? And how was the Lunar Module disconnected and then shifted to the top of the Command Module? Any link to NASA reports about that?

Why?

How is this an impossible task?  What makes it different from orbital rendezvous (which goes way back to Gemini) -- except that the later is TOUGHER.  Why the sudden fixation on one detail out of hundreds of thousands?  Why is it you don't know anything about a basic and necessary part of the mission profile?  How is it you think you can calculate the cost of any of the major burns without knowing what kind of spacecraft had to make them (aka short stack, S-IVb on or off, etc.)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 03:03:37 AM
The kinetic energy of a mass m = 43000 kg at velcocity v=2400 m/s is evidently 43 000*2400²/2= 123.84 GJ
At v=1500 m/s the kinetic energy is 48.375 GJ.
The difference in kinetic energy of a mass of 43000 kg at 2400 and 1500 m/s is therefore 123.84-48.375=75.465 GJ.
In order to reduce the velocity from 2400 to 1500 m/s, which takes a certain time t (seconds) you must apply a force F (Newton), while the space ship displaces a distance d (meter).
Say that the time t is 600 seconds? What is the force F? And the distance d? Show me that you can calculate.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on December 29, 2012, 03:07:07 AM
If I'm remembering any of my numbers right, the RCS had a delta-v capacity some 1,000x larger than the kind of velocities called for in the re-arrangement of the vehicles. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 03:08:18 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/sMOBc.jpg)

Thanks for the photo of the Service and Command Modules together without any Lunar Module attached.

The Lunar module was apparently fitted below the Service Module rocket engine outlet at departure Earth and later, by somebody called Walter, shifted to the top of the Command Module in space. Can you please explain how it was done, e.g. by some photos and links to a suitable NASA report.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 29, 2012, 03:09:22 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/sMOBc.jpg)

Thanks for the photo of the Service and Command Modules together without any Lunar Module attached.

The Lunar module was apparently fitted below the Service Module rocket engine outlet at departure Earth and later, by somebody called Walter, shifted to the top of the Command Module in space. Can you please explain how it was done, e.g. by some photos and links to a suitable NASA report.

You cannot be for real.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 03:12:14 AM
(http://galaxywire.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/transfer-to-lunar-module-space-art.jpg)
Of course I am real! Like my €1 000 000:- at my bank.

Here we see the Lunar Module connected to the top of the Command Module in space prior ariival Moon. But at departure Earth the Lunar Module was connected to the Service Module below the rocket engine outlet.
How was the transfer of the Lunar Module done?
How did Walter do it?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on December 29, 2012, 03:16:05 AM
The kinetic energy of a mass m = 43000 kg at velcocity v=2400 m/s is evidently 43 000*2400²/2= 123.84 GJ
At v=1500 m/s the kinetic energy is 48.375 GJ.
The difference in kinetic energy of a mass of 43000 kg at 2400 and 1500 m/s is therefore 123.84-48.375=75.465 GJ.
In order to reduce the velocity from 2400 to 1500 m/s, which takes a certain time t (seconds) you must apply a force F (Newton), while the space ship displaces a distance d (meter).
Say that the time t is 600 seconds? What is the force F? And the distance d? Show me that you can calculate.

Why are you working backwards?  If you were calculating an elastic collision, would you convert to Ke before working your way back to MV?

Anyhow...here's a fun;  2,400 m/s - 1,500 m/s = 900.  1/2 43,000 kg (21,500)  x 900^2 (810,000) = 1.74 x 10^10 joules.  Odd, isn't it, how the base velocity seems to matter in your version. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 29, 2012, 03:21:37 AM
Of course I am real! Like my €1 000 000:- at my bank.

You have been asked for proof of that and ignored the request.  Why?


Quote
Here we see the Lunar Module connected to the top of the Command Module in space prior ariival Moon. But at departure Earth the Lunar Module was connected to the Service Module below the rocket engine outlet.
How was the transfer of the Lunar Module done?
How did Walter do it?

(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4205/images/c132.gif)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 03:25:58 AM

Why is it you don't know anything about a basic and necessary part of the mission profile?  How is it you think you can calculate the cost of any of the major burns without knowing what kind of spacecraft had to make them (aka short stack, S-IVb on or off, etc.)

Space travel is similar to a voyage at sea (my speciality) and you need fuel to get from A to B. If you study my presentation (topic - see post #1 with link to it) you see my concern is just the fuel used by Apollo 11 and ... after basic calculations using NASA input ... I find that Apollo 11 could not carry the required fuel to get in and out of Moon orbit. The space ship was too heavy or the engines to inefficient or something.
If you think my calculations are wrong, just show it. Do not tell me how stupid I am, etc, etc.

I am also curious to know how Walter managed to shift the Lunar Module in space from one end to the other of the CSM! Do you know, how Walter did it?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 29, 2012, 03:29:33 AM

Space travel is similar to a voyage at sea (my speciality)


Let me stop you right there.  Space travel is in three dimensions with hugely varying mass and changing gravitational fields.  Neither of those apply to sailing.



Quote
If you think my calculations are wrong, just show it.

We did.  You ignored us.



Quote
I am also curious to know how Walter managed to shift the Lunar Module in space from one end to the other of the CSM! Do you know, how Walter did it?

I showed you that - look at the diagram I provided in post 71 of this thread.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 03:33:20 AM
Of course I am real! Like my €1 000 000:- at my bank.

You have been asked for proof of that and ignored the request.  Why?


Quote
Here we see the Lunar Module connected to the top of the Command Module in space prior ariival Moon. But at departure Earth the Lunar Module was connected to the Service Module below the rocket engine outlet.
How was the transfer of the Lunar Module done?
How did Walter do it?

(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4205/images/c132.gif)

So in Earth orbit the CSM was disconnected from the last stage of the Saturn rocket, rotated 180° and then connected to the Lunar Module? And Walter did it? And then the CSM with the Lunar Module on top of the CM was sent off to the Moon. Why not?

Question remains how they managed to brake to get into Moon orbit three days later.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 29, 2012, 03:38:49 AM

So in Earth orbit the CSM was disconnected from the last stage of the Saturn rocket, rotated 180° and then connected to the Lunar Module?

Yes.


Quote
And Walter did it?

Walter Cronkite was an American broadcast journalist for CBS News.  He described how the maneuver was completed to the American public on TV.  Why are you obsessed with him?!



Quote
And then the CSM with the Lunar Module on top of the CM was sent off to the Moon.

Yes.



Quote
Why not?

Does that mean you accept you were wrong?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on December 29, 2012, 03:41:49 AM
At departure Earth the Command Module and the Service Module are together loaded on top of the Saturn rocket with the Lunar Module stored below the Service Module, actually below the rocket engine outlet of the Service Module.

After lift off and one orbit Earth the space ship is sent off towards the Moon and one way or another the Lunar Module is shifted to the top of the Command Module, so that later, in Moon orbit, two persons can enter it via the hatches. Can anybody explain how the transfer of the Lunar Module from below the Service Module to the top of the Command Module was done?
Two words, relative velocity. Once on a trans lunar trajectory, on the way to the moon, the LM, spent SIVb booster, and CSM were, relative to each other, standing still, in free fall. The RCS rockets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_control_system#Location_of_thrusters_on_space_capsules), the cross shaped bunches of rocket nozzles on the Service module and lunar module, were more than enough to push it forward and around and back the minuscule amount of change in velocity to dock the LM with the CSM.
 lso, another thing you got wrong is that you don't need much, if any, fuel to change orientation, which way you are pointed along a particular trajectory, especially in a drag free, weightless environment like LEO or translunar trajectory..
Seriously, this kind of manoeuvring is necessary for any kind of docking with the ISS, or even constructing the ISS, something anyone who cares to look could go outside and see if they look up at the right time (http://www.heavens-above.com/?lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=UCT).
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on December 29, 2012, 03:43:45 AM
I vote "How did Walter do it" to the same wall of fame as "How far up does this alleged vacuum go" and "Who is this Jodie Banks person?"
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 03:44:02 AM
Space travel is in three dimensions with hugely varying mass and changing gravitational fields.  Neither of those apply to sailing.

Sailing in the interface air/water is evidently also in three dimensions and the forces applied to the sea going ship are much more complicated than those of a space ship.

As a sea going ship is always subject to resistance, a force N must be applied all the time to maintain a certain speed requiring fuel, etc, etc. Quite complicated. A space ship is not really subject to resistance and its speed is only affected by nearby masses (like Earth and Moon). However, to change speed of a space ship under controlled forms you need a force and to produce that force you need fuel.
Thus the same basic physical principles apply, I am happy to conclude.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 29, 2012, 03:46:50 AM
Space travel is in three dimensions with hugely varying mass and changing gravitational fields.  Neither of those apply to sailing.

Sailing in the interface air/water is evidently also in three dimensions

But the ship doesn't move in three dimensions.  It moves across the surface of the sea - two dimensions.

I note you do not respond to my points about changing mass and gravitational fields.

Thus, you know absolutely nothing about orbital mechanics or how to apply them, I am happy to conclude.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on December 29, 2012, 03:49:48 AM

Space travel is similar to a voyage at sea (my speciality) and you need fuel to get from A to B.
If you study my presentation (topic - see post #1 with link to it) you see my concern is just the fuel used by Apollo 11 and ... after basic calculations using NASA input ... I find that Apollo 11 could not carry the required fuel to get in and out of Moon orbit. The space ship was too heavy or the engines to inefficient or something.
If you think my calculations are wrong, just show it. Do not tell me how stupid I am, etc, etc.

I am also curious to know how Walter managed to shift the Lunar Module in space from one end to the other of the CSM! Do you know, how Walter did it?

No.

Sea travel (with some exceptions!) is pre-Newtonian.  Space travel (with some exceptions) is Newtonian.  Even the best hull design on the water still has significant drag.  If you don't put in energy to offset the drag, you don't move forward.  Thus, all else being equal, energy and distance are interchangeable.  A phrase like "miles per gallon" makes sense.

In space travel, if you discount gravitational sources from the problem, there is essentially no drag.  You will travel for a very long time and for inconceivable distances before you need to put any energy into the spacecraft.  In this later case, energy and change of velocity are interchangeable. A phrase like "miles per gallon" is nonsense.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 29, 2012, 03:51:26 AM
Space travel is similar to a voyage at sea

What absolute rubbish. Space travel is a 3-dimensional problem involving a vehicle that substantially varies its mass during the voyage and spends most of it passively moving while being affected by gravity.

Quote
my concern is just the fuel used by Apollo 11

Why specifically Apollo 11? What of the other unmanned probes I have mentioned, all of which had the same problem, namely getting into orbit around another celestial body?

You want to arbitrarily restrict the problem to one example of dozens, and you use calculations you already admit are wrong because you have not considered the varying mass of the spacecraft. You have been shown exactly where to get the correct figures you need for your calcuations, and where to find the correct calculations, yet you ignore that entirely. You are making elementary mistakes that no aerospace engineer would ever make. You know nothing of the subject material and you obviously have no intention of delievering on your promise to pay anyone who can prove you wrong, as evidenced by the way you continue to ignore those who have done so.

Quote
I am also curious to know how Walter managed to shift the Lunar Module in space from one end to the other of the CSM! Do you know, how Walter did it?

I am curious as to why someone who claims to be an engineer who has studied Apollo does not know how this manoeuvre was accomplished, despite the reams of documents on the subject that are readily available, and its portrayal in at least one major movie and a TV miniseries.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 03:52:31 AM

 lso, another thing you got wrong is that you don't need much, if any, fuel to change orientation, which way you are pointed along a particular trajectory, especially in a drag free, weightless environment like LEO or translunar trajectory..
Seriously, this kind of manoeuvring is necessary for any kind of docking with the ISS, or even constructing the ISS, something anyone who cares to look could go outside and see if they look up at the right time (http://www.heavens-above.com/?lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=UCT).

Evidently you do not need much energy to change the orientation of the moving space ship as you just rotate it around itself keeping an eye of the gyro.
The problem is to change direction and velocity, particularly to change velocity from, e.g. 2400 to 1500 m/s at arrival the Moon. According my calculations you need >46 000 kg of fuel to do it.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on December 29, 2012, 03:52:47 AM
The kinetic energy of a mass m = 43000 kg at velcocity v=2400 m/s is evidently 43 000*2400²/2= 123.84 GJ
At v=1500 m/s the kinetic energy is 48.375 GJ.
The difference in kinetic energy of a mass of 43000 kg at 2400 and 1500 m/s is therefore 123.84-48.375=75.465 GJ.
In order to reduce the velocity from 2400 to 1500 m/s, which takes a certain time t (seconds) you must apply a force F (Newton), while the space ship displaces a distance d (meter).
Say that the time t is 600 seconds? What is the force F? And the distance d? Show me that you can calculate.

The acceleration would be 1.5 m/s2 so the force is 64,500 N.
The distance would be the average velocity (assuming constant acceleration, which would not be the case) = 1,170,000 m.
The kinetic energy in joules would be 43,000 kg · 1,170,000 m · 1.5 m/s2 = 75.465 GJ.

Doing the same calculations with different velocities that differ by 900 m/s, say from 10,000 m/s to 9100 m/s, we get:
The acceleration would be the same: 900 m/s ÷ 600 s = 1.5 m/s2 so the force is the same.
The distance 5,730,000 m.
Kinetic energy = 43,000 kg · 5,730,000 m · 1.5 m/s2 = 369.585 GJ.
Using your equation kinetic energy is 43,000 kg · (10,0002 - 91002) ÷ 2 = 369.585 GJ, the exact same value.

But notice the acceleration remains the same, 1.5 m/s2, regardless of the initial velocity. It is force that accelerates a spacecraft, not energy. Force = mass · acceleration which means acceleration = force ÷ mass. Nowhere in this acceleration equation is there a place for energy.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 03:55:50 AM


But the ship doesn't move in three dimensions.  It moves across the surface of the sea - two dimensions.



?? As I said a ship moves in the interface water/air and that interface is moving in 3-D. Ever heard about waves?
Only an ice skater moves on top of the 2-D surface of a frozen sea but when he/she jumps it is in 3-D.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 29, 2012, 03:56:17 AM
The problem is to change direction and velocity,

There's a nice tautology that doesn't seem likely to have come from an engineer. If you can't figure out why it is tautological I think that says all we need to knnow about your qualifications really.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 29, 2012, 03:58:02 AM
Ever heard about waves?
Only an ice skater moves on top of the 2-D surface of a frozen sea but when he/she jumps it is in 3-D.

But the point is that the ship does NOT jump, isn't it? The ship moving over waves does so passively. It has engines that can move it forward, backwards, left and right. Wave motion is not something it drives itself upwards or downwards to compensate for.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on December 29, 2012, 03:58:18 AM
And Walter did it?

The only Apollo astronauts named Walter were Schirra and Cunningham who both flew on Apollo 7, which you damn well know didn't fly with a LM, so stop your baiting.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 29, 2012, 03:58:33 AM


But the ship doesn't move in three dimensions.  It moves across the surface of the sea - two dimensions.



?? As I said a ship moves in the interface water/air and that interface is moving in 3-D. Ever heard about waves?
Only an ice skater moves on top of the 2-D surface of a frozen sea but when he/she jumps it is in 3-D.

Uh huh.  And how do you make a ship jump over waves, then?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on December 29, 2012, 04:01:18 AM

So in Earth orbit the CSM was disconnected from the last stage of the Saturn rocket, rotated 180° and then connected to the Lunar Module?

Yes.

No! With the exception of Apollo 9, transposition and docking took place after TLI.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 29, 2012, 04:02:16 AM

So in Earth orbit the CSM was disconnected from the last stage of the Saturn rocket, rotated 180° and then connected to the Lunar Module?

Yes.

No! Except for Apollo 9 transposition and docking took place after TLI.

Apologies, I woke up early and I'm sleepy this morning - I missed that he said "in Earth orbit".
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: DataCable on December 29, 2012, 04:03:53 AM
Of course - evidently the Apollo 11 space ship - its mass - slowed down going to the Moon due to Earth (and Sun) gravity force and then, at the end (after 90% of distance travelled), accelerated again due to Moon gravity force being stronger than Earth gravity acting on the Apollo 11 mass.
Essentially correct, though the Sun's gravity has little to do with it, since the Earth/Moon system is in perpetual freefall about the Sun.

Quote
Problem is to change the actual velocity/direction when this happens during space travel applying another force (by your rocket engine!)
Of course.  You made an absolute blanket statement: "Every change in speed or direction during Moon travel requires energy."  Your implication being that the spacecraft would always travel in a straight line at a constant speed unless it fired its engine.  I corrected this assertion.  I did not, however, claim that gravity was the only relevant force.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 04:04:27 AM
The kinetic energy of a mass m = 43000 kg at velcocity v=2400 m/s is evidently 43 000*2400²/2= 123.84 GJ
At v=1500 m/s the kinetic energy is 48.375 GJ.
The difference in kinetic energy of a mass of 43000 kg at 2400 and 1500 m/s is therefore 123.84-48.375=75.465 GJ.
In order to reduce the velocity from 2400 to 1500 m/s, which takes a certain time t (seconds) you must apply a force F (Newton), while the space ship displaces a distance d (meter).
Say that the time t is 600 seconds? What is the force F? And the distance d? Show me that you can calculate.

The force would be 1.5 m/s2.
The distance would be the average velocity (assuming constant acceleration, which would not be the case) = 1,170,000 m.
The kinetic energy in joules would be 43,000 kg · 1,170,000 m · 1.5 m/s2 = 75.465 GJ.

Doing the same calculations with different velocities that differ by 900 m/s, say from 10,000 m/s to 9100 m/s, we get:
The force would be the same: 900 m/s ÷ 600 s = 1.5 m/s2.
The distance 5,730,000 m.
Kinetic energy = 43,000 kg · 5,730,000 m · 1.5 m/s2 = 369.585 GJ.
Using your equation kinetic energy is 43,000 kg · (10,0002 - 91002) ÷ 2 = 369.585 GJ, the exact same value.

But notice the force remains the same, 1.5 m/s2, regardless of the initial velocity. It is force that accelerates a spacecraft, not energy. Force = mass · acceleration which means acceleration = force ÷ mass. Nowhere in this acceleration equation is there a place for energy.

Unit of force is Newton (N). Unit of mass is kilogram (kg), unit of distance is meter (m), unit of time is seconds (s).  FYI 1 N = 1 kg m / s² . It is very easy; Pls, try to get the basics right.

Unit of energy is Joule (J). 1 J = 1 N m .

Acceleration is change in velocity over time, etc, etc.

Applying a force 1 N to a mass of 1 kg will accelerate that mass at 1 m/s² ... and no energy is required for that acceleration.

But you need energy to produce the force.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on December 29, 2012, 04:05:36 AM
Hrm.  I was about to make some comment about water vessels pointing in the direction of travel -- the old "banking in space" error -- but then I recalled the last water craft I was on were ferries crossing the Rhine.  And they didn't care WHICH way they pointed (pivoting props front and rear; and even the brisk current was no match for those engines).

Point is, after a gaff like "direction and velocity" you have to ask if the person actually understands that spacecraft aren't constrained to fly nose-first.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 29, 2012, 04:07:58 AM
Pls, try to get the basics right.

That is rich from someone who talked about "direction and velocity".
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 04:12:06 AM


The ship moving over waves does so passively. It has engines that can move it forward, backwards, left and right. Wave motion is not something it drives itself upwards or downwards to compensate for.

It is correct that waves will move a ship in 3D and that the ship is then subject to forces. FYI, ships normally use a rudder to move starboard and port. Actually forces acting on the rudder move the ship sideways or transversly. And the force produced by the rotating propeller moves the ship longitudinally. Changes in motion velocities (i.e. accelerations in all 3-D directions) apply inertia forces on the ship. Quite complex, actually. Much more complicated than simple space travel. That's why I am qualified to judge the Apollo 11 space trip that could not happen due to lack of fuel. Basic. But prove me wrong and earn € 1 million. Details are in the link of my paper (post #1).
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on December 29, 2012, 04:12:28 AM
I still want to know what the whole point of bringing up the reconfiguration is.

I mean; why not ask how the suit umbilicals were switched from cabin system to PLSS, at that point.  Or ask how food got out of the packages and into the astronauts!

I am really scratching my head trying to understand why this would strike anyone as an important (or, for that matter, unanswered) question.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on December 29, 2012, 04:16:40 AM


The ship moving over waves does so passively. It has engines that can move it forward, backwards, left and right. Wave motion is not something it drives itself upwards or downwards to compensate for.

It is correct that waves will move a ship in 3D and that the ship is then subject to forces. FYI, ships normally use a rudder to move starboard and port. Actually forces acting on the rudder moves the ship sideways. And the force produced by the rotating propeller moves the ship longitudinally. Changes in motion velocities (i.e. accelerations in all 3-D directions) apply inertia forces on the ship. Quite complex, actually. Much more complicated than simple space travel.

Wait, what?  The rudder moves you sideways?  I was coming in to the pier all wrong when I used to sail my dear little El Toro around the Marina, back when I was a boy!

Yes, yes...it is a combination of forces, not simple, and inertia figures as well.  But even in sailing you are dealing largely with motions that can be best described as the resultant of vector addition.  Thinking of things only in regards to which way the bow is pointed is a really great way to ram the side of the slip!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 29, 2012, 04:21:42 AM
Changes in motion velocities (i.e. accelerations in all 3-D directions) apply inertia forces on the ship.

'Motion veocities' and 'inertia forces'? You don't even sound like an engineer.

Yes, there are forces applied on the ship in all three dimensions, but the design of the ship's propulsion systems, and its navigational systems, consider the motion in two dimensions. It has no need to correct for up and down forces produced by waves because they are self-cancelling. After it has ridden up a large wave or swell it must go down again, and it will always, no matter what sea conditions are, arrive at its destination on the same level as the port. It only has to correct for lateral deflections in order to arrive at its destination, and any retardation or acceleration of its forward motion will simply make it early or late.

Space travel not only has forces acting in all three dimensions but they do not cancel out and the navigation of the vessel must consider its motion in all three dimensions or else it will miss its target entirely. Any deviation in any direction must be corrected or it will not arrive where it intends to be at all.

So the forces applied to a seafaring vessel may be more complex than those on a spacecraft, but the navigation concerns of any vessel travelling over the surface of the Earth are considerably simpler.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 29, 2012, 04:22:44 AM
That's why I am qualified to judge the Apollo 11 space trip that could not happen due to lack of fuel. Basic.

To all appearances, you are not qualified to judge anything.

I note you have focused on Apollo 11.  What about Apollos 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17.  Have you heard of them.


Quote
But prove me wrong and earn € 1 million.

I think that even if you do have the money, you have demonstrated that you will not accept or admit that you have been proven wrong.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on December 29, 2012, 04:23:41 AM
I still want to know what the whole point of bringing up the reconfiguration is.

I mean; why not ask how the suit umbilicals were switched from cabin system to PLSS, at that point.  Or ask how food got out of the packages and into the astronauts!

I am really scratching my head trying to understand why this would strike anyone as an important (or, for that matter, unanswered) question.

Read Heiwa's page or my post (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg7880#msg7880) on the second page of this thread that has excerpts from it. He apparently is not aware of spacecraft's reaction control systems - he was also mystified by the CSM and the LM undocking and re-docking in lunar orbit. Talk about ignorant...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 29, 2012, 04:24:52 AM
FYI, ships normally use a rudder to move starboard and port. Actually forces acting on the rudder move the ship sideways or transversly.

FYI, I am aware of how a rudder works. The water moving over the rudder causes the ship to turn, not move sideways. I have watched many ships move sideways, however, while visiting the harbour near my house when i was a boy. Judging by the huge roaring noise and spray that was no rudder doing that....
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on December 29, 2012, 04:26:47 AM
Changes in motion velocities (i.e. accelerations in all 3-D directions) apply inertia forces on the ship.

'Motion veocities' and 'inertia forces'? You don't even sound like an engineer.

To be fair, English is not hist first language. Earlier in the thread I asked him if he's using machine translation, because of some recurring peculiarities. He didn't answer. I suspect that he reads only the last page of the thread, not all the posts since his last one.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on December 29, 2012, 04:35:49 AM
I missed all the action while I was asleep.

When talking about "direction and velocity" are you talking about the direction of the velocity or the attitude of the spacecraft? Because if the former, your phrase is redundant because velocity includes direction since it's a vector quantity, if the latter, then direction is irrelevant for coasting in space.

Also, do you acknowledge the explanations of transposition, docking and extraction now and also that many of the details of you said were unknown, such as the density of propellant and the delta-m of burns, are actually readily available?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on December 29, 2012, 04:42:33 AM
The kinetic energy of a mass m = 43000 kg at velcocity v=2400 m/s is evidently 43 000*2400²/2= 123.84 GJ
At v=1500 m/s the kinetic energy is 48.375 GJ.
The difference in kinetic energy of a mass of 43000 kg at 2400 and 1500 m/s is therefore 123.84-48.375=75.465 GJ.
In order to reduce the velocity from 2400 to 1500 m/s, which takes a certain time t (seconds) you must apply a force F (Newton), while the space ship displaces a distance d (meter).
Say that the time t is 600 seconds? What is the force F? And the distance d? Show me that you can calculate.

The force acceleration would be 1.5 m/s2 so the force would be 64,500 N.
The distance would be the average velocity (assuming constant acceleration, which would not be the case) = 1,170,000 m.
The kinetic energy in joules would be 43,000 kg · 1,170,000 m · 1.5 m/s2 = 75.465 GJ.

Doing the same calculations with different velocities that differ by 900 m/s, say from 10,000 m/s to 9100 m/s, we get:
The force acceleration would be the same: 900 m/s ÷ 600 s = 1.5 m/s2.
The distance 5,730,000 m.
Kinetic energy = 43,000 kg · 5,730,000 m · 1.5 m/s2 = 369.585 GJ.
Using your equation kinetic energy is 43,000 kg · (10,0002 - 91002) ÷ 2 = 369.585 GJ, the exact same value.

But notice the force acceleration remains the same, 1.5 m/s2, regardless of the initial velocity. It is force that accelerates a spacecraft, not energy. Force = mass · acceleration which means acceleration = force ÷ mass. Nowhere in this acceleration equation is there a place for energy.

Unit of force is Newton (N). Unit of mass is kilogram (kg), unit of distance is meter (m), unit of time is seconds (s).  FYI 1 N = 1 kg m / s² . It is very easy; Pls, try to get the basics right.

Unit of energy is Joule (J). 1 J = 1 N m .

Acceleration is change in velocity over time, etc, etc.

Applying a force 1 N to a mass of 1 kg will accelerate that mass at 1 m/s² ... and no energy is required for that acceleration.

But you need energy to produce the force.

You have not explained why the accelerations were the same for both examples I gave yet the kinetic energies were vastly different. You are also ignoring the rocket equation.


(I mistyped force when I meant acceleration. I fixed my that post and I striked out my errors and fixed them in this post.)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on December 29, 2012, 04:44:17 AM
Space travel is similar to a voyage at sea (my speciality) and you need fuel to get from A to B.
Here we see your big mistake (other than thinking you know what you're doing when you don't).

Space travel is not like a voyage at sea, so your intuition is utterly out of place.

Just for starters:

1. Water exerts substantial drag on ships moving through it. This drag must be continuously overcome with propulsion or the ship will stop relative to the water.

Spacecraft operate in vacuum, without drag to overcome. They will keep moving at a constant velocity until acted on by an external force, so continuous thrust is not required. That's Newton's First Law. This makes its "velocity" totally dependent on your choice of reference frame. Choose any inertial reference frame, use it consistently and you'll get the exact same answers about propellant requirements, etc. If you don't, you're doing something wrong.

2. Ships create thrust by grabbing the water and pushing on it. In space, there's nothing to grab. If a spacecraft wants to change its velocity through means other than gravity, it must carry along something on which to push. That "something" is called "rocket propellant".

3. Most ships operate at constant or near-constant altitude where changes in potential energy are negligible compared to drag losses. Potential energy changes in spacecraft are substantial and very significant.

4. The fuel in a ship is typically a tiny fraction of its gross weight so changes in weight due to fuel consumption can usually be ignored. This is most decidedly untrue in space flight. Fuel (propellant) accounts for nearly all of any rocket's launch mass. Because this mass is ejected overboard to produce thrust, the continuous decrease in vehicle mass during thrusting must be properly accounted for in the calculations.

The key here is the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation to which both Jay and I have alluded. It is perhaps the most important equation in space flight after Newton's F=ma (from which it is derived). Since you obviously don't know it, you have absolutely no business making any kind of pronouncements on the topic of space flight.




Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on December 29, 2012, 04:53:53 AM
It's a little evil of me, but its nice to have someone to debate, for lack of a kinder word, with again here. Or, as I said on the other thread, a Fray, Rufferto, a Fray! ;D
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on December 29, 2012, 05:02:56 AM
Sailing in the interface air/water is evidently also in three dimensions and the forces applied to the sea going ship are much more complicated than those of a space ship.
This is actually the first halfway correct thing you've said -- the forces on a ship (or aircraft) are much more complicated than those on a spacecraft because the former involve fluid flows that can be very complex to model.

So your total ignorance of the physics of space flight is even less excusable.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on December 29, 2012, 05:26:59 AM
Evidently you do not need much energy to change the orientation of the moving space ship as you just rotate it around itself keeping an eye of the gyro.
Wow, this is actually correct. I'll give you that.
Quote
The problem is to change direction and velocity, particularly to change velocity from, e.g. 2400 to 1500 m/s at arrival the Moon. According my calculations you need >46 000 kg of fuel to do it.
And your calculations are dead wrong. The actual figures are as follows for Apollo 11 LOI #1 (first lunar orbit insertion burn):

Mass of CSM/LM at ignition: 96,061.6 lbm
Mass of CSM/LM at shutdown: 72,037.6 lbm
Propellant used: 96,061.6 - 72,037.6 = 24,024 lbm = 10,897.1 kg
Velocity at ignition: 8250 ft/s = 2514.6 m/s
Velocity at shutdown: 5479 ft/s = 1670 m/s
Velocity change = abs(8250 - 5479) =  2771 ft/s = 844.6 m/s

Now consider the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation:

delta-V = Ve * ln(mass_at_ignition/mass_at_shutdown)

We want to know if these numbers are reasonable for the rocket engine in use, so let's solve for Ve, the effective exhaust velocity of the rocket engine:

Ve = delta-V / ln(mass_at_ignition/mass_at_shutdown)
= 844.6 m/s / ln(1.33349)
= 2934.7 m/s

This corresponds to an Isp of 2934.7 / 9.80665 = 299 seconds. This is just under the nominal Isp for a large hypergolic rocket engine burning these propellants. (I expected a very small discrepancy because the altitude of the CSM/LM was not precisely constant during the burn.)

Note that the kinetic energy (in any coordinate frame) of the spacecraft doesn't even enter into it. Only the change in velocity matters, and it'll be the same in any inertial reference frame you choose. The kinetic energy won't be, and that alone should tell you that you've made a mistake by thinking it's important.



Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on December 29, 2012, 06:09:00 AM
It is very easy; Pls, try to get the basics right.
Please take your own advice.
Quote
Applying a force 1 N to a mass of 1 kg will accelerate that mass at 1 m/s² ... and no energy is required for that acceleration.

But you need energy to produce the force.
Exactly wrong!

You can produce a force forever with no energy at all when that force does not act through a distance. A magnet or a rubber band can apply a force forever to a stationary object without any energy at all. But there is also no acceleration.

But a 1N force applied to an unrestrained 1 kg object will accelerate it, so this will require a power that will depend on time.

Note, however, that forces never occur unopposed; that's Newton's third law of motion. Forces are always between objects. Applying a 1N force to an object in a certain direction absolutely requires the application of a 1N force on something else in exactly the opposite direction. For example, a car can only generate 1N of forward force on itself by applying 1N of rearward force on the earth; that's why you need good tires. Because the car will then begin to accelerate, the power required to maintain that 1N will increase with velocity. From a standing start, the power starts at 0. When the car reaches 1 m/s, it will take 1 watt to generate that 1N force. When it reaches 1,000 m/s, it will take 1,000 watts to maintain that same 1N of force, and so on without limit (ignoring drag, which would change the net forces on the car).

A rocket is no exception to the rule that forces never occur unopposed; indeed, rockets are one of the best examples of Newton's Third Law in action. But they push on their own exhaust, so they must lose mass to do so. Because it is not pushing on any external object (such as the earth), a rocket's velocity with respect to any outside object is completely irrelevant -- and so is its kinetic energy in that object's reference frame. That's why the kinetic energy of Apollo, in the moon's reference frame as it entered lunar orbit, is wholly irrelevant to the amount of propellant required. And it's why your claims are so utterly wrong.





Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on December 29, 2012, 06:17:00 AM
FYI, ships normally use a rudder to move starboard and port. Actually forces acting on the rudder move the ship sideways or transversly.
Have you found the rudders on the Apollo spacecraft yet? How about the propellers?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gwiz on December 29, 2012, 07:29:34 AM
To reduce the speed of a mass of 43 000 kg from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s you need 75.47 GJ brake energy! If 1 kg rocket fuel produce 1.63 MJ energy it seems you need 46 300 kg fuel for this maneouvre. You should wonder, where it was carried.

Afraid I'm rather late to this thread, but I am an aerospace engineer and I thought I should just chip in to say that several people have already pointed out exactly where you go wrong with this.  Basically, the change in kinetic energy is calculated from the change in velocity, not as you think the difference between the energies before and after the change.

This is because the initial and final velocities are completely arbitrary numbers which change with the frame you choose to measure them in. 

If you are this ignorant of the basics, then you are not a competent engineer.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ChrLz on December 29, 2012, 07:37:14 AM
Just curious.. Anders, do you acknowledge ANY of the (many and substantial) errors so far pointed out in your 'understanding'?

I thought this wasn't a troll, but that stuff about the LM-CM maneuver, and Walter...  Nah, sorry - I'm just sitting back with popcorn and watching the train wreck, now.  Not going to waste my time responding to the ever changing Gallop..

BTW, Anders, you have refused to prove the existence of the $1m, so I think we can take that as a lie.  How surprising..
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 08:11:42 AM



(I mistyped force when I meant acceleration. I fixed my that post and I striked out my errors and fixed them in this post.)

Yes, that's why I explained to you what force is, so you could correct your post. A force causes change in velocity of the mass it is applied to and is required, when a spaceship like Apollo 11 arrives to the Moon and wants to orbit the Moon at reduced speed compared to arrival speed.

The only way for Apollo 11 to produce that braking force is to fire is SM rocket engine at the right time and in the right direction (i.e. opposite the one travelling, etc). The amount of force and its time of application must also be correct or you will not achieve your objective, i.e. miss it.
 
To produce this force by firing your rocket engine requires fuel. Say the rocket engine is a P-22KS rocket NASA engine with 97 400 N thrust that is fired for 357.5 seconds (or something close to it) to reduce the speed to 1 500 m/s from 2 400 m/s at 2.52 m/s² deceleration.

During the 357.5 seconds braking the space ship travelled about 774 000 meter with a brake force 97400 N provided by the P-22KS rocket engine at full blast.

To reduce the speed of a mass of 43 000 kg from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s you need 75.47 GJ brake energy! I assume we all agree to this - see discussion above.

If 1 kg rocket fuel produce 1.63 MJ energy as NASA suggests, it seems you need 46 300 kg fuel for this maneover.

My question is therefore - where did NASA store 46 300 kg fuel in the Apollo 11 SM?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 08:14:17 AM
Just curious.. Anders, do you acknowledge ANY of the (many and substantial) errors so far pointed out in your 'understanding'?

I thought this wasn't a troll, but that stuff about the LM-CM maneuver, and Walter...  Nah, sorry - I'm just sitting back with popcorn and watching the train wreck, now.  Not going to waste my time responding to the ever changing Gallop..

BTW, Anders, you have refused to prove the existence of the $1m, so I think we can take that as a lie.  How surprising..

I read most posts that are on subject at this forum, so do not worry. What errors are you talking about?

Re the money, it is in the bank evidently, so you do not have to worry about it. It is also OT.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on December 29, 2012, 08:16:08 AM
At departure Earth the Command Module and the Service Module are together loaded on top of the Saturn rocket with the Lunar Module stored below the Service Module, actually below the rocket engine outlet of the Service Module.

After lift off and one orbit Earth the space ship is sent off towards the Moon and one way or another the Lunar Module is shifted to the top of the Command Module, so that later, in Moon orbit, two persons can enter it via the hatches. Can anybody explain how the transfer of the Lunar Module from below the Service Module to the top of the Command Module was done?
Getting trounced because you're using the wrong equations (because you haven't bothered to understand them) so you try to change the subject?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on December 29, 2012, 08:22:39 AM
(http://galaxywire.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/transfer-to-lunar-module-space-art.jpg)
Of course I am real! Like my €1 000 000:- at my bank.
Monopoly money doesn't count.

Nobody here believes you have the money.  You have shown no proof of it.  Nobody here believes you to be anything more than a troll at this point because you have clearly shown you have no interest in learning and far more in handwaving.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on December 29, 2012, 08:25:18 AM
I am also curious to know how Walter managed to shift the Lunar Module in space from one end to the other of the CSM! Do you know, how Walter did it?

(http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp65/frenat/170604dc34a16f20cb_zps9ac9dc80.jpg)
Title: x
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 08:25:59 AM

... the initial and final velocities are completely arbitrary numbers which change with the frame you choose to measure them in. 


So you suggest that Apollo 11 orbited at an arbitrary number velocity around the Moon prior arrival at another arbitrary number velocity?

Sorry, I do not follow. OK, NASA in one document says Moon orbit speed for Apollo 11 is 3000 m/s and in another 1500 m/s and the latter seems correct (so I use it) and also the arrival speed 2400 m/s seems correct as NASA says Apollo 11 had to slow down to orbit. You know 2400>1500.

If you find errors in my presentation, please say what data, number, etc, is wrong and I will correct it and the associated calculations and conclusions. I doubt very much the final conclusion is wrong, i.e. Apollo 11 lacked stored energy/rocket fuel aboard to brake into and out of Moon orbit, but if you disagree, show it with numbers and not arguments of no value.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on December 29, 2012, 08:28:44 AM

The problem is to change direction and velocity, particularly to change velocity from, e.g. 2400 to 1500 m/s at arrival the Moon. According my calculations you need >46 000 kg of fuel to do it.

Your calculations have been shown to be wrong repeatedly.  You have ignored it.  That alone shows you are not really interested in learning.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 08:29:16 AM

Nobody here believes you have the money. 

What nobody believes is evidently of little interest. Maybe nobody is just poor and jealous. Maybe angry? But it is off topic. Like all these NASA PhDs with fat salaries doing nothing but producing propaganda.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 08:30:30 AM



Your calculations have been shown to be wrong repeatedly. 

Where, when, how? Pls provide the correct calculation!  8)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on December 29, 2012, 08:34:58 AM

Nobody here believes you have the money. 

What nobody believes is evidently of little interest. Maybe nobody is just poor and jealous. Maybe angry?

(http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp65/frenat/170604dc34a16f20cb_zps9ac9dc80.jpg)


But it is off topic. Like all these NASA PhDs with fat salaries doing nothing but producing propaganda.
It is not off topic and you have not proven they do nothing but produce propaganda.  What you have proven is
1. You don't have the money as you have no intention of showing proof of it
2. You have no intention of giving out any money as you repeatedly ignore your mistakes.
3. You are a troll.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on December 29, 2012, 08:36:28 AM
150 degrees. Armstrong's shoes didn't melt - (astronauts would be too hot) Bingo!
I am not in conspiracy theories. I just report my observations and calculations and results. (I don't believe in a hoax, but...) Bingo!

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 08:37:35 AM


You can produce a force forever with no energy at all when that force does not act through a distance.

Yes, a force applied to any mass while not displacing the mass any distance does not require energy to exist ... as no energy is required. But here the force is applied on Apollo 11 by its SM rocket engine to slow down Apollo 11 during a rather long trajectory to enter Moon orbit and for that energy/fuel is required. Pls try to stay on topic and do not start with some metaphysical nonsense popular amongst SF-writers.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 08:41:01 AM
150 degrees. Armstrong's shoes didn't melt - (astronauts would be too hot) Bingo!
I am not in conspiracy theories. I just report my observations and calculations and results. (I don't believe in a hoax, but...) Bingo!

Thanks for quoting from my presentation. Yes, try to walk on a 150° hot tin roof ... . Cats do not like it.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on December 29, 2012, 08:43:08 AM
It's been showed numerous times how you're approaching the calculations from completely the wrong direction. The delta-v is known. The propellant required to achieve this delta-v can be calculated from the Tsiokovsky rocket equation.

Your misuse of 1/2 mv^2 shows your understanding of physics is at a 14 year old level. You're applying equations wrong. Go back and do it again with the Tsiokovsky equation.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on December 29, 2012, 08:43:54 AM
To reduce the speed of a mass of 43 000 kg from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s you need 75.47 GJ brake energy! I assume we all agree to this - see discussion above.
No, we don't all agree because you're simply wrong.

Scratch that, you're so confused that you're not even wrong.
Quote
If 1 kg rocket fuel produce 1.63 MJ energy as NASA suggests, it seems you need 46 300 kg fuel for this maneover.

My question is therefore - where did NASA store 46 300 kg fuel in the Apollo 11 SM?

Nope, also wrong. I've already given you the correct amount of propellant and showed that it's consistent with its known properties and those of the rocket engine. That you continue to ignore my direct answers to your questions, and everyone else on this forum who does (unlike you) know what they're talking about, shows that you're not at all serious about the discussion.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on December 29, 2012, 08:57:50 AM
Yes, a force applied to any mass while not displacing the mass any distance does not require energy to exist ... as no energy is required.
Which directly contradicts your previous claims:
Quote
Applying a force 1 N to a mass of 1 kg will accelerate that mass at 1 m/s² ... and no energy is required for that acceleration.

But you need energy to produce the force.
So are you now conceding that you were in error?
Quote
But here the force is applied on Apollo 11 by its SM rocket engine to slow down Apollo 11 during a rather long trajectory to enter Moon orbit and for that energy/fuel is required. Pls try to stay on topic and do not start with some metaphysical nonsense popular amongst SF-writers.
There's no metaphysical nonsense here, only a (so-far unsuccessful) attempt to explain to you the proper physical model of the operation of a rocket engine and to use that model to give you the answers you claim don't exist. Please try to stay on topic and do not continue trying to bait the people who are trying to help you.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on December 29, 2012, 09:00:01 AM
150 degrees. Armstrong's shoes didn't melt - (astronauts would be too hot) Bingo!
I am not in conspiracy theories. I just report my observations and calculations and results. (I don't believe in a hoax, but...) Bingo!

Thanks for quoting from my presentation. Yes, try to walk on a 150° hot tin roof ... . Cats do not like it.

Good thing they landed to take advantage of a sun elevation angle on the lunar surface of 10.8°. How could you miss that fact with all the study you have done? I mean those shadows are l-o-n-g.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gwiz on December 29, 2012, 09:17:16 AM
To reduce the speed of a mass of 43 000 kg from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s you need 75.47 GJ brake energy! I assume we all agree to this - see discussion above.
We certainly don't agree.  You've made such a colossal howler in coming up with that number for the energy that no-one believes your claim of engineering expertise. 

Since you lie about that, why should anyone believe you about the million dollars?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 09:19:22 AM
It seems nobody at Apollohoaxforum can explain how much energy/fuel Apollo 11 needed to enter into and out of orbit of Moon without atmosphere, so I suggest we now turn to the famous re-entry through Earth atmosphere and landning, where no energy was needed at all according NASA. Just dive into the atmosphere! But how?
Re-entry had been tested with Apollo 4 after a trip around the Moon and Apollo 4 arrived at Earth outer atmosphere with velocity 11 200 m/s. Apollo 4 then managed a short re-entry - distance 4 400 km first down into the atmosphere during an initial entry phase, then the on-board computer changed the pitch and Apollo 4 flow up in the atmosphere - upcontrol phase - and then there was a final entry phase and ... parachutes deployed and splash down. Fantastic.
Apollo 11 apparently did another trajectory - much slower, much longer, no ups or downs but a smooth ride down and managed to splash down just in front of US president 'Tricky' Dick Nixon on an aircraftcarrier south of Hawaii. It was not fantastic - it was magic.
According my calculations such re-entries, incl. all backwards Shuttle re-entries from the ISS later,  are not possible at all - the so called heat shield burns up immediately and with it the whole space ship. OK, the Shuttle had no heat shield but went backwards doing loops like a screwdriver to come down - all fantasy. Like usual.  :) ;D ::) :-*
How can anybody believe that re-entry is possible just dropping down from space? Just diving or jumping from 10 meter is difficult if you look down before. If you look straight and dive you arrive at great speed into the water a little later. Diving from 400 000 meter with a start velocity 11 200 m/s is another biz. You will burn up long before you hit water.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on December 29, 2012, 09:20:18 AM
"Apollo 4 after a trip around the Moon" - say what? You sure you don't mean Mercury Friendship 7 made the trip to the moon with both Ham and Enos in the pilot's seat? I mean, come on, if you are going to make such howlers, at least do it with style.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on December 29, 2012, 09:24:49 AM
But here the force is applied on Apollo 11 by its SM rocket engine to slow down Apollo 11 during a rather long trajectory to enter Moon orbit and for that energy/fuel is required.
Although an energy analysis is not really necessary to show that Apollo 11 worked as advertised, it can be useful in gaining some of the basic insights into rocket fundamentals that you very obviously lack.

In that case you must consider not just the chemical energy in the propellant but also its very substantial amounts of kinetic energy, both before the burn when it is still in the spacecraft tanks and after the burn as hot gas expelled from the rocket engine. I'd tell you to look up the "Oberth Effect" but I seriously doubt you're actually interested in learning anything, especially as it would force you to part with EU 1M.

This is a good example of how your shipping-based intuition has gotten you in big trouble. The fuel on an oceanic ship is used purely to store energy and is usually a tiny fraction of its total mass; this is most decidedly not the case for a spacecraft. An oceanic ship propels itself by pushing on the surrounding water. No water (or air, or anything else) surrounds a spacecraft in space so it can only propel itself by pushing on material that it has carried with it. That material is called "propellant"; in a chemical rocket it additionally stores energy. Energy alone is insufficient to propel a spacecraft, so even when energy is available from solar or nuclear sources, propellants must still be carried.

If you really were an engineer as you claim, you would have enough theoretical understanding to appreciate that important fundamental differences exist between shipping and space flight even if you didn't already know what they were. You'd have an open mind and be willing to learn what they are. That you can't even accept that they exist shows that you're no engineer of any kind.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 09:27:20 AM
"Apollo 4 after a trip around the Moon" - say what? You sure you don't mean Mercury Friendship 7 made the trip to the moon with both Ham and Enos in the pilot's seat? I mean, come on, if you are going to make such howlers, at least do it with style.

No, I mean the unmanned, computer steered Apollo 4 fantasy story as described by NASA and quoted on my web page (topic - see post #1). 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on December 29, 2012, 09:29:57 AM
Apollo 4 which went to the moon, right?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on December 29, 2012, 09:31:00 AM
It seems nobody at Apollohoaxforum can explain how much energy/fuel Apollo 11 needed to enter into and out of orbit of Moon without atmosphere
So tell me, are you deliberately ignoring me because you can see that I know what I'm talking about and have answered this exact question for you?

See http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg7976#msg7976 on the outside chance that you missed it.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gwiz on December 29, 2012, 09:31:58 AM
It seems nobody at Apollohoaxforum can explain how much energy/fuel Apollo 11 needed to enter into and out of orbit of Moon without atmosphere...
On the contrary, it seems quite a few people here understand the basic rocket equation, which any student can derive from Newton's Laws and a little simple calculus.  You are the one who lacks such understanding.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on December 29, 2012, 09:35:44 AM
Re-entry had been tested with Apollo 4 after a trip around the Moon
As dwight has already asked, where did you get the idea that Apollo 4 went around the moon? NASA has certainly never said that. The record clearly states that the upper stage of the Saturn V rocket and the CSM engine were used to gain enough velocity to simulate a return from the moon -- specifically to test the heat shield on the CM.

Quote
According my calculations such re-entries, incl. all backwards Shuttle re-entries from the ISS later,  are not possible at all - the so called heat shield burns up immediately and with it the whole space ship. OK, the Shuttle had no heat shield

So your "calculations" are wrong, aren't they? So what else is new?

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 09:44:35 AM

Although an energy analysis is not really necessary to show that Apollo 11 worked as advertised, it can be useful in gaining some of the basic insights into rocket fundamentals that you very obviously lack.

...

The fuel on an oceanic ship is used purely to store energy and is usually a tiny fraction of its total mass; this is most decidedly not the case for a spacecraft. An oceanic ship propels itself by pushing on the surrounding water.

ka9q - I thought you had given up getting the €1 000 000:-.  :-*

An energy balance is very useful to analyse any engineering problems, e.g. how to fine tune a steam plant, a nuclear power station, how to slow down in space etc, etc. Apollo 11 is thus no exception. It doesn't matter the least how the rocket engine transforms the fuel energy into a driving force. If a space ship is attracted by the Moon gravity, you better slow down and try to enter Moon orbit first before landning, as suggested by NASA. Question remains how much fuel is needed during the braking trajectory and how long it takes. If fuel required is >100% of the mass of the Apollo 11 space ship, no landing is evidently possible as there is no place for Neil & Co aboard. 

Fuel is not a tiny fraction of a seagoing ship's mass. Depending on the ship (and it's route - distance to travel) it can be 10-20% of the mass at departure (and 1% on arrival). Evidently you try to carry minimum fuel (and max cargo) unless you get a low price in one port and fill up fuel to save money, etc, etc. It seems you are not up to date about ships?

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on December 29, 2012, 09:45:07 AM
And what about Apollo 4 which went to the moon?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 09:49:15 AM


So your "calculations" are wrong, aren't they? So what else is new?

Why do you ask so many questions? Evidently my calculations are not wrong unless you show it. Take out your red pen and correct my calculations and show where, how, when I am wrong and what is right. Just moaning about that they are wrong doesn't mean a thing. It isn't new!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on December 29, 2012, 09:49:45 AM
And what about Apollo 4 which went to the moon?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 09:59:05 AM
And what about Apollo 4 which went to the moon?

?? I just use the Apollo 4 skip re-entry to Earth as described by NASA as an example on my web page how to return from the Moon. I doubt very much Apollo 4 or 11 were anywhere close the Moon with regard to their re-entries into Earth atmosphere. They would burn up within minutes in the mesosphere that extends from the stratopause to 80–85 km. It is the layer where most meteors burn up upon entering the atmosphere. Space ships with thin plate structures returning from the Moon or an orbiting ISS are no exceptions. They all burn up ... much quicker than a more solid meteorite.
I think both Apollo 4 and 11 were dropped from an airplane to splash into the water - to impress any observers like Dick Nixon.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on December 29, 2012, 10:01:23 AM
Mate its all good that you back peddle but YOU SAID less than 1 hour ago, "Re-entry had been tested with Apollo 4 after a trip around the Moon ...", are you getting lost in all the garbage you are writing that your losing your way??
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 10:50:24 AM
Mate its all good that you back peddle but YOU SAID less than 1 hour ago, "Re-entry had been tested with Apollo 4 after a trip around the Moon ...", are you getting lost in all the garbage you are writing that your losing your way??

Actually it was a simulated Moon trip return to Earth that Apollo 4 did according NASA. What's the difference? No big deal, actually, and nothing to get upset about.

Back to our interesting topic:

One basic question is how much fuel Apollo 11 needed in space to get into orbit around the Moon upon arrival. According NASA Apollo 11 slowed down using its rocket engine to brake but ... fuel (kg) consumed for it is not provided.

Not even Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_propulsion can inform the answer.

It should be easy to find the answer. Apollo 11 had a mass incl. fuel of about 43 000 kg and slowed down from about 2400 to about 1500 m/s during about 358 seconds using about 97400 N brake force according NASA.

Maybe it took longer - say 397 seconds.

Then Apollo 11 travelled 1950 (m/s) x 397 (s) = 774 150 m during braking, while applying the full force 97 400 N, which adds up to 75.4 GNm energy used for braking. If 1 kg rocket fuel produce 1.63 MJ energy, it seems you need 46 259 kg fuel for this maneouvre. Simple calculation, isn't it?

46 259 kg? But it is bigger than the mass of Apollo 11. Yes, it is a mystery, isn't.

You may ask if 1 kg rocket fuel ony produce 1.63 MJ energy? Where does this figure come from?

It is just the fuel consumption of the decent and ascent rocket engines of the Lunar Module according NASA.

I just assume the efficiency is the same for the Service Module rocket engine. Read about it in my presentation - link at post #1.

On return trip when Apollo 11 has dumped the LM and the mass is say 30 000 kg, you need another 46259x30000/43000=32273 kg fuel to speed up from 1500 to 2400 m/s to get out of orbit. Again it is much more than the mass of Apollo 11.

That's why I conclude the Apollo 11 trip was a hoax. The space ship couldn't carry the fuel to get in and out of Moon orbit. It is not a conspiracy theory. It is just physics. To improve safety of space travel.

The Apollo 11 cosmonots on the other hand do not look reliable at their press conference afterwards 1969. See link in my report. To me they look like three liars. But it was a funny show anyway! It has just lasted too long. 


Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gwiz on December 29, 2012, 10:56:50 AM
They would burn up within minutes in the mesosphere that extends from the stratopause to 80–85 km. It is the layer where most meteors burn up upon entering the atmosphere. Space ships with thin plate structures returning from the Moon or an orbiting ISS are no exceptions. They all burn up ... much quicker than a more solid meteorite.
I've just looked at your website to see what exactly you claim about this.  I see that you claim that the kinetic energy of the re-entering capsule would be enough to vaporise it.

Your error lies in thinking that all the energy is absorbed by the capsule.  You neglect the fact that most of the energy goes into heating the air as the capsule passes through it.

Once again, one is forced to question the engineering qualifications of anyone who misses such a factor.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on December 29, 2012, 11:39:45 AM
Mate its all good that you back peddle but YOU SAID less than 1 hour ago, "Re-entry had been tested with Apollo 4 after a trip around the Moon ...", are you getting lost in all the garbage you are writing that your losing your way??

Actually it was a simulated Moon trip return to Earth that Apollo 4 did according NASA. What's the difference? No big deal, actually, and nothing to get upset about.

Back to our interesting topic:

One basic question is how much fuel Apollo 11 needed in space to get into orbit around the Moon upon arrival. According NASA Apollo 11 slowed down using its rocket engine to brake but ... fuel (kg) consumed for it is not provided.

Not even Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_propulsion can inform the answer.

It should be easy to find the answer. Apollo 11 had a mass incl. fuel of about 43 000 kg and slowed down from about 2400 to about 1500 m/s during about 358 seconds using about 97400 N brake force according NASA.

Maybe it took longer - say 397 seconds.

Then Apollo 11 travelled 1950 (m/s) x 397 (s) = 774 150 m during braking, while applying the full force 97 400 N, which adds up to 75.4 GNm energy used for braking. If 1 kg rocket fuel produce 1.63 MJ energy, it seems you need 46 259 kg fuel for this maneouvre. Simple calculation, isn't it?

46 259 kg? But it is bigger than the mass of Apollo 11. Yes, it is a mystery, isn't.

You may ask if 1 kg rocket fuel ony produce 1.63 MJ energy? Where does this figure come from?

It is just the fuel consumption of the decent and ascent rocket engines of the Lunar Module according NASA.

I just assume the efficiency is the same for the Service Module rocket engine. Read about it in my presentation - link at post #1.

On return trip when Apollo 11 has dumped the LM and the mass is say 30 000 kg, you need another 46259x30000/43000=32273 kg fuel to speed up from 1500 to 2400 m/s to get out of orbit. Again it is much more than the mass of Apollo 11.

That's why I conclude the Apollo 11 trip was a hoax. The space ship couldn't carry the fuel to get in and out of Moon orbit. It is not a conspiracy theory. It is just physics. To improve safety of space travel.

The Apollo 11 cosmonots on the other hand do not look reliable at their press conference afterwards 1969. See link in my report. To me they look like three liars. But it was a funny show anyway! It has just lasted too long. 




Then my learned buddy, you might want to add "simulated" in your description, even lost in translation, ommitting that word certainly changes the meaning.

Oh and if you are really sugar and spice and all things nice, why on earth would you feel the compelling urge to use the conspiracy theorists' derogatory terms like asstronot and cosmonot?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on December 29, 2012, 11:40:47 AM
So you cannot see a dozen posts explaining that your calculations are wrong?

Do you know what the Tsiokovsky equation is?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on December 29, 2012, 11:41:44 AM
BTW, Anders, you have refused to prove the existence of the $1m, so I think we can take that as a lie.  How surprising..

Re the money, it is in the bank evidently, so you do not have to worry about it. It is also OT.

This thread was started by Daggerstab to discuss your 1 million Euro challenge, so how exactly is it off topic to talk about the prize money? Explain that to me, please.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on December 29, 2012, 11:47:15 AM
Why do you ask so many questions? Evidently my calculations are not wrong unless you show it. Take out your red pen and correct my calculations and show where, how, when I am wrong and what is right. Just moaning about that they are wrong doesn't mean a thing. It isn't new!
As the expression goes, your calculations aren't even wrong.

I, and everyone else here, have been trying to show you that your basic assumptions are wrong even before you begin your calculations. Ever hear of GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 11:53:58 AM
I see that you claim that the kinetic energy of the re-entering capsule would be enough to vaporise it.

Your error lies in thinking that all the energy is absorbed by the capsule.  You neglect the fact that most of the energy goes into heating the air as the capsule passes through it.

Once again, one is forced to question the engineering qualifications of anyone who misses such a factor.

No, the capsule + heat shield is like a meteorite but much weaker because the meteorite is solid and the capsule is a framed steel structure mostly full of air (like a seagoing ship). Atmospheric friction at 11 200 m/s speed first heats up the exposed surfaces that soon melts (and bye, bye) while also heating the inside and the passing outside air, while turbulence heats up the outside air.
There is no way you can drop anything from space on Earth without it burning up, incl. heat shields and other nonsense.  For that reason return trips (drop downs - LOL) from the MIR and ISS space stations are impossible. So draw your own conclusions about those space vessels. 
The interior of the Apollo 11 command module would soon be heated up to 200°C early at the re-entry and the cosmonots would be burnt to death prior the whole space ship would disappear in smoke. Not even a Finn would manage it.
What about the Shuttle making all those trips up to and down from the ISS? Same nonsense. Especially Mark Kelly, the last American piloting down the last Shuttle. I write about him in my presentation. He is not even funny. He looks like a turkey.
Neil Armstrong - the first man on the Moon - was more fun. He looked really funny when asked what he did there! He wouldn't last 10 seconds being waterboarded by the CIA as a terrorist suspect, though.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 11:56:07 AM

Do you know what the Tsiokovsky equation is?

Yes! Has nothing to do with slowing down in space. 8)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 29, 2012, 11:57:27 AM

Do you know what the Tsiokovsky equation is?

Yes! Has nothing to do with slowing down in space. 8)

BOLLOCKS.  That is exactly what it is for.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on December 29, 2012, 11:57:59 AM
Yes! Has nothing to do with slowing down in space. 8)

That is the most ignorant thing you have said so far.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on December 29, 2012, 12:00:27 PM

Do you know what the Tsiokovsky equation is?

Yes! Has nothing to do with slowing down in space. 8)

Okay then, why don't you tell us what the Tsiokovsky equation is?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 29, 2012, 12:05:26 PM
Actually it was a simulated Moon trip return to Earth that Apollo 4 did according NASA. What's the difference? No big deal, actually, and nothing to get upset about.

Wrong. You said Apollo 4 made a round trip of the moon. You do NOT get to brush that under the carpet when it is pointed out how badly that damages your credibility.

Quote
According NASA Apollo 11 slowed down using its rocket engine to brake but ... fuel (kg) consumed for it is not provided.

Thank you for proving conclusively that you do not read anything anyone says. The fuel consumption for EVERY use of EVERY engine on Apollo IS provided. Just ebcause it wasn't in the one source you looked up does not mean the information is not available, and it has been given to you in this thread. Read it.

Quote
Apollo 11 had a mass incl. fuel of about 43 000 kg and slowed down from about 2400 to about 1500 m/s during about 358 seconds using about 97400 N brake force according NASA.

After which it certainly did NOT have a mass of 43,000 kg, a fact that you have ignored and which, as has been pointed out to you, is incorporated into the tsiolkovsky rocket equation. That is the single most relevant piece of mathematics you have been provided with and you will not accept it, despite it being the very cornerstone of rocket propulsion. You will explain that.
 
Quote
If 1 kg rocket fuel produce 1.63 MJ energy, it seems you need 46 259 kg fuel for this maneouvre. Simple calculation, isn't it?

Indeed, but you have yet to show that it is the RIGHT calculation to apply. What is your source for saying that 1 kg of fuel provides 1.63 MJ of energy?

Quote
I just assume the efficiency is the same for the Service Module rocket engine.

Why do you need to assume any such thing? The specs for the SPS are available. Why are you making unnecessary assumptions?

You ran out of credibility here a long time ago. You have an understanding of physics that you can get at about the age of 14 from school, but you fall into the standard conspiracy theorist trap of assuming that is all you need. There is a reason they don't get early school leavers to design spacecraft and mission. See if you can figure out what it is...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 29, 2012, 12:06:22 PM

Do you know what the Tsiokovsky equation is?

Yes! Has nothing to do with slowing down in space. 8)

And you're expecting us to take you seriously as a qualified engineer when you make howlers like that? You are either a troll or a moron. Which is it?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gwiz on December 29, 2012, 12:07:27 PM
No, the capsule + heat shield is like a meteorite but much weaker because the meteorite is solid and the capsule is a framed steel structure mostly full of air (like a seagoing ship). Atmospheric friction at 11 200 m/s speed first heats up the exposed surfaces that soon melts (and bye, bye) while also heating the inside and the passing outside air, while turbulence heats up the outside air.
If you now admit that the air is heated, why is there no mention of this on your website?  Where is your calculation of how much energy goes into heating the air?  Are you even aware that most of the heating of the air occurs at the bow shock, and that this shock spreads out to great distances from the re-entering object?

A meteorite also loses most of its energy to heating the air, that's why it leaves such a long bright trail. If all the heat went into the meteorite, it would all be over in a much briefer flash.

You are ignoring the single most important factor on one side of the energy balance sheet and you expect us to take you seriously?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 12:08:30 PM


This thread was started by Daggerstab to discuss your 1 million Euro challenge, so how exactly is it off topic to talk about the prize money? Explain that to me, please.

OK, the money is in the bank! Happy? I am! But in order to collect it, you must perform - as explained above - and be polite. I had expected plenty people would explain, free of charge, how you can slow down a space craft in space and what the fuel consumption for it is, but NO!
It seems to be a MILITARY AND NATIONAL TOP SECRET SECURITY ITEM that CIA, FBI and DHS get  nervous about. Very confusing actually.
I have asked NASA how the Apollo 1969 heat shield was designed, what material it used, how it was tested, lab reports, etc. SECRET! But it can be seen in US museums and it is easy to cut off a piece and test. It burns at 1200°C!

 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on December 29, 2012, 12:09:01 PM
No, the capsule + heat shield is like a meteorite but much weaker because the meteorite is solid and the capsule is a framed steel structure mostly full of air (like a seagoing ship).

What does that say about the density of the two projectiles and thus their relative susceptibility to be slowed aerodynamically during a progressive descent?

Quote
Atmospheric friction at 11 200 m/s speed

What is the density of the atmosphere when the entry vehicle is traveling at that velocity?  What is the velocity of the vehicle when the atmosphere is more dense?

Quote
while turbulence heats up the outside air.

No, turbulence does not cause aerodynamic heating.  You also made the classic layman's mistake of thinking that friction causes the bulk of the heating.  In fact, it is aerodynamic compression.
 
Quote
There is no way you can drop anything from space on Earth without it burning up, incl. heat shields and other nonsense.

I have done so as part of my profession.  You are simply wrong.

Quote
So draw your own conclusions about those space vessels.

I have drawn my conclusions based on 20+ years in the field.  You have no idea what you're talking about and no working understanding of any practical branch of physics.

You claimed you would correct errors in your presentation.  They have been pointed out to you repeatedly but you simply ignore them and restate your mistaken understanding of the problem.  You keep bringing up the alleged 1 million Euro prize, but you have omitted to prove it was there, in the way I asked.

You are obviously a liar, a fraud, and likely a troll.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 12:10:53 PM

Do you know what the Tsiokovsky equation is?

Yes! Has nothing to do with slowing down in space. 8)

BOLLOCKS.  That is exactly what it is for.

Then use it and calculate the energy required to slow down in space. Just be polite and use proper language, as my Mother always says.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 29, 2012, 12:13:30 PM
Heiwa, ka9q has done EXACTLY what you just requested. Go back and look for it.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on December 29, 2012, 12:13:48 PM
I vote "How did Walter do it" to the same wall of fame as "How far up does this alleged vacuum go" and "Who is this Jodie Banks person?"

I'll admit I don't know how American-centric of me it is, but is it possible to study the Apollo record in any detail without encountering dear Walter Cronkite?

Since our new friend is so obsessed with the comparison between ships and spacecraft, is a ship the same weight after it crosses the Pacific as it was before?

And I'm just as willing to blindly believe in his million Euros as he is to believe, even after being shown, that he's wrong.  Even if there were a million Euros, as there is obviously not, no one would get it, because he's never going to admit to being wrong.  Acknowledging his Walter Cronkite goof instead of just pretending it hadn't happened would be a nice place to start.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 29, 2012, 12:14:01 PM

Do you know what the Tsiokovsky equation is?

Yes! Has nothing to do with slowing down in space. 8)

BOLLOCKS.  That is exactly what it is for.

Then use it and calculate the energy required to slow down in space. Just be polite and use proper language, as my Mother always says.

K9aq already has, you refused to even acknowledge it.

Do not presume to lecture me on manners after your libellous statements and condescending attitude.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 29, 2012, 12:14:45 PM
Even if there were a million Euros, as there is obviously not, no one would get it, because he's never going to admit to being wrong.  Acknowledging his Walter Cronkite goof instead of just pretending it hadn't happened would be a nice place to start.

Precisely.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on December 29, 2012, 12:15:00 PM
But it can be seen in US museums and it is easy to cut off a piece and test. It burns at 1200°C!

Oh, I missed this one.  Yeah, just go ahead and cut off bits of museum displays.  That'll go over well.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 29, 2012, 12:16:36 PM
OK, the money is in the bank! Happy? I am!

Prove it.

Quote
But in order to collect it, you must perform - as explained above - and be polite. I had expected plenty people would explain, free of charge, how you can slow down a space craft in space and what the fuel consumption for it is, but NO!

YES! At least three individuals have done just that. Explain your complete inability to read and understand and why you just keep repeating your same tired old incorrect assumptions.
 
Quote
I have asked NASA how the Apollo 1969 heat shield was designed, what material it used, how it was tested, lab reports, etc. SECRET!

Bull. The information is published widely. I do not believe for a moment you have asked NASA anything. Or at least that you have asked NASA anything they could actually answer in ways you could understand. You are clearly no engineer.

Quote
It burns at 1200°C!

That's how it works. It's called ablation. Look it up.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 12:16:46 PM

The fuel consumption for EVERY use of EVERY engine on Apollo IS provided.


Good, what is the SFC in kg/s or kg/hr of a P-22KS propulsion rocket engine with 97 400 N thrust in space?

It uses a mixture of nitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine fuel. I am just interested in the kg/s or kg/hr figure.

Pls provide link, etc.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on December 29, 2012, 12:17:31 PM
OK, the money is in the bank! Happy?

No.  You have provided no proof that the money is in the bank and available to be claimed.  I explained to you how that was typically done.  Tell us why you have failed to demonstrate it as asked.

Quote
But in order to collect it, you must perform - as explained above - and be polite.

You're being politely indulged.  No one believes you have the money and would be willing to pay it out, so kindly drop the charade.

Quote
I had expected plenty people would explain, free of charge, how you can slow down a space craft in space and what the fuel consumption for it is, but NO!

This has been done for you multiple times.  You ignore the explanation because you do not understand physics and engineering.  This is why you are a poor judge of whether or not you are wrong.  Hence the proper way to pay out your alleged reward would be to place it in escrow under control of a competent third-party judge.
 
Quote
It seems to be a MILITARY AND NATIONAL TOP SECRET SECURITY ITEM that CIA, FBI and DHS get  nervous about.

Nonsense.  The math has been explained to you here, and you have received copious references to the available published figures and the century-old methods for applying those figures.  You simply ignore them.  It is no great secret; it's published in books freely available to all, a reference to which I provided pages ago.

Quote
Very confusing actually.

Not to us.  Many of us do this for a living.  Yes, it is clear you are very confused, which is why the charade of your being a wealthy, highly qualified engineer is so comical.
 
Quote
I have asked NASA how the Apollo 1969 heat shield was designed, what material it used, how it was tested, lab reports, etc. SECRET!

Nonsense.  The Apollo heat shield was not new technology at the time.  It was, in fact, borrowed from existing designs for re-entry heat shields for unmanned vehicles.  There is an abundance of technical information on its construction, composition, testing, and use -- both before and after Apollo.

The problem is that either through your incompetence or your laziness, you are unable to find even the most commonly available materials.  You then wrongly attribute your inability to do basic research to some vast secret.  The only factor at play here is your ignorance, sloth, and clear bias.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 12:18:24 PM
Heiwa, ka9q has done EXACTLY what you just requested. Go back and look for it.
No, in a PM he informed that he didn't want to waste his time.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on December 29, 2012, 12:20:02 PM
Then use it and calculate the energy required to slow down in space.

This was done for you pages ago.

Quote
Just be polite and use proper language, as my Mother always says.

You are not the moderator, and you are the worst offender for politeness.  You are calling me and my profession liars and are libelling nearly everyone in connection with the aerospace industry.  You will therefore answer my questions and stop lecturing everyone on your misguided notions of politeness.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on December 29, 2012, 12:20:49 PM
Fuel is not a tiny fraction of a seagoing ship's mass. Depending on the ship (and it's route - distance to travel) it can be 10-20% of the mass at departure (and 1% on arrival). Evidently you try to carry minimum fuel (and max cargo) unless you get a low price in one port and fill up fuel to save money, etc, etc. It seems you are not up to date about ships?
I'm not as out-of-date about ships as you think.

I worked it out during my last cruise (on a large, brand-new, diesel-electric, German-built cruise ship). It was about a ton per revenue passenger for a 10-day cruise. For about 2,400 passengers on a ship displacing nearly 100,000 tons, that is negligible compared to a spacecraft and launcher where, as I said, nearly all of the launch mass is propellant. In fact, the ratios are just about swapped.

And for a ship carrying large amounts of a commodity like ore or crude oil, where speed is not as important as on a cruise ship, the fuel ratios are even smaller.

Why don't you return the favor and do the calculations for the Apollo/Saturn V? You just might learn something.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 29, 2012, 12:21:56 PM
Firstly, why assume I have a link? Some people get information from documents stored in places called libraries. They're a great research tool. You should get off your backside occasionally and try using one.

Secondly, why should I want to know the figures for a P-22KS engine with 97,400 N thrust when the SPS used an AJ10-137 engine with 91,000 N thrust, which used Aerozine-50 and nitrogen tetroxide?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 29, 2012, 12:23:05 PM
But here's a link you might want to check out.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/842097.pdf
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on December 29, 2012, 12:24:21 PM
Heiwa, ka9q has done EXACTLY what you just requested. Go back and look for it.
No, in a PM he informed that he didn't want to waste his time.
Now you're being deliberately disingenuous. In a private message I said I wouldn't waste my time answering you in private messages; I would explain things to you here where others could read them even if you don't.

And I did answer your exact question about the amount of fuel required for Apollo 11's first lunar orbit insertion burn. Read it and stop stalling.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 12:25:29 PM
You ignore the explanation because you do not understand physics and engineering. 

I just query the fuel consumed to brake in space based on physics and engineering principles and people here go bananas and some become rude and impolite.

According my calculations the US 1969 rockets engines on Apollo 11 consumed too much fuel to produce the required thrust to slow down in space so ... there was no space for the fuel. What to do? Just invent that the rockets were super efficient, etc, etc. SF fantasy style. Happens also at sea.

Where is the problem? Are you a NASA PhD?


Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 29, 2012, 12:27:49 PM
I just query the fuel consumed to brake in space based on physics and engineering principles and people here go bananas and some become rude and impolite.

Only when you have been given the CORRECT equations and numbers and refuse to acknowledge same.

Quote
According my calculations the US 1969 rockets engines on Apollo 11 consumed too much fuel to produce the required thrust to slow down in space so ... there was no space for the fuel.

And your calculations used the wrong numbers and the wrong principles, as has been explained to you over and over and over again. Will you please get your head out of your backside and understand that physics understanding does not stop at grade school level and that things like the Tsiolkovsky equation are the things you should be looking at.

Quote
Where is the problem? Are you a NASA PhD?

Didn't take long for the veiled accusation of being a paid NASA shill to come out, did it?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 29, 2012, 12:28:18 PM
You ignore the explanation because you do not understand physics and engineering. 

I just query the fuel consumed to brake in space based on physics and engineering principles and people here go bananas and some become rude and impolite.

You did a lot more than that.  You made libellous statements about the astronauts, NASA, engineers and us and engaged in name-calling.


Quote
According my calculations the US 1969 rockets engines on Apollo 11 consumed too much fuel to produce the required thrust to slow down in space so ... there was no space for the fuel. What to do? Just invent that the rockets were super efficient, etc, etc. SF fantasy style. Happens also at sea.

You have been shown your are wrong repeatedly on that score, but you refuse to acknowledge it (let alone accept it).  That is why people are becoming frustrated with you.



Quote
Where is the problem? Are you a NASA PhD?

Are you asking for Jay's qualifications specifically?  Oh boy, this will be good.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gwiz on December 29, 2012, 12:30:45 PM
According my calculations the US 1969 rockets engines on Apollo 11 consumed too much fuel to produce the required thrust to slow down in space so ... there was no space for the fuel. What to do? Just invent that the rockets were super efficient, etc, etc. SF fantasy style.
No need for fantasy rockets because your calculations are wrong.  State of the art rockets, similar to the ones that launched the satellites that carry your TV and GPS signals, did the job.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 12:31:03 PM
Then use it and calculate the energy required to slow down in space.

This was done for you pages ago.

Quote
Just be polite and use proper language, as my Mother always says.

You are not the moderator, and you are the worst offender for politeness.  You are calling me and my profession liars and are libelling nearly everyone in connection with the aerospace industry.  You will therefore answer my questions and stop lecturing everyone on your misguided notions of politeness.

Yes, I am not a moderator. I was just quoting my mother. BTW - how much fuel was required to slow down Apollo 11 to enter Moon orbit? I missed that one.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 29, 2012, 12:32:19 PM
If you keep missing it i suggest you go back and read the thread. It has been answered already.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on December 29, 2012, 12:35:16 PM
Good, what is the SFC in kg/s or kg/hr of a P-22KS propulsion rocket engine with 97 400 N thrust in space?

It uses a mixture of nitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine fuel. I am just interested in the kg/s or kg/hr figure.

Pls provide link, etc.
You have already been provided links to all the material. I gave them to you myself.

But just to give you even more rope to hang yourself with, here's a spoon-fed derivation.

As others have explained, the SPS on the Apollo CSM uses the AJ10-137 engine with a nominal thrust of 91 kN. Where did you get "P-22KS" and 97 400N?

The SPS has a rated Isp of 314 seconds. Multiply that by the acceleration of gravity (9.080665 m/s^2) to get the effective exhaust velocity: 3079.3 m/s. Therefore, the propellant mass flow rate for a thrust of 91 kN is simply

91,000 N / 3079.3 m/s = 29.55 kg/s

Très simple -- when you actually know some basic rocketry.

 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on December 29, 2012, 12:41:04 PM
BTW - how much fuel was required to slow down Apollo 11 to enter Moon orbit? I missed that one.
No, you didn't miss it. You simply ignored it.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on December 29, 2012, 12:43:29 PM

Do you know what the Tsiokovsky equation is?

Yes! Has nothing to do with slowing down in space. 8)

Bwahahahaha! Oh, man, that is hilarious. Do you really think the fuel is conscious and self-aware and knows which way it is being expelled relative to the direction of travel?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 29, 2012, 12:43:59 PM
As others have explained, the SPS on the Apollo CSM uses the AJ10-137 engine with a nominal thrust of 91 kN. Where did you get "P-22KS" and 97 400N?

Jason and I have done some sleuthing.  The only reference we can find to this is the schematic on page 405 in "Stages to Saturn" by Roger E Bilstein*.  Jason has just gone to grab the book, he will be back in a minute.  We suspect an inaccuracy in the text, given that it matches up with nothing else Apollo.



* apart from on Heiwa's own website.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 29, 2012, 12:46:30 PM
Yup, there it is, on page 405. A schematic with, annoyingly, no citation as to when it was made or by whom. Since I can find no other reference to the SPS using anything other than an AJ10-137 engine, I find it rather curious.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on December 29, 2012, 12:51:41 PM
Lucky for the rest of us without such an extensive library, the rest of us can also examine this source (http://books.google.ca/books?id=JnoZTbVLx0MC&lpg=PP1&dq=%22Stages%20to%20Saturn%22&pg=PA405#v=onepage&q&f=false) thanks to Google Books.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: stutefish on December 29, 2012, 12:52:10 PM
The interior of the Apollo 11 command module would soon be heated up to 200°C early at the re-entry and the cosmonots would be burnt to death prior the whole space ship would disappear in smoke. Not even a Finn would manage it.
Am I the only one excited by the idea of what a motivated Finnish space program could accomplish?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 12:55:06 PM

The math has been explained to you here, and you have received copious references to the available published figures and the century-old methods for applying those figures.  You simply ignore them.  It is no great secret; it's published in books freely available to all, a reference to which I provided pages ago.


Yes, I agree all is very easy - to slow down a heavy (43 000 kg)  space ship in space from one high speed to another, little lower high speed, you apply a substantial force on it (eg 97 400 N), e.g. by using a 1960's rocket engine. The rocket engine consumes fuel in order to slow down the space ship. What is the fuel consumption (kg/s) to produce a certain force (N). According my calculations one kg fuel can produce 1.63 MJ energy to produce the required force. 

It is not very efficient = more fuel is needed than can be carried, it seems.
 
Applied to a seagoing ship means that the ship sinks prior departure. Not very nice.

Imagine a 43 tons car on your door step. Imagine the engine you need to accelerate this heavy car to 2 400 m/s speed. It will be quite big. And now you want to brake from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s speed using a brake. You agree it is a big brake.

Or take the Shuttle - about 78 tons - flying at 7 800 m/s speed around the Earth at 400 000 m altitude to/from the ISS. To slow down for going back to Earth, the Shuttle is turned around and the engines are on full blast but the only result is that the altitude becomes lower and the speed increases to 9 000 m/s at 150 000 m altitude ... while you are still going backwards. You are flying backwards! How to stop?
It is not possible. Not even a computer can land the Shuttle. But Captain Mark Kelly managed to do it. I explain how in my presentation. Enjoy.  :) ;) :D ;D :P :-*
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 29, 2012, 12:58:30 PM
You can keep saying your wrong equations as much as you like, Heiwa. The fact remains that you are using the WRONG principles to apply to a rocket. You have NOT accounted for the variable mass. you have NOT accounted for the expulsion of mass from the back of the rocket. you have oversimplified it to a kinetic energy problem and totally failed to appreciate the correct requirements for a space system. And this is despite the number of times it has been explained to you. I've had more productive days banging my head against a brick wall, frankly.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 29, 2012, 01:00:02 PM
You have been told the mass of fuel required so why do you ignore the answers and keep asking?

Show us your 1.63MJ/kg calculation or source.

Admit that spaceflight is nothing like sailing a ship, for reasons explained in depth.

Admit that "big" and "quite big" are useless concepts in physics - we need demand numbers.

Lastly, please enjoy this webpage: http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 01:01:51 PM


Where did you get "P-22KS" and 97 400N?

From NASA - references in my presentation - link in post #1. 

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 01:03:33 PM


Show us your 1.63 MJ/kg calculation or source.



See link in post #1.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 29, 2012, 01:05:41 PM


Where did you get "P-22KS" and 97 400N?

From NASA - references in my presentation. 



I am not going to waste my life reading your presentation.  Provide the source here, now.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 29, 2012, 01:05:59 PM


Show us your 1.63 MJ/kg calculation or source.



See link in post #1.

No.  I will not wade through that claptrap again.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 01:06:05 PM

Where did you get "P-22KS" and 97 400N?

From NASA - references in my presentation - link in post #1.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on December 29, 2012, 01:07:08 PM
No.  No, no, no.  No, you don't get to send us to a website for information.  You have to present it here.  For the third time, my browser says your website will endanger my computer, and I won't visit anything where I get that warning.  Even if I would, you're here, and you will follow the rules here.  And that includes presenting your argument here.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 01:08:15 PM


Show us your 1.63 MJ/kg calculation or source.



See link in post #1.

No.  I will not wade through that claptrap again.

But it is the topic we discuss. If you want to participate in the discussion, you have to study the topic under discussion. My mother always told me so.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 29, 2012, 01:10:01 PM


Show us your 1.63 MJ/kg calculation or source.



See link in post #1.

No.  I will not wade through that claptrap again.

But it is the topic we discuss. If you want to participate in the discussion, you have to study the topic under discussion. My mother always told me so.

Please invite your mother here, I am happy to talk to her.

In terms of studying the topic, I have - it's what I did at university at both undergrad and postgrad level.

You do not get to order me about, and you definitely do not get to tell me how to participate in this forum.  That's twice now.  I doubt you'll get a third chance.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on December 29, 2012, 01:11:35 PM
As more fuel is burned, if thrust is constant, the rate of deceleration will be increased. After all, you are not decelerating a 43,000 pound space craft any more, but one that is the amount of fuel burned lighter.
Imagine someone pushed  you down an aisle in a shopping cart full of you and, say, 100 cans of soup. You could stop yourself by throwing cans of soup toward the destination as, thanks to Newtons' third law, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Assuming you are throwing at a constant speed, every can of soup thrown will decelerate you more than the last as the mass being decelerated, first you and 99 soup cans, than 98, and so on, becomes less and less.
It also sounds like a great way to get thrown out of a store, but that's a different question. ;D
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 01:13:28 PM
No.  No, no, no.  No, you don't get to send us to a website for information.  You have to present it here.  For the third time, my browser says your website will endanger my computer, and I won't visit anything where I get that warning.  Even if I would, you're here, and you will follow the rules here.  And that includes presenting your argument here.

Strange rule. Anyway my ISP is Lycos/Tripod at San Francisco, CA, and it is an excellent ISP always up and running providing an excellent service for $4.95 per month. I am a happy Lycos/Tripod client since >10 years. Evidently I cannot copy my web site on a discussion forum. You'll have to visit it at the ISP. Good luck!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on December 29, 2012, 01:14:42 PM
just type the reference and impress us with your skills
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on December 29, 2012, 01:19:13 PM
Strange rule. Anyway my ISP is Lycos/Tripod at San Francisco, CA, and it is an excellent ISP always up and running providing an excellent service for $4.95 per month. I am a happy Lycos/Tripod client since >10 years. Evidently I cannot copy my web site on a discussion forum. You'll have to visit it at the ISP. Good luck!

No, it's not a strange rule.  It's an extremely common one, from what I've seen, on any site intending to host discussion.  "Go read my website" isn't discussion.  Discussion would include, say, "Oh, you're right.  I was an idiot about that Walter Cronkite thing.  Clearly, I don't know as much as I think I do."  Or "Thank you for providing all those references.  Instead of being rude, I will look at what you've said and respond to it."  Or any number of things which you have failed to do.

And I don't care who hosts your website.  What I care about is that I have received a warning that it will infect my computer with malware.  Why should I risk opening up my computer to that when you haven't convinced me that anything you have to say is anything I haven't already heard from dozens of other people with made-up credentials and even less understanding of physics than I have?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on December 29, 2012, 01:22:02 PM
As others have explained, the SPS on the Apollo CSM uses the AJ10-137 engine with a nominal thrust of 91 kN. Where did you get "P-22KS" and 97 400N?

Jason and I have done some sleuthing.  The only reference we can find to this is the schematic on page 405 in "Stages to Saturn" by Roger E Bilstein*.  Jason has just gone to grab the book, he will be back in a minute.  We suspect an inaccuracy in the text, given that it matches up with nothing else Apollo.



* apart from on Heiwa's own website.

Yep, he has the schematic on his page, with added colors and abusive comments:
http://www.members.tripod.com/heiwaco/rocket.jpg

He probably got it from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saturn_v_schematic.jpg

They got it from a digitalization of "Stages to Saturn" hosted on NASA's History website:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/p405.htm (page with that image)
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/contents.htm (contents page of the book)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on December 29, 2012, 01:24:56 PM
Why is not wanting your computer infected with software that could do harm a 'stupid rule'?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on December 29, 2012, 01:27:47 PM


Show us your 1.63 MJ/kg calculation or source.



See link in post #1.

Why don't you actually demonstrate to us that you understand the subjects we're discussing by participating in the discussion rather than directing us to another website? For all we know you just copied it from some other source and you don't even understand what it means.  Or maybe you wrote your website while suffering from a fever and whatever "insight" it gave you has left you.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 01:32:21 PM
As more fuel is burned, if thrust is constant, the rate of deceleration will be increased. After all, you are not decelerating a 43,000 pound space craft any more, but one that is the amount of fuel burned lighter.

You are right except that the space craft mass was 43 000 kg prior braking into Moon orbit at 2400 m/s speed. What it was in Moon orbit at 1500 m/s speed is not known = we do not know the fuel consumed, which I find strange. You would expect that fuel consumption was monitored carefully ... because you couldn't fill up underway. Same for getting out of Moon orbit after dumping the LM. Mass before may have been 30 000 kg but afterwards en route for Earth, difference of which is fuel consumed, is not known.

At one Apollo trip they could not dump the LM but still managed to get out of Moon orbit with that extra weight 13 000 kg and you really wonder how it was possible. NASA will not explain.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 29, 2012, 01:36:03 PM


Show us your 1.63 MJ/kg calculation or source.



See link in post #1.

Why don't you actually demonstrate to us that you understand the subjects we're discussing by participating in the discussion rather than directing us to another website? For all we know you just copied it from some other source and you don't even understand what it means.  Or maybe you wrote your website while suffering from a fever and whatever "insight" it gave you has left you.

See post #145. The fuel consumption is the ones for the LM descent/ascent engines. I use the same for the SM engine. Clear?
In post #204 there are four links to external web sites. Nothing wrong with it! Actually one link is to a figure I prepared for my presentation. Apparently with an abusive comment but it was more ironic - cosmomouses checking the engines prior departure, etc.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on December 29, 2012, 01:37:38 PM


You can produce a force forever with no energy at all when that force does not act through a distance.

Yes, a force applied to any mass while not displacing the mass any distance does not require energy to exist ... as no energy is required. But here the force is applied on Apollo 11 by its SM rocket engine to slow down Apollo 11 during a rather long trajectory to enter Moon orbit and for that energy/fuel is required. Pls try to stay on topic and do not start with some metaphysical nonsense popular amongst SF-writers.

Force without work is science fiction?

Magnets -- how the $%^&^%$ do they work?!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on December 29, 2012, 01:56:04 PM

No, the capsule + heat shield is like a meteorite but much weaker because the meteorite is solid and the capsule is a framed steel structure mostly full of air (like a seagoing ship).

Nickle-iron meteorites are in the minority.  Most of what flashes across the sky is somewhere between soft snow and loose dirt.

Also, engineering 101; which provides better load resistance, a solid steel bar, or the same mass of steel formed into a box column (aka "mostly full of air.")

Atmospheric friction at 11 200 m/s speed first heats up the exposed surfaces

No.  At these velocities, air can't get out of the way.  The source of heat is compression, not friction.

that soon melts (and bye, bye) while also heating the inside and the passing outside air,

You got one right!  Well, two out of three; the heat shield melts, all right.  Or rather, the outside melts; like a candle melting from the top down.  And the super-heated vaporized material blows off and leaves the spacecraft, whilst also communicating heat to the atmosphere.  Meanwhile only the slow forces of conduction are left to try to get any heat into the spacecraft proper.

while turbulence heats up the outside air.

I don't even know what this means.

There is no way you can drop anything from space on Earth without it burning up, incl. heat shields and other nonsense.  For that reason return trips (drop downs - LOL) from the MIR and ISS space stations are impossible. So draw your own conclusions about those space vessels. 
The interior of the Apollo 11 command module would soon be heated up to 200°C early at the re-entry and the cosmonots would be burnt to death prior the whole space ship would disappear in smoke. Not even a Finn would manage it.
What about the Shuttle making all those trips up to and down from the ISS? Same nonsense. Especially Mark Kelly, the last American piloting down the last Shuttle. I write about him in my presentation. He is not even funny. He looks like a turkey.
Neil Armstrong - the first man on the Moon - was more fun. He looked really funny when asked what he did there! He wouldn't last 10 seconds being waterboarded by the CIA as a terrorist suspect, though.

And the Gish Horse has galloped out of the paddock.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 29, 2012, 02:09:13 PM
we do not know the fuel consumed, which I find strange.

Explain why you maintain this fantasy in the face of numerous sources that have been provided that tell you how much fuel was used.

Quote
At one Apollo trip they could not dump the LM but still managed to get out of Moon orbit with that extra weight 13 000 kg and you really wonder how it was possible.

Oh I can't wait to see you tell us which mission this was. Please enlighten us as to which apollo mission left lunar orbit with the LM still attached. I have an idea which one you think it is but please tell us.

Quote
NASA will not explain.

It's not NASA's job to spoonfeed idiots like you with the education you need to understand the figures they publish. They have provided the information. Your job is to acquire the expertise needed to properly understand it. So far you have clearly not done that, as your insistence on using the WRONG equations and numbers and information attests.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on December 29, 2012, 02:13:21 PM

Yes, I agree all is very easy - to slow down a heavy (43 000 kg)  space ship in space from one high speed to another, little lower high speed, you apply a substantial force on it (eg 97 400 N), e.g. by using a 1960's rocket engine. The rocket engine consumes fuel in order to slow down the space ship. What is the fuel consumption (kg/s) to produce a certain force (N). According my calculations one kg fuel can produce 1.63 MJ energy to produce the required force. 

This is where you err.  And where you will never be able to achieve the right answers.

Let's put it as a thought problem.  Say I have a little wind-up toy car.  With the spring fully wound, that spring stores enough energy to drive the car forward about 8 meters on a smooth, level floor.

I take my little wind-up car with me on a flight from New York to Paris.  After the airplane has reached cruising altitude and level flight I set my little wind-up toy down in the center aisle.

Does it travel the same distance it did back in my room at home?  Does it travel further if I turn it around so it is rolling from the front of the airplane to the back?

The equations you are using claim that, yes, not only will the range of my little wind-up toy car be affected by the fact that I am using it in an airplane in flight, it will be GROSSLY affected; enough so that I would be lucky for it to roll at all.



It is not very efficient = more fuel is needed than can be carried, it seems.
 
Applied to a seagoing ship means that the ship sinks prior departure. Not very nice.

Imagine a 43 tons car on your door step. Imagine the engine you need to accelerate this heavy car to 2 400 m/s speed. It will be quite big. And now you want to brake from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s speed using a brake. You agree it is a big brake.

Or take the Shuttle - about 78 tons - flying at 7 800 m/s speed around the Earth at 400 000 m altitude to/from the ISS. To slow down for going back to Earth, the Shuttle is turned around and the engines are on full blast but the only result is that the altitude becomes lower and the speed increases to 9 000 m/s at 150 000 m altitude ... while you are still going backwards. You are flying backwards! How to stop?

No.  After one burn, regardless of which way the Orbiter is facing, it will NOT be in a circular orbit that is higher or lower in altitude.  It will not be in a circular orbit, period.

I'd suggest at this point getting a copy of Lunar Orbiter or similar and playing around until you get an actual feel for orbital mechanics.  Because your attempts to model it mathematically are leading you astray.

It is not possible. Not even a computer can land the Shuttle. But Captain Mark Kelly managed to do it. I explain how in my presentation. Enjoy.  :) ;) :D ;D :P :-*
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on December 29, 2012, 02:26:52 PM

You are right except that the space craft mass was 43 000 kg prior braking into Moon orbit at 2400 m/s speed. What it was in Moon orbit at 1500 m/s speed is not known = we do not know the fuel consumed, which I find strange. You would expect that fuel consumption was monitored carefully ... because you couldn't fill up underway. Same for getting out of Moon orbit after dumping the LM. Mass before may have been 30 000 kg but afterwards en route for Earth, difference of which is fuel consumed, is not known.
Except  it's been shown many times by others. The burn times are easy to find out and the fuel consumption rates have been posted directly.
Quote
At one Apollo trip they could not dump the LM but still managed to get out of Moon orbit with that extra weight 13 000 kg and you really wonder how it was possible. NASA will not explain.
If I make a guess, you are referring to Apollo 13, yes?
It never entered lunar orbit. Rather, after the explosion, the LM descent stage made a burn to put the CSM/LM stack *back* into the free return trajectory, looping around the moon, that would return it back to Earth, a pretty minor change in velocity. The figures are easily available.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on December 29, 2012, 04:51:12 PM
I just query the fuel consumed to brake in space based on physics and engineering principles and people here go bananas and some become rude and impolite.

You don't "query" those principles, you flat-out accuse people of lying.  No one is going bananas, they are simply trying to overcome your stubbornness and arrogance.  You are being treated politely, despite your obvious attempts at emotional baiting and name-calling.

Quote
According my calculations the US 1969 rockets engines on Apollo 11 consumed too much fuel to produce the required thrust to slow down in space.

Your calculations are wrong.  It has been shown to at length what is wrong with them and how they should be done instead.  You promised that you would accept corrections, but it is clear at this point that you will not.  Your stubbornness in the face of absolutely certain error is why you are feeling beset upon.

Quote
Where is the problem? Are you a NASA PhD?

No.  I am a professional aeronautical engineer working in private and publicly owned industry.  Not all spacefarers work for NASA.  That said, I have contributed (and still do) to manned space flight engineering.

I can tell where this is going.  You have previously ranted incoherently against "NASA PhDs" whom you characterize as lazy and overpaid.  I promise you that if you attempt to extend that rant to libel me personally or professionally, there will be consequences.
Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sus_pilot on December 29, 2012, 05:22:45 PM
I vote "How did Walter do it" to the same wall of fame as "How far up does this alleged vacuum go" and "Who is this Jodie Banks person?"

I'll admit I don't know how American-centric of me it is, but is it possible to study the Apollo record in any detail without encountering dear Walter Cronkite?

Since our new friend is so obsessed with the comparison between ships and spacecraft, is a ship the same weight after it crosses the Pacific as it was before?

And I'm just as willing to blindly believe in his million Euros as he is to believe, even after being shown, that he's wrong.  Even if there were a million Euros, as there is obviously not, no one would get it, because he's never going to admit to being wrong.  Acknowledging his Walter Cronkite goof instead of just pretending it hadn't happened would be a nice place to start.

When I was a kid, I preferred Huntley-Brinkley/Frank McGee when watching coverage of the space program.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on December 29, 2012, 05:27:03 PM
When I was a kid, I preferred Huntley-Brinkley/Frank McGee when watching coverage of the space program.

When I was a kid, Huntley was dead, Brinkley was hosting This Week, and Cronkite retired!
Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sus_pilot on December 29, 2012, 05:33:40 PM
Wait a second...  An ISP in San Francisco?  "Cosmonots" and "Asstronots"?  "Lazy NASA physicists"?

Heiwa, you don't happen to play Bluegrass banjo, do you?
Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sus_pilot on December 29, 2012, 05:34:39 PM
When I was a kid, I preferred Huntley-Brinkley/Frank McGee when watching coverage of the space program.

When I was a kid, Huntley was dead, Brinkley was hosting This Week, and Cronkite retired!

I'm like a fine wine - well aged and mellow.  ;). Besides, albeit on TV, I got to watch history as it happened.
Title: Re: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on December 29, 2012, 05:52:41 PM
When I was a kid, I preferred Huntley-Brinkley/Frank McGee when watching coverage of the space program.

When I was a kid, Huntley was dead, Brinkley was hosting This Week, and Cronkite retired!

I thought Andrew Neil had always hosted This Week.

Anyway, since we have established the scope of Heiwa's conspiracism, I'd like to know what it was I've seen in the sky during alleged Space Shuttle missions. I was only born more than a decade after the Apollo program ended so my knowledge of it comes only from historical study, eg I've read the press kits, the mission reports, the ALSJ. But I've seen the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station in orbit with my own eyes. If it's a lie, what did I see?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: darren r on December 29, 2012, 05:59:28 PM
Wait a second...  An ISP in San Francisco?  "Cosmonots" and "Asstronots"?  "Lazy NASA physicists"?

Heiwa, you don't happen to play Bluegrass banjo, do you?

Given all the references to his mother, I was expecting to hear about his sister and girlfriend pretty soon.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Halcyon Dayz, FCD on December 29, 2012, 06:09:57 PM
Considering that promising a prize that doesn't exist must be some sort of fraud, can't we just sue Mr. Björkman?

Would keep the site in maintenance funds for decades.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on December 29, 2012, 06:12:07 PM
Wait a second...  An ISP in San Francisco?  "Cosmonots" and "Asstronots"?  "Lazy NASA physicists"?

Heiwa, you don't happen to play Bluegrass banjo, do you?

No, Anders is not him.  This is, however, as bad or worse.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on December 29, 2012, 06:20:46 PM
When I was a kid, I preferred Huntley-Brinkley/Frank McGee when watching coverage of the space program.

When I was a kid, Huntley was dead, Brinkley was hosting This Week, and Cronkite retired!

I thought Andrew Neil had always hosted This Week.

Anyway, since we have established the scope of Heiwa's conspiracism, I'd like to know what it was I've seen in the sky during alleged Space Shuttle missions. I was only born more than a decade after the Apollo program ended so my knowledge of it comes only from historical study, eg I've read the press kits, the mission reports, the ALSJ. But I've seen the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station in orbit with my own eyes. If it's a lie, what did I see?

Oh please, that's just effects of LSD the gubmint put in your water supply.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on December 29, 2012, 08:21:08 PM
You are right except that the space craft mass was 43 000 kg prior braking into Moon orbit at 2400 m/s speed. What it was in Moon orbit at 1500 m/s speed is not known = we do not know the fuel consumed, which I find strange. You would expect that fuel consumption was monitored carefully ... because you couldn't fill up underway. Same for getting out of Moon orbit after dumping the LM. Mass before may have been 30 000 kg but afterwards en route for Earth, difference of which is fuel consumed, is not known.
I cited for you a table of mass properties that give the mass (and much more) of each Apollo spacecraft at every important point in the Apollo 11 mission, including after the lunar orbit insertion burn and after the trans-earth injection burn (leaving lunar orbit). The same reports are available for every other Apollo mission as well. So the information you claim is not known is known quite well.

I can only conclude that you suffer either from brain damage or from an inability to understand plain English.
Quote
At one Apollo trip they could not dump the LM but still managed to get out of Moon orbit with that extra weight 13 000 kg and you really wonder how it was possible. NASA will not explain.
The only Apollo mission in which the LM was brought back from the moon was Apollo 13, which never went into lunar orbit in the first place.

NASA explains Apollo fully in a comprehensive pile of documents you simply haven't read and refuse to acknowledge exist.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on December 29, 2012, 08:43:59 PM
Considering that promising a prize that doesn't exist must be some sort of fraud, can't we just sue Mr. Björkman?

Would keep the site in maintenance funds for decades.

Heiwa's challenge is most defiantly a fraud, in the sense that he will never set conditions so that could result in the money could be paid.  Since not only must the challenge be proven, but he is the judge of the proof and has demonstrated the willingness to ignore information contrary to his position.   We would have to have a contract with him and suffer some real loss to get a civil fraud judgement and I doubt any judge would say that an incredible claim on a web site so filled with nonsense constitutes a real contract.  Nor could the failure to get money one never expected to get be considered a loss. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on December 29, 2012, 08:46:01 PM

I can only conclude that you suffer either from brain damage or from an inability to understand plain English.

I must say you're being very restrained when facing such rampant trolling.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cos on December 29, 2012, 10:10:52 PM
Ka9q, thanks for your excellent posts. Our guest Troll's repeated claim that no one has answered him are trying everyone's patience. Below (again) are the bits he is studiously ignoring. I've taken the time and I understand it perfectly well. Why Anders Björkman chooses to ignore the plain fact that he is wrong is a mystery but I suggest if he is wedded to his ignorance he now performs a HB flounce and go and talk his dross somewhere where such ignorance is prized.

All, and I do mean all, of the information he wants is available in the following documents:

Apollo 11 Mission Report: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11mr.html
AS-506 (Apollo 11) Saturn V launch vehicle flight evaluation report: http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19900066485

Of particular interest is the "Mass Properties" table on page 212 of the first report. It gives the exact mass, center of gravity and moments and products of inertia for the Apollo spacecraft at every significant point in the mission. This is more than enough to calculate, given the known performance of the various rocket engines and the propellants consumed, the delta-V generated during every rocket burn.

Pages 74-76 of the same report list every maneuver and its velocity change. Again, given the known performance of each engine one can compute how much propellant was required, compare it to the mass properties table and see that the numbers are all perfectly consistent.

Of course, this requires a basic understanding of physics and orbital mechanics that our friend seems to totally lack, as evidenced by the few (and remarkably clueless) calculations of the fuel required for various maneuvers. I'd tell him to start with the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation -- or even F=ma -- but there is so much more that he needs to know that it seems hopeless. Especially since he doesn't want to learn.

Quote
And your calculations are dead wrong. The actual figures are as follows for Apollo 11 LOI #1 (first lunar orbit insertion burn):

Mass of CSM/LM at ignition: 96,061.6 lbm
Mass of CSM/LM at shutdown: 72,037.6 lbm
Propellant used: 96,061.6 - 72,037.6 = 24,024 lbm = 10,897.1 kg
Velocity at ignition: 8250 ft/s = 2514.6 m/s
Velocity at shutdown: 5479 ft/s = 1670 m/s
Velocity change = abs(8250 - 5479) =  2771 ft/s = 844.6 m/s

Now consider the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation:

delta-V = Ve * ln(mass_at_ignition/mass_at_shutdown)

We want to know if these numbers are reasonable for the rocket engine in use, so let's solve for Ve, the effective exhaust velocity of the rocket engine:

Ve = delta-V / ln(mass_at_ignition/mass_at_shutdown)
= 844.6 m/s / ln(1.33349)
= 2934.7 m/s

This corresponds to an Isp of 2934.7 / 9.80665 = 299 seconds. This is just under the nominal Isp for a large hypergolic rocket engine burning these propellants. (I expected a very small discrepancy because the altitude of the CSM/LM was not precisely constant during the burn.)

Note that the kinetic energy (in any coordinate frame) of the spacecraft doesn't even enter into it. Only the change in velocity matters, and it'll be the same in any inertial reference frame you choose. The kinetic energy won't be, and that alone should tell you that you've made a mistake by thinking it's important.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on December 29, 2012, 10:56:52 PM
YT has gotten the same way lately. Well - it's always been bad, but it seems to be getting worse. People have been making such off-the-wall claims that you would have to undertake to edeucate them before you can refute them.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on December 29, 2012, 11:05:07 PM
I must say you're being very restrained when facing such rampant trolling.

You know, I'm not sure if I'm giving people the benefit of the doubt or not when I'm assuming they actually believe what they're saying.  In many cases, it means believing they're stupid instead of rude.  Is that actually better?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on December 29, 2012, 11:47:20 PM


This thread was started by Daggerstab to discuss your 1 million Euro challenge, so how exactly is it off topic to talk about the prize money? Explain that to me, please.

OK, the money is in the bank! Happy? I am!
No.  That is hardly proof.  But we all know by now that you have no proof because you have no money and no intent to ever award it.


But in order to collect it, you must perform - as explained above - and be polite. I had expected plenty people would explain, free of charge, how you can slow down a space craft in space and what the fuel consumption for it is, but NO!
People HAVE given you calculations and politely shown where yours are wrong.  You ignore the answers and continue to use the wrong stuff.  Further evidence you are not truthful.

It seems to be a MILITARY AND NATIONAL TOP SECRET SECURITY ITEM that CIA, FBI and DHS get  nervous about. Very confusing actually.
Prove it.

I have asked NASA how the Apollo 1969 heat shield was designed, what material it used, how it was tested, lab reports, etc. SECRET! But it can be seen in US museums and it is easy to cut off a piece and test. It burns at 1200°C!
Prove it.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on December 30, 2012, 12:37:45 AM
Not that I am at all surprised,  but it is hardly a secret, Heiwa. I typed in apollo ablative (http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/search.jsp?N=0&Ntk=All&Ntt=apollo%20ablative&Ntx=mode%20matchallpartial) into the NASA technical reports server search engine and found oodles upon oodles of the information you allege is secret.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 30, 2012, 12:49:04 AM
... you are referring to Apollo 13, yes?
It never entered lunar orbit. Rather, after the explosion, the LM descent stage made a burn to put the CSM/LM stack *back* into the free return trajectory, looping around the moon, that would return it back to Earth, a pretty minor change in velocity. The figures are easily available.

Hm, ... free return trajectory, looping around the moon, minor change in velocity ... no fuel consumed ? ... figures easily available. It does not sound convincing. Suggest you explain how Apollo 13 managed to change direction in space and get back to Earth and fuel consumed for the maneuver.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 30, 2012, 01:03:01 AM


You don't "query" those principles, you flat-out accuse people of lying.

Evidently plenty NASA people lie about Apollo 11. That's why Apollo 11 was a criminal hoax paid for by gullible taxpayers. The weakness is always in the technical details, e.g. fuel consumed as I demonstrate by studying the energies involved at the various stages of the trip. Only way to go from one stage (mass/velocity) to another is apparently to use a rocket but how it works doesn't matter. It is the alleged end result that matters.
And the more you look, the more hoaxes you find at NASA. They got away with Apollo so they started the Shuttle hoax. A airplane looking spaceship that enters Earth atmosphere backwards (!!) at 9000 m/s velocity at 150 000 l altitude and then by some trick flying during 15 minutes manages to land on an airstrip. And this by a pilot that has as hobby to fly propeller planes at airshows. What a joke.
And now we have the Mars Scientific Laboratory hoax. Finding traces of life on Mars after a succesful landing of a Roover there. Pure SF nonsense, all of it. Look at the clowns at JPL Mission Control! All Hollywood people. Etc, etc.
And plenty people at this forum do not see it. It seems there is a long way to go.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: DataCable on December 30, 2012, 01:06:05 AM
Suggest you explain how Apollo 13 managed to change direction in space and get back to Earth and fuel consumed for the maneuver.
Gravity and momentum.  Open an orbital mechanics book.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on December 30, 2012, 01:09:06 AM
... you are referring to Apollo 13, yes?
It never entered lunar orbit. Rather, after the explosion, the LM descent stage made a burn to put the CSM/LM stack *back* into the free return trajectory, looping around the moon, that would return it back to Earth, a pretty minor change in velocity. The figures are easily available.

Hm, ... free return trajectory, looping around the moon, minor change in velocity ... no fuel consumed ? ... figures easily available. It does not sound convincing. Suggest you explain how Apollo 13 managed to change direction in space and get back to Earth and fuel consumed for the maneuver.

Gravity.


(Apollo 13 is a bit of an odd case...many of the Apollo missions were on a free-return trajectory, but due to the Fra Mauro target of the original mission, they needed to make a mid-course burn following the accident in order to return to that trajectory.  They also performed a burn immediately following the closest point of approach to the Moon, in order to achieve a flatter return path -- shaving another ten hours off the trip.)
Title: Re: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 30, 2012, 01:10:56 AM
I've seen the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station in orbit with my own eyes. If it's a lie, what did I see?

Yes, many people claim they have seen the Shuttle and ISS at 400 000 m altitude from Earth on a clear day at dusk with a low sun shining on them but is neither the Shuttle nor the ISS, reason being that the Shuttle cannot get down from the ISS in one piece as explained in my popular presentation (topic - see post #1).
So what did you see? Probably another satellite in LEO sent up by NASA as part of the hoax. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on December 30, 2012, 01:15:59 AM


You don't "query" those principles, you flat-out accuse people of lying.

Evidently plenty NASA people lie about Apollo 11. That's why Apollo 11 was a criminal hoax paid for by gullible taxpayers. The weakness is always in the technical details, e.g. fuel consumed as I demonstrate by studying the energies involved at the various stages of the trip. Only way to go from one stage (mass/velocity) to another is apparently to use a rocket but how it works doesn't matter. It is the alleged end result that matters.
And the more you look, the more hoaxes you find at NASA. They got away with Apollo so they started the Shuttle hoax. A airplane looking spaceship that enters Earth atmosphere backwards (!!) at 9000 m/s velocity at 150 000 l altitude and then by some trick flying during 15 minutes manages to land on an airstrip. And this by a pilot that has as hobby to fly propeller planes at airshows. What a joke.
And now we have the Mars Scientific Laboratory hoax. Finding traces of life on Mars after a succesful landing of a Roover there. Pure SF nonsense, all of it. Look at the clowns at JPL Mission Control! All Hollywood people. Etc, etc.
And plenty people at this forum do not see it. It seems there is a long way to go.

The scope of your conspiracy is convenient.

However, the same principles you claim are part of a skein of misdirection are also in use much closer to the ground.  As I pointed out in my wind-up-toy-in-the-airliner example, the physics you claim is part of a big lie is everywhere around you and apparently works quite well for everyday engineering.

And now I make special mention of the part of your post I bolded.  It may or may not matter to "most" people, but it very much matters to many.  At this forum, you will find essentially no-one who cares only that the Moon was landed on.  What fascinates us IS the details.  And the numbers; the science, the engineering, the calculations.

As should be obvious to you by now if only that every single member of this forum knows DETAILS about Apollo that you had never heard of.  Even the most non-scientific at this forum still know of the ideal rocket equation.  It is the polar opposite of what you depict.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: DataCable on December 30, 2012, 01:19:07 AM
Evidently plenty NASA people lie about Apollo 11. That's why Apollo 11 was a criminal hoax paid for by gullible taxpayers.
That is the conclusion you are attempting to support.  Simply reasserting it does not make it true.

Quote
The weakness is always in the technical details, e.g. fuel consumed as I demonstrate by studying the energies involved at the various stages of the trip.
Technical details which professional engineers see no problem with, but which you, with absolutely no qualifications, know the truth about.

Quote
They got away with Apollo so they started the Shuttle hoax. [...] What a joke.
Yes, your own unqualified incredulity makes very convincing evidence.

Quote
Finding traces of life on Mars after a succesful landing of a Roover there. Pure SF nonsense, all of it.
I quite agree.  Nobody associated with the MSL Curiosity mission has ever announced "finding traces of life on Mars."

BTW, while your are wandering off on this guilt-by-association Gish Gallop, you are once again completely ignoring the re-statement of your miscalculations graciously quoted above from previously in this thread by cos.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 30, 2012, 01:19:57 AM


Heiwa's challenge is most defiantly a fraud, in the sense that he will never set conditions so that could result in the money could be paid. 

Thanks for drawing attention to Heiwa's Challenges. There are in fact 2 Challenges at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm :-

The first is:

The Heiwa Challenge 1
(March 2010)
Conditions:
1. The structure volume is supposed to have a certain uniform cross area (meter²) and height h (meter) and is fixed on the ground. The structure consists of an assembly of various connected elements inside the volume, e.g. columns (wall elements), beams (floor elements), brackets (to connect columns and beams), plates, etc, of any type or material joined together. It can be any size! The structure volume contains mostly air, of course. It can but need not look like the structure left (developed by NASA engineer Mackey)! It is VERY simple; 111 units of a horizontal beam/platform with mass m supported by/connected to two (or four ?) pillars (total 3 or 5 elements per unit) stacked/joined on top of each other (+ a mast on top). It looks like WTC1!! It also looks like a house of cards but note that the horizontal and vertical elements are connected with solid joints, so use weak supporting, vertical elements of fragile material (and more solid, heavy horizontal ones).
2. The structure should be more or less identical from height = 0 (ground) to height = H (top), e.g. uniform density, layout of internal elements, weights and joints, etc. Horizontal elements in structure should be identical. Vertical, load carrying elements should be similar and be uniformly stressed due to gravity, i.e. bottom vertical elements should be reinforced or made a little stronger, as required. Connections between similar elements should be similar throughout. In example left H = 111 h, where h is height of one unit.
3. The structure should be uniformly stressed at height=0 and height = H. It means that supporting elements are stronger at height=0.
4. Before drop test (see 8.) the structure shall be stable, i.e. carry itself and withstand a small lateral impact at top without falling apart and to deflect elastically sideways less than H/100 at the top. Connections or joints between elements cannot rely solely on friction.
5. Before drop test top 1/10th of the structure is disconnected at the top at height = 0.9 H without damaging the structure/elements/joints more than required for disconnection.
6. The lower structure, 0.9 H high is then called part A. The top part, 0.1 H high, is called part C.
7. Mass of part C should be <1/9th of mass of part A.
8. Now drop part C on part A and crush bottom part A of structure into smaller pieces by top part C of the structure (if you can! That's the test). Film the test on video!
9. Drop height of part C above part A is max 3.7 meter. Less drop height is permitted. Thus the maximum energy (Joule) applied at collision C/A to initiate the crush-down progressive collapse is mass of C times gravity acceleration 9.82 m/sec² (i.e. the force acting on C) times height 3.7 m (i.e. distance the force is displaced).
10. Structure is only considered crushed, when >70% of the elements in part A are disconnected from each other at the joints or broken between joints after test, i.e. drop by part C on A from 3.7 m. Try to use elements and/or joints not producing smoke/dust at failures, so we can see the crush down action and failures of elements/joints on video. If all supporting, vertical elements are broken in part A of structure left, then 66.66% of all elements are broken, etc, etc.
Have a try! I look forward to your structures and videos!
Once you have a clear idea of how the structure should fall, it's time to prepare the structure. The first step in preparation is to clear any loose items out of the structure. The second step is to remove all non-load-bearing elements within the structure. This makes for a cleaner break of elements and joints at every level. If these elements were left intact, they would stiffen the structure, hindering its collapse. You should also weaken the supporting elements and their joints, so that they give way more easily.
The first person describing a structure fulfilling conditions 1-10 above and doing a successful drop test wins Euro 1 000 000:-.
Terrorists, Holocaust deniers (and demolition companies) are also welcome to participate in order to confirm their actions/ideas/services!
Send your entry (description of structure + verified result of test/video) to Anders Björkman, 6 rue Victor Hugo, F 06 240 Beausoleil, France, [email protected]
Money is evidently available in the bank.

The second Challenge is:

The Heiwa Challenge 2 (September 2012)

The Heiwa Challenge 2 is first to calculate the amount of fuel (or energy) required to complete a manned Moon and/or planet Mars return trip after being ejected into space from Earth towards the Moon and/or planet Mars by external rockets and second to describe the space ship incl. heat shield, its engines and fuel tanks that can carry that amount of fuel using 1960 or 2010 technology.
Tips about the matter are found at the Heiwa Moon/Mars Travel website. Any description of a space ship that can really accomplish a manned Moon and/or planet Mars return trip will receive a €1 000 000:- cheque!
Engineers from NASA, JPL and ESA are encouraged to participate in this Heiwa Challenge 2. You know, if Apollo 11 could land on Earth, you could just copy/paste the accomplishment technology and win a €1 000 000:- cheque! Do it. Money is evidently available in the bank.

How to just land on any planet with atmosphere is described at document Returning from Space: Re-entry, i.e. instead of using a rocket engine/fuel to brake you use a little heat shield, friction and turbulent drag at small angle of entry to reduce mostly horizontal velocity, while gravity pulls you closer to ground at increasing vertical velocity. Try to use that info to explain the Apollo 11 landing. Good luck!

---

Nobody has managed to copy/paste the relevant NASA/JPL data how to land on a planet. The MSL 7 minutes of terror landing is evidently a joke. So JPL failed the Heiwa Challenge 2.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on December 30, 2012, 01:21:44 AM
I've been to JPL any number of times.  They had adopted my junior high in the school district's Adopt-a-School program.  I saw Hubble before its launch and various tests of various Mars rovers.  JPL scientists judged my junior high science fair.  People I knew growing up now work at JPL.  They aren't actors.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on December 30, 2012, 01:24:46 AM
And, uninformed.  The orbiter doesn't fly "backwards."  It performs the de-orbit burn in that attitude.  The aerobraking is performed at a different attitude.  So is the landing.  Your description is akin to watching a 757 performing the first rotation and claiming it then crosses the Atlantic and lands at Heathrow in the same nose-up orientation.  Given your previous posts, I'm surprised you wouldn't then ask how "Walter" put the wheels back on!

And, yes, pilots fly.  That's what they like to do.  There are lots of Army Reservists who are Civil War re-enactors; does that mean that same soldier serving in Iraq is only capable of operating a smooth-bore musket?  Ridiculous.  You are casting for aspersions.

(And, incidentally, I'd love for you to go up to anyone who pushes heavy iron through the sky at an airshow and tell them it's just a "hobby" prop plane.)

But then, you apparently have no understanding of the Shuttle, up to and including what role the Orbiter plays in the system.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on December 30, 2012, 01:32:25 AM
...
The Heiwa Challenge 2 is first to calculate the amount of fuel (or energy) required to complete a manned Moon and/or planet Mars return trip after being ejected into space from Earth towards the Moon and/or planet Mars by external rockets and second to describe the space ship incl. heat shield, its engines and fuel tanks that can carry that amount of fuel using 1960 or 2010 technology.
...

Ridiculous.  Your parameters are grossly undefined.

"Ejected into space from Earth towards the Moon" is meaningless.  What velocity are we talking about here?  You don't have the slightest grasp of delta-v budgets.  Ejected my RCS!  No Apollo mission was "ejected" from orbit around the Earth (much less the Sun), and a moment's thought would tell you this was so.  (Hint: where is the Moon now and where is it going?)

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: carpediem on December 30, 2012, 01:55:10 AM
Are there any manned space flights that this guy doesn't think are faked?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 30, 2012, 01:57:14 AM
The orbiter doesn't fly "backwards." 

You are kindly invited to explain how the Shuttle manages to leave the ISS at 400 000 m altitude and velocity 7200 m/s and then, by using its engines manage to reduce altitude to say 120 000 m. The engines are aft so to do this maneuver the Shuttle flies backwards.
It seems the actual velocity (kinetic energy) increases due to loss of potential energy (change in altitude) so the velocity is 9000 m/s at entry Earth atmosphere at 120 000 m altitude.
Now, due to friction, the Shuttle starts to heat up - all of it - because there is no heat shield and one way or another the Shuttle turns with nose forward and starts to brake. How? Explain! Using wing flaps!
According some sources the Shuttle flies by autopilot most of the time during braking and the pilot only jumps in when speed is below that of sound at 340 m/s or so. But how did the Shuttle slow down from 9000 to 340 m/s without burning or braking up?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 30, 2012, 02:01:10 AM
Are there any manned space flights that this guy doesn't think are faked?
Answer is in link given in post #1. And this guy is Heiwa - a gentle, intelligent first class engineer, etc, but he is not the topic here. The topic is the info given in the link in post #1. Try to focus on topic and not on author of topic.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: carpediem on December 30, 2012, 02:21:53 AM
Are there any manned space flights that this guy doesn't think are faked?
Answer is in link given in post #1. And this guy is Heiwa - a gentle, intelligent first class engineer, etc, but he is not the topic here. The topic is the info given in the link in post #1. Try to focus on topic and not on author of topic.
Are there any manned space flights that this guy doesn't think are faked?
Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sus_pilot on December 30, 2012, 02:22:55 AM
The orbiter doesn't fly "backwards." 

You are kindly invited to explain how the Shuttle manages to leave the ISS at 400 000 m altitude and velocity 7200 m/s and then, by using its engines manage to reduce altitude to say 120 000 m. The engines are aft so to do this maneuver the Shuttle flies backwards.
It seems the actual velocity (kinetic energy) increases due to loss of potential energy (change in altitude) so the velocity is 9000 m/s at entry Earth atmosphere at 120 000 m altitude.
Now, due to friction, the Shuttle starts to heat up - all of it - because there is no heat shield and one way or another the Shuttle turns with nose forward and starts to brake. How? Explain! Using wing flaps!
According some sources the Shuttle flies by autopilot most of the time during braking and the pilot only jumps in when speed is below that of sound at 340 m/s or so. But how did the Shuttle slow down from 9000 to 340 m/s without burning or braking up?

Aerodynamic braking and ceramic tiles, sport.  Although exquisite in execution, the concept is simple. 

The only "backwards" part is the de-orbit burn.  When the Shuttle did that, it wasn't flying - it was in orbit, in a near vacuum, so it's attitude, other than orienting the engines, didn't really matter.

The aerodynamic braking was achieved by maintaining an extremely high angle of attack during the hypersonic portion of re-entry. 



Bye the bye, as a flight instructor, I'm going to agree completely with nomuse:  tell me that flying any aerobatic performance, regardless of power plant, doesn't take considerable skill.  Especially the airshow variety where one is working close to the ground.
Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sus_pilot on December 30, 2012, 02:24:57 AM
Are there any manned space flights that this guy doesn't think are faked?
Answer is in link given in post #1. And this guy is Heiwa - a gentle, intelligent first class engineer, etc, but he is not the topic here. The topic is the info given in the link in post #1. Try to focus on topic and not on author of topic.

Please share your C.V., since, by claiming you're a "first class engineer", you've made yourself the topic.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 30, 2012, 03:26:01 AM
The orbiter doesn't fly "backwards." 

You are kindly invited to explain how the Shuttle manages to leave the ISS at 400 000 m altitude and velocity 7200 m/s and then, by using its engines manage to reduce altitude to say 120 000 m. The engines are aft so to do this maneuver the Shuttle flies backwards.
It seems the actual velocity (kinetic energy) increases due to loss of potential energy (change in altitude) so the velocity is 9000 m/s at entry Earth atmosphere at 120 000 m altitude.
Now, due to friction, the Shuttle starts to heat up - all of it - because there is no heat shield and one way or another the Shuttle turns with nose forward and starts to brake. How? Explain! Using wing flaps!

The shuttle, like Apollo, has an RCS system that allows it to be turned to point in any direction regardless of which way it is actually travelling. It performs the braking burn with its main engines, then uses the RCS system to flip around so it enters the atmosphere nose up facing forwards. Really, why do you find this whole concept so hard to grasp?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 30, 2012, 03:29:49 AM
... you are referring to Apollo 13, yes?
It never entered lunar orbit. Rather, after the explosion, the LM descent stage made a burn to put the CSM/LM stack *back* into the free return trajectory, looping around the moon, that would return it back to Earth, a pretty minor change in velocity. The figures are easily available.

Hm, ... free return trajectory, looping around the moon, minor change in velocity ... no fuel consumed ? ... figures easily available. It does not sound convincing.

That's your problem. Since you are evidently entirely unqualified in any relevant field and lack the understanding needed to be convinced, i suggest you take the time to educate yourself.

Quote
Suggest you explain how Apollo 13 managed to change direction in space and get back to Earth and fuel consumed for the maneuver.


Suggest you explain why you find the idea of a spacecraft looping behind a massive body like the Moon and coming back without expending fuel at all is so hard for you to comprehend when large lumps of rock and ice do it all the time. How much fuel do comets use to loop around the Sun and return to the outer reaches of the solar system?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 30, 2012, 03:42:09 AM
The weakness is always in the technical details, e.g. fuel consumed as I demonstrate by studying the energies involved at the various stages of the trip.

Which you have been told repeatedly is the WRONG way to look at it. You were even given a simple everyday case to consider to show why you were wrong. Here's another.

Ever flown in a passneger aircraft? Ever walked around the cabin during flight? Ever found it more difficult to walk during flight than on the ground? no? Why not?

The average walking spped of a human is about 5 km/h. So, how much kinetic energy do you have when stationary and when walking at 5 km/h? The average cruising speed of a passenger plane is about 800 km/h. How much kinetic energy do you have when seated travelling at 800 km/h and how much do you have when walking forward the length of the cabin, when you would be going at 805 km/h?

According to your own methods, and assuming you have the average mass of 71 kg for a European human, there is a difference of 68.5 J when walking from a standing start and about 22 KJ while on the plane. Are your legs suddenly really 320 times more powerful during flight?!

But i don't expect you will take any notice of that. Your inability to comprehend the mathematics is either the result of stubbornnesss, ignorance, plain stupidity or else you really don't believe a word you say and are just trolling for your own amusement. I can't decide which is more pathetic, to be honest.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on December 30, 2012, 04:02:12 AM
Or ignore the airplane for a moment and just think about Earth's rotation.  Bruce Lee's one-inch punch; if he stands at the Equator, is the punch more powerful if he is facing towards the East or facing towards the West?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Tedward on December 30, 2012, 04:56:05 AM
As a lay person in all things rocketery (inc Apollo but find this subject very interesting) I am finding the reticence to apply ones self to this rather amazing considering the claims and claim to authority. As a lay person I find the information provided here is often easy to follow and indeed you can fly off around the world checking the information with the magic of the web.

But I am a Moon safety expert as well. It is dangerous, My credentials? Back of a corn flake packet somewhere.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on December 30, 2012, 05:09:19 AM
Evidently

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on December 30, 2012, 05:27:01 AM
The orbiter doesn't fly "backwards." 

You are kindly invited to explain how the Shuttle manages to leave the ISS at 400 000 m altitude and velocity 7200 m/s and then, by using its engines manage to reduce altitude to say 120 000 m. The engines are aft so to do this maneuver the Shuttle flies backwards.
It seems the actual velocity (kinetic energy) increases due to loss of potential energy (change in altitude) so the velocity is 9000 m/s at entry Earth atmosphere at 120 000 m altitude.
Now, due to friction, the Shuttle starts to heat up - all of it - because there is no heat shield and one way or another the Shuttle turns with nose forward and starts to brake. How? Explain! Using wing flaps!
According some sources the Shuttle flies by autopilot most of the time during braking and the pilot only jumps in when speed is below that of sound at 340 m/s or so. But how did the Shuttle slow down from 9000 to 340 m/s without burning or braking up?

Evidently not the first clue about orbital mechanics, either. I think maybe he went to engineering school with Hunchbacked.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on December 30, 2012, 08:44:14 AM
The orbiter doesn't fly "backwards." 

You are kindly invited to explain how the Shuttle manages to leave the ISS at 400 000 m altitude and velocity 7200 m/s and then, by using its engines manage to reduce altitude to say 120 000 m. The engines are aft so to do this maneuver the Shuttle flies backwards.
It seems the actual velocity (kinetic energy) increases due to loss of potential energy (change in altitude) so the velocity is 9000 m/s at entry Earth atmosphere at 120 000 m altitude.
Now, due to friction, the Shuttle starts to heat up - all of it - because there is no heat shield and one way or another the Shuttle turns with nose forward and starts to brake. How? Explain! Using wing flaps!
According some sources the Shuttle flies by autopilot most of the time during braking and the pilot only jumps in when speed is below that of sound at 340 m/s or so. But how did the Shuttle slow down from 9000 to 340 m/s without burning or braking up?

the shuttle has no heat shield?  All those tiles were for the bathroom floor?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on December 30, 2012, 08:46:13 AM
Are there any manned space flights that this guy doesn't think are faked?
Answer is in link given in post #1. And this guy is Heiwa - a gentle, intelligent first class engineer, etc, but he is not the topic here. The topic is the info given in the link in post #1. Try to focus on topic and not on author of topic.
He most certainly IS the topic here.  He has made claims he has not backed up (like being an engineer) and has repeatedly IGNORED answers given to him.

HE is a troll.

(http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp65/frenat/170604dc34a16f20cb_zps9ac9dc80.jpg)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on December 30, 2012, 08:48:22 AM
Evidently not the first clue about orbital mechanics, either. I think maybe he went to engineering school with Hunchbacked.
I think this guy makes Hunchbacked look positively sane.

What is it about French 'engineers' anyway? I mean, they must have some pretty competent ones somewhere, they do have a major role in ESA...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on December 30, 2012, 08:54:24 AM
Can LunarOrbit lock this thread? This is going nowhere fast.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on December 30, 2012, 09:17:51 AM
Can LunarOrbit lock this thread? This is going nowhere fast.

Oh, I don't know.  It is mildly entertaining seeing how long Heiwa can keep up his facade of being an engineer.  And how long he can blatantly ignore the answers giving him.  And how long he can refuse to prove there is any money at all.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 30, 2012, 09:50:40 AM
http://bighugelabs.com/photos/f64da856d7c3d8efe5c0940cad03e708/motivator2459909 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 30, 2012, 09:51:35 AM
Are there any manned space flights that this guy doesn't think are faked?
Answer is in link given in post #1. And this guy is Heiwa - a gentle, intelligent first class engineer, etc, but he is not the topic here. The topic is the info given in the link in post #1. Try to focus on topic and not on author of topic.

Please share your C.V., since, by claiming you're a "first class engineer", you've made yourself the topic.

You have to go to post #1 and the link there and then on to my CV, etc, etc. I wrote an interesting article in Journal of Engineering Mechanics some years back about why the WTC-towers could not globally progressively collapse from top down as seen live on TV in USA and you find a copy there. Very popular are my books about the M/S Estonia 1994 accident killing almost 1000 people.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 30, 2012, 10:00:24 AM
Are there any manned space flights that this guy doesn't think are faked?
Answer is in link given in post #1. And this guy is Heiwa - a gentle, intelligent first class engineer, etc, but he is not the topic here. The topic is the info given in the link in post #1. Try to focus on topic and not on author of topic.

Please share your C.V., since, by claiming you're a "first class engineer", you've made yourself the topic.

You have to go to post #1 and the link there and then on to my CV, etc, etc. I wrote an interesting article in Journal of Engineering Mechanics some years back about why the WTC-towers could not globally progressively collapse from top down as seen live on TV in USA and you find a copy there. Very popular are my books about the M/S Estonia 1994 accident killing almost 1000 people.

How many times must you be told that we will not visit your website due to the malware issue, the rules of this forum and our reluctance to provide you with hits?  Several of us have told you to knock it off, yet you keep doing it.  Why?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 30, 2012, 10:07:30 AM
Just for fun, a summary of the more amusing gaffes made by Heiwa to show how little research he actually has under his belt:

Apollo 4 apparently went around the Moon.

Apollo 13 supposedly came out of lunar orbit with the LM still attached.

He has no idea who Walter Cronkite is.

He knows nothing of the RCS systems on Apollo or the shuttle, thinking that the shuttle enters the atmosphere backwards. Though he apparently does not query how it got to be pointing backwards after entering orbit pointing forwards in the first place.

The shuttle apparently has no heat shield.

He thinks the Tsiolkovsky equation, derived and used specifically for the purposes of calculating fuel requirements in space flight, has nothing to do with the problem of how Apollo performed its various manouevres using fuel in space.

He uses terms like 'direction and velocity' and 'inertia forces'.

He considers sea travel to be similar to space travel, despite the obvious lack of an up or down deviation in course on any sea voyage.

Apparently your legs need to be much more powerful to let you walk on a moving plane than they do on the ground because of the huge difference in kinetic energy involved in the two cases.

So, Heiwa, any reason we should take you seriously as a competent researcher into Apollo?

Oh, and he can't read the sources with the numbers he needs even when they are presented here multiple times.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 30, 2012, 10:17:38 AM
I've said it before, I'll say it again.  Rah rah!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on December 30, 2012, 10:18:46 AM
Or ignore the airplane for a moment and just think about Earth's rotation.  Bruce Lee's one-inch punch; if he stands at the Equator, is the punch more powerful if he is facing towards the East or facing towards the West?

Or Earth's 30 km/s motion relative to the sun. Or the sun's ~220 km/s motion relative to the galaxy. Or the several hundreds of km/s of motion of the galaxy relative to other galaxies. Etc...

Heiwa doesn't even pick a consistent reference for measuring velocity, but switches around. You can analyze orbital maneuvers in terms of energy, but you have to do it in much more attention to detail, taking the energy of the exhaust, potential energy, etc into account...it's simpler when dealing with spacecraft maneuvers to work in terms of momentum. And you certainly have to account for consumption of propellant over time. That claim that the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation has nothing to do with it makes it clear that Heiwa is either completely dishonest or completely (and willfully) ignorant of the subject.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 30, 2012, 10:21:04 AM


AA. Ever flown in a passneger aircraft? ...

BB. So, how much kinetic energy do you have when stationary ...

CC. and when walking at 5 km/h?

DD. The average cruising speed of a passenger plane is about 800 km/h. How much kinetic energy do you have when seated travelling at 800 km/h and ...

EE. how much do you have when walking forward the length of the cabin, when you would be going at 805 km/h?

According to your own methods, and assuming you have the average mass of 71 kg for a European human, there is a difference of 68.5 J when walking from a standing start and about 22 KJ while on the plane. Are your legs suddenly really 320 times more powerful during flight?!

But i don't expect you will take any notice of that. Your inability to comprehend the mathematics is either the result of stubbornnesss, ignorance, plain stupidity or else you really don't believe a word you say and are just trolling for your own amusement. I can't decide which is more pathetic, to be honest.

AA. I have never travelled in a passneger aircraft!
BB. 0
CC. 0.9645 J/kg
DD. 24 691 J/kg
EE.  25 001 J/kg

You are thus right that multiplying with 71 kg I get 0 J, 68.5 J, 1753.1 kJ and 1775.0 kJ difference of the two last one being 22 kJ, which is the difference in kinetic energy of the walking 71 kg person on the plane.

As the mass remains 71 kg everywhere the load on the person's legs remains the same.

Are you upset that you don not qualify to win 1 million Euro (topic)?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on December 30, 2012, 10:21:37 AM
... you are referring to Apollo 13, yes?
It never entered lunar orbit. Rather, after the explosion, the LM descent stage made a burn to put the CSM/LM stack *back* into the free return trajectory, looping around the moon, that would return it back to Earth, a pretty minor change in velocity. The figures are easily available.

Hm, ... free return trajectory, looping around the moon, minor change in velocity ... no fuel consumed ? ... figures easily available. It does not sound convincing. Suggest you explain how Apollo 13 managed to change direction in space and get back to Earth and fuel consumed for the maneuver.
You admit things can *get* into Earth orbit, yes? You've claimed shuttle sightings were just a fake satellite sent up to fool people, yes? But once they are in orbit, not spending any fuel, *they're flight is *constantly* looping, loops that loop back on themselves, constantly changing direction relative to the body being orbited. Heck, the same could be said of the moon around the Earth and the Earth around the Sun.
The answer is gravity.
And, yes, the figures are easily available. Such as right here (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a13/A13_MissionReport.pdf) on page 28 of the PDF.
Apollo 13 did have to spend some fuel to get back into a free return trajectory, but, once it was done, to quote the film based on the events in question, they "put Sir Isaac Newton in the driver's seat" though they did later burns to speed up and get home faster.
Oh, and are you still going to try to claim the figures and information on the ablative thermal shielding for Apollo are some kind of secret?
It's Not a Secret! (http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/search.jsp?N=0&Ntk=All&Ntt=apollo%20ablative&Ntx=mode%20matchallpartial)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 30, 2012, 10:24:57 AM
Just for fun, a summary of the more amusing gaffes made by Heiwa to show how little research he actually has under his belt:

...

He considers sea travel to be similar to space travel, despite the obvious lack of an up or down deviation in course on any sea voyage.

...

I am getting sea sick. The landlubber thinks there is no up or down deviation at sea.  :o ???
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 30, 2012, 10:29:28 AM
You are thus right that multiplying with 71 kg I get 0 J, 68.5 J, 1753.1 kJ and 1775.0 kJ difference of the two last one being 22 kJ, which is the difference in kinetic energy of the walking 71 kg person on the plane.

As the mass remains 71 kg everywhere the load on the person's legs remains the same.

Yes, I know that. So tell me why the person doesn't need legs 320 times as powerful to move his mass at 805 km/h on the plane compared to 5 km/h on the ground. That is, after all, exactly what you propose is the issue with the Apollo spacecraft when taken purely in terms of kinetic energy.

If the person's mass and therefore the load on his legs is the same whatever speed he is moving at or wherever he is, and therefore he only needs to apply enough energy to change his speed by 5 km/h wherever he may be, why does that principle not apply to Apollo 11 in your example? Why are you insistent on using the speeds in that example when you claim they are not relevant here?

Quote
Are you upset that you don not qualify to win 1 million Euro (topic)?

Give up. You don't have a million Euros. No-one here believes you have it or that you have any intention of ever parting with it if you do. I am not remotely upset about not qualifying to receive a prize I never believed you ever had any intention of providing. I am rather enjoying your total inability to grasp basic facts, however.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 30, 2012, 10:32:06 AM
... you are referring to Apollo 13, yes?
It never entered lunar orbit. Rather, after the explosion, the LM descent stage made a burn to put the CSM/LM stack *back* into the free return trajectory, looping around the moon, that would return it back to Earth, a pretty minor change in velocity. The figures are easily available.

Hm, ... free return trajectory, looping around the moon, minor change in velocity ... no fuel consumed ? ... figures easily available. It does not sound convincing. Suggest you explain how Apollo 13 managed to change direction in space and get back to Earth and fuel consumed for the maneuver.
You admit things can *get* into Earth orbit, yes? You've claimed shuttle sightings were just a fake satellite sent up to fool people, yes? But once they are in orbit, not spending any fuel, *they're flight is *constantly* looping, loops that loop back on themselves, constantly changing direction relative to the body being orbited. Heck, the same could be said of the moon around the Earth and the Earth around the Sun.
The answer is gravity.
And, yes, the figures are easily available. Such as right here (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a13/A13_MissionReport.pdf) on page 28 of the PDF.
Apollo 13 did have to spend some fuel to get back into a free return trajectory, but, once it was done, to quote the film based on the events in question, they "put Sir Isaac Newton in the driver's seat" though they did later burns to speed up and get home faster.
Oh, and are you still going to try to claim the figures and information on the ablative thermal shielding for Apollo are some kind of secret?
It's Not a Secret! (http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/search.jsp?N=0&Ntk=All&Ntt=apollo%20ablative&Ntx=mode%20matchallpartial)

Of course I have been told that Apollo 13 (service module out of order) with pure luck managed to steer close to the Moon (requiring fuel) using the LM engine/fuel/steering aids, so it could swing around the Moon using its gravity and then, at the right moment managed to change direction towards Earth (requiring more fuel), etc, etc, blah, blah, to land safely on Earth.
All nonsense of course! The NASA SF writers produced a little drama ... assisted by Hollywood. I assume you are sorry you cannot win 1 million Euro?

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 30, 2012, 10:32:26 AM
I am getting sea sick. The landlubber thinks there is no up or down deviation at sea.  :o ???

Do you have to take special classes to be that obtuse? I know that there is up and down motion during sea travel. I suffer from horrendous seasickness. But it cancels out over the course of the journey, and you always arrive at your destination in the same level you set off at: sea level. How many ships arrive 100 feet up in the air and have to descend to get into port, for heaven's sake? How many ships have engines or rudders designed to make them move up and down?

That is absolutely NOT the case in space travel. Devaitions in any dimension are not self-correcting and therefore must be considered in navigation and propulsion systems. I don't know why you have such trouble grasping that concept.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 30, 2012, 10:33:10 AM
it could swing around the Moon using its gravity and then, at the right moment managed to change direction towards Earth (requiring more fuel),

Again the concept of a free-return trajectory eludes you, I see.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 30, 2012, 10:35:18 AM
That is, after all, exactly what you propose is the issue with the Apollo spacecraft when taken purely in terms of kinetic energy.


I think you have misunderstood what I write.  ;D
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 30, 2012, 10:38:04 AM
That is, after all, exactly what you propose is the issue with the Apollo spacecraft when taken purely in terms of kinetic energy.


I think you have misunderstood what I write.  ;D

No, you misunderstand what you write.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 30, 2012, 10:38:58 AM
Just for fun, a summary of the more amusing gaffes made by Heiwa to show how little research he actually has under his belt:

...

He considers sea travel to be similar to space travel, despite the obvious lack of an up or down deviation in course on any sea voyage.

...

I am getting sea sick. The landlubber thinks there is no up or down deviation at sea.  :o ???

He said deviation in course.  There are many things you can get away with, but do not insult Jason.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 30, 2012, 10:39:27 AM

Do you have to take special classes to be that obtuse? I know that there is up and down motion during sea travel. I suffer from horrendous seasickness. But it cancels out over the course of the journey, and you always arrive at your destination in the same level you set off at: sea level.

No, I am always nice and gentle with people I know. On forums like this maybe not. I am sorry that you suffer from seasickness. It explains a lot.
Re sea level - which one do you refer to? High tide? Low tide?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 30, 2012, 10:40:39 AM
Very well then, please enlighten me as to where I went wrong.

You claim that to calculate the energy requirement to change speed on Apollo 11 you need to work out the difference between the kinetic energy before and after the burn using KE = 1/2 mv^2. So you need the starting speed and the final speed, from which you calculate the difference in kinetic energy between those two speeds for a spacecraft of given mass. That determines the energy change you need to affect with the engine to achieve the end result. Yes?

So why is in invalid for me and others to point out that if you do that for a man standing on Earth and a man travelling at 800 km/h on a plane, the one on the plane needs to change his kinetic energy by about 320 times more than the one on the ground, and yet his legs work fine in both cases to affect the change in speed he needs to be able to walk forwards?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 30, 2012, 10:42:53 AM
It explains a lot.

It is irrelevant except to indicate that I am familiar with up and down motions at sea, since they often result in the upward motion of my last meal.

Quote
Re sea level - which one do you refer to? High tide? Low tide?

Now you're just clutching at straws. Anything to avoid admitting your ridiculous mistakes. High tide or low tide doesn't matter. Again, this is something that the ship does not have to compensate for. Wherever it goes, wherever it sets out from, wherever it ends up and whatever conditions it meets on the journey, barring disaster it will always end up in port floating on top of the water, just like when it left.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 30, 2012, 10:44:42 AM
That is, after all, exactly what you propose is the issue with the Apollo spacecraft when taken purely in terms of kinetic energy.


I think you have misunderstood what I write.  ;D

No, you misunderstand what you write.

No, what I write is correct and easy to understand. I understand you are upset not having won my 1 million Euro, though. You are not alone.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 30, 2012, 10:46:37 AM
That is, after all, exactly what you propose is the issue with the Apollo spacecraft when taken purely in terms of kinetic energy.


I think you have misunderstood what I write.  ;D

No, you misunderstand what you write.

No, what I write is correct and easy to understand. I understand you are upset not having won my 1 million Euro, though. You are not alone.

Oh get over it.  We all know you haven't got the money, and I'm not the least bit bothered that I won't get fake money.  I've got plenty of Monopoly money already!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 30, 2012, 10:47:01 AM
No-one is upset, Heiwa, since no-one ever believed you had the million euros to start with. Quite sniping and deal with the substance of the arguments being presented or else clear off and pollute some other forum with your ridiculous ignorance.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on December 30, 2012, 10:48:39 AM
Re sea level - which one do you refer to? High tide? Low tide?

How much difference in altitude is there between the two? How much difference in potential energy is there between the two, and what difference does it make to the fuel requirements or speed of travel? Somewhat less than that involved in space travel, now, isn't it?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 30, 2012, 10:48:57 AM
No-one is upset, Heiwa, since no-one ever believed you had the million euros to start with. Quite sniping and deal with the substance of the arguments being presented or else clear off and pollute some other forum with your ridiculous ignorance.

He already has.  He got his arse handed to him on UniverseToday.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 30, 2012, 10:50:09 AM
Re sea level - which one do you refer to? High tide? Low tide?

How much difference in altitude is there between the two? How much difference in potential energy is there between the two, and what difference does it make to the fuel requirements or speed of travel? Somewhat less than that involved in space travel, now, isn't it?

Maybe Heiwa thinks you have to go "uphill" at high tide!  ;D
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on December 30, 2012, 10:50:56 AM

Of course I have been told that Apollo 13 (service module out of order) with pure luck managed to steer close to the Moon (requiring fuel) using the LM engine/fuel/steering aids, so it could swing around the Moon using its gravity and then, at the right moment managed to change direction towards Earth (requiring more fuel), etc, etc, blah, blah, to land safely on Earth.
All nonsense of course! The NASA SF writers produced a little drama ... assisted by Hollywood. I assume you are sorry you cannot win 1 million Euro?
Luck? No, gravity. It was moving too fast to be actually captured into a lunar orbit, but slow enough for the flight path to be influenced by the gravity, curving around the moon, back toward the Earth, thanks to  Earth's stronger gravity. Luna 3 (http://www.mentallandscape.com/l_luna3.htm), which captured the first images of the lunar farside, followed a similar trajectory.
Finally, and I am going to keep hounding you on this, Apollo ablative heat shielding materials information is not a secret. (http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/search.jsp?N=0&Ntk=All&Ntt=apollo%20ablative&Ntx=mode%20matchallpartial)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 30, 2012, 10:51:12 AM
High tide or low tide doesn't matter. Again, this is something that the ship does not have to compensate for. Wherever it goes, wherever it sets out from, wherever it ends up and whatever conditions it meets on the journey, barring disaster it will always end up in port floating on top of the water, just like when it left.

Sorry, you do not know what you are talking about. At low tide you can see the sea floor and there is nothing to float on. You have hit the bottom, so to say.
I have a distinct feeling this Apollohoaxforum is run by some bored, retired NASA hoaxsters with bad pensions and nagging wifes or husbands in some lousy subdivision where most houses are empty.
So, bye, bye. You are not really fun.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on December 30, 2012, 10:53:50 AM
Now where was that bingo sheet again . . .? ::)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 30, 2012, 10:55:09 AM
High tide or low tide doesn't matter. Again, this is something that the ship does not have to compensate for. Wherever it goes, wherever it sets out from, wherever it ends up and whatever conditions it meets on the journey, barring disaster it will always end up in port floating on top of the water, just like when it left.

Sorry, you do not know what you are talking about. At low tide you can see the sea floor and there is nothing to float on. You have hit the bottom, so to say.
I have a distinct feeling this Apollohoaxforum is run by some bored, retired NASA hoaxsters with bad pensions and nagging wifes or husbands in some lousy subdivision where most houses are empty.
So, bye, bye. You are not really fun.

Aah, the "goodbye cruel forum flounce".

For the record,
I have never worked for NASA, I have never even been to the US.
I don't draw a pension because I work, being nowhere near retirement age.
I live on a nice quiet street in the UK with no empty houses (not sure why that matters).
My husband is a wonderful man, and you can ask him yourself what he thinks of me.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on December 30, 2012, 10:55:42 AM
No-one is upset, Heiwa, since no-one ever believed you had the million euros to start with. Quite sniping and deal with the substance of the arguments being presented or else clear off and pollute some other forum with your ridiculous ignorance.

He already has.  He got his arse handed to him on UniverseToday.

Here (http://www.universetoday.com/96790/curiosity-wheels-initial-rove-in-a-week-on-heels-of-science-success/)?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 30, 2012, 10:56:20 AM
No-one is upset, Heiwa, since no-one ever believed you had the million euros to start with. Quite sniping and deal with the substance of the arguments being presented or else clear off and pollute some other forum with your ridiculous ignorance.

He already has.  He got his arse handed to him on UniverseToday.

Here (http://www.universetoday.com/96790/curiosity-wheels-initial-rove-in-a-week-on-heels-of-science-success/)?

Indeed.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 30, 2012, 10:56:35 AM
Sorry, you do not know what you are talking about. At low tide you can see the sea floor and there is nothing to float on. You have hit the bottom, so to say.

Oh yes, I can just see all those puzzled dock workers standing on the edge of the port wondering why they didn't think to build the port in a place where there was enough water to float on at any tide level. ...

You really are an idiot, aren't you?

Quote
I have a distinct feeling this Apollohoaxforum is run by some bored, retired NASA hoaxsters with bad pensions and nagging wifes or husbands in some lousy subdivision where most houses are empty.

And BINGO! There it is. The usual parting shot of a dissatisfied hoax believer who can't understand that reality doesn't conform to his expectations because they are wrong, and that many people understand the world better than they do.

 
Quote
So, bye, bye. You are not really fun.

Never fun to be told how absurd you are, is it? Please do let the door hit you on your way out.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 30, 2012, 10:57:21 AM
My husband is a wonderful man, and you can ask him yourself what he thinks of me.

Consider the sentiment appreciated and reciprocated. :)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 30, 2012, 10:58:21 AM
My husband is a wonderful man, and you can ask him yourself what he thinks of me.

Consider the sentiment appreciated and reciprocated. :)

We're so awesome.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on December 30, 2012, 11:03:07 AM
Heiwa, thank you. You have provided a couple nights entertainment and a good education from reading the replies to your comments.
For this, I salute you, sir.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on December 30, 2012, 11:04:00 AM
Of course I have been told that Apollo 13 (service module out of order) with pure luck managed to steer close to the Moon (requiring fuel) using the LM engine/fuel/steering aids, so it could swing around the Moon using its gravity and then, at the right moment managed to change direction towards Earth (requiring more fuel), etc, etc, blah, blah, to land safely on Earth.

The CSM/LM stack was already sent towards the moon by the S-IVB stage by the time the accident occurred. It's fun to compare the massive lack of relevant knowledge with your arrogance. They should put your picture in the encyclopedias, right under "Dunning-Kruger effect".

All nonsense of course! The NASA SF writers produced a little drama ... assisted by Hollywood. I assume you are sorry you cannot win 1 million Euro?
Well, no, at least one in the audience is amused by your proudly displayed ignorance. So please keep the clown show going!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gwiz on December 30, 2012, 11:07:06 AM
I wrote an interesting article in Journal of Engineering Mechanics some years back about why the WTC-towers could not globally progressively collapse from top down as seen live on TV in USA and you find a copy there.
Just looked that up.  What you published in JEM was a discussion paper in reply to a paper by Prof. Bazant.  Bazant's reply is polite, but he obviously has your number:
Although the discusser uses some mechanics terms such as velocity and acceleration, nothing can be deduced without actually formulating and solving the equations of motion.
In other words, you have opinions but you can't do the maths required to back them up.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on December 30, 2012, 11:24:36 AM
Ok I'm holding a mourning party for all of us devastated that we narrowly missed out on riches. I will also demonstrate how Heiwa could not possibly be a boating engineer by placing metal objects in my bath and watching them sink thereby proving beyond a doubt that ships cannot possibly float on water. The more you drink the funnier it will become. Who is in?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on December 30, 2012, 11:29:56 AM
Quote from: Prof. Bazant
Although the discusser uses some mechanics terms such as velocity and acceleration, nothing can be deduced without actually formulating and solving the equations of motion.

Hah. Basically, "there's a superficial resemblance to engineering here, but nothing more". Heiwa/Anders Björkman has certainly demonstrated that knowing a few technical terms doesn't equate to comprehension.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on December 30, 2012, 11:39:12 AM
Sorry, you do not know what you are talking about. At low tide you can see the sea floor and there is nothing to float on. You have hit the bottom, so to say.

The frantic fuming of one who is loosing a battle with those grounded in the real world.



Quote
So, bye, bye. You are not really fun.

There is something to be said for resigning rather than going  down the meltdown to banning path. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on December 30, 2012, 11:50:09 AM
At least we can't have ' delete all my comments!' meltdowns like before. :P
Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sus_pilot on December 30, 2012, 11:56:15 AM
High tide or low tide doesn't matter. Again, this is something that the ship does not have to compensate for. Wherever it goes, wherever it sets out from, wherever it ends up and whatever conditions it meets on the journey, barring disaster it will always end up in port floating on top of the water, just like when it left.

Sorry, you do not know what you are talking about. At low tide you can see the sea floor and there is nothing to float on. You have hit the bottom, so to say.
I have a distinct feeling this Apollohoaxforum is run by some bored, retired NASA hoaxsters with bad pensions and nagging wifes or husbands in some lousy subdivision where most houses are empty.
So, bye, bye. You are not really fun.

Can adults really be this immature? 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Halcyon Dayz, FCD on December 30, 2012, 11:57:21 AM
Evidently plenty NASA people lie about Apollo 11.
It's only the hoaxies that lie.

ALL THE TIME!

I've stopped believing they actually care about the truth a long time ago.

Can LunarOrbit lock this thread? This is going nowhere fast.
Oh, I don't know.  It is mildly entertaining seeing how long Heiwa can keep up his facade of being an engineer.
The facade was demolished on page 1.
It's has all been play-acting since.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on December 30, 2012, 12:11:10 PM
Can adults really be this immature?
Yes, evidently they can.
If this was an actual child, they would have a sense of curiosity and enjoyment of discovery.
Yes, children can be stubborn, but they also love to learn, to know.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on December 30, 2012, 12:22:03 PM
Of course I have been told that Apollo 13 (service module out of order) with pure luck...

With luck?  Where do you think it was originally headed, Mars?

managed to steer close to the Moon (requiring fuel)

Most of the Apollo spacecraft were already aimed in exactly this way.  However, on this forum we like an attention to detail and honesty, and thus we point out that Apollo 13 was one of the missions that deviated from that template.  But not by very much.  As a first approximation, the existing flight path already carried it around the Moon and back towards home.  And this is a natural course for any spacecraft you send to the Moon, whether it is intended to flyby or go into orbit around it.

using the LM engine/fuel/steering aids,

How can you discuss the maneuvers if you don't even know which systems were used, what they were called, and what their capacity was?  Did it cross your mind that the LM, for one instance, is an independent spacecraft with the maneuverability to land on another world?  You would think that would imply the ability to make attitude adjustments while in free space!

so it could swing around the Moon using its gravity and then,

You describe this as if it was a rare event.  Oh, I forgot.  You don't believe in planetary probes, either.

at the right moment managed to change direction towards Earth (requiring more fuel), etc, etc, blah, blah, to land safely on Earth.

As an approximation, no.  If you entered the approach around the Moon at the right spot, you head back towards Earth automatically.  The only "more fuel" is mid-course corrections -- adjustments made so you don't need to make that lunar pass at millimetric precision. 

As a thought experiment, what if we remove the Moon?  Send a spacecraft out on a trajectory that intersects the Moon's orbit.  Don't do anything else.  Don't even go near the Moon.  Where does that spacecraft end up after a roughly equal amount of time? 

All nonsense of course! The NASA SF writers produced a little drama ... assisted by Hollywood. I assume you are sorry you cannot win 1 million Euro?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on December 30, 2012, 12:25:47 PM
We're so awesome.

You are!  It always makes me happy to see the two of you interact. 

Did anyone else notice that, the more common-sense a post was, the less likely he was to respond to it?  Oh, sure, lots of ignoring the numbers, but it's as though some of us were barely even here.  He never responded to the Walter Cronkite thing once it was made clear that he hadn't worked for NASA.  He never responded to "ham radio operators tracked Apollo."  He never responded to "it isn't possible for everyone at JPL to be an actor."  He never responded to "I've never worked for NASA."  Just blew hard about numbers that he couldn't hope to understand, presumably in the hopes that we'd miss the easy stuff he didn't answer.  Heck, he never really even faced the idea that his site is infected with malware!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Donnie B. on December 30, 2012, 12:51:54 PM
For the record, Gillianren, I'm super jealous that you got to see Hubble and the other hardware at JPL.  I guess that makes up for your being too young to have experienced the Moon landings live, though. :)

As for Anders, it was clear from the start he was a sort of court jester, though I have enjoyed reading through the thread.  It calls to mind the ST-TOS episode where Kirk et al were caught in a parallel universe (the "evil Spock" episode).  When they returned, they found their evil counterparts had been immediately spotted and detained, while they had been able to "pass" in the other universe.  "Heiwa" had as much chance of convincing us he was a millionaire or engineer as Evil Kirk had of running the "real" Enterprise.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on December 30, 2012, 12:59:19 PM
Can LunarOrbit lock this thread? This is going nowhere fast.

Oh, I don't know.  It is mildly entertaining seeing how long Heiwa can keep up his facade of being an engineer.  And how long he can blatantly ignore the answers giving him.  And how long he can refuse to prove there is any money at all.
And for the moment it seems to be the only game in town - it's been a while since we had a non-seagull to play with.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on December 30, 2012, 01:02:46 PM
For the record, Gillianren, I'm super jealous that you got to see Hubble and the other hardware at JPL.  I guess that makes up for your being too young to have experienced the Moon landings live, though. :)

I'm not a hundred percent sure it does, really.  But if you're ever in the Greater Los Angeles Area in May, JPL has an open house every year.  (I get the notifications, because one of my oldest friends works in the JPL business office.)  It's not the only way I got to see things being built; for example, there was the time in seventh grade that my junior high choir went caroling around the complex, and they sort of combined it with a tour.  (I still have the Christmas tree ornament they gave me; unfortunately, it has nothing to do with space whatsoever.  And technically, my mom has it.)  They're very good about interacting with the community and always have been.  I think people have this view of JPL as being not unlike a military base, with everything top secret and everyone's needing to have a pass, and to be fair, there is an extent to which they require passes.  You definitely aren't allowed to go wherever you want to, even on open house days.  But they could not maintain hoaxes with the level of openness they do have.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on December 30, 2012, 01:56:35 PM
And with that, allow me to summarise what happened here.

Heiwa misunderstood how to calculate fuel requirements for orbital manoeuvres (apparently that's how you spell it), getting hung up on using simple kinetic energy equations in the wrong way, and as such came out with wrong answer, and refused to listen to anyone as they explained that fuel requirements are best calculated from the Tsiolkovsky equation.

In addition, he failed to understand how kinetic energy can be dissipated through aerobraking, got completely confused about the transposition, docking and extraction bit of a typical Apollo lunar mission, and demonstrated repeatedly an inability to research basic figures like what propellants were used in what engines and simply declared them kept secret by NASA, despite is being clearly demonstrated by many here multiple times that such information is freely available.

And just to make sure we know who we're dealing with here, he maintains that not only were the Apollo lunar mission faked, but in fact all manned spaceflight is fake and that no spacecraft launched into space can ever return to the surface of Earth.

My that's a lot of crazy.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Mag40 on December 30, 2012, 02:05:22 PM
Hi Everyone,

Looks like I missed the party! I was kind of hoping that Heiwa was at least able to understand the 'walking on the plane' analogy. Sadly, he just ignored it. Even worse, now it has been explained to him that the mass changed, he has updated his crazy conclusion accordingly, though hasn't changed the velocities yet.

From his web page:
During the 357.5 seconds braking the space ship travelled about 697 125 meter or maybe 910 000 meter, with a brake force 97 400 N provided by the P-22KS rocket engine. Mass after this brake maneuver was 32 676 kg (or 72 038 lb). It would appear 10 898 kg of fuel was used.

The amount of fuel on the CSM used for events # 5 and 6 was reportedly 10 898 kg.

The spaceship kinetic energy before braking was 43574*2400²/2 = 125.4 GJ and after braking 32676*1500²/2 = 36.76 GJ, i.e. change in kinectic energy due braking was 88.64 GJ.


So accordingly.....he now thinks the problem even worse than before!

Just for Heiwa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable-mass_system#Ideal_rocket_equation
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on December 30, 2012, 02:21:44 PM
Well, I know that horse has sailed, but I had another thought about how it would work with Anderphysics.  Which is; why is he changing the sign on his equation?

So here we have a spacecraft, moving at some velocity relative to an arbitrary reference.  Thus we can say it has a certain Ke. The spacecraft then performs a maneuver and now has a lower velocity relative to that same reference, and a lower Ke.  The spacecraft has in fact lost energy, and far from expending fuel to do so, thus the tanks are now fuller than they had been when we started. 

You are making an arbitrary choice to subtract the lesser from the greater, and only because the logical way 'round gives you funny answers.  This is why we don't do it this way!

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on December 30, 2012, 02:49:12 PM
No, what I write is completely wrong correct and convoluted easy to understand. I understand I am nothing more than a troll and the money doesn't exist you are upset not having won my 1 million Euro, though. You are not alone.
Fixed that for you.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on December 30, 2012, 02:54:34 PM
High tide or low tide doesn't matter. Again, this is something that the ship does not have to compensate for. Wherever it goes, wherever it sets out from, wherever it ends up and whatever conditions it meets on the journey, barring disaster it will always end up in port floating on top of the water, just like when it left.

Sorry, you do not know what you are talking about. At low tide you can see the sea floor and there is nothing to float on. You have hit the bottom, so to say.
I have a distinct feeling this Apollohoaxforum is run by some bored, retired NASA hoaxsters with bad pensions and nagging wifes or husbands in some lousy subdivision where most houses are empty.
So, bye, bye. You are not really fun.

Translation:  I'm taking my toys and going home!  Trolling isn't fun when you guys don't fall for my crap.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on December 30, 2012, 03:48:02 PM
Ok, I tried the calculation his way, but doing it relatively properly.  In other words, if I'm going to compare kinetic energy before and kinetic energy afterwards, it needs to work like this.

Kinetic energy of spacecraft after LOI + Kinetic energy of exhaust from LOI = Kinetic energy of spacecraft before LOI + Enthalpy change of combustion

Incidentally, I tried it both in the selenocentric frame and in a frame centred on the spacecraft before LOI (ie kinetic energy of spacecraft before LOI is 0) and glorious conservation of energy and momentum are observed.

Anyway, the enthalpy change due to combustion comes out at around 50GJ, so that means that the specific enthalpy change of the reactants is around 5 MJ/kg of reactants.  Does anyone have the specific enthalpy change of combustion of aerozine 50 and nitrogen tetroxide?  It looks a pretty rubbish combination.  Methane is more than twice that.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on December 30, 2012, 04:01:25 PM
Hi Everyone

Welcome to the forum, Mag40.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on December 30, 2012, 04:07:40 PM
I get all my numbers from Braunig.  I think Bob has the chemistry of the more common propellants in some detail there, too.  Or at least that's what I remember from the last time I tried to get really detailed with the numbers.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on December 30, 2012, 04:23:35 PM
Well I found a random Google return that allowed me to calculate 7 MJ/kg for hydrazine, which is certainly in the ballpark.  Do we know where Heiwa got his from?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on December 30, 2012, 04:36:07 PM
I have a suspicion.    ;)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on December 30, 2012, 04:37:40 PM
I have a suspicion.    ;)

A suspicion that we could have all saved ourselves a lot of trouble by simply pointing out his specific enthalpy change figure was wrong?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on December 30, 2012, 04:56:06 PM
Oh darn imagine if we had known about these 56 hours ago. we could have all had them on.

http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum24/HTML/011049.html
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on December 30, 2012, 05:32:03 PM
Well I found a random Google return that allowed me to calculate 7 MJ/kg for hydrazine, which is certainly in the ballpark.  Do we know where Heiwa got his from?

He used the value of hydrazine used as a monopropellant, which is about the lowest Isp you could hope to find. I told him several times he should be using the value of the actual fuel used in the SPS but he ignored me, of course.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on December 30, 2012, 05:40:49 PM
Ah.

Hey, Heiwa! We've solved your problem. Your using the wrong figure for enthalpy change. Use the correct figure and you'll get a propellant consumption that matches.

You still there?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on December 30, 2012, 07:56:43 PM
Bear in mind that you're talking to someone who thinks that (among other gems) "A sonic boom only occurs when a jet plane, close to ground, accelerates and pushes air waves ahead of it that cannot escape and then the air produces a sonic boom, when the plane accelerates beyond the local speed of sound. Sonic booms never occur when you decelerate in the other direction", so aircraft travelling faster than Mach 1 don't produce sonic booms.

As ka9q commented above, this guy makes Hunchbacked look positively sane.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on December 30, 2012, 08:19:48 PM
According to your own methods, and assuming you have the average mass of 71 kg for a European human, there is a difference of 68.5 J when walking from a standing start and about 22 KJ while on the plane. Are your legs suddenly really 320 times more powerful during flight?
The interesting thing here, and I'm sure it'll go way, way over Haiwa's head, is that, relative to the earth (and to the air if it's stationary) you really do have 22 kJ more kinetic energy in your body when you walk forward on the plane.

It's just that almost all of this 22 kJ comes from the plane's engines, not from your legs. When you begin to walk forward, your feet momentarily push rearward on the floor of the plane. That increases the force that the engines must overcome to maintain a constant forward velocity. Because the plane is moving so fast, this relatively small rearward impulse requires the engines to produce a fairly large amount of energy (nearly 22 kJ) until you have finished accelerating relative to the plane and are moving forward in the aisle at a constant velocity.

When you walk into the forward bulkhead (or simply stop walking) you produce a momentary forward force that momentarily reduces the required engine power and the plane gets back most of that 22 kJ.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on December 30, 2012, 08:52:27 PM
The interesting thing here, and I'm sure it'll go way, way over Haiwa's head, is that, relative to the earth (and to the air if it's stationary) you really do have 22 kJ more kinetic energy in your body when you walk forward on the plane.

A related (and similarly confusing) phenomenon is the Oberth effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect). A given spacecraft with a given amount of propellant will always be able to give itself the same immediate delta-v, but when doing something like departing Earth, doing the burn deeper in the gravity well is far more effective. This is because because the specific orbital energy of the spacecraft is increased more when the burn is done at higher orbital velocity, leaving more kinetic energy once the craft has climbed out of the gravity well. Including the exhaust in the calculations (released deeper in the well, at lower relative velocity) shows that energy is still conserved, but it's a rather unintuitive result.

This is also a clear example of how spaceflight is not like operating a boat...spacecraft can travel between regions of wildly different gravitational potentials, trading kinetic and potential energy back and forth and transferring momentum between themselves and other objects.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on December 30, 2012, 08:56:39 PM
You claim that to calculate the energy requirement to change speed on Apollo 11 you need to work out the difference between the kinetic energy before and after the burn using KE = 1/2 mv^2. So you need the starting speed and the final speed, from which you calculate the difference in kinetic energy between those two speeds for a spacecraft of given mass. That determines the energy change you need to affect with the engine to achieve the end result. Yes?
Haiwa keeps overlooking the kinetic energy stored in the rocket propellant before the burn. At the high speeds involved in space flight, the kinetic energy, per kilogram of propellant, is often considerably greater than the stored chemical energy! And when the rocket is fired, depending on the direction the kinetic energy in the exhaust can be greater or less than the kinetic energy in the stored propellant, with much of the difference exchanged with the spacecraft.

For example, after TLI Apollo 11 was moving at 35,546 ft/s (10,834 m/s), just under earth escape velocity. Its specific kinetic energy was therefore 1/2 * 10834^2 = 58.7 MJ/kg. The chemical energy stored in Aerozine-50/N2O4 is only about  6 MJ/kg! (When you burn them in an ideal rocket engine, the kinetic energy in the exhaust relative to the rocket is about 5.6 MJ/kg, with some extra energy from the propellants lost heating the exhaust, rocket nozzle, etc).

Many people know about the ridiculously poor "fuel mileage" of the Saturn V as it lifts slowly off the pad, burning many tons of propellants each second just to move a few meters. But those propellants aren't being used as inefficiently as you might think; much of their energy was actually being "invested" in the kinetic energy of the propellants not yet burned. In fact, by the time the S-IVB stage fired, the power being applied to the Apollo spacecraft (i.e., its increase in kinetic energy per unit time) was considerably greater than the power being released by the combustion of H2 and O2 in the J-2 engine. I.e., the efficiency appeared well over 100%! The difference came from the release of stored kinetic energy in the propellants as they were burned and ejected in the opposite direction of flight. This extra energy came from the propellants of the lower stages as they accelerated the S-IVB along with the spacecraft.

I once computed the overall efficiency of the Saturn V in terms of the mechanical energy applied to the Apollo spacecraft vs the stored chemical energy in the propellants of all three stages. I expected a truly tiny number but I got about 6%, which I thought was amazingly high. Maybe rockets aren't quite so bad after all.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on December 30, 2012, 09:09:17 PM
A related (and similarly confusing) phenomenon is the Oberth effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect). A given spacecraft with a given amount of propellant will always be able to give itself the same immediate delta-v, but when doing something like departing Earth, doing the burn deeper in the gravity well is far more effective. This is because because the specific orbital energy of the spacecraft is increased more when the burn is done at higher orbital velocity, leaving more kinetic energy once the craft has climbed out of the gravity well. Including the exhaust in the calculations (released deeper in the well, at lower relative velocity) shows that energy is still conserved, but it's a rather unintuitive result.

Yes, this is an excellent example. The way I think of it is that when you carry the propellants deep into the gravity well, you release the very large amount of gravitational potential energy stored in them, turning it into kinetic energy. By doing the burn deep in the planet's gravity well and leaving the propellants behind, you get to keep most of that energy as you climb back upstairs.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on December 30, 2012, 09:24:22 PM
Anyway, the enthalpy change due to combustion comes out at around 50GJ, so that means that the specific enthalpy change of the reactants is around 5 MJ/kg of reactants.  Does anyone have the specific enthalpy change of combustion of aerozine 50 and nitrogen tetroxide?  It looks a pretty rubbish combination.  Methane is more than twice that.
The kinetic energy in the exhaust of an ideal rocket burning these propellants in vacuum is about 5.6 MJ/kg. The specific enthalpy of combustion has to be greater than this because even an ideal rocket is not 100% efficient at turning the stored chemical energy into the kinetic energy of the exhaust. There is additional energy in exhaust heat, i.e., random as opposed to linear motion of the exhaust molecules and energy in their useless internal degrees of freedom (rotation, etc.)

If I had time right now I'd try to work this out by first writing the chemical formula for the combustion of these propellants and then tallying the enthalpies of formation for the propellants and their exhaust products. You have to remember, however, that real rocket engines invariably run rich mixtures so you have quite a bit of incompletely burned combustion products like H2, CO, and the like.

A rocket is simply a heat engine that converts the heat of combustion into the kinetic energy of the combustion products. Like any heat engine, it cannot be 100% efficient. Besides the usual Carnot limits that depend on the source and sink temperatures, the efficiency depends heavily on the composition of those exhaust products, particularly their molecular weight. Nearly every engine has a peak efficiency that occurs when the fuel/oxidizer mixture is run rich, not at stoichoimetric, because the loss in released chemical energy is more than made up for by the increased conversion efficiency from heat to kinetic energy that results from a lower average molecular weight in the exhaust.

This is why hydrogen is the ideal propellant for a nuclear thermal rocket (or any rocket using an external source of heat).


Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Count Zero on December 30, 2012, 10:20:38 PM
Heiwa, thank you. You have provided a couple nights entertainment and a good education from reading the replies to your comments.
For this, I salute you, sir.

Index, ring & little fingers absent-but-accounted-for.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 31, 2012, 03:23:02 AM
I have a suspicion.    ;)

I assumed he got his figures from rectal pull.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on December 31, 2012, 03:42:53 AM
Well there we go. That figure is in agreement with my calculations. 10 tonnes of propellant consumed is about right.

Isn't it wonderful when everything works out? It's almost like this is all real.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on December 31, 2012, 10:41:12 AM
Well, this thread has had some impact: Björkman has revised his page. Apparently, instead of acknowledging some of the rebuttals here, he just modified his page. As a result, some of the quotes in my large post (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg7880#msg7880) no longer appear on it. Good job I had archived the page before opening this thread. :)

For example, he has covered up his ignorance of the Apollo's RCS, but he still can't resist claiming that the CSM/LM movements were a problem:
Quote
In Earth orbit the CSM with three astronuts aboard carried out the following stunt: The CSM disconnected from the third stage and the Lunar Module stored there, rotated or flipped 180° and then connected to the top of the LM! Quite impressive! Imagine doing this at 7 500 m/s speed.

Umm, ever heard of "relative velocity", Heiwa? The transposition, docking and extraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition,_docking,_and_extraction) that you were ignorant of (and still are) are possible for the same reason you can walk inside a flying airplane - or on the deck on a moving ship. And it was done after TLI, so the velocity of the whole stack was even greater.

And I'm addressing Heiwa because he apparently continues to read this thread after his flounce, resulting in prose like this:
Quote
Self-appointed space craft propulsion experts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_propulsion) evidently disagrees with above and suggest the energy disappears in the exhaust differently, if you are accelerating or braking in space, etc. Heiwa Co just tries to keep it simple studying the change in energy (MJ) of the pay load mass as a function of fuel (kg) used.

This evidently upsets many Apollo11hoaxsters (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.315)! It goes, tradigcally, like this:

[quotes Glom's "redoing the calculation relatively properly" post]

The poor writer (Glom) has probably worked for NASA all his life producing this type of nonsense, science fiction propaganda and is now retired, divorced, alcholic, bankrupt and waiting to get ejected from his house due to non-payment of mortgages, taxes, allimonies and all sorts of dues before he dies and leaves the problems behind.

There are thus many strange contradictions and sensations about space craft propulsion.

Meltdown complete. :D Should we keep score? The "self-appointed spacecraft propulsion experts" bit is deliciously ironic.

A lot of the numbers also seem to have been re-jiggled, though I'm too lazy at the moment to compare them with the old ones.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 31, 2012, 10:53:20 AM
That's libel.

Legal action, anyone?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on December 31, 2012, 10:58:06 AM
Probably not worth the effort, but certainly a case.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on December 31, 2012, 11:39:51 AM
Quote
The poor writer (Glom) has probably worked for NASA all his life producing this type of nonsense,
And he insisted that we be polite to him if we wanted to collect his non-existent million euros...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on December 31, 2012, 11:43:26 AM
Quote
Quite impressive! Imagine doing this at 7 500 m/s speed.
That's nothing! Imagine just walking down the street while the earth orbits the sun at the breakneck speed of 30 000 m/s!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 31, 2012, 11:45:39 AM
Björkman has revised his page.

Improved. Evidently thanks to input from friendly visitors and comment by you & Co. That's an advantage of the Internet/webpages. Easy to improve your page thanks to suggestions from intelligent people and then, click, click.

What do you think about the following addition on my page?
 
"Total fuel used by the LM for descent and ascent was 10 237 kg according [1] . How it was possible as the LM could only carry 8 777 kg fuel remains a mystery".
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 31, 2012, 11:47:49 AM
I knew you wouldn't be able to resist coming back!

I bet you haven't read all the replies since your flounce.  You've got some chutzpah, and it's not a good thing.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on December 31, 2012, 11:50:47 AM
That's libel.

Legal action, anyone?

You call that libel?  You know how we in Britain do libel.  I object to the insinuation I have financial troubles.  As a NASA propagandist, I have all the money I will ever need.

So, Heiwa, since you're listening, do you not agree when doing an energy balance equation that all energy needs to be taken into account?  Your idea of keeping it simple involves missing out terms in the equation and getting signs wrong.

Kinetic energy of spacecraft after burn + Kinetic energy of exhaust = Initial kinetic energy of spacecraft + Energy released from propellant combustion

That is true regardless of whether the burn is posigrade or retrograde.

This is in addition to you not recognising that you got your energy density number wrong and clearly you still don't know what TD&E is.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 31, 2012, 11:51:44 AM
Improved.

Adding libellous comments is not an improvement.

Quote
What do you think about the following addition on my page?
 
"Total fuel used by the LM for descent and ascent was 10 237 kg according [1] . How it was possible as the LM could only carry 8 777 kg fuel remains a mystery".

I want to know where you got those figures from. Cite your source.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 31, 2012, 11:53:47 AM
Improved.

Adding libellous comments is not an improvement.

Quote
What do you think about the following addition on my page?
 
"Total fuel used by the LM for descent and ascent was 10 237 kg according [1] . How it was possible as the LM could only carry 8 777 kg fuel remains a mystery".

I want to know where you got those figures from. Cite your source.

Like I said earlier, rectal pull.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cos on December 31, 2012, 11:55:46 AM
Heiwa, I think your website is an excellent warning that no one should hire you to even clean a toilet. Short of carrying a flashing neon sign saying 'Clueless' it fits the bill nicely. 

I bet you even think that the pointy end of a spaceship has to face the direction of travel. Keep them coming, you are a A grade clown.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on December 31, 2012, 12:03:36 PM
What do you think about the following addition on my page?
 
"Total fuel used by the LM for descent and ascent was 10 237 kg according [1] . How it was possible as the LM could only carry 8 777 kg fuel remains a mystery".

Because your figures are wrong (again).  The LM's total propellant quantity was 10,600 kg (from the press kit).  You're counting only the descent stage propellants and forgetting (and more likely not understanding) the existence of ascent stage propellants.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 31, 2012, 12:16:29 PM
Judging from his webpage it's that Saturn V schematic at work again, which gives the total LM propellant load in litres. Though he still insists on 'assuming' the mass of propellants rather than using any given figures in the many published sources.

Has anyone been able to find the original source of that schematic? It's the ONLY one I've ever seen to refer to the mysterious 'P 22K S' engine for the service module propulsion system.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on December 31, 2012, 12:20:04 PM
Well glom, I work in the media industry and have access to very good lawyers and legal representatives specializing in the type of libel case you have against Anders. PM for any assistance you will need.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on December 31, 2012, 12:27:26 PM
Judging from his webpage it's that Saturn V schematic at work again, which gives the total LM propellant load in litres. Though he still insists on 'assuming' the mass of propellants rather than using any given figures in the many published sources.

Has anyone been able to find the original source of that schematic? It's the ONLY one I've ever seen to refer to the mysterious 'P 22K S' engine for the service module propulsion system.

Yes, that schematic has been reproduced in a few places - including Wikipedia - but appears to be wrong in several respects.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Mag40 on December 31, 2012, 12:30:13 PM
What do you think about the following addition on my page?
 
"Total fuel used by the LM for descent and ascent was 10 237 kg according [1] . How it was possible as the LM could only carry 8 777 kg fuel remains a mystery".

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1969-059C
Lunar Module Spacecraft and Subsystems

The lunar module was a two-stage vehicle designed for space operations near and on the Moon. The spacecraft mass of 15,065 kg was the mass of the LM including astronauts, propellants and expendables. The dry mass of the ascent stage was 2180 kg and it held 2639 kg of propellant. The descent stage dry mass was 2034 kg and 8212 kg of propellant were onboard initially.

I think your webpage sucks big time. It has more mistakes per paragraph than any I've seen for a while....if that was your aim....congratulations.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on December 31, 2012, 01:05:52 PM
Be careful on that website, Mag40. According to Google, it's infected with malware, though that may just be the rampant ignorance and misinformation. :o
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Mag40 on December 31, 2012, 01:50:18 PM
Be careful on that website, Mag40. According to Google, it's infected with malware, though that may just be the rampant ignorance and misinformation. :o

That must be it! Is it a requirement of a CTer to have arrogance in direct proportion to accuracy? It surely takes the same force to accelerate a rocket in a vacuum....from 100m/s to 1000m/s, as it does from 1500m/s to 2400m/s, doesn't it?

I may be wrong here, but isn't the increase(or decrease) in kinetic energy equal to the difference in the velocity change squared * 1/2 mass?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on December 31, 2012, 01:53:45 PM
Improved.

No, you changed pertinent information based on our corrections.  That is a de facto admission of error, which you confirm below.  Since you have admitted to having been corrected, the conditions for the million-euro payout as laid out by you have been satisfied.  Of course you will now make some excuse for why you don't need to pay it.  You have been the one harping incessantly over how no one has been able to win your prize.  We now have evidence, both in the form of your admissions below and of the previous and current content of your site, that it has been won.  We will now watch you prove yourself to be both a liar and a fraud.

Quote
Evidently thanks to input from friendly visitors and comment by you & Co. That's an advantage of the Internet/webpages. Easy to improve your page thanks to suggestions from intelligent people and then, click, click.

You asked us to demonstrate that we were "more clever" than you.  You admit we have now done so.  Therefore you lose your wager.

Further, you have blatantly libeled a member of this board, and by insinuation all participants of it.  You are well across the line into illegal territory.  Not only have you defrauded the world by admitting satisfaction of the conditions of your wager with no intent to pay it, you have committed a flagrant defamation of character with clear disregard for the facts.  That is winnable libel in any court in the world.

Quote
What do you think about the following addition on my page?

Factually incorrect, as expected.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on December 31, 2012, 01:59:14 PM
Be careful on that website, Mag40. According to Google, it's infected with malware, though that may just be the rampant ignorance and misinformation. :o

Tripod's page management software is notoriously buggy and insecure.  Most of the malware seems to derive from that.  Be that as it may, this is why no serious business or consultant uses it.  It's a toy hosting site.  But then again, no serious business would post its conspiracy-theory wackiness on a page designed to attract customers, and have that be its principal content.  There is no business.  It's a toy page pretending to give false legitimacy to what are surely the individual layman's activities of Anders Björkman.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 31, 2012, 02:00:44 PM


So, Heiwa, since you're listening, do you not agree when doing an energy balance equation that all energy needs to be taken into account?  Your idea of keeping it simple involves missing out terms in the equation and getting signs wrong.


I am not listening. I look at a PC screen. OK, some nice music in the background.

I like energy balances. You study A and B and the difference in energy between A and B. Simple. Just establish energy at A and compare same thing at B. And compare with others As and Bs. Forget rockets. Keep it simple. Just compare. And try to be polite. Try to behave like a nice person. Do not behave like a huligan. Or like a gangster. I know it is very difficult to do that, if you work for NASA or JPL. But you can try. It is difficult. DHS listening maybe?

BTW - what is wrong with my web page? Copy/paste what you do not understand.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 31, 2012, 02:03:45 PM
What do you think about the following addition on my page?
 
"Total fuel used by the LM for descent and ascent was 10 237 kg according [1] . How it was possible as the LM could only carry 8 777 kg fuel remains a mystery".

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1969-059C
Lunar Module Spacecraft and Subsystems

The lunar module was a two-stage vehicle designed for space operations near and on the Moon. The spacecraft mass of 15,065 kg was the mass of the LM including astronauts, propellants and expendables. The dry mass of the ascent stage was 2180 kg and it held 2639 kg of propellant. The descent stage dry mass was 2034 kg and 8212 kg of propellant were onboard initially.

I think your webpage sucks big time. It has more mistakes per paragraph than any I've seen for a while....if that was your aim....congratulations.

But ref [1] says something else. Willy Low is of course dead (since 1986) and cannot reply but ... maybe he is wrong? What do you think?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on December 31, 2012, 02:13:48 PM


You asked us to demonstrate that we were "more clever" than you.  You admit we have now done so.  Therefore you lose your wager.


?? I only offered (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm)  €1 000 000:- to anybody explaining, i.a. how to navigate in space from A to B and nobody has done it. Some has asked about the money and I have told them not to worry and carry on. I assume you are very clever so why do not demonstrate it. Do not worry about the money! Show that you are clever, intelligent, have Nobel price level mental ability, etc, and not nobody not even capable to clean a WC! Clear?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: BazBear on December 31, 2012, 02:20:45 PM


You asked us to demonstrate that we were "more clever" than you.  You admit we have now done so.  Therefore you lose your wager.


?? I only offered (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm)  €1 000 000:- to anybody explaining, i.a. how to navigate in space from A to B and nobody has done it. Some has asked about the money and I have told them not to worry and carry on. I assume you are very clever so why do not demonstrate it. Do not worry about the money! Show that you are clever, intelligent, have Nobel price level mental ability, etc, and not nobody not even capable to clean a WC! Clear?
Ah ha! I suspected your threat of leaving us might be an empty promise. You must be a glutton for punishment.
Title: Re: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on December 31, 2012, 02:31:47 PM


So, Heiwa, since you're listening, do you not agree when doing an energy balance equation that all energy needs to be taken into account?  Your idea of keeping it simple involves missing out terms in the equation and getting signs wrong.


I am not listening. I look at a PC screen. OK, some nice music in the background.

I like energy balances. You study A and B and the difference in energy between A and B. Simple. Just establish energy at A and compare same thing at B. And compare with others As and Bs. Forget rockets. Keep it simple. Just compare. And try to be polite. Try to behave like a nice person. Do not behave like a huligan. Or like a gangster. I know it is very difficult to do that, if you work for NASA or JPL. But you can try. It is difficult. DHS listening maybe?

BTW - what is wrong with my web page? Copy/paste what you do not understand.

You're not comparing A and B because you forget that B is not just the spacecraft, but the exhaust as well. It's like you're calculating the energy of the full spacecraft at A and then the spacecraft minus its HGA at B.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on December 31, 2012, 02:35:37 PM
But ref [1] says something else. Willy Low is of course dead (since 1986) and cannot reply but ... maybe he is wrong? What do you think?

What does "[1]" say and on which page? Page number, please.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on December 31, 2012, 02:37:08 PM
BTW - what is wrong with my web page? Copy/paste what you do not understand.

What is wrong with your website is that it is full of malware.  Why will you not respond to this basic point?  I am not going to copy-paste from your site, because I am not going to visit your site.  I do not feel the need to infect my computer, because I can tell from what you write here that you don't know what you're talking about.  You do not have the money.  You are not an engineer.  You are not intellectually honest enough to admit to the people who correct you that you were wrong about something.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on December 31, 2012, 02:40:05 PM
Do not worry about the money!
Translation:  I don't have it and never had any intention of awarding it anyway!

Show that you are clever, intelligent, have Nobel price level mental ability, etc, and not nobody not even capable to clean a WC! Clear?
Translation: Because that's my job!  I don't want you taking it!
Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sus_pilot on December 31, 2012, 02:54:10 PM
You could save us and yourself a lot of trouble, Heiwa, and just send the money to W. David Woods. He wrote a great book called How Apollo Flew To The Moon.  He explains everything in such a way so that even a layman such as yourself could understand it.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on December 31, 2012, 02:55:40 PM
BTW - what is wrong with my web page? Copy/paste what you do not understand.

What is wrong with your website is that it is full of malware.  Why will you not respond to this basic point?  I am not going to copy-paste from your site, because I am not going to visit your site.  I do not feel the need to infect my computer, because I can tell from what you write here that you don't know what you're talking about.  You do not have the money.  You are not an engineer.  You are not intellectually honest enough to admit to the people who correct you that you were wrong about something.

If you are getting a malware warning from Google, it's possible that it's backlisting the whole domain (members.tripod.com), not the Heiwa sub-site specifically. As someone already pointed out, Tripod is a free hosting site with notoriously lax security.

Google's Safe Browsing reports for the specific heiwaco page and for the whole domain are identical:
http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://www.members.tripod.com/heiwaco/moontravel.htm
http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://www.members.tripod.com/

I checked the page. The only external contents that I load are hotlinked images (demonstrating the usual level of integrity and competence of the webmaster) and a Javascript from statcounter.com, presumably a visit counter. So yeah, it appears that that specific page is safe. (You can block statcounter with some browser plugin or disable Javascript temporarily, if you want to be extra sure. :))
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on December 31, 2012, 03:17:08 PM
So, Heiwa, since you're listening, do you not agree when doing an energy balance equation that all energy needs to be taken into account?

Including potential energy.  In a generalized closed orbit, total mechanical energy is a constant (for some mass, or in "specific" form with mass factored out) but it is formulated as the sum of potential and kinetic energies.  One term is the "mass suspended above a planet and acted upon by gravity" term, and the other is "mass moving through space at some velocity" term.  In the general case, the values of the potential and kinetic energy terms respectively fluctuate at each point along the orbit, in a ratio bounded proportionally by the eccentricity of the orbit, but their sum remains constant.

It should be noted, however, that transfer orbits are not considered closed orbits and the energy-sum conservation game isn't helpful in that formulation.

Quote
Your idea of keeping it simple involves missing out terms in the equation and getting signs wrong.

Indeed every conspiracist who attempts to impeach Apollo on technical grounds sets aside the actual working models and formulates his own simpler forms.  Ostensibly, according to the proponent, this is to spare the layman reader from the tedium of complicated models, but it doesn't take much discussion to reveal that it's really to try to shoehorn the problem into the proponent's rudimentary knowledge of the relevant science.  Here Anders has tried to re-invent the science of orbital mechanics from some incomplete smattering of basic physical principles, and running into the anticipated problems.  Understanding specific energy as negative in some cases and positive in other cases (most appropriately, negative for closed orbits), is no problem for people who understand the concept of energy and have seen the wisdom in choosing the reference frame as we have, so that we can generalize the results to all orbits instead of orbits around some arbitrarily chosen planet.  He doesn't know how orbits work, so he works out how he thinks orbits "must" work.  He works an equation and the energy comes out negative, so he panics.

We saw this also in his failure to consider a rocket as a variable-mass vehicle.  Which is to say, he knew that was a property of rockets, but he didn't know how to incorporate it.  He wasn't aware of the Tsiolkovsky model, and his incompetence at mathematics and general physics seems to have prevented him from deriving it.  So he ignores it.  And he doesn't even ignore it in the traditional pseudo-science manner of assuming it's negligible.  In true foaming-at-the-mouth form, he writes it off to "NASA's inability" to provide him with correct figures.  He implies he'd be able to account for it properly if only NASA hadn't been so secretive, but then proceeds to ignore its effect entirely and insinuate that his known-inaccurate figure is somehow irrefutable proof of a hoax.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Mag40 on December 31, 2012, 03:19:38 PM
But ref [1] says something else. Willy Low is of course dead (since 1986) and cannot reply but ... maybe he is wrong? What do you think?

What do I think? I think your arrogance far exceeds your poor research capabilities and so called engineering skills. The mission report is slightly different to the web page I quoted....but sadly for you, nowhere near your figure of 8,777kg.

The [1] is http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11MIssionReport_1971015566.pdf

From page 122 (pdf page 134)....we get two tables showing the totals.....

Descent propulsion 18,184lbs = 8,248kg :
(http://i45.tinypic.com/27y2uc5.jpg)

Ascent propulsion 5,238lbs = 2,376kg :
(http://i50.tinypic.com/rm8pyw.jpg)

So, tell everybody where you got your 8,777kg figure from......are you going to correct your rubbishy web page again?

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on December 31, 2012, 03:28:38 PM
I like energy balances.

Your predilection is irrelevant, as it is not a correct method of quantifying orbital mechanics and orbital maneuvers.

Quote
You study A and B and the difference in energy between A and B. Simple.

But incorrect.  Simplicity is not a virtue if you have omitted important parts of the problem.  You refuse to believe that your home-made attempt to reinvent orbital mechanics can be so fundamentally wrong, hence there is very little that can be said to you.  You wish us to correct you within the framework of your naive misconceptions.  You must correct your thinking at a more fundamental level.

Quote
Forget rockets.

No.  Your claim is about rockets, and about how your alleged "energy balance" method proves they cannot work -- in general, or in the case of Apollo.  Hence you may not simplify away the properties of rockets.  You may not simply ignore how a rocket changes its energy properties.  You may not ignore the sources of mechanical energy that prevail in the environment in which rockets operate -- namely, in the regime of orbital mechanics.

Quote
And try to be polite. Try to behave like a nice person. Do not behave like a huligan. Or like a gangster. I know it is very difficult to do that, if you work for NASA or JPL. But you can try.

This is pure mean-spirited hogwash.  You have viciously libeled people for having done nothing more than disagree with you and attempt graciously and politely to correct your errors.  You are the least qualified person here to lecture on the subject of decorum.  You are being corrected by people who are not employed by NASA, but who nevertheless practice the principles of space flight professionally.  Your delusion that NASA controls all of space flight does not license you to defame your critics in a puerile and unlawful fashion.

Quote
BTW - what is wrong with my web page? Copy/paste what you do not understand.

Asked and answered repeatedly.  Your entire approach is wrong from its initial treatment of first principles, and continues to predicate error upon it.  I outlined exactly what those first principles were and what you needed to do to correct them.  I argued then, as I argue now, that it is pointless to discuss the rest of the page until you fix the fundamental errors that occur early on.  I have asked you several times to explain why you have not corrected those errors, but you refuse to give me any sort of answer.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on December 31, 2012, 03:40:30 PM
I'm being told to be polite after being called bankrupt? The irony might make me explode.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 31, 2012, 04:52:29 PM
I like energy balances. You study A and B and the difference in energy between A and B. Simple.

Really? The whole area of physics involved in rocket flight is that simple is it? And yet when presented with such an energy balance problem as a man walking on a plane, you ignored it and pretended it wasn't relvant. Why?

Quote
Forget rockets.

I think that has to be the funniest thing I've ever read coming from someone who is specifically trying to lecture us on rocket behaviour....

Quote
And try to be polite. Try to behave like a nice person. Do not behave like a huligan. Or like a gangster. I know it is very difficult to do that, if you work for NASA or JPL. But you can try. It is difficult. DHS listening maybe?

You really are obnoxious, aren't you? How dare you presume to lecture us on being polite after the things you said here and in your website?

Quote
BTW - what is wrong with my web page? Copy/paste what you do not understand.

Listing what is wrong with your website would require a lot more time than I have. Your assumptions and inability to do proper research are a study in themselves, frankly.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on December 31, 2012, 06:12:32 PM
Quote
Yes, that schematic has been reproduced in a few places - including Wikipedia - but appears to be wrong in several respects.

I especially liked this part:
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt353/jarvisn/rocketins1_zpsf3a73e03.jpg)

Is anyone else reminded of Ralph Rene's tendency to make up his own rules of science?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 31, 2012, 06:31:43 PM
Wow, I hadn't even noticed that one! Since there are so many things wrong with just that one little annotation, how does he expect us to have time to point out everything else that's wrong?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on December 31, 2012, 06:42:43 PM
Quote
Yes, that schematic has been reproduced in a few places - including Wikipedia - but appears to be wrong in several respects.

I especially liked this part:
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt353/jarvisn/rocketins1_zpsf3a73e03.jpg)

Is anyone else reminded of Ralph Rene's tendency to make up his own rules of science?

I think that it is supposed to be sarcasm - see the symmetric note on the other side of the booster.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on December 31, 2012, 07:02:00 PM
I don't know, how do we tell with this one?
He's so ignorant for all we know that may be what he thinks. :-\
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on December 31, 2012, 07:02:28 PM


I am not listening. I look at a PC screen. OK, some nice music in the background.

I like energy balances. You study A and B and the difference in energy between A and B. Simple. Just establish energy at A and compare same thing at B. And compare with others As and Bs. Forget rockets. Keep it simple. Just compare. And try to be polite. Try to behave like a nice person. Do not behave like a huligan. Or like a gangster. I know it is very difficult to do that, if you work for NASA or JPL. But you can try. It is difficult. DHS listening maybe?

BTW - what is wrong with my web page? Copy/paste what you do not understand.

So why didn't you?

The black-box method doesn't work if you ignore half of what came out of the box.  Which you did.  You neglected to include the kinetic energy of the waste products.

You also put the wrong value in the front end of your black box.  You treated mass as a constant, and it is not.

This is not a failure of clarity on the part of your web site!  Your web site makes your reasoning quite clear.  Clear enough to be able to see and describe the flaws in it.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on December 31, 2012, 07:45:05 PM
That's the problem with trying to simplify "energy balances". They are inherently complex; the simpler you try to make them, the more error you introduce.

Why not use the Tsiolkovsky equation that's been used to accurately predict rocket behavior since 1813 (that we know of)?  Could it be that the published figures from Apollo agree with it, so it must be suspect? My, what clever shills we are, introducing false science a century and a half before we would need it.

(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt353/jarvisn/double-facepalm1_zps9b854ad7.jpg)


The estupid! It burns!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on December 31, 2012, 08:04:42 PM
The way I learned it (and, no, I wasn't trained as an engineer!) was that a black box/energy balance was useful as a sanity check.  NOT as a way to achieve any accurate understanding of a mechanism.  Just something to let you know if you were potentially missing something and should check your assumptions.

And, used this way, the black box shows Ander's failure.  He gets a number that is out of range.  Instead of going "Hrm; what did I miss?" he goes "NASA lied!  Everything is a hoax!  Science is wrong!"

Which means, really, it is nothing more than a fancier way of doing what all hoax believers do; starting with an assumption then coming up with whatever rationalization or skewed facts can appear to support that assumption.



(Or, to be more precise; he is using a tool that is supposed to check YOU as a tool to check the WORLD.  It is like using a checksum error to declare that math is wrong.)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Count Zero on December 31, 2012, 09:11:55 PM
Is it a requirement of a CTer to have arrogance in direct proportion to accuracy?

No, the arrogance is in inverse proportion to accuracy.

I assume that's what you actually meant (being a non-CT, and therefore able to apply context to a quote).
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on December 31, 2012, 09:39:45 PM
How deluded the Hoaxers are! We, the rational minded, view this thread as pure win, whilst the the OP undoubtably views this thread as win as well. Lord, what fools these hoaxers be!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 01, 2013, 01:10:53 AM
But ref [1] says something else. Willy Low is of course dead (since 1986) and cannot reply but ... maybe he is wrong? What do you think?

What do I think? I think your arrogance far exceeds your poor research capabilities and so called engineering skills. The mission report is slightly different to the web page I quoted....but sadly for you, nowhere near your figure of 8,777kg.

The [1] is http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11MIssionReport_1971015566.pdf

From page 122 (pdf page 134)....we get two tables showing the totals.....

Descent propulsion 18,184lbs = 8,248kg :
(http://i45.tinypic.com/27y2uc5.jpg)

Ascent propulsion 5,238lbs = 2,376kg :
(http://i50.tinypic.com/rm8pyw.jpg)

So, tell everybody where you got your 8,777kg figure from......are you going to correct your rubbishy web page again?

According Mr Low (Willy):

The 15 102 kg (or 33 294 lb) lunar module (LM), Eagle, fitted below the CSM at departure, carried 3 800 liters nitrogen tetroxide + 4 500 liters hydrazine (mass 8 777 kg) fuel for 1 descent engine with 46 700 N thrust and 1 ascent engine with 15 700 N thrust. …
On July 20 at 100 hours, 12 minutes into the flight, the LM Eagle, mass 15 279 kg (or 33 683 lb), undocked and separated from CSM Columbia … (two asstronuts + equipment have mass 177 kg!)
The LM descent engine continued to provide 46 700 N braking thrust until about 102 hours, 45 minutes into the mission when the LM Eagle, arrival mass 7 327 kg (16 153 lb) landed in the Sea of Tranquility at 0 degrees, 41 minutes, 15 seconds north latitude and 23 degrees, 26 minutes east longitude. …
7 952 kg fuel carried in the LM was used for the 100 000 m descent and decrease in speed from 1 500 m/s to 0 m/s.
The LM - mass 4 888 kg - lifted off from the Moon at 17:54:01 UT on 21 July after 21 hours, 36 minutes on the lunar surface. Nose to nose LM/CSM docking occurred on the CSM's 27th revolution at 128 hours, three minutes into the mission. …  The LM mass was then 2 603 kg.
2 285 kg fuel carried in the LM was used for the 100 000 m ascent and increase in speed from 0 m/s to 1 500 m/s.
... Total fuel used by the LM for descent and ascent was 10 237 kg according [1] . How it was possible as the LM could only carry 8 777 kg fuel remains a mystery.
---

Answer is actually no mystery. The figures simply do not add up. No big deal. Maybe they disappeared in the exhaust?
BTW Lycos Tripod ISP evidently charges you for its services. No free lunch there too. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on January 01, 2013, 02:04:54 AM

According Mr Low (Willy):

The 15 102 kg (or 33 294 lb) lunar module (LM), Eagle, fitted below the CSM at departure, carried 3 800 liters nitrogen tetroxide + 4 500 liters hydrazine (mass 8 777 kg) fuel for 1 descent engine with 46 700 N thrust and 1 ascent engine with 15 700 N thrust. …
On July 20 at 100 hours, 12 minutes into the flight, the LM Eagle, mass 15 279 kg (or 33 683 lb), undocked and separated from CSM Columbia … (two asstronuts + equipment have mass 177 kg!)
The LM descent engine continued to provide 46 700 N braking thrust until about 102 hours, 45 minutes into the mission when the LM Eagle, arrival mass 7 327 kg (16 153 lb) landed in the Sea of Tranquility at 0 degrees, 41 minutes, 15 seconds north latitude and 23 degrees, 26 minutes east longitude. …
7 952 kg fuel carried in the LM was used for the 100 000 m descent and decrease in speed from 1 500 m/s to 0 m/s.
The LM - mass 4 888 kg - lifted off from the Moon at 17:54:01 UT on 21 July after 21 hours, 36 minutes on the lunar surface. Nose to nose LM/CSM docking occurred on the CSM's 27th revolution at 128 hours, three minutes into the mission. …  The LM mass was then 2 603 kg.
2 285 kg fuel carried in the LM was used for the 100 000 m ascent and increase in speed from 0 m/s to 1 500 m/s.
... Total fuel used by the LM for descent and ascent was 10 237 kg according [1] . How it was possible as the LM could only carry 8 777 kg fuel remains a mystery.
---

Answer is actually no mystery. The figures simply do not add up. No big deal. Maybe they disappeared in the exhaust?
BTW Lycos Tripod ISP evidently charges you for its services. No free lunch there too.

Typical hoaxie.  Why should you POSSIBLY use the most accurate and vetted figures available, when you can find something that might or might not have been edited competently in a popular book released to a general audience?


Well, anyhow.  Your rambling writing style makes it difficult to understand what you are doing, but it sure looks to me as if you are subtracting the ASCENT propellant from the propellant used on the lunar DESCENT (and the LM's de-orbit burn).

Assuming this is a true reflection of what you said above, can you think of any reason why that might be a silly way of looking at it?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 01, 2013, 04:12:58 AM
We've told you and shown you the tables. You've omitted the ascent engine propellant in your total. The figure you're using is wrong.

You haven't even got the type of fuel correct, which was not hydrazine but Aerozine 50.

What is so hard to understand? Your data is wrong.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ChrLz on January 01, 2013, 04:29:38 AM
'Asstronuts'?
So far, Anders Bjorkman, you have:
- proven yourself to be a liar in regard to the money.
- proven that you have no engineering competence whatsoever with your ridiculous misuse of figures and stupidly inapplicable calculations, your completely flawed and equally inapplicable analogies (like your inane comparison with seafaring - another topic you clearly don't understand) and your ignorant simplifications (like your inability to account for reducing mass as propellant is consumed).
- moved on to prove your are a slimy plagiarist who steals others work and posts it without acknowledging it (and yet still gets it wrong)
- very cowardly posted numerous insults and untruths about people who are correcting you.
- refused to acknowledge even one of your multitude of errors

Just as an aside those last two issues, more than anything else, suggest you need to seek help urgently for your condition/delusion, before you do something *really* stupid.

And now, you call some of our finest heroes 'asstronuts'?  Do you really have the mental age that indicates?

I gather that other stuff you have posted suggests you aren't just a troll, in which case there is simply no excuse whatsoever for your disgusting, disgraceful, reprehensible behavior.  Sure, it's been mildly entertaining to watch the demolition of your stupidity, but once you start cowardly insulting people on your webpage and flinging names around like a kid in a tantrum, I've seen enough..


BTW, can I suggest you get someone to help you with your English - your over- and mis-use of 'evidently' is laughable.  Why not go visit a local University and ask a Professor in a suitable discipline to help you with your work.  If s/he can stop laughing, they might help you learn something..  Don't show them what you have already posted, as you will get no help whatsoever - most professional people know lost causes when they see them..
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 01, 2013, 04:48:15 AM
We've told you and shown you the tables. You've omitted the ascent engine propellant in your total. The figure you're using is wrong.

You haven't even got the type of fuel correct, which was not hydrazine but Aerozine 50.

What is so hard to understand? Your data is wrong.

Re rocket engine fuel consumption, i.e. how much energy MJ can 1 kg of rocket fuel produce, my observations are clear:

1. At about 75 hours, 50 minutes into the Apollo 11 flight, when the space ship had total mass of 43 574 kg (or 96 062 lb), a retrograde firing of the service module, SM, P-22KS rocket engine with 97 400 N thrust for 357.5 seconds reduced the speed to 1 500 m/s at 2.52 m/s² deceleration and placed the spacecraft into an initial, elliptical-lunar orbit at about 115 000 m altitude.
 
During the 357.5 seconds braking the space ship travelled about 697 125 meter or maybe 910 000 meter, with a brake force 97 400 N provided by the P-22KS rocket engine.

Mass of space ship after this brake maneuver was 32 676 kg (or 72 038 lb). It would thus appear 10 898 kg of fuel was used.

The spaceship kinetic energy before braking was 43574*2400²/2 = 125.4 GJ and after braking 32676*1500²/2 = 36.76 GJ, i.e. change in kinetic energy due braking was 88.64 GJ, i.e. fuel consumption was 8.13 MJ/kg.

2. Trans-Earth injection of the Apollo 11 CSM, mass now 16 829 kg (37 100 lb) began July 21 as the P-22KS rocket engine with 97 400 N thrust fired for two-and-a-half minutes (150 seconds), when Columbia was behind the moon in its 59th hour of lunar orbit. The speed increased from 1 500 m/s to 2 400 m/s at average acceleration 6.00 m/s² (!) and placed the CSM into course back to Earth. Mass of CSM was then 12 153 kg (or 26 793 lb).

The distance travelled during the 150 seconds trans-Earth injection was only 292 500 meter. It looks like you need an average force of ~57 000 N to do this maneuver, so maybe the rocket was not on full blast?

The amount of fuel used on the CSM for trans-Earth injection was 4 676 kg!

The CSM kinetic energy before trans-Earth injection was 16829*1500²/2 = 18.93 GJ and after trans-Earth injection 12153*2400²/2 = 35.68 GJ, i.e. change in kinetic energy due trans-Earth injection was 16.75 GJ. As 4 676 kg fuel was used, 1 kg of fuel produced 3.58 MJ kinetic energy; fuel consumption 3.58 MJ/kg. The SM rocket engine was suddenly 2.27 times less efficient than when braking into orbit.

However, IMO opinion fuel consumptions 8.13 MJ/kg or 3.58 MJ/kg are very optimistic and should be of the order <2 MJ/kg.

It means that you need 4 times more fuel to slow down on arrival or 40 000-50 000 kg and almost twice as much fuel for trans-Earth injection or 10 000 kg and … you couldn’t carry it. So Apollo 11 was a hoax.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 01, 2013, 04:53:21 AM
Horse changing. What about the point regarding LM propellant? Do you acknowledge that your figures and fuel type are wrong?

You obviously haven't acknowledged previous mistakes because you just made them again. Your calculations are incorrectly constructed and you're using incorrect figures. It has been explained to you the energy density figure is wrong.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 01, 2013, 05:07:58 AM
The 15 102 kg (or 33 294 lb) lunar module (LM), Eagle, fitted below the CSM at departure, carried 3 800 liters nitrogen tetroxide + 4 500 liters hydrazine (mass 8 777 kg) fuel for 1 descent engine with 46 700 N thrust and 1 ascent engine with 15 700 N thrust. …

1: how many times do you have to be told that the engine used Aerozine 50, NOT hydrazine? Hydrazine is one of the components of aerozine 50 but that is all.

2: How did you calculate the mass of fuel from those figures?

3: Why is it not one single source agrees with that Saturn V schematic in terms of total fuel for the LM, and yet you insist on using that one as if it was the most authoritative source?

Quote
(two asstronuts + equipment have mass 177 kg!)

What equipment do you think they transferred into the LM with themselves to add to the mass? Everything needed for the landing on the Moon was already in the LM at launch. Pretty much the only additional mass added for the landing itself was the two men.

Quote
The LM descent engine continued to provide 46 700 N braking thrust until about 102 hours, 45 minutes into the mission when the LM Eagle, arrival mass 7 327 kg (16 153 lb) landed in the Sea of Tranquility

Wrong. The LM descent engine could be throttled, and it was not producing full thrust all the way down. Your research skills really are poor, aren't they?

Quote
... Total fuel used by the LM for descent and ascent was 10 237 kg according [1] . How it was possible as the LM could only carry 8 777 kg fuel remains a mystery.

What remains a mystery is why you think the LM could only carry that much fuel when EVERY OTHER SOURCE BESIDES THAT SCHEMATIC says otherwise. Even if you have derived the mass of fuel from the quantities given in litres on that schematic you still have it wrong.

Quote
The figures simply do not add up. No big deal. Maybe they disappeared in the exhaust?

Or maybe you just have no idea what you are talking about. The figures DO add up if you extend your research into the actual mission reports and engine specs rather than that single, simplified schematic diagram. That's what REAL researchers do.

Idiot.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 01, 2013, 05:13:43 AM
Re rocket engine fuel consumption, i.e. how much energy MJ can 1 kg of rocket fuel produce,

No, deal with the questions raised in the post you are quoting. What have you to say about your getting the total propellant load of the LM and the fuel type wrong?

Quote
a brake force 97 400 N provided by the P-22KS rocket engine.

Again, where else is the SPS engine referred to as the P 22K S? What other sources have you checked besides this single simplified schematic, and why, assuming you have checked any, do you take this schematic over every other source that says the engine is NOT a P 22K S, a designation that shows up literally NOWHERE else in rocket engine terms?

Quote
The spaceship kinetic energy before braking was 43574*2400²/2 = 125.4 GJ and after braking 32676*1500²/2 = 36.76 GJ, i.e. change in kinetic energy due braking was 88.64 GJ,

So explain your kinetic energy balance and why it seems to show a man walking on a plane has legs 320 times more powerful when walking forward on the plane than walking on the ground. Explain your total inability to grasp that because of the inertial reference fames used we need only consider the change in momentum, and use the Tsiolkovsky equation for that.

Why can't you get your head around the simple fact that high school physics does NOT provide you with the requisite framework to calculate this stuff?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Mag40 on January 01, 2013, 07:11:09 AM
According Mr Low (Willy):

The 15 102 kg (or 33 294 lb) lunar module (LM), Eagle, fitted below the CSM at departure, carried 3 800 liters nitrogen tetroxide + 4 500 liters hydrazine (mass 8 777 kg) fuel for 1 descent engine with 46 700 N thrust and 1 ascent engine with 15 700 N thrust. …

Source for this quote please.....and explain why you ignore all official reports from post mission. Actually, don't bother with the second part of that request, we know why you do that. I can't stand dishonest people...you remind me of so many other CTers.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 01, 2013, 07:24:15 AM
Heiwa, make a new years resolution to use facts and figures from official reports.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 01, 2013, 08:21:00 AM
Why can't you get your head around the simple fact that high school physics does NOT provide you with the requisite framework to calculate this stuff?
Actually, high school physics would be very useful here -- if he actually knew it. As somebody in the space business told me a long time ago, you can go very far with just F=ma.


Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 01, 2013, 08:26:18 AM
Very well, perhaps i should have said high school physics is not enough on its own even if he did know it. You can't, for example, apply F=ma to a system where the mass is not constant, such as a rocket firing its engine.

This is of course all pointless. There's no million euros to be won, since he doesn't have it and the terms on which he offered it cannot be met.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: peter eldergill on January 01, 2013, 09:06:39 AM
Just out of curiosity:

Since the mass of the rocket is changing, does the thrust also change to compensate and keep acceleration constant or does the acceleration increase?

Having never sent a rocket into orbit, I'm not sure if you want to change the acceleration during liftoff or if the thrust on a rocket engine is easily adjustable.

I mention this concept to my physics class when I teach it but we don't do any calculations involving non-constant acceleration (except a little bit of simple harmonic motion, but that's not rockets)

Does the acceleration increase linearly?

Long time no post

Pete
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 01, 2013, 09:09:30 AM
Most engines are fixed thrust because it's simpler that way so yes acceleration does increase during a burn.

In fact, on both the S-IC and the S-II the centre engine shut off a little early to prevent excessive acceleration.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 01, 2013, 09:18:06 AM
Plus, remember it is easier to accelerate away as you climb further out of the Earth's gravity well.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: peter eldergill on January 01, 2013, 09:19:03 AM
Thanks Glom (edit: and Andromeda, posting while I typed :) )

Oops, I also forgot about the changing gravitational field. Is that a large or small effect on a launch?

I'm sure it's calculated in a launch, but due to air resistance and so forth, does the rocket get shut down at a certain speed or is it all precalculated and shut down after a certain time?

Rockets are cool :)

Pete
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 01, 2013, 09:25:11 AM
I remind you that topic is So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?  :)

It seems we all agree to the following of post #381:  ::)

1. At about 75 hours, 50 minutes into the Apollo 11 flight, when the space ship had total mass of 43 574 kg (or 96 062 lb), a retrograde firing of the service module, SM, P-22KS rocket engine with 97 400 N thrust for 357.5 seconds reduced the speed to 1 500 m/s at 2.52 m/s² deceleration and placed the spacecraft into an initial, elliptical-lunar orbit at about 115 000 m altitude.  ;)

During the 357.5 seconds braking the space ship travelled about 697 125 meter or maybe 910 000 meter, with a brake force 97 400 N provided by the P-22KS rocket engine.  ???

Mass of space ship after this brake maneuver was 32 676 kg (or 72 038 lb). It would thus appear 10 898 kg of fuel was used.  :)

The spaceship kinetic energy before braking was 43574*2400²/2 = 125.4 GJ and after braking 32676*1500²/2 = 36.76 GJ, i.e. change in kinetic energy due braking was 88.64 GJ, i.e. fuel consumption was 8.13 MJ/kg.  8)

---

In order to do a correct braking in universe of a space ship by retrograde firing of a rocket engine close to the Moon, the rocket engine outlet must evidently be positioned in the direction of flight during the 700 000 to 900 000 m braking trajectory.  8)

It means that the three astrokrauts under Willy's command flew backwards, when braking to get into Moon orbit. The trajectory was evidently not straight as you curved into Moon orbit. At start of braking space ship velocity was 2 400 m/s. Then you applied the 10 ton rocket brake force to your 43.5 ton space craft and braking started.  8) 8)

At end of braking, 357.5 seconds later space ship velocity was 1 500 m/s and you were in orbit after having spent 10 898 kg fuel.   8) 8) 8)

Now, in order to win € 1M you have to show how this could have been done in reality. Were the three asstronots piloting manually with compass/chart pushing the brake button?  ::)

How did they know what was up/down/right/left. How was it done? Assisted by computers? OK, show me the 1969 software of the computer helping Armstrong and Co to brake! Keep it simple.   :-[

Try to focus on topic and pls do not remind me how stupid or ignorant I am (not). I am concerned about space travel safety.  :-X

Can we really rely on three persons/astronauts to burn 10 000 kg of rocket fuel in a 6 minutes braking applying a 10 ton force on a little space ship as suggested by Willy Low in his report?  ;D
 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 01, 2013, 09:31:11 AM
The only thing we (not you) agree on is that your figures are wrong.

Pratt.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on January 01, 2013, 09:31:59 AM
Give up. You've had your errors repeatedly pointed out to you.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on January 01, 2013, 09:39:08 AM
I remind you that topic is So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?  :)

No, that's the thread title. If it's not evident, that was sarcasm on my side.

It seems we all agree to the following of post #381:  ::)

1. At about 75 hours, 50 minutes into the Apollo 11 flight, when the space ship had total mass of 43 574 kg (or 96 062 lb), a retrograde firing of the service module, SM, P-22KS rocket engine with 97 400 N thrust for 357.5 seconds reduced the speed to 1 500 m/s at 2.52 m/s² deceleration and placed the spacecraft into an initial, elliptical-lunar orbit at about 115 000 m altitude.  ;)

No, "we all" don't agree to that. It was repeatedly pointed out to you that the engine was not "P-22KS".

In order to do a correct braking in universe of a space ship by retrograde firing of a rocket engine close to the Moon, the rocket engine outlet must evidently be positioned in the direction of flight during the 700 000 to 900 000 m braking trajectory.  8)

[snip]

Now, in order to win € 1M you have to show how this could have been done in reality. Were the three asstronots piloting manually with compass/chart pushing the brake button?  ::)

How did they know what was up/down/right/left. How was it done? Assisted by computers? OK, show me the 1969 software of the computer helping Armstrong and Co to brake! Keep it simple.   :-[

*facepalm* Apparently you don't know anything about spacecraft guidance and attitude control, and yet you have the arrogance to call people "asstronots". Do you know what a "gyroscope" is, Mr. Marine Engineer?

Try to focus on topic and pls do not remind me how stupid or ignorant I am (not). I am concerned about space travel safety.  :-X

Can we really rely on three persons/astronauts to burn 10 000 kg of rocket fuel in a 6 minutes braking applying a 10 ton force on a little space ship as suggested by Willy Low in his report?  ;D

You know what? I think you should pay us. Why we should educate you and fix your errors for free? We can just leave you to your error-filled website. If someone gets suckered by your claims, we will just point out the easily verifiable errors on your page to discredit you.

To all the others: if you mention the AGC, he will just use it for more bullshit claims.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 01, 2013, 09:39:23 AM
I remind you that topic is So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?

Irrelevant. The bet is beside the point because you a) don't have the money, and b) will not accept corrections to your mistakes.

Quote
It seems we all agree to the following of post #381:  ::)

1. At about 75 hours, 50 minutes into the Apollo 11 flight, when the space ship had total mass of 43 574 kg (or 96 062 lb), a retrograde firing of the service module, SM, P-22KS rocket engine with 97 400 N thrust for 357.5 seconds reduced the speed to 1 500 m/s at 2.52 m/s² deceleration and placed the spacecraft into an initial, elliptical-lunar orbit at about 115 000 m altitude.  ;)

During the 357.5 seconds braking the space ship travelled about 697 125 meter or maybe 910 000 meter, with a brake force 97 400 N provided by the P-22KS rocket engine.  ???

Which posts are you reading? We do NOT agree to that. Where are your supporting documents for your identification of the engine and its thrust?

Quote
The spaceship kinetic energy before braking was 43574*2400²/2 = 125.4 GJ and after braking 32676*1500²/2 = 36.76 GJ, i.e. change in kinetic energy due braking was 88.64 GJ, i.e. fuel consumption was 8.13 MJ/kg.

No because again you are using the wrong calculations. There really is no point trying to educate you at all, is there?

Try the Tsiolkovsky equation. You know, the one you said was nothing to do with changing velocity in space despite the fact it was derived and used precisely for that purpose.

Quote
It means that the three astrokrauts under Willy's command

Thanks for the further demonstration that you have no intention of taking any of this seriously. Stop trolling and go away.

Quote
Now, in order to win € 1M you have to show how this could have been done in reality. Were the three asstronots piloting manually with compass/chart pushing the brake button?  ::)

How did they know what was up/down/right/left. How was it done? Assisted by computers? OK, show me the 1969 software of the computer helping Armstrong and Co to brake! Keep it simple.

Haha. Oh boy, you claim to have done the research but you can't even find the basics of the navigation system without help? You are a hopeless case.

Quote
Try to focus on topic and pls do not remind me how stupid or ignorant I am (not).

So far you qualify for both those labels. You have been given the information you requested over and over again. You are evidently ignorant of a lot of Apollo information, and the fact you don't accept it when it is given to you shows some level of stupidity. Your inability to accept or understand it is your problem, not ours.

Quote
I am concerned about space travel safety.

Oh bollocks. You are concerned with trying to make yourself look clever. You are also failing miserably.

Quote
Can we really rely on three persons/astronauts to burn 10 000 kg of rocket fuel in a 6 minutes braking applying a 10 ton force on a little space ship as suggested by Willy Low in his report?

Why not? How hard is it to press a button to turn on and turn off an engine and time the burn?

You're just getting tiresome now.

So, to sum up:

Do you acknowledge that the LM did not use hydrazine as a fuel exlcusively?

Do you acknowledge that you have the LM fuel loads wrong?

Do you have a source besides that one schematic for your specifications for the SPS engine?

Do you have any eplanation for how you calculated the mass of fuel based on the volume in litres?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 01, 2013, 09:48:09 AM
How dare you lecture us on manners while using a word like "asstronots"?



Quote
How did they know what was up/down/right/left. How was it done? Assisted by computers? OK, show me the 1969 software of the computer helping Armstrong and Co to brake! Keep it simple.   :-[

Never heard of orienting by gyroscope?

You want to see the software?  Fine:

(http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/physical-object/burroughs/XD115-76.2.lg.jpg)

From http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/accession/XD115.76
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 01, 2013, 10:15:07 AM
The only thing we (not you) agree on is that your figures are wrong.

Pratt.

According George M Low (Willy) of NASA (actually more or less running the Apollo show) and his report 1969 the three persons/astronauts on Apollo 11 burnt 10 000 kg of rocket fuel in a 6 minutes braking while applying a 10 ton force on Apollo 11. The result was that the 43 000/34 000 kg space craft slowed down from 2400 to 1500 m/s, changed direction in space and started orbiting the Moon. IMHO it sounds crazy and only assholes could claim having done it. :P :P

Do you think it really happened? Could it be done 1969? I offer anybody €1 M to explain how! Isn't it generous?   :) ;)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 01, 2013, 10:19:08 AM
How dare you lecture us on manners while using a word like "asstronots"?


It is my satiric/ironic/irresponsible style when looking into hoaxes. Sounds funnier than assholes. So, who wants to win 1 million Euro? You?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Donnie B. on January 01, 2013, 10:23:39 AM
Heiwa, seriously, give it up.  Repeating your inanity over and over doesn't make it any less inane.  It just makes you look more and more moronic.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 01, 2013, 10:25:24 AM

So, to sum up:

Do you acknowledge that the LM did not use hydrazine as a fuel exlcusively?

Do you acknowledge that you have the LM fuel loads wrong?

Do you have a source besides that one schematic for your specifications for the SPS engine?

Do you have any eplanation for how you calculated the mass of fuel based on the volume in litres?

All figures/calculations I use are from or based on NASA reports/websites (or Wikipedia using same sources) quoted in my presentation. You do not really suggest I make up things? Why would I do that? I am interested in space travel safety. What is your interest?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 01, 2013, 10:28:40 AM
Heiwa, seriously, give it up.  Repeating your inanity over and over doesn't make it any less inane.  It just makes you look more and more moronic.

Donnie B. I think I make sense and I can assure you my IQ>100 ... so do not worry. So, you want to win 1 million Euro? Focus on topic.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Mag40 on January 01, 2013, 10:30:08 AM
The only thing we (not you) agree on is that your figures are wrong.

Pratt.

According George M Low (Willy) of NASA (actually more or less running the Apollo show) and his report 1969 the three persons/astronauts on Apollo 11 burnt 10 000 kg of rocket fuel in a 6 minutes braking while applying a 10 ton force on Apollo 11. The result was that the 43 000/34 000 kg space craft slowed down from 2400 to 1500 m/s, changed direction in space and started orbiting the Moon. IMHO it sounds crazy and only assholes could claim having done it. :P :P

Do you think it really happened? Could it be done 1969? I offer anybody €1 M to explain how! Isn't it generous?   :) ;)

So where did you get this from? Are you afraid to quote your source......or maybe you 'can't remember'?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on January 01, 2013, 10:31:11 AM
Your self claimed motives and self reported IQ are not the issues.  Just answer the questions.  That is what discussions are about. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 01, 2013, 10:32:05 AM

So, to sum up:

Do you acknowledge that the LM did not use hydrazine as a fuel exlcusively?

Do you acknowledge that you have the LM fuel loads wrong?

Do you have a source besides that one schematic for your specifications for the SPS engine?

Do you have any eplanation for how you calculated the mass of fuel based on the volume in litres?

All figures/calculations I use are from or based on NASA reports/websites (or Wikipedia using same sources) quoted in my presentation. You do not really suggest I make up things? Why would I do that? I am interested in space travel safety. What is your interest?

Either your sources are wrong or you are misreading them because many of your facts and figures are wrong.

You got the fuel wrong.

You got the propellant load wrong.

You got the engine name wrong.

These are basic facts available widely and you got them wrong.  You need to acknowledge this before you can understand the safety of space travel.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 01, 2013, 10:36:58 AM
IMHO it sounds crazy and only assholes could claim having done it.

You will STOP with the ad homs. I don't care what your opinion is, you are talking to people with relevant qualifications in the area, some of which are actually paid to apply that knowledge. Andromeda has more qualifications in physics than you do, I guarantee it.

Quote
Do you think it really happened? Could it be done 1969? I offer anybody €1 M to explain how! Isn't it generous?

No, it is not generous. Give up the pretense. We KNOW you don't have the money and that you have no intention of EVER giving it to anyone even if you did. Who do you think you are fooling?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 01, 2013, 10:37:21 AM
The only thing we (not you) agree on is that your figures are wrong.

Pratt.

According George M Low (Willy) of NASA (actually more or less running the Apollo show) and his report 1969 the three persons/astronauts on Apollo 11 burnt 10 000 kg of rocket fuel in a 6 minutes braking while applying a 10 ton force on Apollo 11. The result was that the 43 000/34 000 kg space craft slowed down from 2400 to 1500 m/s, changed direction in space and started orbiting the Moon. IMHO it sounds crazy and only assholes could claim having done it. :P :P

Do you think it really happened? Could it be done 1969? I offer anybody €1 M to explain how! Isn't it generous?   :) ;)

So where did you get this from? Are you afraid to quote your source......or maybe you 'can't remember'?

Georg M Low report - reference [1] of my presentation. Just read my presentation, copy/paste what you do not understand and we can discuss. Georg M Low was running the Apollo program 1969 or, IMHO, the Apollo hoax program. George died too early I am sad to add - 1986 or so. Some people called George Willy.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 01, 2013, 10:38:16 AM
It is my satiric/ironic/irresponsible style when looking into hoaxes. Sounds funnier than assholes.

And marks you out as an immature individual. You want to be taken seriously, quit with that style.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 01, 2013, 10:39:40 AM
Your self claimed motives and self reported IQ are not the issues.  Just answer the questions.  That is what discussions are about.
What was the questions?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 01, 2013, 10:42:11 AM
All figures/calculations I use are from or based on NASA reports/websites (or Wikipedia using same sources) quoted in my presentation.

It's that 'based on' I want clarification of. Your website says you have 'assumed' the mass of propellant in the LM from the volume given in liters on that schematic. ALL your stuff seems to be based on that schematic rather than the actual reports.

Quote
You do not really suggest I make up things?

No, I think you incorrectly derive and incorrectly apply. I repeat my request for a further supporting statement about the specs of SPS engine, for example. The ONLY place that I can find that refers to it as a 'P 22K S' is that simplified schematic.

Quote
I am interested in space travel safety.

Rubbish. You are interested in trying to make yourself look like an expert, and trying to make yourself look more clever than people who have ACTUALLY achieved something amazing like sending men to the moon. How many qualified people agree with your calculations? Are you so deluded you really think you're the only person in over four decades to notice this complete impossibility you are talking about?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 01, 2013, 10:42:39 AM
Your self claimed motives and self reported IQ are not the issues.  Just answer the questions.  That is what discussions are about.
What was the questions?

How about:

Do you acknowledge you got the fuel wrong?

Do you acknowledge you got the propellant load wrong?

Do you acknowledge you got the engine wrong?

We'll start with that.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 01, 2013, 10:43:04 AM
copy/paste what you do not understand and we can discuss.

We have enough to discuss here thank you.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Donnie B. on January 01, 2013, 10:49:56 AM
Thanks Glom (edit: and Andromeda, posting while I typed :) )

Oops, I also forgot about the changing gravitational field. Is that a large or small effect on a launch?

Relatively small for a low earth orbit, but not negligible.  Much more significant for higher orbits including trans-lunar ones.  But still, the balance point between Earth and Lunar gravity is something like 85% of the way to the Moon.

Quote
I'm sure it's calculated in a launch, but due to air resistance and so forth, does the rocket get shut down at a certain speed or is it all precalculated and shut down after a certain time?

This is somewhat complicated and I'm probably not the best person to answer.  For one thing, it varies from one launch profile, type of launcher, and mission to another.  All rockets include on-board guidance, if for no other reason than to keep the engine pointing in the proper direction.  That guidance system is programmed to make the vehicle follow a particular pre-planned trajectory that takes it from the ground to some desired final state.  There are various things that can be controlled, depending on the design of the launcher, but the most common are the engine gimbaling (direction of thrust) and burn duration (for liquid fueled engines).  Some older designs (like the V-2) included vanes in the exhaust to vector the thrust rather than engine gimbaling.  Some engines also include throttling capability (as mentioned above) but most large engines do not.  Some thrust control is provided by having multiple engines that can be shut down independently, as previously mentioned.

Besides the on-board systems, space launches have ground controllers who monitor the path of the vehicle and telemetry from the on-board systems.  The controllers can't do much to correct major malfunctions but can destroy the vehicle if it deviates too much from its planned trajectory.  This is the responsibility of the "range safety officer".

So your simple question -- does a launcher shut down at a particular time or a specific speed? -- has no universal answer.  It shuts down when it has achieved its intended terminal state (the proper orbit, for example).  This can sometimes take a rather bizarre form if things don't go quite as planned.  The second launch of a full-up Saturn V experienced some engine failures and other problems, yet it still managed to enter the proper orbit... but it was thrusting backwards when it did!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 01, 2013, 10:50:38 AM
Georg M Low report - reference [1] of my presentation. Just read my presentation, copy/paste what you do not understand and we can discuss.

Will you stop going on about your sodding "presentation"?!

FTR I understand more than you ever will.  Go spend 5 or 6 years studying physics and astrophysics, then we'll talk.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Mag40 on January 01, 2013, 10:55:18 AM
Georg M Low report - reference [1] of my presentation. Just read my presentation, copy/paste what you do not understand and we can discuss. Georg M Low was running the Apollo program 1969 or, IMHO, the Apollo hoax program. George died too early I am sad to add - 1986 or so. Some people called George Willy.

Reference [1] is http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11MIssionReport_1971015566.pdf

Where in that report does it show your figure for the 8,777kg? Where did you get that from?

Your quote was here:
According Mr Low (Willy):

The 15 102 kg (or 33 294 lb) lunar module (LM), Eagle, fitted below the CSM at departure, carried 3 800 liters nitrogen tetroxide + 4 500 liters hydrazine (mass 8 777 kg) fuel for 1 descent engine with 46 700 N thrust and 1 ascent engine with 15 700 N thrust. …
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 01, 2013, 11:31:56 AM
Since the mass of the rocket is changing, does the thrust also change to compensate and keep acceleration constant or does the acceleration increase?
As several others have pointed out, most rockets are fixed thrust, with some stages shutting down an engine early to limit peak acceleration, the Saturn V first stage being the classic example. At liftoff it has barely enough thrust to support its own weight, which is why it rose so slowly from the pad. But it burns propellant so furiously that the inboard engine has to be shut down to limit acceleration to 4 g. Then it rapidly builds back up to 4 g at outboard shutdown.

The Saturn V second stage has much less thrust than the first stage so it wasn't originally intended to have an early inboard shutdown. It was done after the first few flights to minimize a difficult 'pogo' problem.

One rocket did vary its thrust to compensate for its lightening propellant load, and that was the LM's descent stage. I don't know of any others. Designing a rocket that could be reliably throttled was a major challenge.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 01, 2013, 11:33:51 AM
Plus, remember it is easier to accelerate away as you climb further out of the Earth's gravity well.
This is certainly true for ion engines because they burn for such a long time, but chemical rockets burn so quickly that the change in gravitational acceleration during a burn is very small. Their burns can usually be modeled as instantaneous impulses with little error.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 01, 2013, 11:35:33 AM
Very well, perhaps i should have said high school physics is not enough on its own even if he did know it. You can't, for example, apply F=ma to a system where the mass is not constant, such as a rocket firing its engine.
Okay, then high school physics plus high school calculus to handle the changing mass. :-)
Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sus_pilot on January 01, 2013, 11:38:08 AM
Heiwa, I've given you a great source to read that reduces everything to layman's terms.  I suggest you read it, since you clearly are a layman.

Also, you really do need to grow up:  stop lecturing everyone on politeness and stop using perjorative terms.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 01, 2013, 11:49:02 AM
I'm sure it's calculated in a launch, but due to air resistance and so forth, does the rocket get shut down at a certain speed or is it all precalculated and shut down after a certain time?
Depends on the stage. Lower stages usually cut off at propellant depletion. Solids simply burn out, while liquid rocket engines are usually shut down gracefully when sensors detect that their propellants are below a specified level. During Apollo launches you'll hear the call "level sense arm" and a time during S-II flight; that call lets the crew know when the propellant level sensors in the stage will be allowed to shut down the five J-2 engines. I'm not sure why they were armed, perhaps there was concern about propellant sloshing causing a premature shutdown.

First stage steering is almost always pre-programmed to minimize aerodynamic drag, heating and mechanical stresses. Upper stages actively steer to a specific "target state", i.e., the desired orbit. Their guidance systems shut down on their own when they reach the specified velocity at the specified position in space. The last stage will burn longer or shorter if necessary to compensate for poorer or better than expected overall engine performance. This usually leaves unburned propellant in the tanks that has to be vented after shutdown to keep them from eventually exploding.

For example, on the recent SpaceX Falcon9 launch the first stage burned longer than normal to compensate for the failed engine, and the second stage also had to burn longer because the first stage was less efficient with only 8 engines. This left insufficient fuel for a restart to put the secondary payload in its proper orbit with high probability, so the second burn was inhibited.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on January 01, 2013, 11:51:46 AM
This is certainly true for ion engines because they burn for such a long time, but chemical rockets burn so quickly that the change in gravitational acceleration during a burn is very small. Their burns can usually be modeled as instantaneous impulses with little error.

It is a significant factor during initial launch, because about 1 g of acceleration is lost just keeping the rocket from falling back to Earth. A rocket that produces just 1 g will hover without climbing and burn all its propellant without going anywhere. The higher the acceleration, the lower these losses during the initial climb and acceleration to orbital velocity.

Once you're in orbit, this isn't so...typical maneuvers don't use any thrust to directly counter gravity, and the Oberth effect actually makes it preferable to make maneuvers that change the specific energy of the orbit deeper in the gravity well.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 01, 2013, 11:58:18 AM
It is a significant factor during initial launch, because about 1 g of acceleration is lost just keeping the rocket from falling back to Earth. A rocket that produces just 1 g will hover without climbing and burn all its propellant without going anywhere. The higher the acceleration, the lower these losses during the initial climb and acceleration to orbital velocity.
Ah, I thought the question was about the change in local gravitational acceleration during a burn, which is minimal for nearly all chemical engines. You are quite right about the large gravity losses during first stage flight, and that's why the S-IC stage had such enormous acceleration at burnout. Gravity losses are maximum during first stage flight when the rocket is pointed mostly upwards to get out of the atmosphere more quickly, and are made even worse by having to overcome the high weight of the as-yet unburned propellants. They gradually decrease as the rocket pitches over to horizontal. (Gravity loss is proportional to the sine of the thrust vector from horizontal.)

One rocket with minimal gravity losses is the Orbital Sciences' Pegasus, which is dropped from its carrier airplane in a horizontal attitude. It does pitch up and climb after ignition, but at a much lower angle than a surface-launched vehicle.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 01, 2013, 12:04:00 PM
Also, you really do need to grow up:  stop lecturing everyone on politeness and stop using perjorative terms.

At the very least, pick one.  Either use stupid, childish terms to describe men braver than pretty much any of us here or else stop trying to get us to be more polite to you.  For the record, we're being polite.  Believe me, we could be much ruder if we wanted to be.  Picking on your errors, stating that you aren't an engineer, and saying that we don't believe your money exists is not rude.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on January 01, 2013, 01:03:45 PM
One rocket with minimal gravity losses is the Orbital Sciences' Pegasus, which is dropped from its carrier airplane in a horizontal attitude. It does pitch up and climb after ignition, but at a much lower angle than a surface-launched vehicle.

I'm pretty sure that's a rather different matter...I don't think it's dropped at nearly high enough altitude or velocity to make a major difference in gravity drag, it doesn't take long at all for a ground launched rocket to gain enough vertical velocity to reach 12000 m (which it will do well before it actually reaches that altitude).

I think the main gain is in reduction of aerodynamic drag which would otherwise be a problem for such a small launcher. It's a tiny rocket, only massing 18500-23130 kg and only delivering 443 kg to low orbit, and there's about 13000 kg of atmosphere in its way from the ground that it has to plow through (again, at rather high speed by the time it'd hit 12000 m). Larger rockets don't care as much about aerodynamic drag.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on January 01, 2013, 01:13:32 PM
Thanks Glom (edit: and Andromeda, posting while I typed :) )

Oops, I also forgot about the changing gravitational field. Is that a large or small effect on a launch?

I'm sure it's calculated in a launch, but due to air resistance and so forth, does the rocket get shut down at a certain speed or is it all precalculated and shut down after a certain time?

Rockets are cool :)

Pete

I know this has probably already been answered in depth already (I'm too lazy to skip through to the end of the thread first, plus if I did, I'd find there was no reason for me to ever post.)

My memory is that part of the Shuttle profile was indeed throttling down the SSME -- I believe right after the solid rocket boosters separated -- just so it wouldn't be moving too quickly through the lower atmosphere.  There's a bit of a pause there in the acceleration profile until the lighter spacecraft also gets higher, then the engines kick on again.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 01, 2013, 01:14:48 PM
Just out of curiosity:

Since the mass of the rocket is changing, does the thrust also change to compensate and keep acceleration constant or does the acceleration increase?

This question has already been answered quite adequately by others, but I just want to add one comment.  There are at least a couple examples of which I'm aware in which a launch vehicle's engines are throttled to reduce aerodynamic stresses at a time when those stresses are greatest. 

One example is the Space Shuttle.  The orbiter's main engines where throttled down to 65% from about 35 s to 65 s during ascent.  I assume you've seen the video of the Challenger explosion?  Just before the explosion you here the Capcom say "Challenger, go at throttle up", which refers to the time when the engines throttle back up to their normal 104%.  It's my understanding that the SSME could vary their thrust through a range of 65-109%.

The other example is the Delta IV-Heavy, which throttles its RS-68 engines down to 60% for some time.  I don't know if the RS-68 has variable thrust or simply two thrust settings of 60% and 100%.

There may be other examples that I'm either unaware of or can't think of right now.  As others have already said, large rocket engines are typically not throttleable.  Their thrust, however, does change as the rockets rise to higher altitude because the ambient air pressure decreases.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on January 01, 2013, 01:16:44 PM
I remind you that topic is So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?  :)
...

No, the topic is pointing out the errors Anders made in his physics.

Since your method is wrong and your starting assumptions are wrong, no matter how many times anyone does the math the answers are still going to be wrong.  It would be pointless, stupid, and also a form of lying about science for anyone to pretend they can get the right answer using your wrong method.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 01, 2013, 01:19:43 PM
This is certainly true for ion engines because they burn for such a long time, but chemical rockets burn so quickly that the change in gravitational acceleration during a burn is very small. Their burns can usually be modeled as instantaneous impulses with little error.

It is a significant factor during initial launch, because about 1 g of acceleration is lost just keeping the rocket from falling back to Earth. A rocket that produces just 1 g will hover without climbing and burn all its propellant without going anywhere. The higher the acceleration, the lower these losses during the initial climb and acceleration to orbital velocity.

Once you're in orbit, this isn't so...typical maneuvers don't use any thrust to directly counter gravity, and the Oberth effect actually makes it preferable to make maneuvers that change the specific energy of the orbit deeper in the gravity well.

Try to keep to topic, i.e. So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?

As I am offering the €1M award, you have to listen to me and ... be polite. Do not post nonsens posts that I am uneducated, blah, blah. Only uneducated idiots do that, so please avoid it.

One hurdle seems to be how to slow down, brake, the space ship on arrival Moon to get into orbit around Moon as described in previous posts. The space ship is pretty heavy, 43 000 kg, and has just one big rocket engine that can apply a 97 400 N force on it by clicking a switch. The fuel consumption seems to be 30 kg/s. You are in 3-D. To apply the strong force, 97 400 N, it must be applied in the right direction all the time and the direction changes all the time as you turn into orbit. In this case you also go backwards as you are braking - slowing down - and you are pressed into your seat while braking ... looking aft. It is quite complicated and I wonder how the NASA pilots did it.

Apollo 11 apparently managed to slow down from 2400 to 1500 m/s speed by braking at full blast for 6 minutes wasting 10 000 kg fuel in 1969 with the pilots looking in the wrong direction and to win 1 million Euro you have to repeat it.

Navigation at sea is also complicated - http://heiwaco.tripod.com/news8.htm . Do not ever blame the Master if anything gets wrong.  :)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 01, 2013, 01:20:09 PM
My memory is that part of the Shuttle profile was indeed throttling down the SSME -- I believe right after the solid rocket boosters separated -- just so it wouldn't be moving too quickly through the lower atmosphere.  There's a bit of a pause there in the acceleration profile until the lighter spacecraft also gets higher, then the engines kick on again.

You beat me to it, however the throttle down occurs before SRB separation.  The SRBs separate at about 124 s, well after throttle up.  It's my recollection that the throttle down is to help relieve aerodynamic stresses.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 01, 2013, 01:22:01 PM

One example is the Space Shuttle. 

Is it? Space Shuttle trying to get into Moon orbit? You are trolling off topic and should be warned.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on January 01, 2013, 01:23:03 PM
Yeah Bob B. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 01, 2013, 01:26:13 PM
Bye, bye!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 01, 2013, 01:28:01 PM
To apply the strong force, 97 400 N, it must be applied in the right direction all the time and the direction changes all the time as you turn into orbit.

It is not necessary to keep the thrust vector precisely aligned with the velocity vector, though it is most efficient to do so.  Such maneuvers can be accomplished by maintaining a fixed attitude.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 01, 2013, 01:28:52 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have Flounce Number Two.

Taking all bets on how long before he is back :)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 01, 2013, 01:29:13 PM

One example is the Space Shuttle. 

Is it? Space Shuttle trying to get into Moon orbit? You are trolling off topic and should be warned.

What the heck are you talking about?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on January 01, 2013, 01:29:24 PM

It means that the three astrokrauts under Willy's command flew backwards, when braking to get into Moon orbit. The trajectory was evidently not straight as you curved into Moon orbit.

Most wacky description of a transfer orbit since that chap who thought a polar orbit meant you made tight little circles along the Arctic Circle.

So if Willy is flying the spacecraft, and Walter is doing the EVA, who is CAPCOM on your confused flight -- Richard?


Were the three asstronots piloting manually with compass/chart pushing the brake button?  ::)

Wow.  Just...wow.


Try to focus on topic and pls do not remind me how stupid or ignorant I am (not).

I'm sorry, but you are.  I was in a toy store yesterday and my companion pointed at a Snap-Tite Apollo kit and said "You should really get one of those for that idiot online you've been talking about.  You could use it to explain to him which spacecraft is which and how they fit."

The scale of your ignorance about Apollo is on the order of not knowing why sailboats have keels and being aghast at the idea that they might be able to beat into the wind.


Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on January 01, 2013, 01:34:03 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have Flounce Number Two.

Taking all bets on how long before he is back :)

All that money and no-one to give it to must have a price.

BTW a query: the LM descent stage rocket was throttleable and could be started numerous times, but the ascent stage rocket was a fire once only type, correct?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 01, 2013, 01:35:06 PM
Try to keep to topic, i.e. So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?

You are NOT the moderator here, so quit trying to dictate how people respond to you. I know it's the only way you can make yourself look halfway competent and avoid answering questions, but tough.

Quote
As I am offering the €1M award, you have to listen to me and ... be polite. Do not post nonsens posts that I am uneducated, blah, blah. Only uneducated idiots do that, so please avoid it.

We do not have to do ANYTHING when dealing with a man making such a blatantly fraudulent offer. You do not have the money and you have demonstrated you are unwilling to be told where you are wrong in your calculations and research therefore we conclude you have no intention of handing it over anyway. You are NOT in any position to dictate our conduct.
 
Quote
In this case you also go backwards as you are braking - slowing down - and you are pressed into your seat while braking ... looking aft.

You think astronauts have to be able to see where they are going to do this?

Quote
It is quite complicated and I wonder how the NASA pilots did it.

The information has been published ad nauseum for the last four decades. Your inability to understand it is the problem here.
 
Quote
to win 1 million Euro you have to repeat it.

And there's the goalposts being shifted again. Every time we satisfy one set of conditions you say we have to do something else, and now you have elevated it to the point where it is impossible for us to satisfy the condition. You could not make it clearer how little intention you have of honouring your supposed offer of financial reward for meeting your challenge.

You are a farud and a liar. Prove me wrong.

Quote
Navigation at sea is also complicated

Irrelevant, but for reasons you refuse to acknowledge. I particularly enjoyed your suggestion that sea voyages are scuppered by low tide, as if people haven't built deocks in places that don't actually end up dry at low tide.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 01, 2013, 01:36:02 PM
Bye, bye!

Aw, another flounce, Heiwa? Got bored and fed up with your inability to persuade us you actually know a damn thing about, well, anything?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: peter eldergill on January 01, 2013, 01:45:43 PM
I think KA9Q mentioned using high school physics and Calculus.

I looked at the derivation of the rocket equation (which I had never heard of before) on Wikipedia.

The derivation is pretty straight forward, but it involves integral Calculus (or differential equations) which is beyond the high school level in Ontario and I'm guessing most of North America (I teach Calculus and some physics).

I would suspect the difficulty to be more of the first year university level.

Thanks everyone for the responses. I never even considered the fact that rocket stages are needed to drop so much mass. This is one of the reasons I don't design and launch rockets :)

Cheers

Pete

PS how is discussing how rockets work in any way off topic?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 01, 2013, 01:46:12 PM
but the ascent stage rocket was a fire once only type, correct?

I seem to recall that on some missions the APS was fired in lunar orbit to perform part of the rendezvous maneuvers.  Of course the rendezvous procedures changed, so thus also did the maneuvers.  Many of the maneuvers where performed with the RCS, so it's possible the APS was never used, but for some reason I seem to remember that it was.  I can't keep track of all of the different engine firings without looking them up for each mission.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 01, 2013, 01:48:34 PM
The derivation is pretty straight forward, but it involves integral Calculus (or differential equations) which is beyond the high school level in Ontario and I'm guessing most of North America (I teach Calculus and some physics).

I would suspect the difficulty to be more of the first year university level.

I didn't do the derivation of the rocket equation until my first year of undergrad (UK).
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on January 01, 2013, 01:50:11 PM
I'd have to read up, too.  My memory is that Apollo 13 used the "fire in the hole" scenario which strongly implies they could restart the ascent engine.  But for all I remember at the moment, they could have hotwired the service module for one of them!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Mag40 on January 01, 2013, 02:08:42 PM
Bye, bye!



I guess finding the source for your figures was hard then.....abject humiliation. Suck it up.

Personally I'm just glad to read such informed replies....never too much to take in, but often a little hard to fully comprehend.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on January 01, 2013, 02:15:38 PM
As I am offering the €1M award, you have to listen to me and ... be polite. Do not post nonsens posts that I am uneducated, blah, blah. Only uneducated idiots do that, so please avoid it.

Pointing out your obvious and often willful ignorance of the topics involved is not an indication of lack of education on our part.

If you had actually demonstrated any desire to seriously discuss the issue, people might listen to you. Given your habit of ignoring information plainly in front of you and persisting in error, all while being outrageously rude and offensive yourself, far more than anyone else in this discussion...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 01, 2013, 02:21:02 PM
You know, if the topic really were the million Euros, wouldn't that mean we are all perfectly justified in asking for evidence of its existence?  And indeed, wouldn't not being willing to show that evidence be Heiwa's straying off-topic?  Why should we hold him to such a low standard as "trust me"?  We have provided him with lots of evidence and information (I even include myself in that, though obviously I didn't show near as much as most of the rest of you!), and he has brushed it aside.  We ask him to provide the simplest part of a monetary challenge--prove that the money even exists--and he gets all huffy.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on January 01, 2013, 02:25:43 PM
Heck I volunteer to fly to Scandinavia to see the account oozing in money (assuming that's where its held of course).
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 01, 2013, 02:30:36 PM
the LM descent stage rocket was throttleable and could be started numerous times, but the ascent stage rocket was a fire once only type, correct?

I could be wrong (I'm not an engineer), but as I understand it the three main engines of the Apollo spacecraft (APS, DPS and SPS) all used the same hypergolic fuel combination, and as such had just about the simplest design of any bipropellant rocket engine: open valves in the inlet pipes for fuel and oxidiser and they ignite and burn on contact in the engine. That suggests that a restart capability is not something that needs to be designed into them (unlike, for example, the J-2 engine, which has to fire up a bunch of pumps, have fuel diverted for cooling the engine bell, use an ignition system, and so on). If you open the valves the engine will burn.

I think the only limit to the number of burns is how well the engine itself survives the firing. The APS was designed to have one major burn: the lunar liftoff, but unless that burn rendered the engine entirely unusable I can't see any reason why it could not be fired again.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 01, 2013, 02:41:35 PM
I remind you that topic is So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?  :)

Let's get something straight: I am the moderator here, not you. I will decide what is off topic, and I will always allow some deviation from the intended topic. Daggerstab, as the original creator of the thread, has more say in what is on or off topic than you do.

So far the only person avoiding the topic is you. We have shown you where your calculations are wrong, but you ignore it.

I offer anybody €1 M to explain how! Isn't it generous?   :) ;)

I think the word you meant to use there is disingenuous. You are lying about the money, and even if you had it you have no intentions of ever awarding it. You're a fraud.

It is my satiric/ironic/irresponsible style when looking into hoaxes. Sounds funnier than assholes.

If you continue to use language like that here I will ban you. You are certainly not giving anyone the impression that you are a professional engineer when you talk like that. And I also don't appreciate you insulting the astronauts or all of other people who worked for NASA (and it's sub-contractors). You won't receive any respect from us if you can't show any respect to them.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 01, 2013, 02:43:47 PM
Thanks LO.  Sorry if I bombarded you with reports but those comments in particular were too much.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on January 01, 2013, 02:45:18 PM
Your self claimed motives and self reported IQ are not the issues.  Just answer the questions.  That is what discussions are about.
What was the questions?

Here are a few of the outstanding question

Quote
Do you acknowledge that the LM did not use hydrazine as a fuel exclusively?

Do you acknowledge that you have the LM fuel loads wrong?

Do you have a source besides that one schematic for your specifications for the SPS engine?

Do you have any explanation for how you calculated the mass of fuel based on the volume in litres?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 01, 2013, 02:45:52 PM

One example is the Space Shuttle. 

Is it? Space Shuttle trying to get into Moon orbit? You are trolling off topic and should be warned.

If you can't see how what Bob has said relates to the topic then problem is with you, not Bob.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 01, 2013, 03:00:26 PM
Thanks LO.  Sorry if I bombarded you with reports but those comments in particular were too much.

No problem, Andromeda. It was a refreshing change to open the moderator reports page and see some valid complaints rather than half a dozen more false "off topic" reports made by Heiwa.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 01, 2013, 03:04:29 PM
Thanks LO.  Sorry if I bombarded you with reports but those comments in particular were too much.

No problem, Andromeda. It was a refreshing change to open the moderator reports page and see some valid complaints rather than half a dozen more false "off topic" reports made by Heiwa.

*snerk*  He actually did that?!  Wow.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 01, 2013, 03:06:44 PM
Heck I volunteer to fly to Scandinavia to see the account oozing in money (assuming that's where its held of course).
Well, at Oslo you have to pay with Norwegian crowns, NOK, at Stockholm with Swedish, SEK, and at Copenhagen, Danish, DKK. They do not use Euro in Scandinavia, you see. Same in China or Japan. Or North Korea! But enjoy your flight anyway. My Euros? In the bank, of course.

But before I'll send you a cheque, you have to master the basic space ship 3-D driving course, e.g. how to accelerate and stop in space, how to change direction in space, how to get into the orbit of a planet/moon in space, etc, etc. all with a basic, space craft with big drive/brake engine at one end and small ones to rotate your craft in 3-D. I assume there are plenty space ship flying schools at Florida, NM or AZ training terrorists and drug smugglers paid by CIA that you can join. Big US biz, you know. Some spaces moves require integral calculus of differential equations which is easy for you ... if you are a genius. Do not trust the incompetent rocket engineers and space pilots at this forum. They have never been in space, I am 100% certain of that, and can hardly read. They are just unhappy, bored mopes you find in bankrupt US subdivisions on old corn fields in the middle of nowhere or elsewhere.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 01, 2013, 03:09:27 PM
Quote
Do not trust the incompetent rocket engineers and space pilots at this forum.

Ha ha ha!!  The only person showing any measure of incompetence is you.  Grow up and get an education.  Like I said earlier - go and spend 5 or 6 years studying physics, astrophysics and space science.


By the way, did anyone place bets on when he'd be back?  I can open bets on when Flounce Number Three will happen, if you like.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Donnie B. on January 01, 2013, 03:14:39 PM
Quote
I assume there are plenty space ship flying schools at Florida, NM or AZ training terrorists and drug smugglers paid by CIA that you can join. Big biz, you know.

Looks like somebody's trying to earn "I was banned at ApolloHoax" bragging rights.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 01, 2013, 03:15:37 PM
Heiwa, I have been trying to work out whether or not you actually believe what you are saying.  I'm sorry, but I just can't believe that anyone really does think like you do.  So I ask, why do you troll this forum?  What do you hope to gain?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 01, 2013, 03:17:44 PM
Do not trust the incompetent rocket engineers and space pilots at this forum. They have never been in space, I am 100% certain of that, and can hardly read. They are just unhappy, bored mopes you find in bankrupt US subdivisions on old corn fields in the middle of nowhere or elsewhere.


Ah, there it is. Having been unable to engage in a mature level on any technical field, and having had your incompetence at any level of engineering exposed quite nicely, you have nothing left but hurling abuse at us. Well, now you can get yourself banned and brag about it to some equally ignorant imeciles on some other forum, can't you. Congratulations. Predictable as any other HB. Shame you can't manage proper discussion, isn't it?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 01, 2013, 03:18:51 PM
I wonder why all HBs I have ever encountered assume I am an American?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 01, 2013, 03:26:58 PM
Because they think everyone who defends Apollo does so out of national pride, ergo they must be American. The idea that people might defend Apollo because it happens to be real is completely alien to them.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on January 01, 2013, 03:30:11 PM
They do not use Euro in Scandinavia, you see. Same in China or Japan. Or North Korea! But enjoy your flight anyway. My Euros? In the bank, of course.

So SEB no longer offers euro-accounts? On top of that, here's me thinking all along that Finland, which uses the Euro is often considered part of Scandinavia due to its close relations with Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Those sneaky Fins when will they ever learn? Maybe next time I'll use the more accurate "Nordic" to help those that can't help themselves. Then again, I did add "assuming that's where its held" which is pretty straight forward. I have euros in the bank as well. And that bank has more than a million of them,, amazing, no?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 01, 2013, 03:47:03 PM
But before I'll send you a cheque, you have to master the basic space ship 3-D driving course, e.g. how to accelerate and stop in space, how to change direction in space, how to get into the orbit of a planet/moon in space, etc, etc. all with a basic, space craft with big drive/brake engine at one end and small ones to rotate your craft in 3-D.

Gee, if that's all it takes then I can show you some YouTube videos (like this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVPMTQfOvYQ)) of people playing Kerbal Space Program. Don't let the fact that it's a game fool you, it does a pretty good job of demonstrating how orbital maneuvers work. And some of these YouTube videos are made by 16 year old kids who have a better understanding of orbital mechanics than you ever will.

Quote
They have never been in space, I am 100% certain of that, and can hardly read. They are just unhappy, bored mopes you find in bankrupt US subdivisions on old corn fields in the middle of nowhere or elsewhere.

I've never been to space, but I assure that I can read the insults you make in this forum. Any further insults will get you added to the moderated list... not the outright ban that I'm sure you're hoping for, it just means your posts will have to be approved by me before they show in the forum.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Halcyon Dayz, FCD on January 01, 2013, 04:16:31 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if some RL spacetravellers read this site.

For entertainment purposes.

Because they think everyone who defends Apollo does so out of national pride, ergo they must be American. The idea that people might defend Apollo because it happens to be real is completely alien to them.
In the CT's mind everybody has ulterior motives for what they say.
It's projection.

I could post a rant about every hoax proponent I have ever met being intellectually coward liars only interrested in whining about the EvilGubmint™, having no interrest in actually knowing the truth.

But that might get me moderated, so I won't.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: DataCable on January 01, 2013, 04:19:05 PM
As I am offering the €1M award
No, you're not, because you don't have it.

I could just as easily offer you US$1 trillion to explain how boats made of steel, which is denser than water, could possibly float on water, and just as easily dodge every explanation you offer.

Quote
you have to listen to me and ... be polite.
No, we don't, to either condition.

Quote
Do not post nonsens posts that I am uneducated, blah, blah. Only uneducated idiots do that, so please avoid it.
Mr. Kettle, I have a Mr. Pot holding on line 3.

Quote
It is quite complicated and I wonder how the NASA pilots did it.
Very well, thank you very much.

Quote
...and to win 1 million Euro you have to repeat it.
Is it tiring dragging those goalposts around so much?  Your challenge was to explain how the event was done, not to repeat the event.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 01, 2013, 04:21:23 PM
Well, at Oslo you have to pay with Norwegian crowns, NOK, at Stockholm with Swedish, SEK, and at Copenhagen, Danish, DKK. They do not use Euro in Scandinavia, you see. Same in China or Japan. Or North Korea! But enjoy your flight anyway. My Euros? In the bank, of course.

Which bank?  Where is the actual evidence that you have so much as a buck seventy-five?  (That's in American dollars; I leave you to do your own conversion.  Doubtless you will be just as "competent" at it as you are at everything else.)  You keep telling us to trust you, but why should we?  We know nothing more about you than what you present here, and nothing you have presented thus far is trustworthy.

Quote
. . . I am 100% certain of that, and can hardly read.

Finally!  A statement of fact from you!  You can hardly read, or else you would start acknowledging the most egregious and obvious of your errors.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 01, 2013, 04:27:04 PM
the LM descent stage rocket was throttleable and could be started numerous times, but the ascent stage rocket was a fire once only type, correct?

Following Bob's reply and my own, I just happened to watch NASA's Aeronautics and Space Report from February 1968, which includes a brief section on Apollo 5. The APS was fired twice on this unmanned test flight, so evidently the APS was not a 'fire once only type'.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on January 01, 2013, 04:31:43 PM
Thanks for your replies. Bit under the weather today so reading is difficult. I have that report DVD so I will check it out. In the meantime I hope Heiwa does take the challenge of explaing how steel ships don't sink.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 01, 2013, 04:52:37 PM
How about answering the simple questions I put forward?

Do you acknowledge you got the fuel wrong?

Do you acknowledge you got the propellant wrong?

Do you acknowledge you got the engine wrong?

They're very simple.

As a reminder.

You said: fuel in the LM in hydrazine.
Truth is: fuel is Aerosine 50

You said: the LM carries less than 9 tonnes of propellant
Truth is: it carried almost 11 tonnes

You said: the SPS was of some type no-one has heard of
Truth is: it was of type AJ-10
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 01, 2013, 05:37:53 PM
The APS was fired twice on this unmanned test flight, so evidently the APS was not a 'fire once only type'.

Yes, the APS was restartable, as in fact most pressure-fed hypergolic motors are.  The ascent and rendezvous protocols and their contingencies called for the ascent engine to be restartable.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on January 01, 2013, 07:32:31 PM
I remind you that topic is So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?  :)
no, the topic is who actually believes Heiwa has 1 Million Euro or has any intention of awarding it.  The answer is nobody.  Since that was determined early on, the topic has morphed.

Try to focus on topic and pls do not remind me how stupid or ignorant I am (not).
Translation: Please don't keep bringing up the fact that I have no idea what I'm talking about.  There might still be a few left I can con.

I am concerned about space travel safety.
Yeah, nobody believes that either.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on January 01, 2013, 07:48:15 PM

One example is the Space Shuttle. 

Is it? Space Shuttle trying to get into Moon orbit? You are trolling off topic and should be warned.

How DARE they follow the topic as it strays to more interesting matters after it has become clear you have no idea what you are talking about and have absolutely no prize money whatsoever!  How DARE they!   ::)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on January 01, 2013, 08:02:26 PM
Quote
I assume there are plenty space ship flying schools at Florida, NM or AZ training terrorists and drug smugglers paid by CIA that you can join. Big biz, you know.

Looks like somebody's trying to earn "I was banned at ApolloHoax" bragging rights.
Probably so he can add it to his page to make it sound like he's being suppressed.  Sadly IF he were banned that would be the only true thing on his page.
Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sus_pilot on January 01, 2013, 08:12:07 PM
I think KA9Q mentioned using high school physics and Calculus.

I looked at the derivation of the rocket equation (which I had never heard of before) on Wikipedia.

The derivation is pretty straight forward, but it involves integral Calculus (or differential equations) which is beyond the high school level in Ontario and I'm guessing most of North America (I teach Calculus and some physics).

I would suspect the difficulty to be more of the first year university level.

Thanks everyone for the responses. I never even considered the fact that rocket stages are needed to drop so much mass. This is one of the reasons I don't design and launch rockets :)

Cheers

Pete

PS how is discussing how rockets work in any way off topic?
Calculus was a senior year elective at my high school (New Trier East in the Chicago area a million years ago).

Not that I took it there - waited until college...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 01, 2013, 08:13:36 PM
We've done quite well lately what with HBs flouncing in a very mellowdramatic manner. I just went back and read the advancedboy thread as a little nighttime reading.

It's good when the HB doesn't need to be banned, especially if it's just for plain old not listening or understanding, infuriating though that may be (that moderation policy has killed BAUT stone dead).
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 01, 2013, 08:26:10 PM
Yes, the APS was restartable, as in fact most pressure-fed hypergolic motors are.
Right. I can't think of a pressure-fed hypergolic rocket that isn't restartable, and can be fired an arbitrary number of times until its propellants are depleted. The only complication would be ensuring ullage, i.e., getting the propellants in partly filled tanks to the bottom where they can be piped off. This is usually not a problem on the first burn when the tanks are full (or in the case of the LM ascent engine, experiencing gravity) but restarting any kind of liquid-fueled rocket requires either the propellants to be enclosed in positive-expulsion bladders or an RCS "ullage burn" to push them to the bottoms of their tanks.

The difference between the two LM stages is that the descent engine could be throttled while the ascent engine could not be. The CSM's SPS engine was also fixed thrust.

I don't know why I forgot the space shuttle main engines. Yes, they were throttled to decrease acceleration during Max-Q, the period of maximum aerodynamic pressure. The solid rocket boosters also "throttled down" during this time, though it was not commanded in real time but built into the way the propellants were cast into them.

Closer to the original question, the space shuttle main engines also throttled down just before cutoff to limit acceleration to 3g. So yes, there is at least one case in which engines are throttled back to limit acceleration as the vehicle loses mass.


Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on January 01, 2013, 08:41:58 PM
The only complication would be ensuring ullage, i.e., getting the propellants in partly filled tanks to the bottom where they can be piped off. This is usually not a problem on the first burn when the tanks are full (or in the case of the LM ascent engine, experiencing gravity) but restarting any kind of liquid-fueled rocket requires either the propellants to be enclosed in positive-expulsion bladders or an RCS "ullage burn" to push them to the bottoms of their tanks.

Or dedicated small rockets to settle the propellants before ignition..."ullage motors".
Another interesting approach to the problem is to use special baffles or meshes to hold the propellant in place via surface tension.

Some stuff by Henry Spencer on restarting engines:
http://yarchive.net/space/rocket/restart.html

More on this:
http://books.google.com/books?id=pFktw0GYSX8C&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Count Zero on January 01, 2013, 09:25:21 PM
So, in summary, we have Heiwa:

(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/pw4f0f60d4.jpg)
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/lo4fa61712.jpg)

The non-professional space fen (such as Gillianren and myself), thinking:

(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/wg5051fc0d.jpg)

And then we have the professional aerospace engineers:

(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/bm5016438e.gif)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: peter eldergill on January 01, 2013, 10:14:54 PM
Count Zero .... Puny God....

HA!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 01, 2013, 11:20:55 PM
Seems about right to me, yeah.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 01, 2013, 11:27:00 PM
Or dedicated small rockets to settle the propellants before ignition..."ullage motors".
Right, as on the S-IVB stage. I think ullage motors were used on both versions for the first starts, with the APS (auxiliary propulsion system, essentially an RCS) used for the restart on the Saturn V version.
Quote
Another interesting approach to the problem is to use special baffles or meshes to hold the propellant in place via surface tension.
Yeah. The dynamics of liquid propellants in weightlessness were complex and mysterious enough in the 1960s that a major objective of a Saturn IB test flight, SA-203, was to study them. It was launched with no payload and less than nominal LOX so the S-IVB had plenty of LH2 left, and then TV cameras inside the tanks watched how it behaved in weightlessness.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 02, 2013, 12:16:36 AM
Right, as on the S-IVB stage. I think ullage motors were used on both versions for the first starts, with the APS (auxiliary propulsion system, essentially an RCS) used for the restart on the Saturn V version.

All the Saturn V ullage motors were made just a few miles from my house, at Thiokol.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 02, 2013, 12:52:27 AM
Quote
Right. I can't think of a pressure-fed hypergolic rocket that isn't restartable, and can be fired an arbitrary number of times until its propellants are depleted. The only complication would be ensuring ullage, i.e., getting the propellants in partly filled tanks to the bottom where they can be piped off.
Or, in the case of the LM motors, until the liquid He used to pressurize the propellant gets too warm and pops the burst disk.

And speaking of neighbors, according to the local paper, the fabric for Curiosity's parachute was made just a few miles from my house.

Re: Heiwa; overall I found the three-drunken-sailors story more credible.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 02, 2013, 12:59:44 AM
Or, in the case of the LM motors, until the liquid He used to pressurize the propellant gets too warm and pops the burst disk.
The descent stage used it, and it was supercritical helium, that is, helium stored above its critical temperature (5.19K) and pressure (227 kPa) so that it exists in a single fluid phase that's both liquid and gas and neither. The same technique was used to store H2 and O2 in the Apollo Service Module.

The burst disk would pop if the engine wasn't fired by a certain time, as heat slowly soaked into the tank and raised its pressure. I am not sure, but I think that if the engine were to fire at least a certain fraction of its propellants the SHe tank would no longer necessarily pop its burst disk because of the extra tank volume into which the warming helium could expand.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 02, 2013, 01:31:03 AM
Or, in the case of the LM motors, until the liquid He used to pressurize the propellant gets too warm and pops the burst disk.
The descent stage used it, and it was supercritical helium, that is, helium stored above its critical temperature (5.19K) and pressure (227 kPa) so that it exists in a single fluid phase that's both liquid and gas and neither. The same technique was used to store H2 and O2 in the Apollo Service Module.

The burst disk would pop if the engine wasn't fired by a certain time, as heat slowly soaked into the tank and raised its pressure. I am not sure, but I think that if the engine were to fire at least a certain fraction of its propellants the SHe tank would no longer necessarily pop its burst disk because of the extra tank volume into which the warming helium could expand.
The ascent stage, too; at least there are helium tanks in the ascent stage in the NASA LM diagrams and opening the He valves is a checklist item for LM lift-off. I can't put my finger on the reference right this second, but I'm pretty sure I remember reading that the valves were pyro operated - once open, they stayed open.

According to Jim Lovell's account in Lost Moon, AS-13 had an HE disk to rupture during the coast home, after the descent engine had been fired multiple times. Of course their circumstance was about as far from normal ops as you can get.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 02, 2013, 02:41:03 AM
The spaceship kinetic energy before braking was 43574*2400²/2 = 125.4 GJ and after braking 32676*1500²/2 = 36.76 GJ, i.e. change in kinetic energy due braking was 88.64 GJ, i.e. fuel consumption was 8.13 MJ/kg.

No, Heiwa, your calculations are wrong.  You have to consider the kinetic energy of the total system, which includes both the inert mass of the spacecraft and the propellant.

I'm going to use your mass and velocity figures, but that is in no way an admission that I agree with them because I haven't looked up the figures to verified whether they are correct or not.  Furthermore, the calculation I'm about to perform is just a "back of the envelope" calculation to get us close.

I concede that the kinetic energy before the burn is 43574*2400²/2 = 125.4 GJ.  I'll also concede that the kinetic energy of the spacecraft and remaining propellant after the burn is 32676*1500²/2 = 36.76 GJ.  But you must recognize that the expelled mass also has kinetic energy, thus the total kinetic energy after the burn is that of the spacecraft plus that of the mass expelled during the burn in the form of exhaust gas.

The exhaust gas velocity relative to the spacecraft is equal to the engine specific impulse times go, or 314 s * 9.807 m/s2 = 3079 m/s.  The exhaust is expelled in the direction of travel, therefore the true velocity of the exhaust is the velocity of the spacecraft + 3079 m/s.  Let's make it simple and assume the spacecraft velocity is the average of the initial and final velocities, i.e. (2400+1500)/2 = 1950 m/s.  We then have an exhaust velocity of 1950 + 3079 = 5029 m/s.  Therefore, the kinetic energy of the expelled mass is 10898*5029²/2 = 137.8 GJ.

We now see that the kinetic energy of the total system at the end of the burn is 36.76 + 137.8 = 174.6 GJ.  Kinetic energy was added to the system in the amount of 174.6 - 125.4 = 49.2 GJ.  This energy came from the chemical energy of the propellant that was released during combustion, first as thermal energy and then as kinetic energy as the gas was expanded in the engine nozzle.  The energy released from the propellant on a mass basis is 49.2 GJ / 10898 = 4.5 MJ/kg.  This number is in the ballpark of what should be expected from the type of propellant used.  (I've calculated that the actual change in enthalpy of the propellant is about 5.16 MJ/kg.)

Everything works out just fine.  No problems here.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Tedward on January 02, 2013, 02:50:24 AM
Well, at Oslo you have to pay with Norwegian crowns, NOK, at Stockholm with Swedish, SEK, and at Copenhagen, Danish, DKK. They do not use Euro in Scandinavia, you see. Same in China or Japan. Or North Korea! But enjoy your flight anyway. My Euros? In the bank, of course.

Which bank?  Where is the actual evidence that you have so much as a buck seventy-five?  (That's in American dollars; I leave you to do your own conversion.  Doubtless you will be just as "competent" at it as you are at everything else.)  You keep telling us to trust you, but why should we?  We know nothing more about you than what you present here, and nothing you have presented thus far is trustworthy.

Quote
. . . I am 100% certain of that, and can hardly read.

Finally!  A statement of fact from you!  You can hardly read, or else you would start acknowledging the most egregious and obvious of your errors.

If I may, not sure someone else has mentioned this (33 pages now?) but would there not be a protocol when someone offers up a reward? At least serious ones anyway. For some reason I would expect an independent authority to verify and adjudicate in such a matter? I don't expect armed guards around a pile of notes on the floor, rather a simple system whereby it can be verified.

Either way I do not think the loot is available and never will be. He does mention a cheque, wonder what material it is made from?


Edit. The replys are interesting, as always my knowledge increases.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on January 02, 2013, 03:25:05 AM

...
Either way I do not think the loot is available and never will be. He does mention a cheque, wonder what material it is made from?
...

Any one of a variety of polymerized monomers -- probably styrene and butadiene.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 02, 2013, 04:27:39 AM
The ascent stage, too; at least there are helium tanks in the ascent stage in the NASA LM diagrams and opening the He valves is a checklist item for LM lift-off.]
Yes,  both stages used helium to pressurize their propellant tanks. Only the descent stage used supercritical He, though it also had a gaseous He tank (not sure why). The ascent stage used gaseous He only.

The pressure supplied to the propellant tanks had to be above the combustion chamber pressure while the engines were firing, or else they'd stop. It's something like the fuel injector pump in a Diesel engine overcoming the combustion chamber pressure during the power stroke.

Small pressure-fed rockets are extremely common, but they don't scale to launcher size because of the heavy tanks required to withstand that much pressure.
Quote
I can't put my finger on the reference right this second, but I'm pretty sure I remember reading that the valves were pyro operated - once open, they stayed open.
Yes, pyro valves isolated the helium until they were fired open, once. But the helium then had to flow through pressure regulators, and these could be switched off. The pyro valves were there to minimize leakage for the first part of the mission, as helium has a nasty habit of leaking through the tiniest cracks.

Title: Re: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 02, 2013, 04:38:41 AM
The spaceship kinetic energy before braking was 43574*2400²/2 = 125.4 GJ and after braking 32676*1500²/2 = 36.76 GJ, i.e. change in kinetic energy due braking was 88.64 GJ, i.e. fuel consumption was 8.13 MJ/kg.

No, Heiwa, your calculations are wrong.  You have to consider the kinetic energy of the total system, which includes both the inert mass of the spacecraft and the propellant.

I'm going to use your mass and velocity figures, but that is in no way an admission that I agree with them because I haven't looked up the figures to verified whether they are correct or not.  Furthermore, the calculation I'm about to perform is just a "back of the envelope" calculation to get us close.

I concede that the kinetic energy before the burn is 43574*2400²/2 = 125.4 GJ.  I'll also concede that the kinetic energy of the spacecraft and remaining propellant after the burn is 32676*1500²/2 = 36.76 GJ.  But you must recognize that the expelled mass also has kinetic energy, thus the total kinetic energy after the burn is that of the spacecraft plus that of the mass expelled during the burn in the form of exhaust gas.

The exhaust gas velocity relative to the spacecraft is equal to the engine specific impulse times go, or 314 s * 9.807 m/s2 = 3079 m/s.  The exhaust is expelled in the direction of travel, therefore the true velocity of the exhaust is the velocity of the spacecraft + 3079 m/s.  Let's make it simple and assume the spacecraft velocity is the average of the initial and final velocities, i.e. (2400+1500)/2 = 1950 m/s.  We then have an exhaust velocity of 1950 + 3079 = 5029 m/s.  Therefore, the kinetic energy of the expelled mass is 10898*5029²/2 = 137.8 GJ.

We now see that the kinetic energy of the total system at the end of the burn is 36.76 + 137.8 = 174.6 GJ.  Kinetic energy was added to the system in the amount of 174.6 - 125.4 = 49.2 GJ.  This energy came from the chemical energy of the propellant that was released during combustion, first as thermal energy and then as kinetic energy as the gas was expanded in the engine nozzle.  The energy released from the propellant on a mass basis is 49.2 GJ / 10898 = 4.5 MJ/kg.  This number is in the ballpark of what should be expected from the type of propellant used.  (I've calculated that the actual change in enthalpy of the propellant is about 5.16 MJ/kg.)

Everything works out just fine.  No problems here.

That was pretty much what I got.

The problem for Heiwa, aside from the fact that he has a really bad case of Dunning-Kruger, is:
1) he wants to keep things simple, so thinks it's fine to miss out energy terms in an energy balance equation, much like the Haber process works just fine without nitrogen.
2) he's comparing energy density to the wrong propellant system

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gwiz on January 02, 2013, 06:29:00 AM
but the ascent stage rocket was a fire once only type, correct?

I seem to recall that on some missions the APS was fired in lunar orbit to perform part of the rendezvous maneuvers.  Of course the rendezvous procedures changed, so thus also did the maneuvers.  Many of the maneuvers where performed with the RCS, so it's possible the APS was never used, but for some reason I seem to remember that it was.  I can't keep track of all of the different engine firings without looking them up for each mission.
As fas as I can find out, the APS was fired twice on seven missions, these being Apollos 5, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16 and 17.  It was used just the once on Apollo 11 and 12 and on Apollo 13 it wasn't used at all.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 02, 2013, 09:00:39 AM


I concede that the kinetic energy before the burn is 43574*2400²/2 = 125.4 GJ.  I'll also concede that the kinetic energy of the spacecraft and remaining propellant after the burn is 32676*1500²/2 = 36.76 GJ.  But you must recognize that the expelled mass also has kinetic energy, thus the total kinetic energy after the burn is that of the spacecraft plus that of the mass expelled during the burn in the form of exhaust gas.


Thanks for agreeing to the kinetic energy values of the space craft before/after the braking maneuver due to burning fuel in the rocket engine producing a brake force.
The difference in kinetic energy of the space craft before/after the braking maneuver is solely due to burning fuel aboard and causing the brake force to be applied to the space craft during the braking time.
The energy (fuel mass) used up to brake the space craft (the mass of the fuel 'burnt') is evidently not part of the space craft after braking but has been transmitted to the surrounding space through the rocket exhaust and cannot be used by the space craft. It is gone. For ever. Unless you can produce a method to recycle energy in space.

Pls return to topic So, who wants to win 1 million Euro? In order to win you have to understand basic space travel physics, e.g. that a mass of fuel transformed into a force to brake the space ship in the voyage is gone. Same applies to fuel used during travel at sea? Compare a car running out of fuel, etc, etc.  :) ;) :D ;D :o ::) :-* :'(
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 02, 2013, 09:04:57 AM
We do understand it - better than you do, because you are still getting it wrong even in your last post.

You do not because you refuse to acknowledge the information given, let alone attempt to read or understand it yourself.  Either that or, as I said earlier, you are pretending to get it all wrong for trolling purposes (or some other reason known only to yourself).

Simple as.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 02, 2013, 09:24:21 AM
Pls return to topic So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?

Stop telling us to 'return to the topic'. We ARE on topic by discussing where your calculations are wrong. It's part of it.

Quote
In order to win you have to understand basic space travel physics

We do. You don't. And no-one can win because you have set the bet to be unwinnable. When the conditions include convincing you your numbers are wrong, you have to be willing to accept the corrections given. You are not, ergo no-one can win. Since we are all aware of this, no-one gives a damn about your fictitious money.

Questions still outstanding:

Do you acknowledge you have the fuel wrong (it's Aerozine-50, not pure hydrazine)? Do you acknowledge you have the LM fuel loads wrong? How did you calculate the mass of fuel based on the quantity in liters. Give us the calculations you used.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 02, 2013, 09:27:28 AM
The energy (fuel mass) used up to brake the space craft (the mass of the fuel 'burnt') is evidently not part of the space craft after braking but has been transmitted to the surrounding space through the rocket exhaust and cannot be used by the space craft. It is gone. For ever.

Yes, and you have to account for that in your calculations. You have not. The mass of exhaust, and the kinetic energy it has, are not things you can simply ignore. You don't find it remotely odd that when you include it suddenly all the numbers balance out OK? You don't think that maybe you're the one who misunderstands the whole issue rather than the thousands of qualified people around the world who have had access to this data all the time? Conservation of momentum is an alien concept to you?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 02, 2013, 09:32:52 AM
Thanks for agreeing to the kinetic energy values of the space craft before/after the braking maneuver due to burning fuel in the rocket engine producing a brake force.

Based on the numbers used in the example calculation, I agree that the kinetic energy of the 43574 kg spacecraft prior to the burn is 125.4 GJ.  I also agree that the kinetic energy of that same 43574 kg mass after the burn is about 174.6 GJ.

Quote
The energy (fuel mass) used up to brake the space craft (the mass of the fuel 'burnt') is evidently not part of the space craft after braking but has been transmitted to the surrounding space through the rocket exhaust and cannot be used by the space craft. It is gone. For ever. Unless you can produce a method to recycle energy in space.

The expelled propellent is a constituent part of the system of particles under analysis.

Quote
Pls return to topic

We're discussing the topic that you introduced.

Quote
So, who wants to win 1 million Euro? In order to win you have to understand basic space travel physics, e.g. that a mass of fuel transformed into a force to brake the space ship in the voyage is gone.

Who have you designated as the judge?  Surely you do not intend to judge the winner yourself as that would be a clear conflict of interest.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gwiz on January 02, 2013, 09:34:34 AM
The energy (fuel mass) used up to brake the space craft (the mass of the fuel 'burnt') is evidently not part of the space craft after braking but has been transmitted to the surrounding space through the rocket exhaust and cannot be used by the space craft. It is gone. For ever. Unless you can produce a method to recycle energy in space.
Even though the exhaust is no longer part of the spacecraft, it still has kinetic energy.  This energy has to be included in the energy equation, otherwise the system has less energy after the burn than before it.  This would also be a disaster for your arguments, since you claim that there is not sufficient energy in the propellants.  If the system is losing energy, you don't require the propellant to provide any.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 02, 2013, 09:56:27 AM
Even though the exhaust is no longer part of the spacecraft, it still has kinetic energy.  This energy has to be included in the energy equation...

Heiwa apparently doesn't understand the concept of a "system".  A system is a set of interacting or interdependent components forming an integrated whole.  Heiwa defined the system when he calculated the initial kinetic of the 43574 kg spacecraft.  When the final kinetic energy is calculated, we must include the energy of all the components that add up to that original 43574 kg.  It does not matter whether it is one solid mass or individual gas molecules flying through space.
Title: Re: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 02, 2013, 09:57:34 AM


I concede that the kinetic energy before the burn is 43574*2400²/2 = 125.4 GJ.  I'll also concede that the kinetic energy of the spacecraft and remaining propellant after the burn is 32676*1500²/2 = 36.76 GJ.  But you must recognize that the expelled mass also has kinetic energy, thus the total kinetic energy after the burn is that of the spacecraft plus that of the mass expelled during the burn in the form of exhaust gas.


Thanks for agreeing to the kinetic energy values of the space craft before/after the braking maneuver due to burning fuel in the rocket engine producing a brake force.
The difference in kinetic energy of the space craft before/after the braking maneuver is solely due to burning fuel aboard and causing the brake force to be applied to the space craft during the braking time.
The energy (fuel mass) used up to brake the space craft (the mass of the fuel 'burnt') is evidently not part of the space craft after braking but has been transmitted to the surrounding space through the rocket exhaust and cannot be used by the space craft. It is gone. For ever. Unless you can produce a method to recycle energy in space.

Pls return to topic So, who wants to win 1 million Euro? In order to win you have to understand basic space travel physics, e.g. that a mass of fuel transformed into a force to brake the space ship in the voyage is gone. Same applies to fuel used during travel at sea? Compare a car running out of fuel, etc, etc.  :) ;) :D ;D :o ::) :-* :'(

You are attempting (unsuccessfully) to look at energy balance. That requires looking at where energy goes when the spacecraft loses it.

The fact you do not recognise this reveals (as if we didn't already know) your extremely faulty understanding of basic mechanics.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 02, 2013, 09:57:53 AM
If the system is losing energy, you don't require the propellant to provide any.
Indeed. I'm actually surprised he doesn't claim that the tanks should fill up during the lunar orbit insertion burn, since the spacecraft is losing kinetic energy.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 02, 2013, 10:21:43 AM
Heiwa apparently doesn't understand the concept of a "system".

Indeed.  Energy-balance methods require one to define the system in terms of hard boundaries that unequivocally include ("the system") or exclude ("the environment") components under study, and to keep consistent frames of reference for the values.  These are basic prerequisites in order for the method to work.  Heiwa has done neither, and has intentionally omitted key parts of the problem to "simplify" it.  But then he wishes to attribute the resulting error to someone else rather than to his own incompetence.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 02, 2013, 10:24:11 AM
Who have you designated as the judge?  Surely you do not intend to judge the winner yourself as that would be a clear conflict of interest.

That is exactly what he proposes to do.  As if anyone believes he has a million euros anyway.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 02, 2013, 10:26:41 AM
Same applies to fuel used during travel at sea? Compare a car running out of fuel, etc, etc.

The concept of energy balance is indeed the same, but the application is not. In a car or a ship the fuel is burned on board and energy transferred to moving components which then transmit it to other moving parts to drive the vehicle forward. That's the system in that case. In a rocket the fuel is burned and blasted out the back at high speed. It's the 'blasted out the back at high speed' you seem to be having trouble with. It's the reaction of that mass being thrown out in one direction pushing the ship in the other that makes your attempt at balancing the energy wrong. That mass of exhaust is still part of the system that needs to be accounted for. You can't ignore it just because it is no longer aboard the spacecraft when it is the very act of dumping it overboard that gives you the change in momentum you are trying to describe! If you applied your energy balance equations to ANY rocket, even the ones used just to put things into orbit (which you say is evidently possible), you would find the same problem of apparent impossibility because you just are not doing the right equations.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 02, 2013, 10:41:10 AM
I'm computing the theoretical energy released by the ideal stoichiometric combustion of Aerozine 50 and N2O4. I'm doing it by summing the enthalpies of formation for the propellants and then subtracting the enthalpies of formation of their ideal combustion products N2, H2O and CO2. I know the actual figure for a real rocket engine will be lower because of the rich mixture ratio and the presence of many other products of combustion, but I'm just trying to get a theoretical upper bound.

Aerozine 50 is said to be a 50-50 mixture of UDMH, (CH3)2N2H2, and straight hydrazine, N2H4, but is this 50-50 by volume, by mass or by moles?

BTW, I see that hydrazine has a hazmat diamond rating of 4-4-3, that is, the highest toxicity rating, the highest fire rating and the next-to-highest reactivity rating. Gee, I wonder what could be worse. Is there anything with a 4-4-4 rating?

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 02, 2013, 10:44:59 AM
Aerozine-50 is a 50/50 mix by weight of hydrazine and UDMH, according to Wikipedia. Since I assume both components are weighed out on Earth that makes it 50/50 by mass as well, of course... :)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 02, 2013, 10:51:14 AM
BTW, I see that hydrazine has a hazmat diamond rating of 4-4-3, that is, the highest toxicity rating, the highest fire rating and the next-to-highest reactivity rating. Gee, I wonder what could be worse. Is there anything with a 4-4-4 rating?

This stuff, apparently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-butyl_hydroperoxide
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: BazBear on January 02, 2013, 10:56:53 AM
BTW, I see that hydrazine has a hazmat diamond rating of 4-4-3, that is, the highest toxicity rating, the highest fire rating and the next-to-highest reactivity rating. Gee, I wonder what could be worse. Is there anything with a 4-4-4 rating?
tert-Butyl hydroperoxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-butyl_hydroperoxide).

ETA-Ack! I was ninjaed by Jason! :D
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 02, 2013, 11:02:11 AM
Aerozine 50 is said to be a 50-50 mixture of UDMH, (CH3)2N2H2, and straight hydrazine, N2H4, but is this 50-50 by volume, by mass or by moles?

Echoing what Jason said, it's by mass.  Since the SPS had a mixture ratio of 1.6:1, the reactants on a mole basis are:

2.09 N2O4 + 1 C2H8N2 + 1.875 N2H4

I happen to know that because I worked out the same problem yesterday.  I'm interested in seeing what you come up with.

What I did was to calculate the reaction at the chamber pressure of 100 PSI (that of the AJ10-137 engine) and recorded the enthalpy (which is the same as the reactants since the reaction is adiabatic).  I then expanded the gases isentropically to the pressure at the nozzle exit and recorded the enthalpy after expansion.  Taking the difference in enthalpy, I got 5.16 MJ/kg.

Of course, I had to know the pressure at the nozzle exit.  I couldn't find this anywhere, but I did find that the nozzle expansion ratio was 62.5.  Knowing the chamber pressure and the expansion ratio, I could calculate the theoretical nozzle exit pressure, which came to 0.1033 PSI, or 712 Pa.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 02, 2013, 11:36:48 AM
Same applies to fuel used during travel at sea? Compare a car running out of fuel, etc, etc.

The concept of energy balance is indeed the same, but the application is not. In a car or a ship the fuel is burned on board and energy transferred to moving components which then transmit it to other moving parts to drive the vehicle forward. That's the system in that case. In a rocket the fuel is burned and blasted out the back at high speed. It's the 'blasted out the back at high speed' you seem to be having trouble with. It's the reaction of that mass being thrown out in one direction pushing the ship in the other that makes your attempt at balancing the energy wrong. That mass of exhaust is still part of the system that needs to be accounted for. You can't ignore it just because it is no longer aboard the spacecraft when it is the very act of dumping it overboard that gives you the change in momentum you are trying to describe! If you applied your energy balance equations to ANY rocket, even the ones used just to put things into orbit (which you say is evidently possible), you would find the same problem of apparent impossibility because you just are not doing the right equations.

Would be part of Heiwa's demonstrated incomprehension thus far.  He even seems incredulous about a spacecraft flying "backwards" in space.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 02, 2013, 11:42:12 AM
I happen to know that because I worked out the same problem yesterday.  I'm interested in seeing what you come up with.
Okay, here you go. Remember, this is for a stoichiometric mixture of Aerozine 50 with N2O4, so my numbers will be higher than yours.

Assuming the reaction products are gaseous N2, liquid H2O and gaseous CO2 at STP, 1 kg of Aerozine 50 requires 2.249 kg of N2O4, for a sum of 3.249 kg of propellants, and the enthalpy change is 8.124 MJ/kg. This looks quite reasonable, don't you think?

Strictly speaking the reaction products should all be gases under ~0 pressure since the engine is operating in a vacuum, but again I was only looking for a bound. What we have done here is to estimate the thermodynamic efficiency of a rocket engine at turning chemical energy into kinetic energy, and the result is surprisingly high. But maybe it shouldn't be so surprising as chemical rockets probably have the highest combustion temperatures of any heat engine.

 

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 02, 2013, 11:53:28 AM
...liquid H2O

Jay raises a finger but then...

Quote
Strictly speaking the reaction products should all be gases under ~0 pressure since the engine is operating in a vacuum, but again I was only looking for a bound.

...which answers my question.

Quote
What we have done here is to estimate the thermodynamic efficiency of a rocket engine at turning chemical energy into kinetic energy, and the result is surprisingly high.

The upper bound is surprisingly high.  Most of the work in the field these days is toward identifying and eliminating sources of inefficiency that make actual performance rather less.  We're just now getting to the point where fine-grained FEM simulations give us useful data in that regard.

Quote
But maybe it shouldn't be so surprising as chemical rockets probably have the highest combustion temperatures of any heat engine.

Really no "probably" about it.  And we tend to look toward LOX/LH2 as the "1.0" against which most other processes are normalized.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 02, 2013, 12:04:19 PM
The energy (fuel mass) used up to brake the space craft (the mass of the fuel 'burnt') is evidently not part of the space craft after braking but has been transmitted to the surrounding space through the rocket exhaust and cannot be used by the space craft. It is gone. For ever.

Yes, and you have to account for that in your calculations. You have not. The mass of exhaust, and the kinetic energy it has, are not things you can simply ignore. You don't find it remotely odd that when you include it suddenly all the numbers balance out OK? You don't think that maybe you're the one who misunderstands the whole issue rather than the thousands of qualified people around the world who have had access to this data all the time? Conservation of momentum is an alien concept to you?

I am just interested in the kinetic energy B (J) Before braking and kinetic energy A (J) After braking of the space ship and the difference B - A, that is the energy used for braking. Evidently the space ship mass differs between before/after braking because fuel aboard with a mass is used to produce a brake force F (N)  that is applied to the space ship, while braking distance/displacement L (m). B-A = F*L .

The mass of exhaust, type of fuel, etc. have nothing to do with my basic energy calculations that only involves force and distance/displacement.

The momentum before braking is evidently much bigger than after braking because masses and velocities are reduced during braking due to a force F being applied when space ship displaces distance L. No momentum is conserved as a force is applied to the space ship system - to brake.

I have a feeling Willy had problems getting it right 1969 too.  :'( :'(
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on January 02, 2013, 12:14:09 PM
Hey, Heiwa, do rocket engines work in vacuum? :P
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ipearse on January 02, 2013, 12:31:19 PM
But before I'll send you a cheque, you have to master the basic space ship 3-D driving course, e.g. how to accelerate and stop in space, how to change direction in space, how to get into the orbit of a planet/moon in space, etc, etc. all with a basic, space craft with big drive/brake engine at one end and small ones to rotate your craft in 3-D.

Are you seriously trying to say that you can't understand that firing a large rocket is going to change your speed, one way or another? And that you can utilise gravitational attraction to help you with course changes? And you call yourself an engineer? I have no engineering training, just some physics knowledge, and I can see immediately that that would work. And, by the way, they invented computers some time ago.. you know, to help with the calculus and stuff in plotting orbits, accelerations, and so on?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 02, 2013, 12:41:34 PM
The energy (fuel mass) used up to brake the space craft (the mass of the fuel 'burnt') is evidently not part of the space craft after braking...

Not as mass, of course.  You failed to account for this both in a momentum-conservation formation and in an energy-conservation formulation.  Not only did you fail to account for it, you admitted it was a significant factor that you intentionally omitted from your model.  The excuse you gave for the omission was the factually-incorrect accusation that NASA had failed to provide you with appropriate values.  You never did suggest or prove that the factor you omitted was irrelevant or inconsequential.  Hence you knew from the start that your model was wrong, yet you had the audacity to set it up as the yardstick against which to judge the work of thousands of qualified professionals whose credentials and prior success are well established.

Hence it is highly dishonest of you to present a model you knew to be incomplete, assert that it proves someone else wrong who used the proper methods, and then challenge others to show you the error of your ways.  When you promise a reward for meeting that challenge, then ignore the many subsequent refutations, you cross the line to criminal fraud.

But that's not even half the problem.  As has been belabored, while the expended propellant mass is no longer combined with the spacecraft dry mass to arrive at the combined mass of the spacecraft for the purpose of computing momentum and energy, the propellant mass is still part of the system you defined when you set up the energy balance equation.  If you don't understand what constitutes a system for the purposes of energy computations, then you need remedial training.

Quote
...but has been transmitted to the surrounding space through the rocket exhaust and cannot be used by the space craft. It is gone.

No.  While it was previously convenient to consider the propellant as a constituent of the spacecraft mass, that is an improper formulation.  If you consider the mass of the propellant as part of the system for initial conditions, you must consider it as part of the system for final conditions, even if the overall system mass is a set of disjoint particles.  You suggest that the relevant properties of the propellant, in the form of exhaust gases, are released to the environment.  This leads you to compute incorrectly the required change in kinetic energy, and thus the required fuel mass.  The propellant properties, in terms of residual heat and of mechanical energy, remain part of the system.  That is how energy-balance checks work.

Your inability to properly maintain the consistency of system formulation and your incorrect assertion that propellant kinetic energy (or mass, since it's unclear to what you refer) is somehow transmitted across the system boundary into the environment and thus exempt for consideration is simply wrong.  You have attempted to style these errors as mere refinements or improvements to your model, but they are not refinements.  You have failed the first step of energy-balance formulation, which is to define the system.  This is a glaring, fundamental error, not some minute detail you can safely sidestep.

Quote
Pls return to topic So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?

First, do not attempt to moderate the thread.  You are neither the thread author nor the forum moderator, and you have been warned by the moderator not to attempt to control what can and cannot be posted.  It is a hallmark of the most dishonest conspiracy theorists to attempt to avoid refutations by declaring them irrelevant or off-topic.  I assure you our moderator will not fall for such cheap tricks.

Second, no one here is attempting to win the money.  They are simply trying to set the record straight on the basis of their devotion to historical truth in general, and out of their enjoyment of the field of rocketry.  I've lost count of the number of times you've tried to force a discussion of the money instead of a discussion of your claims to which the money refers.

Third, no one believes you have the money and would pay it out if you did.  An ordinary person claiming to have a very large sum of money and announcing he is willing to pay it to someone for performing a task constitutes an extraordinary claim.  You have the burden to prove that claim, which in this case means proving that the money exists and is available under the conditions you specify.  I have described to you the means by which monetary rewards are commonly offered and escrowed for collection.  I have invited you to prove by those means that your reward is winnable.  You have ignored that invitation.  I have asked you why you are unwilling to submit to customary means of offering prizes, and you have similarly ignored that.  I have no alternative but to conclude that the money does not exist and you have no intention of ever paying it.  Hence I infer from that conclusion that your obsession over the non-existent prize is an intentional distraction.

Quote
In order to win you have to understand basic space travel physics...

You have to realize that there are literally thousands of people in the world who understand not only basic space travel physics but also advanced space travel physics, that these people practice it professionally, and that practically none of them work for NASA.  Space engineering is a decades-old commercial endeavor, of which I and others here are active practitioners.  We are not the "fat NASA PhDs" of your straw-man fantasy, but engineers who work for a living and whose success is determined solely by whether our machines succeed in their assigned tasks.

The bottom line is that you cannot write a bunch of impressive-looking gobbledy-gook and fool everyone into thinking you have knowledge that you do not have.  Rocket science is not such an esoteric or priestly field that egregious errors cannot be quickly discovered.  Your ego-centric fantasy of being some genius engineer and exposing the imagined sins of the actual practitioners in the field simply does not hold up in the real world.

Quote
...that a mass of fuel transformed into a force to brake the space ship in the voyage is gone.

Gone, but not forgotten.  It must be included in the final-condition expression of the system, even though it is no longer physically contained within the spacecraft.  Your inability to properly formulate an energy-balance problem for spacecraft dynamics is one of the many signs that you are not sufficiently versed in the appropriate field of engineering.  This makes you an improper judge for whether you model is correct, and an improper judge of whether thousands of professionals did their jobs correctly.

The fact that you refuse to be corrected on this point (and indeed few others), tells us you are no engineer, and that your alleged million-euro reward is nothing more than irrelevant chest-thumping designed to inflate your substantial ego.

Quote
Same applies to fuel used during travel at sea?

No.

A properly formulated energy-balance equation would be relevant in each case, but that's entirely irrelevant from the notion that the model for one case applies to the dynamics of another case.  Some equation E1 may apply to a ship at sea under conditions of straight-line travel at constant speed.  Some other equation E2 may apply to a spacecraft in accelerated flight in an orbital environment.  To say that some equation may be written in each case is not the same as believing that E1 ≡ E2.

Your error at the highest level is presuming that because you think you understand the dynamics of maritime propulsion, you can apply the same dynamic formulations to all propulsion.  You evidently do not understand as much as you think about maritime propulsion, because part of any such understanding is realizing how one particular expression fits into the overarching science that supports it -- specifically, what factors exist in the science, but which may be safely ignored in some expression.  You are dumbly applying one expression to a dissimilar system, ignorantly omitting in the final result the simplifications that removed terms in the source.

Quote
Compare a car running out of fuel

Why do you think that directly compares?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 02, 2013, 12:43:04 PM
But before I'll send you a cheque, you have to master the basic space ship 3-D driving course, e.g. how to accelerate and stop in space, how to change direction in space, how to get into the orbit of a planet/moon in space, etc, etc. all with a basic, space craft with big drive/brake engine at one end and small ones to rotate your craft in 3-D.

Are you seriously trying to say that you can't understand that firing a large rocket is going to change your speed, one way or another? And that you can utilise gravitational attraction to help you with course changes? And you call yourself an engineer? I have no engineering training, just some physics knowledge, and I can see immediately that that would work. And, by the way, they invented computers some time ago.. you know, to help with the calculus and stuff in plotting orbits, accelerations, and so on?

He demanded to see such a thing in post 393, I gave him an image in post 398 and he didnt even acknowledge it.  That's his modus operandi so don't expect any response from him to your post.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 02, 2013, 12:44:48 PM

I am just interested in the kinetic energy B (J) Before braking and kinetic energy A (J)

Then your area of interest is wrong.  If you want to do energy balance, you need to consider the whole system, not just pick the parts you're interested in.

Quote
After braking of the space ship and the difference B - A, that is the energy used for braking.

No.  The energy goes into the exhaust along with the energy derived from the combustion.  It is that total energy you need to consider when doing energy balance.

I'll say it again more loudly.

YOUR EQUATIONS ARE WRONG!!

Quote
Evidently the space ship mass differs between before/after braking because fuel aboard with a mass is used to produce a brake force F (N)  that is applied to the space ship, while braking distance/displacement L (m). B-A = F*L .

You're applying the formula for work done in the wrong frame of reference.

Quote
The mass of exhaust, type of fuel, etc. have nothing to do with my basic energy calculations that only involves force and distance/displacement.

We know that.  It's why your calculations keep coming up with the wrong answer.

Quote
The momentum before braking is evidently much bigger than after braking because masses and velocities are reduced during braking due to a force F being applied when space ship displaces distance L.

You think sticking algebra in your qualitative sentences is supposed to make you look smart?  You're like a Star Trek writer sticking nonsense made up of buzzwords to make it look like the characters know what they're talking about.

Quote
No momentum is conserved as a force is applied to the space ship system - to brake.

Momentum is always conserved.  You're questioning Newton's Laws now?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 02, 2013, 12:50:00 PM
I am just interested in the kinetic energy B (J) Before braking and kinetic energy A (J) After braking of the space ship and the difference B - A, that is the energy used for braking.

But your problem is that the system you use to compute the conditions of A is not the same system you use to compute the conditions of B.  Because you compare two dissimilar systems, your energy values are not directly comparable.

Quote
The mass of exhaust, type of fuel, etc. have nothing to do with my basic energy calculations...

Yes they do.  Your problem is exactly that you don't know how to properly incorporate the mass and energy properties of the propellant in any of your computations.  The deficits you identify as evidence of fraud are the deficits arising in your computations from your inability to consider all the relevant factors.  You wrongly believe that your "basic" computations that omit these factors accurately describe the behavior of the mechanical world.  They do not, hence they are inappropriate yardsticks.

Quote
The momentum before braking is evidently much bigger than after braking because masses and velocities are reduced during braking due to a force F being applied when space ship displaces distance L. No momentum is conserved as a force is applied to the space ship system - to brake.

No, once again you omit relevant energies and momentums because you redefined your system between computations.  Your initial-condition system includes the propellant.  Your final-condition system excludes the propellant.  You wrongly believe you can do this because the propellant, in the form of exhaust products, has exited the vehicle.  You do not realize that "system" for the purposes of your computations must continue to include the propellant's properties (whether mass, energy, or momentum) in order for your computations to be consistent from initial to final state.

Your persistent failure to realize this illustrates just how little you know about rocket propulsion and about physics in general.

Quote
I have a feeling Willy had problems getting it right 1969 too.  :'( :'(

No.  You're the only one making errors here.  You have deftly attempted to blame NASA for your ignorance, but it is yours.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 02, 2013, 12:50:38 PM
But before I'll send you a cheque, you have to master the basic space ship 3-D driving course, e.g. how to accelerate and stop in space, how to change direction in space, how to get into the orbit of a planet/moon in space, etc, etc. all with a basic, space craft with big drive/brake engine at one end and small ones to rotate your craft in 3-D.

Are you seriously trying to say that you can't understand that firing a large rocket is going to change your speed, one way or another? And that you can utilise gravitational attraction to help you with course changes? And you call yourself an engineer? I have no engineering training, just some physics knowledge, and I can see immediately that that would work. And, by the way, they invented computers some time ago.. you know, to help with the calculus and stuff in plotting orbits, accelerations, and so on?

He demanded to see such a thing in post 393, I gave him an image in post 398 and he didnt even acknowledge it.  That's his modus operandi so don't expect any response from him to your post.

And he still has yet to acknowledge that he got the fuel wrong, the engine wrong, the propellant load wrong and other things wrong too.

He just keeps restating his original incorrect work, laden with algebraic terms and improper jargon to make it look like it's intelligent.  It actually looks like the homework of a 14 year old, a 14 year old well on his way to failing his Physics exam.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 02, 2013, 12:54:09 PM
Damn, Jay - post 516 might just be the finest thing I've ever read here.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 02, 2013, 12:55:44 PM
(http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb129/beautifulcaptive/thestupiditburns.jpg)

This has got to be the worst case of Dunning-Kruger I've seen.

It is explained in minute detail what he did wrong and he still thinks he's right.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 02, 2013, 12:56:07 PM
He demanded to see such a thing in post 393, I gave him an image in post 398 and he didnt even acknowledge it.  That's his modus operandi so don't expect any response from him to your post.

Indeed, other people are watching this thread and are well aware that the exact information has been supplied that Anders claims was unavailable or being hidden, and they are further well aware that the numbers are absolutely damning to Anders' claims.  He is clearly aware of and uninterested in the truth.

Instead his constant references to some alleged statement by one Apollo functionary, George Low (whom he continues impolitely to identify only by a nickname), as the sole source of information on Apollo dynamics leads me to conclude that he's really just interesting in slinging mud at his designated enemy, regardless of the facts.  He is only out to show how much more clever he is than those "fat lazy NASA PhDs" by whatever illusory means present themselves.  Anything that requires him to admit error violates his little ego-reinforcement construct.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 02, 2013, 12:58:34 PM
Heiwa

You are extremely aggressive and abusive towards NASA in particular and I am curious as to why.  Did NASA run over your dog or something?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 02, 2013, 01:13:09 PM
Hey, Heiwa, do rocket engines work in vacuum? :P
Rocket engines work in this case in space ships like Apollo 11. Try to be on topic and avoid stupid questions.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 02, 2013, 01:14:05 PM
Hey, Heiwa, do rocket engines work in vacuum? :P
Rocket engines work in this case in space ships like Apollo 11. Try to be on topic and avoid stupid questions.

What, like you avoid making stupid statements?  HA!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 02, 2013, 01:14:54 PM
But before I'll send you a cheque, you have to master the basic space ship 3-D driving course, e.g. how to accelerate and stop in space, how to change direction in space, how to get into the orbit of a planet/moon in space, etc, etc. all with a basic, space craft with big drive/brake engine at one end and small ones to rotate your craft in 3-D.

Are you seriously trying to say that you can't understand that firing a large rocket is going to change your speed, one way or another? And that you can utilise gravitational attraction to help you with course changes? And you call yourself an engineer? I have no engineering training, just some physics knowledge, and I can see immediately that that would work. And, by the way, they invented computers some time ago.. you know, to help with the calculus and stuff in plotting orbits, accelerations, and so on?
Thanks for your intelligent comment. What are you trying to say?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 02, 2013, 01:17:00 PM
You failed to account for this both in a momentum-conservation formation and in an energy-conservation formulation.  Not only did you fail to account for it, you admitted it was a significant factor that you intentionally omitted from your model.  The excuse you gave for the omission was the factually-incorrect accusation that NASA had failed to provide you with appropriate values.  ...

Why do you think that directly compares?
Thanks for your comment. Try to be on topic.  :) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'(
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 02, 2013, 01:17:13 PM
Try to be on topic and avoid stupid questions.

That would carry a whole lot more weight if any of us thought you'd recognise an intelligent question...

How about answering the ones we have already put to you:

Do you acknowledge that the fuel was Aerozine-50 and not pure hydrazine?

Do you acknowledge you have the LM fuel load wrong?

How did you calculate the mass of fuel from the volume in liters? We want the numbers and calculations you used to get your asnwer, because on your own webpage you said 'assumed' mass of...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 02, 2013, 01:17:56 PM
Damn, Jay - post 516 might just be the finest thing I've ever read here.

I will graciously accept your compliment, but instead suggest you praise yourself, Bob, Glom, and KA9Q for slogging through the meat and potatoes of the relevant computations.  Due to attention paid elsewhere, I'm sort of cruising across this thread at a higher altitude.  Others have borne the burden far better than I here.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 02, 2013, 01:18:25 PM
Hey, Heiwa, do rocket engines work in vacuum? :P
Rocket engines work in this case in space ships like Apollo 11. Try to be on topic and avoid stupid questions.

I've warned you about your pretending to be a moderator here, and about insulting the other members of the forum, and yet you keep on doing it.

I'm putting you onto the moderation list until I decide you've changed your ways.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 02, 2013, 01:18:31 PM
You failed to account for this both in a momentum-conservation formation and in an energy-conservation formulation.  Not only did you fail to account for it, you admitted it was a significant factor that you intentionally omitted from your model.  The excuse you gave for the omission was the factually-incorrect accusation that NASA had failed to provide you with appropriate values.  ...

Why do you think that directly compares?
Thanks for your comment. Try to be on topic.  :) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'(

It is on topic because he has proven you wrong.

I've said it before and I will say it again.... Pratt.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 02, 2013, 01:18:45 PM
Try to be on topic.

You have been told to stop trying to dictate what is and is not on topic. Since being outright abusive failed to get you the ban you so clearly wanted, you are now trying for ignoring moderator instructions, yes?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 02, 2013, 01:19:15 PM
Thanks for your intelligent commet. What are you trying to say?

He's summarizing what we've been saying for 30 pages:  You don't know what you're talking about, and you're not fooling anyone into thinking you do.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on January 02, 2013, 01:19:55 PM
If the system is losing energy, you don't require the propellant to provide any.
Indeed. I'm actually surprised he doesn't claim that the tanks should fill up during the lunar orbit insertion burn, since the spacecraft is losing kinetic energy.

That was me.  If Heiwanders ignores the total system and focuses only on the spacecraft, it has indeed LOST kinetic energy.  He tries to make up for this by arbitrarily changing the sign of the equation.  He lies to himself about his own equation.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 02, 2013, 01:20:46 PM
Thanks for your comment. Try to be on topic.

I am on topic.  Address my point or admit that you cannot.

Quote
:) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'(

This disrespectful nonsense is what's off-topic.  Fewer smilies and more correct math, please.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Mag40 on January 02, 2013, 01:21:01 PM
Hey, Heiwa, do rocket engines work in vacuum? :P
Rocket engines work in this case in space ships like Apollo 11. Try to be on topic and avoid stupid questions.

Well yes, they do work in space. Now all you have to do is to take your head out of 'that place'......and educate yourself as to how. With all the input you've received...an engineer would be able to do it.


I'll give you a million euros* if you answer this question:
Please account for the massive difference in work supposedly needed to stop walking down the aisle of a plane as opposed to stopping walking in the park.










* under the same conditions you currently employ for your payment.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 02, 2013, 01:29:27 PM
Pls send me an e-mail when you allow the discussion to proceed.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on January 02, 2013, 01:29:35 PM

I am just interested in the kinetic energy B (J) Before braking and kinetic energy A (J) After braking of the space ship and the difference B - A, that is the energy used for braking. Evidently the space ship mass differs between before/after braking because fuel aboard with a mass is used to produce a brake force F (N)  that is applied to the space ship, while braking distance/displacement L (m). B-A = F*L .

The mass of exhaust, type of fuel, etc. have nothing to do with my basic energy calculations that only involves force and distance/displacement.

The momentum before braking is evidently much bigger than after braking because masses and velocities are reduced during braking due to a force F being applied when space ship displaces distance L. No momentum is conserved as a force is applied to the space ship system - to brake.

I have a feeling Willy had problems getting it right 1969 too.  :'( :'(

The mass of the ship does.  The mass of the system doesn't.

Or don't you believe in conservation of mass, either?

So, actually, you are wrong there too.  Momentum is conserved. That's how rockets work!

Your own numbers are telling you this!  You must have noticed that every time you attempt the calculation your way, you get a negative number as a result.  Your own numbers are trying to tell you something.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 02, 2013, 01:30:18 PM
I've posted this before, I think:


(http://i1336.photobucket.com/albums/o657/Andromeda_Apollo/image_zpsd7d1c70a.jpg)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ipearse on January 02, 2013, 01:31:11 PM
Thanks for your intelligent commet. What are you trying to say?

He's summarizing what we've been saying for 30 pages:  You don't know what you're talking about, and you're not fooling anyone into thinking you do.

Thanks, Jay, you saved me the effort. I'm starting to find this whole thng somewhat tedious,  but the informed replies from you folks are worth the effort. The whole cosmos of rockety seems to have been encapsulated in this one thread.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 02, 2013, 01:32:05 PM
Pls send me an e-mail when you allow the discussion to proceed.

You miss the point (again). Whether or not discussion proceeds is entirely dependent on your behaviour. I will allow your posts if they are acceptable. The one you made previous to the one I'm quoting was not acceptable.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 02, 2013, 01:36:09 PM
Pls send me an e-mail when you allow the discussion to proceed.

That's up to you, isn't it?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 02, 2013, 01:39:49 PM
Here's a fun one:

I reckon that Sputnik 1 was fake. I reckon that there must have been some other secret payload along for the ride. Why? Because Sputnik was, supposedly, a tiny satellite with a mass of less than 90 kg. If you calculate the kinetic energy of such a satellite moving at 17,500 mph in orbit and you subtract the kinetic energy of the rocket on the launch pad, which is evidently zero because it's not moving, you find that the energy provided by the burning of the fuel load on the rocket was massively in excess of that needed to give that tiny satellite the kinetic energy it evidently had when in orbit. What else was that energy being used for?

;)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 02, 2013, 01:40:40 PM
Don't even joke about that.  Heiwa (and other HBs) clearly have no concept of satire!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 02, 2013, 01:41:28 PM
You failed to account for this both in a momentum-conservation formation and in an energy-conservation formulation.  Not only did you fail to account for it, you admitted it was a significant factor that you intentionally omitted from your model.  The excuse you gave for the omission was the factually-incorrect accusation that NASA had failed to provide you with appropriate values.  ...

Why do you think that directly compares?
Thanks for your comment. Try to be on topic. 

That "comment" ended with a question.  Why didn't you answer it?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 02, 2013, 01:42:16 PM
Pls send me an e-mail when you allow the discussion to proceed.

Dear lord, is there anything at any level this man can't fail to grasp, no matter how simple?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 02, 2013, 01:44:30 PM
That was me.  If Heiwanders ignores the total system and focuses only on the spacecraft, it has indeed LOST kinetic energy.  He tries to make up for this by arbitrarily changing the sign of the equation.  He lies to himself about his own equation.

This is more evidence of ham-fisted fumbling rather than knowledgeable study.  In orbital mechanics we commonly formulate specific energies such that they often come out negative, based on how we set up the frames of reference.  It's no big deal to have a negative number.  Because we know qualitatively how they relate to the geometry of the reference frame, we know algebraically what the numbers should look like, even if they happen to be negative.

People trying to fumble their way through a physics problem by "mathematizing" intuitively-derived concepts and properties often freak out when a number they associate with a real-world property comes out to be negative.  "How can I have negative energy?  I can't have negative energy; I must have done something wrong."  And so they arbitrarily change the arithmetic signs in their equation to make the values come out "right," showing that they really don't understand the formulation either way.

One of the things you learn very early as a professional engineer is to trust the numbers.  Which is to say, understand why the equations you use come up with the kinds of numbers they do.  That means understanding the finer nature of the relationship between measured values and their reference frames, but also "letting go" and trusting the abstract nature of some of what you do.

That leads to the second major point of his fumble-around method, which we've belabored.  The "system" as it applies to a momentum or energy computation -- anything where conservation is an expected property -- is an abstract concept.  Anders consistently fails to do the problem right because he has an intuitive, concrete idea of what his "system" is:  the physical, geometric boundaries of the spacecraft.  That prevents him from considering that the expended propellants, now many kilometers away from the spacecraft, are still part of the system he defined at the outset.

People who use these formulations correctly, and are facile with them as part of their jobs, have no problem with such abstract, counter-intuitive definition.  They have no problem considering the system as composed of the spacecraft dry mass separately from its propellant, and to properly account for them as coupled mass initially, but then physically distinct mass (or energy) later on.  (In the real world, propellant slosh within the spacecraft is actually part of the energy-balance.  That's how fine-grained some of these analyses can get.)

That's the facility that fakers and charlatans can't match.  Not only do they fail to achieve appropriate abstraction in their own work, they cannot recognize it when it is presented to them.  They are forever stuck in the layman's feeble practice of shoehorning their intuitive misconceptions into the formalisms.  Smart students realize that it doesn't fit, and gradually adjust their thinking to embrace the formalism and the abstraction it expresses.  Conspiracy theorists just blame someone else.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 02, 2013, 01:46:47 PM
Pls send me an e-mail when you allow the discussion to proceed.

The discussion is proceeding.  The only difference is that you will no longer be allowed to insult other members or try to control who can talk about what.  You are still responsible for answering the questions put to you.  You may still ask us questions, as long as they follow the forum rules.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 02, 2013, 01:48:25 PM
Dear lord, is there anything at any level this man can't fail to grasp, no matter how simple?

Well the jury is still out worldwide over whether he really is this obtuse or whether he's just trolling.  This type and degree of obfuscation is sadly typical of him either way.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 02, 2013, 01:49:12 PM
He's got to be trolling.  No-one can be that ridiculous.  Surely.

Please?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 02, 2013, 01:50:39 PM
If he's trolling then being under moderation will take the fun out of it and he'll just leave. If he's seriously interested in the discussion then the desire to be taken off moderation (which can add a significant delay if I'm not at my computer) will encourage him to behave.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 02, 2013, 01:56:27 PM
He's got to be trolling.  No-one can be that ridiculous.  Surely.

Please?

I don't think he's trolling.  He's put far too much effort in for that.  Just because he's completely incompetent at Physics and incapable of recognising it, it doesn't mean he isn't trying to prove something.  It's quite sad really.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on January 02, 2013, 01:56:51 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/YK4lU.png?1)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on January 02, 2013, 01:58:03 PM
I don't think he's trolling. 

I think he is, as he's deliberately ignoring corrections, evidence etc from every posting who ain't a hoaxer.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on January 02, 2013, 02:09:12 PM
I think he is, as he's deliberately ignoring corrections, evidence etc from every posting who ain't a hoaxer.

You're assuming he's rational. People do sometimes simply ignore information they don't like, preferring their delusions to reality. It's not a terribly common or desirable trait in engineers...

(Nor is the inability to think in terms of systems, accurately identify the parts of a task that are actually difficult, refusal to consider cross-checks using different mathematical approaches such as doing a problem both in terms of energy and momentum, preference of a demonstrated-inaccurate source of data, etc...)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on January 02, 2013, 02:37:55 PM
In order to win you have to understand basic space travel physics....

Since you believe everyone here is not qualified to make valid criticisms of your work, please provide us with a short list of qualified engineers or physicist that agree with your method of making calculations.  A simple and polite response is likely to get posted through the moderation. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on January 02, 2013, 03:07:25 PM
Hello, Heiwa.  I have just caught up on reading this thread, but I am afraid I see several major problems with your claims:

1. Your fundamental premise is that you will give a million Euros to anyone who can show Apollo could go to the Moon.  This means you are essentially soliciting a contract (money for (intellectual) work), but there is no evidence whatsoever that you intend to fulfill the terms of the contract.  First, no one - myself included - believes that you have a million Euros to offer to anybody.  You said you "evidently" do, but that would require evidence, and you have offered none.  Second, the terms are vague and the adjudication fatally flawed - your opinion only.  Technically speaking, I believe this constitutes a fraudulent offer, but since no competent person takes your offer seriously, I do not believe you are in any particular danger of prosecution (although I am not a lawyer).

2. One of your main claims - that the Apollo spacecraft could not carry enough fuel to, say, enter lunar orbit - is based on a complete misunderstanding of how such quantities are calculated.  Your attempt at an energy balance is fundamentally broken because you simply neglect a major component of the system in its final configuration - the expelled reaction mass.  I am only the latest in a series of actual practicing engineers to point out this very basic error to you.  You cannot draw a control boundary around a system and ignore mass and heat flow across that boundary.  It's that simple.  Why you would do so deliberately, and continue to do so after having this egregious error pointed out to you, is baffling, especially from someone who claims to be an engineer.

3. Many of the claims and questions you have put forth in this thread indicate wide-ranging ignorance of the principles of space flight in general and the Apollo record in particular, unhappily coupled to an apparent inability to find even the simplest facts about the subject in question.

 For example, you talk about using the "Sun gravity" as a tool to maneuver spacecraft to various planetary bodies, which is patent nonsense, while ignoring actual gravity assist maneuvers such as that used to rescue AsiaSat-3.  You claimed that the CM's thermal protection system was "secret", that the Shuttle had "no heat shield", and that it re-entered "backward" - all egregiously silly claims which no one who knew anything about spaceflight would make, and any of which could have been remedied by a half-minute of searching.  For example,
I have asked NASA how the Apollo 1969 heat shield was designed, what material it used, how it was tested, lab reports, etc. SECRET!
The very first result returned by Google is NASA TN-D-7564, Apollo Experience Report - Thermal Protection Subsystem, which dutifully reports,
Quote
The ablative material selected for the TPS is designated Avco 5026-39G and consists of an epoxy-novalac resin reinforced with quartz fibers and phenolic microballoons.  The density of this material is 31 lb/ft3...
That is only one of dozens of references into the development, design, and testing of the Apollo TPS freely available online - and that is before looking up physical copies or buying publicly-available papers from AIAA and the like. 

To put it bluntly, you have no idea what you're talking about.  Sorry, but there is no way to put it gently. 

Such egregious examples, I am afraid, call into question your seriousness in creating your Web "challenge" and participating in this thread.  I am not a "NASA PhD", but I am a practicing space systems engineer with over two decades in this line of work, and I will be happy to assist you in learning about space flight as best I can - but can only do so if you actually want to learn something.  Do you?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on January 02, 2013, 03:32:16 PM
Hey, Heiwa, do rocket engines work in vacuum? :P
Rocket engines work in this case in space ships like Apollo 11. Try to be on topic and avoid stupid questions.

"like Apollo 11"?

Why add an unnecessary phrase like that unless you have some reservations about some other rockets? I smell some weaseling coming on.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 02, 2013, 04:18:21 PM
Heiwa

You are extremely aggressive and abusive towards NASA in particular and I am curious as to why.  Did NASA run over your dog or something?
My personal theory is that they dropped a house on his mother.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 02, 2013, 04:34:34 PM
I'm watching this thread with interest. The maths and knowledge is way over my head, but the sight of the professionals dealing with errors in Heiwa's "calculations" is a testament to how engineering and science gets things done.

My personal theory is that they dropped a house on his mother.

You footnote is as good a way to wrap up the seemingly massive blindspot in Heiwa's vision...you know the one that allows him to see parts of some of the replies but not the ones that clearly demonstrate the errors in his workings-out....

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" - Charles Darwin

Personally, I am now calculating how long it will be until Heiwa implodes and stomps off in a massive flounce,
(http://whatnot2crochet.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/golden_flounce.jpg)

or, alternatively, until the banning hammer is wielded by Lunar Orbit.
(http://gibthis.com/imagehosting/24a52aa841c738.jpg)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 02, 2013, 04:52:34 PM
Okay, here you go. Remember, this is for a stoichiometric mixture of Aerozine 50 with N2O4, so my numbers will be higher than yours.

Assuming the reaction products are gaseous N2, liquid H2O and gaseous CO2 at STP, 1 kg of Aerozine 50 requires 2.249 kg of N2O4, for a sum of 3.249 kg of propellants, and the enthalpy change is 8.124 MJ/kg. This looks quite reasonable, don't you think?

That's definitely higher than I'm getting with my method.  As I wrote before, I got about 5.16 MJ/kg using the following:

Propellant mixture ratio:  1.6
Temperature of reactants:  298 K
Combustion chamber pressure:  6.8 atm (100 psi)
Combustion chamber temperature:  3,056 K
Nozzle expansion ratio:  62.5
Nozzle exit pressure:  0.00703 atm
Nozzle exit temperature:  925 K
Enthalpy of reactants:  0.33026 MJ/kg
Enthalpy of products at exit:  -4.8299 MJ/kg
Change in enthalpy:  5.1602 MJ/kg

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 02, 2013, 05:34:28 PM
That's definitely higher than I'm getting with my method.  As I wrote before, I got about 5.16 MJ/kg...

I think he's trying to set an upper bound, in order to forestall weaseling over parameters.  "Cannot possibly exceed X" is valuable for recalcitrant posters who insist a value must "somehow" be higher.  You're approaching more real-world conditions.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on January 02, 2013, 07:21:14 PM
Just curious, did any of us here actually say we _wanted_ the alleged million??
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 02, 2013, 07:22:25 PM
I think he's trying to set an upper bound, in order to forestall weaseling over parameters.  "Cannot possibly exceed X" is valuable for recalcitrant posters who insist a value must "somehow" be higher.

That certainly makes sense.  When I apply the same method that I think ka9q is using, I get 7.90 MJ/kg with liquid H2O and 7.03 MJ/kg with gaseous H2O.  My 7.90 is pretty close to his 8.12, but I'm not sure why we should differ that much, unless our sources for heat of formation are that far apart.  I've found that it's not uncommon for different sources to publish different values.  I'm using http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/.  Here's how I got my number:

Heat of Formation of Reactants
N2O4         2.9375 mol x  -19.56 kJ/mol =  -57.46 kJ
C2H8N2            1 mol x   50.63 kJ/mol =   50.63 kJ
N2H4          1.875 mol x   48.3  kJ/mol =   90.56 kJ
Total                                        83.74 kJ

Heat of Formation of Products
CO2               2 mol x -393.52 kJ/mol =  -787.04 kJ
H2O (liq)      7.75 mol x -285.83 kJ/mol = -2215.18 kJ
N2           5.8125 mol x    0.00 kJ/mol =     0.00 kJ
Total                                      -3002.22 kJ

Mass of Products
CO2               2 mol x   44.010 g/mol =    88.02 g
H2O (liq)      7.75 mol x   18.016 g/mol =   139.62 g
N2           5.8125 mol x   28.013 g/mol =   162.83 g
Total                                        390.47 g

Thus, the change in specific enthalpy is

delta-h = (83.74 - (-3002.22)) / 390.47 = 7.903 kJ/g (or MJ/kg)

For gaseous H2O, substitute -241.83 kJ/mol.

Ka9q, how does the above compare with your calculations?  Where are we different?

Quote
You're approaching more re-world conditions.

Well, I'm certainly trying.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 02, 2013, 07:23:11 PM
Just curious, did any of us here actually say we _wanted_ the alleged million??

Not that I recall.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on January 02, 2013, 07:49:26 PM
Just curious, did any of us here actually say we _wanted_ the alleged million??
I took Daggerstab's question as being tongue in cheek, as apparently did the other regulars here.  No one besides Heiwa seems to believe the money is really there to be won.  But he isn't very strong on empirical verification of his claims. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 02, 2013, 09:33:40 PM
My personal theory is that they dropped a house on his mother.
That is one of the funniest comebacks I have ever read. Is it original with you? I want to give proper credit.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 02, 2013, 09:55:51 PM
N2O4         2.9375 mol x  -19.56 kJ/mol =  -57.46 kJ
I used +9.16 kJ/mol, which I got from the Wikipedia page. Whether it's liquid or vapor is not specified, but the temperature is given as 298K. That's just above its nominal boiling point at standard pressure, so I assume it's for the gas, not the liquid, and that could account for the difference. I also wonder how  meaningful it is since N2O4 has a habit of largely dissociating into NO2 at these temperatures so the actual enthalpy of the real material would be different.

I did my calculations with a spreadsheet so it's easy to change parameters and recalculate. Lessee... sure enough, when I plug in -19.56 MJ/kg for the enthalpy of formation of N2O4 I get 7.9 MJ/kg just as you did. That gives me good confidence that we both did it right.

Your number is the right one because the propellants do start as liquids. I should also have used the enthalpy for water as a gas, but I used the value for water as a liquid because that gave a greater result and I was trying, as Jay said, to establish a theoretical upper bound that cannot be exceeded. It also produces an interesting result for the efficiency of the engine at turning chemical energy into kinetic energy. Rocket engines aren't as bad as we think. It's the requirement to carry reaction mass that's the real bitch in space travel.


Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 02, 2013, 10:23:14 PM
I used +9.16 kJ/mol, which I got from the Wikipedia page. Whether it's liquid or vapor is not specified, but the temperature is given as 298K. That's just above its nominal boiling point at standard pressure, so I assume it's for the gas, not the liquid, and that could account for the difference.

Yep, it looks like you were using the gas phase heat of formation.  According to my source (http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?Formula=n2o4&NoIon=on&Units=SI&cTG=on&cTC=on), the heat of formation of N2O4 is Hof (gas) = 9.08 kJ/mol and Hof (liquid) = -19.56 kJ/mol.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 02, 2013, 10:52:43 PM
So we're consistent, then.

Actually, if you really want to get precise, another variable just occurred to me. The oxidizer probably wasn't pure N2O4 but rather MON - Mixed Oxides of Nitrogen, which is mostly N2O4 with dissolved NO, a gas with an enthalpy of formation of +90.29 kJ/mol. According to the Wikipedia page, NASA generally uses 3% NO. The primary reason is to reduce corrosion; there's an Apollo report about stress corrosion cracking of titanium that was solved by adding 0.78% NO. I seem to remember reading that the corrosion problems occurred only with some lots of N2O4 and not others, and the purer grades caused more problems. An analysis showed NO as an impurity in the lots that corroded less, so the discovery was serendipitous.

It also reduces oxidizer activity so I presume they use as little as possible.

And of course the N2O4 has substantial amounts of NO2. Its standard enthalpy of formation is +34 kJ/mol at 298 K (presumably also a gas).


Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 02, 2013, 11:03:40 PM
Just curious, did any of us here actually say we _wanted_ the alleged million??

Not that I recall.


Since no one yet has said they believe it exists, wanting it or not is a bit irrelevant.  I mean, I'd love to get a million Euros from someone, but I no more believe that Heiwa has it to give than that my cat does.  My cat also appears to have a better understanding of orbital mechanics.

And Noldi, you win the coveted "I Made Graham Laugh" award!  He knows a bit of the context, because I've been attempting to amuse him with highlights (or possibly lowlights) from this thread the whole time, but I'm not sure he cared.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 02, 2013, 11:26:53 PM
Just curious, did any of us here actually say we _wanted_ the alleged million??

Oh, if someone seriously offered me 1 million Euro I would gladly take it. But I put Heiwa's "contest" in the same category as those "Nigerian prince" scams.

First of all, if it sounds too good to be true it probably is. Secondly, I've been reading posts by people like Jay, Bob, ka9q, sts60, etc. for long enough to recognize the real experts. Heiwa is trying to bluff his way through a discussion with people who know a lot more than he does, and it's obvious to everyone but him.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 03, 2013, 12:03:25 AM
Actually, if you really want to get precise, another variable just occurred to me. The oxidizer probably wasn't pure N2O4 but rather MON - Mixed Oxides of Nitrogen, which is mostly N2O4 with dissolved NO, a gas with an enthalpy of formation of +90.29 kJ/mol. According to the Wikipedia page, NASA generally uses 3% NO.

That's something I've wondered about for quite some time.  I've never been able to find a source that confirms whether or not MON was used and, if so, what percentage NO.  All the sources I've seen simply say nitrogen tetroxide, but I've suspected it might have really been some form of MON.

Quote
The primary reason is to reduce corrosion

I've never heard that before.  The reason for using MON that I've heard is to reduce the freezing point.  Pure N2O4 has a freezing point of just -9.3 C, which isn't very good in applications where cold temperatures are expected.  The more NO added, the lower the freezing point of the mixture.  MON-3 has a freezing point of -15 C, while MON-25 reduces the freezing point all the way down to -55 C.

One of the main reasons for the development and use of IRFNA is because it has a much better freezing point than N2O4.  IRFNA is/was often used in tactical missiles because of the possibility those missiles might have to be deployed on a freezing battlefield.  Examples are the American Lance and the Soviet Scud.  I don't remember the freezing point of IRFNA, but pure nitric acid is -41.6 C.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 03, 2013, 12:39:19 AM
For those who aren't chemists, some notes on the discussion Bob and I have been having that might make it a little more understandable.

The enthalpy of formation of a substance (formerly known as the heat of formation, but I guess that was too obvious to mere mortals) is the energy it takes to form the substance from its elements under standard pressure and temperature. By definition, the elements in their standard, stable states (e.g., N2, not N) all have zero enthalpies of formation.

If a substance has a positive enthalpy of formation, that means it takes energy to make out of its elements and it is quite likely unstable -- it wants to fall back apart into those elements (or to other less energetic materials). An example is hydrazine, N2H4, with an enthalpy of formation of +50.63 kJ/mol. (A "mol" is a specific number of molecules, currently defined as 6.02214179 x 1023, otherwise known as Avogadro's Number.)

A substance with a negative enthalpy of formation, on the other hand, is more stable. It's hard to tear apart. Common examples are water (-285.8 kJ/mol as a gas) and carbon dioxide (-393.5 kJ/mol). If there are other substances with the same elements having even more negative enthalpies of formation it could still spontaneously decompose to form them.  An example is hydrogen peroxide (-187.8 kJ/mol), which spontaneously decomposes into water and oxygen. But there are no other compounds of hydrogen and oxygen or carbon and oxygen with more negative enthalpies of formation than water or carbon dioxide respectively, so those two substances are very stable by themselves.

Because hydrazine has a positive enthalpy of formation, the nitrogen and hydrogen in it would be much happier in their elemental forms, and in fact it can be decomposed with a catalyst as in most monopropellant rocket engines. Because other compounds of nitrogen and hydrogen have negative enthalpies of formation, most notably ammonia (-46 kJ/mol), decomposing hydrazine generally produces a lot of ammonia and nitrogen as opposed to just hydrogen and nitrogen.

To find the energy available from a chemical reaction you just add up the enthalpies of formation for the reactants and subtract the enthalpies of formation for the reaction products. If the result is positive, the reaction is exothermic and will tend to go by itself (and produce a lot of heat). If the result is negative, the reaction is endothermic and requires an external source of energy. Needless to say, the reaction of rocket propellants is highly exothermic, producing lots of energy per mol (and per unit mass).
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on January 03, 2013, 12:57:38 AM
ka9q wins the Educator of the Thread prize ("threaducator"?).  Very lucid explanation.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 03, 2013, 01:02:21 AM

Quote
The primary reason is to reduce corrosion

I've never heard that before.  The reason for using MON that I've heard is to reduce the freezing point.
Thanks, I had forgotten that. So there are two good reasons to use MON as an oxidizer.

Freezing point depression is also a reason to use Aerozine-50 vs straight hydrazine. Straight hydrazine freezes at +2C (even worse than N2O4 at -11.2C) while UDMH freezes at -57C. (I don't know offhand if they form a eutectic that freezes at a temperature below either pure compound.)

Straight hydrazine also cannot be used in regeneratively cooled rocket engines (i.e, most bipropellant engines) because it would decompose.

UDMH cannot be used in monopropellant rockets, so I guess the high freezing point of straight hydrazine is one reason to switch to a more complicated bipropellant engine. On the other hand, some spacecraft with large bipropellant engines use hydrazine-fueled monopropellant thrusters for attitude control so at least one set of tanks still has to be kept warm.

So why not just use straight UDMH in bipropellant engines? Some rockets do (or did), notably the original Ariane 1 design. Its second launch failed due to a combustion instability, an event I remember very well because my group had a payload on it. One of the design modifications was to switch to UH-25, 75% UDMH + 25% hydrazine. I'm not sure why it helped.

Another reason to add hydrazine to UDMH is to increase its average density. Hydrazine is 1.021 g/cc while UDMH is only 0.79 g/cc.
 

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 03, 2013, 01:13:35 AM
Very lucid explanation.
Thank you. One group I really wish could understand this enthalpy stuff are the cranks who think they can make hydrogen from water for free. Many say they just need the right catalyst and the water molecule will just fall apart. They just don't understand that to catalyze a reaction, it must already be thermodynamically favorable; the catalyst just helps get it going.

I know that water will spontaneously decompose if it's hot enough, and that's the basis of several hydrogen production schemes based on solar and nuclear heat. I don't know the details of the thermodynamics, and the processes aren't as simple as merely heating water, but I'm guessing that water's enthalpy of formation under those conditions actually goes positive, meaning it's more stable as hydrogen and oxygen. Anybody know?


Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 03, 2013, 01:31:00 AM

2. One of your main claims - that the Apollo spacecraft could not carry enough fuel to, say, enter lunar orbit - is based on a complete misunderstanding of how such quantities are calculated.  Your attempt at an energy balance is fundamentally broken because you simply neglect a major component of the system in its final configuration - the expelled reaction mass. ...

I am a practicing space systems engineer with over two decades in this line of work, and I will be happy to assist you in learning about space flight as best I can - but can only do so if you actually want to learn something.  Do you?

My calculations are very simple - kinetic energy B of space craft Before and kinetic energy A of space craft After maneuver. It is a function of the variable Force applied to the space craft during distance travelled time used. The expelled reaction mass is also given, probably the difference in space craft mass Before/After maneuver.
As shown in my presentation they are not consistent at the various complicated maneuvers carried out, e.g. braking while changing direction while losing mass in a 3-D space with the pilots looking backwards doing something - steering (?) the space ship using the available systems. It seems nobody, incl. Willy at NASA, can explain what systems - manual and or automatic - were used to carry out maneuvers when 5-10 tons of fuel were used, etc, etc, and therefore I conclude that the whole trip was a hoax (purpose of the forum).
The final maneuver - the 6300 km/1080 seconds re-entry starting at 11 200 m/s velocity flying backwards up/down in Earth's atmosphere with a 5.5 ton capsule and then dropping down just in front of president Nixon - is so unlikely that I wonder how Willy could believe it or make it up. So it was a hoax IMO.  ;D
So your clarifications are welcome so we can learn a little.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 03, 2013, 01:34:00 AM
And we tend to look toward LOX/LH2 as the "1.0" against which most other processes are normalized.
There are even better chemical propellants, but none have proved practical. They're either incredibly unstable or reactive (e.g., hypergolic with air), corrosive, produce incredibly toxic combustion products, gum up the works, or all of the above.

Although hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide are incredibly toxic, at least their combustion products aren't so bad. Unlike, say, a rocket burning hydrogen + FLOX (liquid fluorine and oxygen), which would trail a plume of hydrofluoric acid on its way to space.

Another fuel occurred to me that might perform well if not for its nasty properties: acetylene. It has a positive enthalpy of formation, but will explode under even modest pressure. No problem for oxyacetylene torches where the acetylene is stored dissolved in acetone, but the weight of a solvent is not acceptable in a rocket. Then again, acetone is itself pretty flammable. Hmmm.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on January 03, 2013, 03:02:27 AM

My calculations are very simple - kinetic energy B of space craft Before and kinetic energy A of space craft After maneuver. It is a function of the variable Force applied to the space craft during distance travelled time used. The expelled reaction mass is also given, probably the difference in space craft mass Before/After maneuver.
As shown in my presentation they are not consistent at the various complicated maneuvers carried out, e.g. braking while changing direction while losing mass in a 3-D space with the pilots looking backwards doing something - steering (?) the space ship using the available systems. It seems nobody, incl. Willy at NASA, can explain what systems - manual and or automatic - were used to carry out maneuvers when 5-10 tons of fuel were used, etc, etc, and therefore I conclude that the whole trip was a hoax (purpose of the forum).
The final maneuver - the 6300 km/1080 seconds re-entry starting at 11 200 m/s velocity flying backwards up/down in Earth's atmosphere with a 5.5 ton capsule and then dropping down just in front of president Nixon - is so unlikely that I wonder how Willy could believe it or make it up. So it was a hoax IMO.  ;D
So your clarifications are welcome so we can learn a little.

This is goobledegook.

I'm not one of the rocket scientists here -- that is, one of several people we have here who have performed actual engineering on satellites some of which are currently in operation.  But I am not flirting with Dunning-Kruger myself to say that I comfortably understand enough to see that what you said above is not physics, but word salad.

"Braking while changing direction?"  Only someone who was rooted in a pre-Newtonian, friction-dominated world could possibly describe anything in that way.  Braking IS changing direction.  Changing direction IS braking.  And neither is a very good way of putting it.  Spacecraft don't bank like airplanes.  They don't have rudders or keels.  They move, always, along a vector.

Pick your coordinate system.  Doesn't matter which.  Whatever it is, you can define a spacecraft's current motion in it, its future motion in it, and the difference between those two is arithmetic.  The orientation, the sign, of that change means damn-all, and the orientation -- the ATTITUDE -- of the spacecraft means less than that.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on January 03, 2013, 03:13:10 AM

2. One of your main claims - that the Apollo spacecraft could not carry enough fuel to, say, enter lunar orbit - is based on a complete misunderstanding of how such quantities are calculated.  Your attempt at an energy balance is fundamentally broken because you simply neglect a major component of the system in its final configuration - the expelled reaction mass. ...

I am a practicing space systems engineer with over two decades in this line of work, and I will be happy to assist you in learning about space flight as best I can - but can only do so if you actually want to learn something.  Do you?

My calculations are very simple - kinetic energy B of space craft Before and kinetic energy A of space craft After maneuver. It is a function of the variable Force applied to the space craft during distance travelled time used. The expelled reaction mass is also given, probably the difference in space craft mass Before/After maneuver.
It was repeatedly pointed out to you that your "simple" is wrong: for this comparison to work, you need to include the kinetic energy of the spent propellant.

As shown in my presentation they are not consistent at the various complicated maneuvers carried out, e.g. braking while changing direction while losing mass in a 3-D space with the pilots looking backwards doing something - steering (?) the space ship using the available systems. It seems nobody, incl. Willy at NASA, can explain what systems - manual and or automatic - were used to carry out maneuvers when 5-10 tons of fuel were used, etc, etc, and therefore I conclude that the whole trip was a hoax (purpose of the forum).
No, the only thing your presentation shows is that you don't know anything about spaceflight and orbital mechanics. Your newfound incredulity of "steering" also shows that you are ignorant of spacecraft guidance and unwilling to do any research until it's spoon-fed to you. Seriously, you can look up the answer on Wikipedia. (All the others, please don't give him any tips - let him flounder. :D )

Oh, and "ApolloHoax" is the title of the board, not its purpose. Apparently you have difficulties gasping such a difference.

The final maneuver - the 6300 km/1080 seconds re-entry starting at 11 200 m/s velocity flying backwards up/down in Earth's atmosphere with a 5.5 ton capsule and then dropping down just in front of president Nixon - is so unlikely that I wonder how Willy could believe it or make it up. So it was a hoax IMO.  ;D
So your clarifications are welcome so we can learn a little.
So, you don't believe that anything can be returned from orbit? This is not a rhetorical question, so please answer it.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on January 03, 2013, 03:17:12 AM
Yeah, so....detente was a myth?  The Cuban Missile Crisis, the Missile Gap, all of that?  Because it is hard to see how an ICBM would be much of a threat if heat shields and terminal guidance were impossible fictions...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 03, 2013, 03:19:04 AM
My calculations are very simple - kinetic energy B of space craft Before and kinetic energy A of space craft After maneuver.

And how many more times do you have to be told they are WRONG?

You cannot start with the energy of the spacecraft and fuel and end with the energy of the spacecraft. You MUST account for the mass of the fuel in your calculation and you do not. Ever. You can keep saying the same thing over and over and over again but you'll still be wrong.

Quote
The expelled reaction mass is also given,

Incorporating phrases you've never used before only after they've been used by those attempting to show you where you have made your errors without acknowledging it as a correction is hardly the act of an honest man who wants to be shown where he has made mistakes.

Quote
probably the difference in space craft mass Before/After maneuver.

'Probably'? I thought you were an expert...

Quote
braking while changing direction while losing mass in a 3-D space with the pilots looking backwards doing something - steering (?) the space ship using the available systems.

You think the astronauts looking backwards makes a jot of difference? Steering a spacecraft in space is not like sterring a car where you watch where you're going and adjust your heading according to what you can see out of the window. If you apply a force to the spacecraft it will change direction in accordance with normal laws of physics. You don't have to do anything except fire the engine and wait.

Quote
It seems nobody, incl. Willy at NASA, can explain what systems - manual and or automatic - were used to carry out maneuvers when 5-10 tons of fuel were used, etc, etc,

No, let's get this straight. The explanations ARE out there. They ARE published. They ARE very very detailed as to what systems were used. I have a number of books on my shelf including the information you say is not available. Your research skills are absurdly poor.

Quote
and therefore I conclude that the whole trip was a hoax

If you could demonstrate that your conclusion was based on any actual knowledge and understanding that would carry some weight. You can't. Your jargon salad explanations are pure crap. Still, I'm sure you feel better in your little delusional world where you and only you have the insight and knowledge to see what literally thousands of others with more knowledge and experience cannot. Must be fun living in your world.

Quote
The final maneuver - the 6300 km/1080 seconds re-entry starting at 11 200 m/s velocity flying backwards up/down in Earth's atmosphere with a 5.5 ton capsule and then dropping down just in front of president Nixon - is so unlikely

Ah, you don't understand it therefore it was impossible? Argument from incredulity. So atmospheric re-entry, that thing we've been doing for decades, is actually impossible? So all space flight that involves anything coming back to Earth is impossible?

Quote
So your clarifications are welcome so we can learn a little.

What absolute rot. You are not welcoming any clarifications. No matter what anyone here has said, no matter what numbers and calculations and sources you have been shown, you just repeat your same old tired and incorrect assertions as if they will suddenly be more true the more you say them. Sorry, reality fortunately doesn't give a damn about your inability to learn physics, or to comprehend that you even NEED to learn more physics to understand those systems you are presuming to dismiss as fake.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 03, 2013, 03:22:35 AM
Heiwa:

Do you agree that you have the fuel wrong (Aerozine-50, not hydrazine as you said)? Do you acknowledge that you have the LM fuel loading wrong? Do you care in fact to address any of the questions without just repeating your incorrect assertions about kinetic energy?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on January 03, 2013, 03:53:54 AM
For all the response we're getting, Heiwa could have been replaced by a bot ten pages ago.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on January 03, 2013, 04:04:44 AM
He has modified his page again. Nothing major. Seems to be solidifying his incredulity about the "steering" during the braking maneuver. (Why only then?)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Philthy on January 03, 2013, 04:05:10 AM
Just to butt in here.......

Heiwa, are you under the delusion that the rocket fired all the way to the moon?

Phil
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 03, 2013, 04:09:48 AM
That seems to be about the only delusion he is not labouring under at the moment.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 03, 2013, 04:20:08 AM
Heiwa:
I'm trying to find some background on your organisation in order to see the likelihood of there actually been a load of money available.

Heiwa Corporation is listed as a Japanese company. Can you please clarify to status of Heiwa Co?

The registered address is listed as a residential address in Beausoleil, which also appears to be your private residential address. Can you please clarify if you have commercial offices?

I am trying to find information on the "European Agency for Safety at Sea". Your website is hosted at Tripod.com which doesn't appear to be the best host for a serious concern?

Searching the EU website (http://europa.eu/geninfo/query/resultaction.jsp?userinput=%22European%20Agency%20for%20Safety%20at%20Sea%22%22European%20Agency%20for%20Safety%20at%20Sea%22) for the "European Agency for Safety at Sea" doesn't draw any obvious results. Nor can I find any listing on the European Maritime Safety (http://www.emsa.europa.eu/) website.

Your use  of the European union symbol and the use of "European Agency" on your Tripod.com would appear to imply some authority and linkup with the EU. Can you please clarify your authority to use the EU symbol?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 03, 2013, 04:30:57 AM
While we're at it, perhaps Heiwa can provide some testimonials of people or companies he has served as consultant for. His website appears to be no more than a load of pages about how every major accident has been some sort of fraud and could not have happened the way it was described, with a picture of a person I assume to be Heiwa mimicking the pose of Moses in front of a depiction of Moses being given the ten commandments by God! It is certainly not the kind of website I would want to see if I was searching for a genuine safety consultant.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 03, 2013, 04:48:51 AM
His website appears to be no more than a load of pages about how every major accident has been some sort of fraud and could not have happened the way it was described, with a picture of a person I assume to be Heiwa mimicking the pose of Moses in front of a depiction of Moses being given the ten commandments by God!
It's starting to sound like he is no more competent at marine engineering than he is at spacecraft engineering.

I am by no means a marine safety consultant (or a marine engineer) but I have read a few reports of shipping accidents. My interest was originally sparked by a container ship running aground not far from here some years ago. But my favorite so far is the container ship that ran aground on Australia's Great Barrier Reef because -- get this -- the bridge officer on duty was talking on his cell phone! If you tried to make this stuff up, no one would believe you.

I notice a common thread in many transportation accidents of almost every kind - spacecraft, shipping, pipeline, railroad, aviation, etc: The failure mechanism didn't occur to anyone ahead of time, but it became very obvious to everyone afterwards. (I leave cars and trucks off the list. Road accidents are extremely common because their main causes, despite being well known, are rarely fixed. Causes of accidents in those other forms of transportation generally do get fixed.)

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 03, 2013, 04:49:08 AM
My personal theory is that they dropped a house on his mother.
That is one of the funniest comebacks I have ever read. Is it original with you? I want to give proper credit.
Hmmm... I think that specific phrasing is; it just seemed to fit. Wizard of Oz reference, o' course.

I've just thrown away an hour or two browsing this guy's website. Along with the most severe case of Dunning-Kruger since Ralph Rene, he seems to be locked into whatever the opposite of Argument From Authority is. He purports to doubt - and in his own mind, disprove - any item endorsed by qualified experts.

"Critical mass", for example, is a fallacy:

Only fools like Mr. R Oppenheimer and badly informed people like most politicians believe that uranium-235 metal in mechanical contact with uranium-235 metal in the shape of target rings or projectile rings ... or any metal in mechancial contact with itself - will produce ... an atomic explosion: that 4x1026 or 6x1024 metal U-235 nuclei in some uranium-235 (U-235) target rings or projectile rings fission exponentially in nanoseconds into fragments and release energy is just fantasy, I am happy to inform! It was a fizzle.

It is physically impossible for a tower (WTC) to collapse from the top down regardless of damage.

"In order to fool the public the US terrorists asked Hollywood to produce a movie showing the WTC towers being stricken by planes and collapsing (sic) from top down, etc, that the terrorists then broadcasted 'live on TV' assisted by US media, when the WTC- complex was destroyed from bottom up. As the rubble would reveal how the towers really were destroyed (from bottom up) the area was fenced off and false pictures also of the rubble were published."

He doesn't mention all the people in NYC who actually witnessed the event. He does have a tendency to ignore inconvenient facts.

He disbelieves the official reports on pretty much every  maritime disaster, all the way back to " RMS Titanic (or was it the already damaged RMS Olympic as part of an insurance fraud?)

There was also an item which may explain some of his animosity for the US, at least; evidently he holds part of a patent on a "safer" design for supertankers called the Coulombi Egg. The design has been approved by the International Maritime Organization, but the USCG has prohibited any ships with this design from entering any US ports, whixch essentially means that no shipping company is going to buy one.

And to any who object to this as off-topic, I would respond: "Goes to the credibility of the witness, Your Honor."








Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 03, 2013, 04:52:52 AM
ka9q wins the Educator of the Thread prize ("threaducator"?).  Very lucid explanation.
And he's in good company - this has been an extraordinarily educational thread for up non-engineer types.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 03, 2013, 04:58:58 AM

Only fools like Mr. R Oppenheimer and badly informed people like most politicians believe that uranium-235 metal in mechanical contact with uranium-235 metal in the shape of target rings or projectile rings ... or any metal in mechancial contact with itself - will produce ... an atomic explosion: that 4x1026 or 6x1024 metal U-235 nuclei in some uranium-235 (U-235) target rings or projectile rings fission exponentially in nanoseconds into fragments and release energy is just fantasy, I am happy to inform! It was a fizzle.

I'd like to see the qualifications of anyone that questions the intellect of Oppie. He was a lot of things, but a "fool" and "badly informed" [about nuclear physics] could never be applied to him.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 03, 2013, 04:59:06 AM
Yeah, so....detente was a myth?  The Cuban Missile Crisis, the Missile Gap, all of that?  Because it is hard to see how an ICBM would be much of a threat if heat shields and terminal guidance were impossible fictions...
See my post above - there's no such thing as a fission or fission/fusion explosion, so all that stuff was a giant hoax.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 03, 2013, 05:00:54 AM
I'm having a quick browse online.

Heiwa believes that you "publish" scientific research merely by putting it on your own website.  Dunning-Kruger indeed.

His abuse of the Unuversity of Strathclyde is appalling.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 03, 2013, 05:03:16 AM
This bit from his site about nuclear weapons is particularly hilarious:
Quote
Uranium-235 (U-235) is a metal like iron that can be shaped into target rings and projectile rings. Imagine drilling a dia 1" hole in a target ring. Aren't you worried it will EXPLODE?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 03, 2013, 05:09:56 AM
See my post above - there's no such thing as a fission or fission/fusion explosion, so all that stuff was a giant hoax.
I'm speechless.

I guess there were no victims or survivors of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

I guess there were no victims of the many criticality accidents in the USA, Russia, Japan, etc, like Harry Daghlian and Louis Slotin.

I guess nuclear power has never produced electricity or driven a ship or submarine.

I guess there never were 1500+ test nuclear explosions around the world.

I guess the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents never happened. All those short-lived radioactive substances in the environment that could only be produced as fission products? Never existed.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 03, 2013, 05:11:44 AM
There was also an item which may explain some of his animosity for the US, at least; evidently he holds part of a patent on a "safer" design for supertankers called the Coulombi Egg. The design has been approved by the International Maritime Organization

Although apparently they approved it despite not understanding it because the concept was 'too sophisticated for the IMO delegates to grasp'!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 03, 2013, 05:13:07 AM
See my post above - there's no such thing as a fission or fission/fusion explosion, so all that stuff was a giant hoax.
I'm speechless.

I guess there were no victims or survivors of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

I guess there were no victims of the many criticality accidents in the USA, Russia, Japan, etc, like Harry Daghlian and Louis Slotin.

I guess nuclear power has never produced electricity or driven a ship or submarine.

I guess there never were 1500+ test nuclear explosions around the world.

I guess the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents never happened. All those short-lived radioactive substances in the environment that could only be produced as fission products? Never existed.

Nope.  He specifically states that no atomic weapons ever went off in Japan.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 03, 2013, 05:16:57 AM
Quote
Uranium-235 (U-235) is a metal like iron that can be shaped into target rings and projectile rings. Imagine drilling a dia 1" hole in a target ring. Aren't you worried it will EXPLODE?
If that ring was close to critical, you bet I'd be worried. Just approaching it could reflect enough neutrons back into it to cause it to go prompt critical. It wouldn't explode like a bomb, but I'd die from the gamma and neutron radiation just as others have in various criticality accidents.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 03, 2013, 05:22:02 AM
Quote
Uranium-235 (U-235) is a metal like iron that can be shaped into target rings and projectile rings. Imagine drilling a dia 1" hole in a target ring. Aren't you worried it will EXPLODE?
If that ring was close to critical, you bet I'd be worried. Just approaching it could reflect enough neutrons back into it to cause it to go prompt critical. It wouldn't explode like a bomb, but I'd die from the gamma and neutron radiation just as others have in various criticality accidents.

But that's not the situation Heiwa is on about.  He can't seem to decide if all Uranium is on the point of unleashing a hellish firestorm or if it's all fake!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 03, 2013, 05:22:24 AM
Nope.  He specifically states that no atomic weapons ever went off in Japan.

I guess the nuclear subs not far from me never existed either.

I had better jump in the car and go to the twin nuclear reactors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heysham_nuclear_power_station) that are about 4 miles from me. I will tell the 900 staff and contractors that they are working under a massive fraud....
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 03, 2013, 05:25:11 AM
If that ring was close to critical, you bet I'd be worried. Just approaching it could reflect enough neutrons back into it to cause it to go prompt critical. It wouldn't explode like a bomb, but I'd die from the gamma and neutron radiation just as others have in various criticality accidents.

Indeed. As John Bistline, Harry Daghlian, Louis Slotin and others found out to their peril.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_accident
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 03, 2013, 05:28:12 AM
If that ring was close to critical, you bet I'd be worried. Just approaching it could reflect enough neutrons back into it to cause it to go prompt critical. It wouldn't explode like a bomb, but I'd die from the gamma and neutron radiation just as others have in various criticality accidents.

Indeed. As John Bistline, Harry Daghlian, Louis Slotin and others found out to their peril.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_accident

Important quote from that link: "None have resulted in explosions."

I don't think Heiwa understands how nuclear weapons work, unsurprisingly.  I think he is mixing the processes up with those of chemical explosives.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 03, 2013, 05:29:32 AM
I'm having a quick browse online.

Heiwa believes that you "publish" scientific research merely by putting it on your own website.  Dunning-Kruger indeed.

His abuse of the Unuversity of Strathclyde is appalling.
And somehow he manages to use the phrase "peer-reviewed" as a perjorative (when referring to papers published by others).

I also think that he has no concept of Earth and Luna as a Two-Body system. It doesn't really require a classic Hohmann orbit to reach the moon from Earth orbit; just raise your apoapse enough and you're there.

In fact, Gene Cernan recounts that, in order to beat the Soviets to sending a manned vehicle around the moon, there was serious discussion at NASA about sending Gemini 12 there. Since other Gemini flights had demonstrated the ability to dock with an Agena already in orbit and use its engine to raise their orbit, the engineers figured they could increase the thrust of an Agena enough to make a circumlunar orbit. Luckily, according to Cernan, "... they came to their senses and recognized a really bad idea when they had one."
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on January 03, 2013, 05:30:57 AM
I did warn about Heiwa's... ideas about nuclear weapons in the very first post of this thread, and I even linked to the page. Does anyone read threads from the beginning any more? :(
Title: Re: I am amused
Post by: Andromeda on January 03, 2013, 05:35:17 AM
I did warn about Heiwa's... ideas about nuclear weapons in the very first post of this thread, and I even linked to the page. Does anyone read threads from the beginning any more? :(

Sorry :(
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 03, 2013, 05:41:19 AM
See my post above - there's no such thing as a fission or fission/fusion explosion, so all that stuff was a giant hoax.
I'm speechless.

I guess there were no victims or survivors of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

I guess there were no victims of the many criticality accidents in the USA, Russia, Japan, etc, like Harry Daghlian and Louis Slotin.

I guess nuclear power has never produced electricity or driven a ship or submarine.

I guess there never were 1500+ test nuclear explosions around the world.

I guess the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents never happened. All those short-lived radioactive substances in the environment that could only be produced as fission products? Never existed.

Oh, he thinks fission works - IF you moderate the neutrons. That's his rationale about fission explosions - fast neutrons can't cause a chain reaction no matter how much enriched U-235 you put together.  But you're right, he should ask the ghost of  Louis Slotin if he still thinks tickling dragons with a screwdriver is a good idea.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 03, 2013, 05:47:50 AM
I did warn about Heiwa's... ideas about nuclear weapons in the very first post of this thread, and I even linked to the page. Does anyone read threads from the beginning any more? :(

I must confess I missed that. Apologies.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 03, 2013, 05:49:25 AM
See my post above - there's no such thing as a fission or fission/fusion explosion, so all that stuff was a giant hoax.
I'm speechless.

I guess there were no victims or survivors of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

I guess there were no victims of the many criticality accidents in the USA, Russia, Japan, etc, like Harry Daghlian and Louis Slotin.

I guess nuclear power has never produced electricity or driven a ship or submarine.

I guess there never were 1500+ test nuclear explosions around the world.

I guess the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents never happened. All those short-lived radioactive substances in the environment that could only be produced as fission products? Never existed.

Oh, he thinks fission works - IF you moderate the neutrons. That's his rationale about fission explosions - fast neutrons can't cause a chain reaction no matter how much enriched U-235 you put together.  But you're right, he should ask the ghost of  Louis Slotin if he still thinks tickling dragons with a screwdriver is a good idea.

TBH I skipped over a lot of it because it was just too awful.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 03, 2013, 05:51:52 AM
Quote
Uranium-235 (U-235) is a metal like iron that can be shaped into target rings and projectile rings. Imagine drilling a dia 1" hole in a target ring. Aren't you worried it will EXPLODE?
If that ring was close to critical, you bet I'd be worried. Just approaching it could reflect enough neutrons back into it to cause it to go prompt critical. It wouldn't explode like a bomb, but I'd die from the gamma and neutron radiation just as others have in various criticality accidents.
It wasn't - he's talking about the Little Boy bomb there. It had 15 (14?) rings that went into making up the critical mass.

Quote
I did warn about Heiwa's... ideas about nuclear weapons in the very first post of this thread, and I even linked to the page. Does anyone read threads from the beginning any more? :(

Sorry. I did see it, but we've run up past 600 posts so fast I just now had time to go back and take a look at his... well, I actually hate to call it "reasoning", but y'know what I mean.

Hasn't been so much exasperation around here since Hunchbacked insisted that a spacecraft naturally stayed belly down to the planet it was orbiting, like an airplane.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 03, 2013, 05:56:13 AM
Quote
Uranium-235 (U-235) is a metal like iron that can be shaped into target rings and projectile rings. Imagine drilling a dia 1" hole in a target ring. Aren't you worried it will EXPLODE?
If that ring was close to critical, you bet I'd be worried. Just approaching it could reflect enough neutrons back into it to cause it to go prompt critical. It wouldn't explode like a bomb, but I'd die from the gamma and neutron radiation just as others have in various criticality accidents.
It wasn't - he's talking about the Little Boy bomb there. It had 15 (14?) rings that went into making up the critical mass.


Damn, I thought I'd posted about that in my response to ka9q but I can't find it.  Noldi is right - there are several target rings per device, to avoid hitting critical mass early.



Quote
The U-235 mass of Little boy was divided into two pieces: the bullet and the target. The "bullet": a cylindrical stack of U-235 rings about 10 cm wide and 16 cm long, containing 40% of the mass (25.6 kg). It was constructed from six rings, the stack backed by a tungsten carbide disk and a steel backplate, all within a 1/16 inch thick steel can to make the complete projectile. The "target": a hollow cylinder 16 cm long and wide, weighing 38.4 kg, embedded in the tamper assembly. The target was fabricated as two separate rings that were inserted in the bomb separately. Note that even an unreflected sphere of U-235 weighing 64 kg would be supercritical. Almost certainly the bullet was made entirely of 89% enrichment uranium since placing the most fissile material at the center of the core is a basic principle of efficient bomb design.

The bullet was sheathed in a boron "safety sabot" that absorbed neutrons and reduced the chance of a criticality accident. The target also contained a boron safety plug. When the projectile reached the target, the boron sabot would be stripped off, and then the plug would be ejected into a recess in the nose.

From http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/chemistry/nuclearchemistry/nuclearweapons/firstchainreaction/firstnuclweapons/littleboy.htm
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 03, 2013, 05:58:34 AM
I did warn about Heiwa's... ideas about nuclear weapons in the very first post of this thread, and I even linked to the page. Does anyone read threads from the beginning any more? :(

For my part, yes, I have read from the start.

Heiwa's "reasoning" of Apollo now seems to contain glaring errors that he has thus far failed to acknowledge. He has also repeatedly referred to the money that he is offering up. I personally think that given his refusal to address the anomalies in his calculations that it is fair and reasonable to start to "scratch the surface" a little and see who this individual is.
Also, as he has yet to address the anomalies, I presume that further discussion of Apollo is becoming moot? Might as well occupy some time time with his other "theories"......
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 03, 2013, 06:00:56 AM
Amusing and diverting as his other "ideas" are, it could result in a huge amount of confusion if Heiwa ever comes back.

I think we should just stick to Apollo for now.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 03, 2013, 06:30:07 AM
Oh, he thinks fission works - IF you moderate the neutrons. That's his rationale about fission explosions - fast neutrons can't cause a chain reaction no matter how much enriched U-235 you put together.  But you're right, he should ask the ghost of  Louis Slotin if he still thinks tickling dragons with a screwdriver is a good idea.

He's correct AFAIK. Slow neutrons are required to initiate fission in U-235.

What he doesn't get (amongst other things) is the speed of assembly that is required to ensure that a slow fizzle doesn't happen. he's also ignoring the tungsten-carbide tamper that surrounded the assembled core which is used to reflect unspent neutrons back into the core.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 03, 2013, 07:24:08 AM
Heiwa:
Can you please clarify to status of Heiwa Co?

Your use  of the European union symbol and the use of "European Agency" on your Tripod.com would appear to imply some authority and linkup with the EU. Can you please clarify your authority to use the EU symbol?

Of course, you are light years off topic about the Heiwa €1M Challenges, but I can clarify anything (subject to Apollohoaxmoderator approval):

Heiwa Co is a European agency for Safety at Sea. It is based at Beausoleil, France, which is part of Europe. Beausoleil is a nice, land locked place with a view of the Mediterranean Sea. The Heiwa Co web site, http://heiwaco.tripod.com  is very popular with > 1 450 000 downloads.

It seems we citizens of member states of the European Union can use the EU flag to show that we are committed to European unity. So I have copied/pasted in my web site.

Back to topic. The € 1 000 000:- Heiwa Challenges.

No 1 Challenge (not topic) is about showing how a weak top part of a skyscraper (WTC 1 or 2) can crush the strong bottom part 9/11 2001. For details refer to link given in post #1. Some US clowns (in the White House, e.g. Condi) suggest that terrorists dislocated the weak top parts and ... POUFF, POUFF, POUFF ... the strong bottoms became rubble (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/pouf.htm ) .  Amazing. What a hoax!

No 2 (topic) is about showing how a 1969 space ship - Apollo 11 - managed to get from Earth and to the Moon and back to the Earth. George 'Willy' Low has described it in his report ref [1] at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm and it is not convincing. I think it is a hoax.

So to clarify matters I offer €1M to do it ... clarify matters. To start with just explain how the first and only lunar orbit insertion maneuver was done.
Willy suggested 1969 that Neil or somebody burnt 10 tons of fuel during 6 minutes and the 43.5 ton Apollo 11 space ship inserted itself in orbit around the Moon.

I evidently do not believe it.

I think it is a hoax.

So I offer anybody €1 M to show that I am wrong.

I cannot understand why people get upset about THAT!

Now a little PR for me and my agency:

If you have any problems with safety at sea I recommend you to ask Heiwa Co - European Agency for Safety at Sea for ideas how to proceed. It will not cost you anything because it is free of charge. To ask. It is like all biz. It doesn't cost to ask.

Free info why chemicals burn in vaccum space is probably available in posts above/below this one. They are all OT allowed by the moderator to silence this thread. Like my ideas about the ATOMIC BOMB! Evidently OT but quite interesting. You see, I worked in Japan for 5 years in the 70's and could not really find any traces of atomic bomb explosions - http://heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htm . I find it strange.





Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on January 03, 2013, 09:52:41 AM
Amusing and diverting as his other "ideas" are, it could result in a huge amount of confusion if Heiwa ever comes back.

I think we should just stick to Apollo for now.

I heartily agree and endorse this.  This is the Apollo subforum, and I do not intend to let the discussion be fuzzed by side issues.  Please (I have no delusions of being a moderator, this is just my personal appeal) take all discussions of nuclear issues, 9/11, etc. to the Other Conspiracies subforum.

Heiwa, your post responding to my last post merely recapitulated your fundamental error, and did not address my other two points.   I will return to this in more detail when I have a few minutes.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 03, 2013, 10:23:42 AM
He's correct AFAIK. Slow neutrons are required to initiate fission in U-235.
Not true. U-235 will certainly fission with fast neutrons. That's how nuclear weapons using U-235 work.

The U-235 fission cross section for fast neutrons is considerably smaller than for thermal neutrons, so a high enrichment is needed. Because there's no moderator, reactor stability has to depend on thermal expansion and Doppler broadening of the fuel.

When the neutrons are energetic enough, even U-238 will fission. Many thermonuclear weapons have a jacket of U-238 that fissions from the burst of fusion neutrons. Most of the yield of the Ivy Mike shot, the very first thermonuclear explosion, actually came from this fission of U-238. Modern thermonuclear weapons mix fission and fusion rather intimately, with fusion boosting in the fission core of the trigger and a plutonium fission "sparkplug" in the middle of the fusion fuel, as well as the U-238 tamper around the whole thing that fissions.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 03, 2013, 10:32:10 AM
Freezing point depression is also a reason to use Aerozine-50 vs straight hydrazine. Straight hydrazine freezes at +2C (even worse than N2O4 at -11.2C) while UDMH freezes at -57C. (I don't know offhand if they form a eutectic that freezes at a temperature below either pure compound.)

Straight hydrazine also cannot be used in regeneratively cooled rocket engines (i.e, most bipropellant engines) because it would decompose.

UDMH cannot be used in monopropellant rockets, so I guess the high freezing point of straight hydrazine is one reason to switch to a more complicated bipropellant engine. On the other hand, some spacecraft with large bipropellant engines use hydrazine-fueled monopropellant thrusters for attitude control so at least one set of tanks still has to be kept warm.

U.S. military specifications for UDMH (1955) came out about than same time as IRFNA (1954).  Both were developed for the primary purpose of providing stability and storability over a wide temperature range.  The specific impulse of UDMH/IRFNA is not nearly as good as other fuel/oxidizer combinations, but when you’re on a freezing battlefield, that’s not always to most important factor.

As a fuel in a bipropellant engine, straight hydrazine has the best performance of the hydrazine derivatives, but as you say, its poor freezing point and stability usually regulates to use only as a monopropellant.  However, it’s superb in that application and has become the standard in catalytic decomposition engines.

Bipropellant engines are more common because they provide far better specific impulse than monopropellant engines.  Monopropellant hydrazine has a specific impulse of only about 230-240 seconds, versus better than 300 s for a bipropellant engine.  Monopropellant hydrazine is typically used only when simplicity is more important than high performance, such as RCS thrusters.  These types of systems also have a small fuel load, so the trade off of having to keep the hydrazine warm is usually worth it.

Hydrazine is also sometimes used in dual-mode systems, where the same fuel supply is used in both monopropellant RCS thrusters and a bipropellant main engine.  I have a vague memory that Surveyor might have used a dual-mode system, but I could be wrong about that.

MMH was discovered about the same time as UDMH, but it’s not as stable as UDMH in applications where regenerative cooling is used.  However, MMH gives a better specific impulse, so that’s why we often see the switch to MMH in applications where ablative or radiation cooling is used, such as small pressure-fed spacecraft systems (Space Shuttle’s OMS for example).  I think MMH is also less toxic and a safer alternative for a manned vehicle.

Quote
So why not just use straight UDMH in bipropellant engines? Some rockets do (or did), notably the original Ariane 1 design. Its second launch failed due to a combustion instability, an event I remember very well because my group had a payload on it. One of the design modifications was to switch to UH-25, 75% UDMH + 25% hydrazine. I'm not sure why it helped.

Some rocket’s still use straight UDMH.  I’m pretty sure that Russian Proton rocket and the Chinese Chang Zheng (Long March) rockets use UDMH.

One of the main reasons to use UDMH-hydrazine blends it to improve performance.  Hydrazine, when used as a bipropellant, produces a higher specific impulse than UDMH.  Thus, by using a blend we obtain a fuel that has a higher specific impulse than UDMH alone, and that still has enough stability to use in a regenerative-cooled engine.  The only blends in use that I know of are Aerozine 50 and UH25.

Quote
Another reason to add hydrazine to UDMH is to increase its average density. Hydrazine is 1.021 g/cc while UDMH is only 0.79 g/cc.

Yes, that’s another good point.


BTW, ka9q, thanks for the nice explanation about enthalpy of formation.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 03, 2013, 10:36:24 AM
My calculations are very simple...

It doesn't matter how simple they are if they're wrong.  You've been told many times by many people exactly how your calculations are wrong.  Pretending they still work is not an option for you at this point.

In fact your calculations are wrong because they're too simple.  They fail to account for all relevant factors.  I believe it is because you don't know how to properly formulate the energy analysis you've attempted, which leads further to conclude that you are not at all the expert you tell us you are.

Quote
As shown in my presentation...

You have been told specifically what is wrong with that presentation.  Your continued ignorance of that refutation only further cements your reputation as an international crackpot, liar, and fraud.

Quote
It seems nobody, incl. Willy at NASA...

"Willy" is the only source at NASA you seem to have considered.  You insist on the diminutive nickname in order to belittle him, and by proxy all of NASA.  However, you have ignored literal reams of material on the subject published by NASA.

Quote
...can explain what systems - manual and or automatic - were used to carry out maneuvers...

Explicitly false.  You have been shown exactly those sources, available from NASA.  You simply choose to pretend they do not exist.  Again, you seem to think space operations are some dark art practiced only by NASA such that they could lie about them and get away with it.  You fail to realize that it is a multibillion dollar international industry with civilian practitioners who have no ties whatsoever with NASA or any desire to protect its alleged secrets.  Nevertheless all these learned practitioners seem to be able to answer your challenges with ease and to point you to sources at NASA to show that NASA also solved the same problems.

You are simply wilfully ignoring evidence that disputes your belief.  That is not a position from which you can credibly argue that no one has been able to refute you.

Quote
...therefore I conclude that the whole trip was a hoax...

No, you conclude it was a hoax because you desperately need some ego boost to make up for your failed career.  You thus pretend to be a genius engineer and you go from forum to forum until you are banned, spewing utter nonsense and failing at every turn to account for where your theories depart from the real world.  You are patently ignorant of even the most basic facts of space travel, the basic historical claims, sources, and facts of the Apollo missions, and patently inept at any sort of practical physics.  That is not a basis from which you can mount a credible challenge to missions considered authentic unanimously by the relevant practitioners and industries.

You conclude it was a hoax because successful Apollo missions would validate those "fat NASA PhDs" you despise so much.  There is no technical justification whatsoever for your claims.  You are arguing purely from emotion, dressed up with a few nonsense equations.

Quote
So your clarifications are welcome so we can learn a little.

No "we" about it.  You are being taught by people who practice this science for a living.  You are stubbornly refusing to learn.  But now that you've admitted the need to be corrected and taught, you owe someone a million euros.  That was the deal.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 03, 2013, 10:43:57 AM
So to clarify matters I offer €1M to do it ... clarify matters. To start with just explain how the first and only lunar orbit insertion maneuver was done.
Willy suggested 1969 that Neil or somebody burnt 10 tons of fuel during 6 minutes and the 43.5 ton Apollo 11 space ship inserted itself in orbit around the Moon.

For all your claims to have tried to find information, the fact that you can make this claim with any degree of seriousness is highly suspect. It leads me to conclude with even more certainty that you are either a troll or delusional about your research skills and technical knowledge and abilities.

If you can't work out why the use of the term 'first and only lunar orbit insertion manoeuvre' leads to that conclusion after the time you have been on this forum, and even some of the things you have said on it, then you really don't deserve anyone's attention, frankly.

Quote
So I offer anybody €1 M to show that I am wrong.

I cannot understand why people get upset about THAT!

It is not the offer itself, it is the fact that you are blatantly lying about it. You have refused to prove you have the money, and you have refused to accept any and all corrections to your methods and data. You have taken some of the data corrections on the sly and quietly updated your website with them, hoping we wouldn't notice, so we have already proved you were wrong in some areas and you have implicitly acknowledged the same. However, when this was pointed out you promptly moved the goalposts and said we had to actually do a lunar orbit insertion manoeuvre ourselves to win the million Euros. Even if you had the cash you are evidently not willing to hand it over to anyone for anything because you will not accept that you are wrong. If you will not accept the stated condition of winning the challenge, how can anyone win it?

Quote
Now a little PR for me and my agency:

If you have any problems with safety at sea I recommend you to ask Heiwa Co - European Agency for Safety at Sea for ideas how to proceed. It will not cost you anything because it is free of charge. To ask. It is like all biz. It doesn't cost to ask.

I looked at your website. Where is the actual business info about the service you provide? Where is any of the relevant information you would expect to find easily on any serious company website? Why do we have to wade through your stuff about 9/11, nuclear weapons and space travel on a site you claim is your company website offering a safety consultancy service?

Where is the company registration info? Where are the testimonials from people you have consulted for? Where is your company's record of service? You must have some kind of business trail we can follow, so why is it that it seems the sole route to your company is via that hideous Tripod hosted website which is crammed full of irrelevancies for a marine safety consultancy business?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 03, 2013, 10:45:02 AM
No 1 Challenge (not topic) is about showing how a weak top part of a skyscraper (WTC 1 or 2) can crush the strong bottom part 9/11 2001. For details refer to link given in post #1. Some US clowns (in the White House, e.g. Condi) suggest that terrorists dislocated the weak top parts and ... POUFF, POUFF, POUFF ... the strong bottoms became rubble (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/pouf.htm ) .  Amazing. What a hoax!

Please stay on topic.  This is "The Hoax Theory" forum of the "Apollo Discussions" section.  Move your 9/11 topic to the appropriate forum, thank you.

Quote
So to clarify matters I offer €1M to do it ...

Please designate who is to judge this challenge.

Quote
clarify matters. To start with just explain how the first and only lunar orbit insertion maneuver was done.

"Only"?  What the hell are you talking about?  Many lunar orbit insertions have been performed.

Quote
Willy...

That's Mr. Low, thank you.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 03, 2013, 11:01:15 AM
Not true. U-235 will certainly fission with fast neutrons. That's how nuclear weapons using U-235 work.
The U-235 fission cross section for fast neutrons is considerably smaller than for thermal neutrons, so a high enrichment is needed. Because there's no moderator, reactor stability has to depend on thermal expansion and Doppler broadening of the fuel.


I stand corrected. Thank you.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 03, 2013, 11:10:35 AM
Let's keep the discussion limited to Heiwa's beliefs about space travel. His thoughts on 9/11 or atomic bombs are a whole other can of worms and I don't want to encourage Heiwa to go off on a tangent. Yes, they do say a lot about his credibility, but there are enough mistakes on his Apollo pages to make it clear that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 03, 2013, 11:25:14 AM
I still think it's all just a big joke on Heiwa's part.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 03, 2013, 11:30:32 AM
It has certainly reached the point where no-one can possibly take him seriously, so either he knows it and is just trying to get attention or else he really is as deluded as he appears to be.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 03, 2013, 11:38:02 AM
Heiwa:
Can you please clarify to status of Heiwa Co?

Your use  of the European union symbol and the use of "European Agency" on your Tripod.com would appear to imply some authority and linkup with the EU. Can you please clarify your authority to use the EU symbol?

Of course, you are light years off topic about the Heiwa €1M Challenges, but I can clarify anything (subject to Apollohoaxmoderator approval):

It is a reasonable question as it relates to the credibility of your "1 million Euro" contest. I almost didn't approve your response, however, because you once again tried to moderate the discussion. I allowed it (this time) because Zakalwe deserved a response.

Heiwa Co is a European agency for Safety at Sea. It is based at Beausoleil, France, which is part of Europe. Beausoleil is a nice, land locked place with a view of the Mediterranean Sea. The Heiwa Co web site, http://heiwaco.tripod.com  is very popular with > 1 450 000 downloads.

Calling something a " European Agency" implies a connection with a government. Is Heiwa Co. a government agency? Do you receive any funding from the government? How many employees do you have?

Quote
No 1 Challenge (not topic) is about showing how a weak top part of a skyscraper (WTC 1 or 2) can crush the strong bottom part 9/11 2001. For details refer to link given in post #1. Some US clowns (in the White House, e.g. Condi) suggest that terrorists dislocated the weak top parts and ... POUFF, POUFF, POUFF ... the strong bottoms became rubble (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/pouf.htm ) .  Amazing. What a hoax!

That is off topic for this section of the forum. Please stick to discussing Apollo or relevant topics (rocketry, orbital mechanics, etc.) here.

Quote
No 2 (topic) is about showing how a 1969 space ship - Apollo 11 - managed to get from Earth and to the Moon and back to the Earth. George 'Willy' Low has described it in his report ref [1] at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm and it is not convincing. I think it is a hoax.

How about you show some respect to Mr. Low and stop calling him "Willy". That is not his name.

Quote
So to clarify matters I offer €1M to do it ... clarify matters. To start with just explain how the first and only lunar orbit insertion maneuver was done.
Willy suggested 1969 that Neil or somebody burnt 10 tons of fuel during 6 minutes and the 43.5 ton Apollo 11 space ship inserted itself in orbit around the Moon.

People have clarified it. Repeatedly. It appears that you are simply incapable of learning.

Quote
So I offer anybody €1 M to show that I am wrong.

I cannot understand why people get upset about THAT!

If anyone is getting upset it is because you have repeatedly ignored the explanations they have given you. They would be justified in being upset because they have apparently been wasting their time trying to educate someone who can not be educated.

Quote
Now a little PR for me and my agency:

If you have any problems with safety at sea I recommend you to ask Heiwa Co - European Agency for Safety at Sea for ideas how to proceed. It will not cost you anything because it is free of charge. To ask. It is like all biz. It doesn't cost to ask.

I'll let you have the first advertisment for free. We can discuss my advertising rates for future ads, if you'd like. I'm sure you can afford them if you have 1 million Euro burning a hole in your pocket.

Quote
Free info why chemicals burn in vaccum space is probably available in posts above/below this one. They are all OT allowed by the moderator to silence this thread. Like my ideas about the ATOMIC BOMB! Evidently OT but quite interesting. You see, I worked in Japan for 5 years in the 70's and could not really find any traces of atomic bomb explosions - http://heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htm . I find it strange.

This is off topic for the "Apollo Hoax Theory" section of the forum. If you want to discuss the reality of atomic bombs then start a thread in the  Other Conspiracy Theories (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?board=7.0) section.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 03, 2013, 11:44:18 AM
Heiwa, I am not approving your most recent post because you tried to moderate the discussion again. If being on moderation isn't enough to discourage that behaviour then maybe a ban will.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 03, 2013, 12:01:09 PM
Heiwa:
Can you please clarify to status of Heiwa Co?

Your use  of the European union symbol and the use of "European Agency" on your Tripod.com would appear to imply some authority and linkup with the EU. Can you please clarify your authority to use the EU symbol?

Of course, you are light years off topic about the Heiwa €1M Challenges, but I can clarify anything (subject to Apollohoaxmoderator approval):

Heiwa Co is a European agency for Safety at Sea. It is based at Beausoleil, France, which is part of Europe. Beausoleil is a nice, land locked place with a view of the Mediterranean Sea. The Heiwa Co web site, http://heiwaco.tripod.com  is very popular with > 1 450 000 downloads.

It seems we citizens of member states of the European Union can use the EU flag to show that we are committed to European unity. So I have copied/pasted in my web site.


Weasel words. "Heiwa Co is a European agency for Safety at Sea". No it's not. It's a private concern and weasel words to imply that you have some authority or knowledge.


You see, I worked in Japan for 5 years in the 70's and could not really find any traces of atomic bomb explosions - http://heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htm . I find it strange.

Appeal to incredulity.
Just because you find something strange has no reflection on whether it happened or not.

I grew up in Ireland. I didn't see any evidence of the millions of deaths caused by the Great Famine. Should I also claim that it never happened???

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 03, 2013, 12:02:29 PM
Let's keep the discussion limited to Heiwa's beliefs about space travel. His thoughts on 9/11 or atomic bombs are a whole other can of worms and I don't want to encourage Heiwa to go off on a tangent. Yes, they do say a lot about his credibility, but there are enough mistakes on his Apollo pages to make it clear that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Got it.

Quote
So to clarify matters I offer €1M to do it ... clarify matters. To start with just explain how the first and only lunar orbit insertion maneuver was done.
(Emphasis mine)
By "first and only", do you mean to say that Apollo Missions 8,10,12,14,15,16, and 17 did not each perform a Lunar Orbit Insertion?  And, incidentally, the first LOI by a manned mission was Apollo 8.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 03, 2013, 12:03:01 PM
Monopropellant hydrazine is typically used only when simplicity is more important than high performance, such as RCS thrusters.  These types of systems also have a small fuel load, so the trade off of having to keep the hydrazine warm is usually worth it.
I was surprised to learn that the Curiosity lander used monopropellant hydrazine (or so I understand). It carried hundreds of kg of hydrazine, much of which was unused when the rover cut it away.

Quote
I have a vague memory that Surveyor might have used a dual-mode system, but I could be wrong about that.
Surveyor used a solid fuel retrorocket plus cold nitrogen thrusters for attitude control. It also had vernier engines that I think were bipropellant, but I'm not sure.
Quote
I think MMH is also less toxic and a safer alternative for a manned vehicle.
Actually I think it's the most toxic of all the hydrazine derivatives. It's used because, as you say, it's a little denser than UDMH and provides somewhat better performance. It's used in the shuttle thrusters, as you say, and it was also used in the Apollo service module RCS (but not the LM, which shared the ascent stage's Aerozine-50 supply.)

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 03, 2013, 12:06:29 PM
Let's keep the discussion limited to Heiwa's beliefs about space travel. His thoughts on 9/11 or atomic bombs are a whole other can of worms
I agree. Can you move my (and others') comments about nuclear weapons, etc, to a separate thread?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gwiz on January 03, 2013, 12:19:55 PM
By "first and only", do you mean to say that Apollo Missions 8,10,12,14,15,16, and 17 did not each perform a Lunar Orbit Insertion?  And, incidentally, the first LOI by a manned mission was Apollo 8.
Then there's all the unmanned missions, first the USSR, then the USA, Japan, European Space Agency, China and India.  Are they all faking it?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 03, 2013, 12:20:53 PM
Can you move my (and others') comments about nuclear weapons, etc, to a separate thread?

Yep, I can. I'll do it a little bit later though because I'm busy with something at the moment.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 03, 2013, 12:41:56 PM
Heiwa, do you have any connection with the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 03, 2013, 12:46:22 PM
Two quick points, because pretty much everything has been covered nicely.

One, 2+2=5 is a simple equation, too.

Two, I must be misunderstanding something.  Why would a maritime safety agency be in a landlocked town, no matter how lovely the view of the sea?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on January 03, 2013, 12:53:13 PM
Two quick points, because pretty much everything has been covered nicely.

One, 2+2=5 is a simple equation, too.

Two, I must be misunderstanding something.  Why would a maritime safety agency be in a landlocked town, no matter how lovely the view of the sea?

Better for everyone that way.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 03, 2013, 12:57:42 PM
The easiest way to keep safe from the sea is to get as far away from it as possible.


(Edited to fix a typo)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 03, 2013, 12:59:18 PM
It easiest way to keep safe from the sea is to get as far away from it as possible.

Us or Heiwa?
Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sus_pilot on January 03, 2013, 01:08:06 PM
Two quick points, because pretty much everything has been covered nicely.

One, 2+2=5 is a simple equation, too.

Two, I must be misunderstanding something.  Why would a maritime safety agency be in a landlocked town, no matter how lovely the view of the sea?

Well,  2+2=5 (or, more usefully, x+y=z) is a very simple Boolean test I use all the time in queries to evaluate answers.  Kind of like looking at Heiwa's data, comparing it to reality, and determining that his is blatantly wrong.

In fairness, a maritime safety consultancy doesn't have to be on the ocean, if all you're doing is evaluating data.  Getting to the ship to do actual testing just runs up your expenses, that's all.

However, if I were a potential customer of Heiwa's and saw all this, I think I'd ask Lloyd's for another recommendation.
Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sus_pilot on January 03, 2013, 01:09:28 PM
It easiest way to keep safe from the sea is to get as far away from it as possible.

Us or Heiwa?

Yes.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 03, 2013, 01:26:20 PM
Surveyor used a solid fuel retrorocket plus cold nitrogen thrusters for attitude control. It also had vernier engines that I think were bipropellant, but I'm not sure.

The main retrorockets were definitely solid, with that I agree.  It's the vernier engines to which I was referring, which I'm pretty sure burned some derivative of hydrazine.  However, if the attitude control thrusters were cold gas then clearly it wasn't a dual mode system.

Quote
Actually I think (MMH is) the most toxic of all the hydrazine derivatives.

If so, I stand corrected.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on January 03, 2013, 01:33:48 PM
I just have to say I love all the tech details.  This thread has totally been worth it.

And impresses me again of the difference between doing it and doing it well.  The difference between a tinkerer and an engineer.  The basic physics, anyone should be able to do.  But when you get down to stuff like helium disk ruptures...that's rocket science.  That's where engineering lives.

(I'm a tinkerer myself.  Raised around engineers, but that isn't me.)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on January 03, 2013, 01:35:04 PM
Heiwa, your post earlier today (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8639#msg8639) ignored two criticisms completely and merely repeated your error addressed in the other. 

1. In my first post (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8604#msg8604), I pointed out that your fundamental premise – that you will give a million Euros to anyone who can show Apollo could go to the Moon – is fatally flawed, as you do not have a million Euros to give to anyone.  This is absolutely on-topic, not only because as I said, it is your fundamental premise, but also because it is part of the original post in this thread, and because you have repeatedly mentioned it here as a guarantee for the validity of your claims.

No one believes that you have said money to award for your "challenge".  Provide evidence that you do, or retract the claim.

2. Your response to point #2 is wrong, and in fact merely recapitulates your previous error.

My calculations are very simple - kinetic energy B of space craft Before and kinetic energy A of space craft After maneuver. It is a function of the variable Force applied to the space craft during distance travelled time used.

First, you don’t need to tell us that kinetic energy of the spacecraft changes as a result of thrusting.  We already know that.

Second, your calculations are simple.  The problem is they are too simple.  It’s as if you calculated whether a ship could accelerate to a given speed without accounting for the thrust of the propellers.  Your calculation is fundamentally wrong, and you have had this pointed out to you by actual practicing engineers.  Repeating your claim does not make it any less wrong.

The expelled reaction mass is also given, probably the difference in space craft mass Before/After maneuver.

Yet you explicitly disregard the kinetic energy of the reaction mass used:

...The mass of exhaust, type of fuel, etc. have nothing to do with my basic energy calculations that only involves force and distance/displacement.

I will note in passing that the second part of the above is also wrong, as you do not actually use either the force or displacement numbers you mention; you simply take two given speeds and plug them into the kinetic energy equation.

As shown in my presentation they are not consistent at the various complicated maneuvers carried out, e.g. braking while changing direction while losing mass in a 3-D space with the pilots looking backwards doing something - steering (?) the space ship using the available systems.

Wrong.  You make no accounting whatsoever for maneuvering; you are only looking at a toy 1-dimensional kinetic equation, incorrectly comparing different parts of the same system (spacecraft + fuel).

It seems nobody, incl. Willy at NASA, can explain what systems - manual and or automatic - were used to carry out maneuvers when 5-10 tons of fuel were used, etc, etc, and therefore I conclude that the whole trip was a hoax (purpose of the forum).

Wrong – wildly wrong - and as this has been pointed out to you repeatedly, I can only conclude this is willful misrepresentation on your part.  Just for emphasis:

Apollo Operations Handbook, Block II Spacecraft (http://history.nasa.gov/afj/aohindex.htm) gives detailed descriptions of the systems.

Space Navigation Guidance & Control, Volume 1 (NASA-CR-75543) (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19660019462) and Volume 2 (NASA-CR-75798) (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19660019469), explicitly discuss the principles of navigation and guidance for such maneuvers.

NASA TN-D-8249, Apollo Experience Report - Guidance and Control Systems (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19760019156) discusses the architecture of these systems and lessons learned from their development and use.

NASA TN-D-8227, Apollo Experience Report - Guidance and Control Systems: Primary Guidance, Navigation, and Control System Development (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19760016247) discusses their evolution, including their testing and development issues.

Apollo Onboard Navigation Techniques (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/20090016292) and Apollo Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) Hardware Overview (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/20090016290) are very nice recent (2009) overviews of how the spacecraft were navigated.

Your claim that “no one can explain what systems were used” is explicitly refuted.   Furthermore, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you – including relevant excerpts posted directly – NASA SP-238, Apollo 11 Mission Report (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11MIssionReport_1971015566.pdf), contains the actual maneuver and consumables loading and usage values.  No actual engineer would deliberately neglect to use the as-flown values when investigating system performance. 

The final maneuver - the 6300 km/1080 seconds re-entry starting at 11 200 m/s velocity flying backwards up/down in Earth's atmosphere with a 5.5 ton capsule and then dropping down just in front of president Nixon - is so unlikely that I wonder how Willy could believe it or make it up. So it was a hoax IMO.

Your juvenile obsession with Mr. Low is irrelevant.  The fact is that steerable blunt lifting bodies have been part of standard aerospace practice for about half a century.   The fact that you are ignorant of this, and of how they work, means that your appeal to ridicule only makes you look ridiculous.   Furthermore, your opinion (“IMO”) is irrelevant, as you simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

So your clarifications are welcome so we can learn a little.

3. Which brings me to the third point I made earlier, and the other one you completely ignored.  You really do not know what you’re talking about.  That’s not an insult; it’s a fact.  I’ve pointed out a few of the really egregious mistakes you’ve made, which are bad enough.  But ignorance is forgivable if one at least makes an attempt to relieve one’s ignorance.  Yet there is no sign that you have made any attempt to actually learn anything about space flight in general or Apollo in particular.  There is no sign that you have the ability to do so.  There is no sign that you’re willing to actually learn anything from people who really do know about the subjects which you get so consistently wrong.

So, given your track record of blatant, fundamental errors of fact – like not even knowing about the existence of things like ablative heat shields, etc. – and unwillingness and/or inability to perform even rudimentary research to remedy your deficiencies, I have to ask again:

Do  you actually want to learn something?  Or are you simply here to troll?  Because I will do my best to help you if you are willing to admit mistakes and learn something, like a real engineer would.   If you’re just here to goad people by saying dumb things, however, then I have better things to do with my time.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 03, 2013, 01:48:51 PM
OK Heiwa, you want to do a simple energy difference calculation? Fine. Forget burning the fuel. Just imagine that the spacecraft dumps all that fuel overboard in a non-propulsive way. Its mass decreases, it's velocity remains unchanged. Its kinetic energy therefore has decreased. Where did that energy go? How did the kinetic energy of the spacecraft change? The answer to that might help you with the answer to your original issue.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 03, 2013, 01:55:27 PM
Of course, you are light years off topic about the Heiwa €1M Challenges...

Nonsense.  You have claimed to be a qualified and skilled engineer.  You have offered a substantial prize for anyone who can refute your findings, which you characterize as having come from a rigorous engineering background.  Your personal qualifications and expertise are therefore very much part of the question, and they will be investigated by any means possible.

Your choice of screen name and your decision to serve up your conspiracy claims from your "company" web site inexorably connects that company to your claims.  Such claims would seem more credible if they came from an engineering company rather than from an individual.  While it is highly incredible to suppose that a private individual has a million euros he would be willing to offer, it is more credible if readers believe the prize is being offered by a company.

In short, you seem to be using this pretense of a company to inflate your credibility.  So long as you consider this sham company relevant to your claims, we will continue to investigate it as part of your claims.  You may forestall that investigation only by repudiating the connection between your alleged company and your claims being made here.

Quote
Heiwa Co is a European agency for Safety at Sea.

Nonsense.  "Agency" implies an arm of the government.  I see no evidence that your web site describes an actual company, much less any government agency.  It lists no employees or clients.  Its business address is your residence.  It is not licensed or accredited for engineering by the EU.  Your site is hosted by a free web hosting provider with a poor reputation.  And its content consists almost entirely of your personal conspiracy rants, with only vague references to maritime engineering and safety.  While it purports to offer services, you provide no evidence that anyone has patronized those services.

Quote
...is very popular with > 1 450 000 downloads.

Popularity is not the same as legitimacy or correctness.  Since the majority of your site content is conspiracy rants, and since you constantly post those links in debate and insist that people go read them, I doubt the hit-count has anything to do with the legitimacy of your business.  You receive so much traffic because you are a prolific international crackpot, not because you merit the attention on legitimate grounds.  You are the intellectual equivalent of a road accident; people have a hard time looking away.

Quote
It seems we citizens of member states of the European Union can use the EU flag to show that we are committed to European unity. So I have copied/pasted in my web site.

Then you should add a disclaimer to that effect, since it seems the common interpretation of your site is incorrect, misleading, and possibly illegal.  You do not appear to have any connection whatsoever to the EU government, nor any legitimacy as an engineering organization under that jurisdiction.  It would seem that you are attempting to fool people into thinking you are a qualified engineer by inventing a false company or government agency that employs you.

Quote
George 'Willy' Low has described it in his report...

No.  The document in question is NASA SP-238 Apollo 11 Mission Report, prepared by the Mission Evaluation Team of NASA Manned Spacecraft Center.  George Low, in his capacity as the acting administrator of NASA at the time the report was issued, wrote and signed a brief preface to the report.

He did not write the report himself.

You praise Low for an entire paragraph, apparently trying to hype up his value as a technical expert so that your use of a report that you attribute to him will seem more authoritative than the single-source, secondary material it is.  And in the end you accuse him of being an accomplice to the hoax.  So in one breath you heap legitimate praise upon him for your own lazy ends, and then in another breath you announce that you're so much better than he because you discovered his hoax.

But as the report is signed "George M. Low" that is how you should identify him when citing his work.  You have not earned the privilege of calling him "Willy," and your insistence on diminishing him in this fashion reveals your contemptuous bias.

Quote
ref [1] at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm

This URL warns many of your potential readers that your site will infect their computers with malware.  If you are serious about your web presentation, and demand that people read your drivel as a condition of debating you, then do your readers the courtesy of hosting it at a real site.

The report you use as practically your only source of Apollo technical information is a summary.  It does not contain all information pertinent to Apollo.  It was prepared by the Mission Evaluation Team, which is essentially a clerical task as it applies to this product.  It is not the authoritative source of Apollo material.  You rely exclusively on secondary sources for information that can be more accurately and authoritatively obtained from primary sources.  When you are shown those primary sources, you deny they exist.

Further, it has been repeatedly shown that you are not even competent with this source.  You identify important factors such as mass properties of spacecraft and assert that they are "erroneously" reported elsewhere (which you write off as a NASA lie), but in fact you have simply misread your source(s).  For example, you have been repeatedly corrected on your misreading of the LM fuel loadout, but you refuse to admit that your simple reading error is the source of the discrepancy you want to attribute to NASA lies.  Forget space travel -- you need to work on how to read a book.

Quote
...and it is not convincing. I think it is a hoax.

Your ignorant opinion is irrelevant.  You are unable to prove it is a hoax.  You are so far able to prove only that you do not understand space travel in general and Apollo in particular.  You further prove that you are unwilling to consider evidence that disputes your belief.  In fact, you are unwilling to admit even that such evidence exists, even when it is plainly laid before you.  In the face of such a demonstration you maintain that no such information exists, and that this alleged dearth of information is the source of any flaws someone might find in your claims -- not, in fact, your utter ignorance of the subject.

Hence it is painfully obvious that you have arrived at your belief first, and are simply concocting a fantasy characterization of the available sources to appear to support your belief.  Your answer for the fact that all the professional practitioners unanimous disagree with you (and you with them) is that they are all lazy, incompetent "PhDs" who simply pull the wool over people's eyes.  In other words, you create a fantasy world in which only you are the qualified expert -- a behavior consistent with having created the belief first and then subsequently paying attention only to that which appears to confirm that belief.

Quote
So to clarify matters I offer €1M to do it ... clarify matters.

No.  You have revised the conditions of the prize after it was previously satisfied.

Your first offer was for a million euros to find errors on your page.  We have done that.  Your second offer was a million euros to show that we are "more clever" that you.  You conceded that point when you corrected your web site to accommodate corrections you learned hear.  Now you are deliberately trying to rephrase your egregious and fundamental errors as if they are minor points only, which do not merit the prize.

You are consummately a liar and a fraud.  You have been roundly refuted on the very fundamental basis of your claims (e.g., the proper formulation of an energy-balance equation), and you simply refuse to admit it.

Quote
To start with just explain how the first and only lunar orbit insertion maneuver was done.

First, the question is phrased incorrectly.  "First and only lunar orbit insertion maneuver" is factually incorrect.  LOI-1 and LOI-2 were the two orbital insertion maneuvers that together placed the CSM/LM stack in the proper lunar orbit.  In fact part of your error is quoting the velocity after LOI-2 and assuming it applies to LOI-1.  The SPS accomplished both of those maneuvers as retrograde burns at the appropriate times, and produced the document change in velocity.

Second, the mechanics of Apollo's orbital insertion have been painstakingly laid out to you many times.  To suggest that you haven't received an explanation is nothing short of a deliberate lie.  You reject it because you attempt to validate it with your incorrect homegrown mathematics.  When this fails, you attribute it to NASA lies rather than to your incompetence.

Your inability to understand practically anything of value in space travel is not a valid basis from which to challenge the authenticity of a space mission.  You are simply not as smart as you want people to think.

Quote
I evidently do not believe it.

English is obviously not your first language, so I suggest you accept our advice that you are not using the word "evidently" properly in this context.  You clearly do not believe the published facts about Apollo astrodynamics, but that's because you're grasp of astrodynamics is obviously incorrect.

Quote
I think it is a hoax.  So I offer anybody €1 M to show that I am wrong.

You have been repeatedly shown in what ways you are wrong.  You are very wrong.  For example, you simply refuse to believe that your homemade analysis can possibly be as wrong as it is.  You insinuate that corrections could only be in minor ways, and that your overall approach is sound.

Quote
I cannot understand why people get upset about THAT!

Really?  You can't figure it out?

You arrogantly presume to be an engineer.  You obviously aren't.  You arrogantly insinuate that an agency of the EU government (again, you need to see how properly to use "agency" in English), or, at best, an engineering company backs your claims.  This "company" is obviously just you operating a free web account.  You arrogantly tell the world you have a million euros to give out, but you steadfastly refuse to prove it.  You arrogantly insult an entire industry in which highly-qualified individuals accomplish great things.  You obviously have an axe to grind.  You arrogantly set yourself up as the only judge of whether you've been properly correct, thus creating an obvious conflict of interest.  You obviously desperately want some sort of legitimate credibility.  You dishonestly ignore every single bit of evidence that would apply to your offer.  You obviously have no intention ever of paying it out.  You've been banned at several web forums for your egregiously irrational behavior.  You obviously have no idea how to comport yourself in polite or professional company, and even here you require babysitting.

After all that, you really can't figure out why you provoke such a strong reaction among people with legitimate qualifications and expertise?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 03, 2013, 02:01:50 PM
(I'm a tinkerer myself.  Raised around engineers, but that isn't me.)

Personally, I'm not either.  I confess that I've been skipping a lot of the specific discussion of propellants, because my eyes glaze over when I try to read it too carefully.  I don't understand it; I'm not going to understand it.  (As bad as my physics education has been, it is still better than my education in chemistry.  I took physics.)  That's okay; I don't have to understand it.  I know that there are people who do, and I know that they know that the things NASA claims about Apollo stand up to scrutiny.  That's good enough for me.

I have long known that the two places I am best suited to discussion here (aside from use of the English language) are providing the layman's perspective and knowing about the history.  I am here to tell you that it wouldn't take long for even a layman to see exactly how ludicrous some of these claims are.  What's more, as I said before, I can't speak to how well not-Americans know Walter Cronkite.  I do know that Heiwa still hasn't even acknowledged that correction, much less the more technical ones.  How can we expect him to sensibly admit error over propellant when he can't even identify the Most Trusted Man in America?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 03, 2013, 03:07:28 PM
I've never been able to find a source that confirms whether or not MON was used...

It was.

Quote
"Stress corrosion from nitrogen tetroxide was a major problem; thus, several solutions were considered, including coating the walls with Teflon, shot peening the wall surfaces, changing the tank material, and changing the propellant nitrogen-tetroxide specification.  The nitrogen-oxide content in the nitrogen tetroxide was increased to inhibit the stress corrosion by the nitrogen tetroxide.  In the Apollo Program, this problem was universal in systems using nitrogen tetroxide." NASA TN D-7143 Apollo Experience Report: Descent Propulsion System, p. 15 (emphasis added)

The reason for using MON that I've heard is to reduce the freezing point.  Pure N2O4 has a freezing point of just -9.3 C, which isn't very good in applications where cold temperatures are expected.

As a point of interest, the LM design documents describe the need to manipulate the optical properties of both the ascent and descent stages for passive thermal control in order to hold the propellant tanks within a very narrow temperature window.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on January 03, 2013, 03:17:12 PM
(I'm a tinkerer myself.  Raised around engineers, but that isn't me.)

Personally, I'm not either.  I confess that I've been skipping a lot of the specific discussion of propellants, because my eyes glaze over when I try to read it too carefully.  I don't understand it; I'm not going to understand it.  (As bad as my physics education has been, it is still better than my education in chemistry.  I took physics.)  That's okay; I don't have to understand it.  I know that there are people who do, and I know that they know that the things NASA claims about Apollo stand up to scrutiny.  That's good enough for me.

I have long known that the two places I am best suited to discussion here (aside from use of the English language) are providing the layman's perspective and knowing about the history.  I am here to tell you that it wouldn't take long for even a layman to see exactly how ludicrous some of these claims are.  What's more, as I said before, I can't speak to how well not-Americans know Walter Cronkite.  I do know that Heiwa still hasn't even acknowledged that correction, much less the more technical ones.  How can we expect him to sensibly admit error over propellant when he can't even identify the Most Trusted Man in America?

Heh.

I read a lot of science bloggers (and I've tried my hand at writing hard SF*.)  I've got enough of a general grounding to be aware that at least half the time that I think I know what they are talking about, I'm fooling myself -- even when the blogger in question is making an effort to include a lay audience.  There are, unfortunately, no hard and fast rules for determining when you don't know enough to know that you don't know enough.  Other than those places where theories and calculations meet the real world.  Hopefully not in the form of collapse or fire of the thing you thought you understood well enough to build or use in a safe manner!

* I think it was Hal Clement who said, "Hard?  It's damned near impossible!"
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on January 03, 2013, 03:22:00 PM
It's been a while since it was posted, but thanks for the bit about enthalpy of formation, ka9q.
I understand this on a very basic level, water is an 'ash'; it's made when you burn other things (water and hydrogen), and breaking it apart will always take at least as much energy as it took to make, but this gave a significantly more detailed understanding.
Not an engineer, not even close, hence my analogy based explanations rather than trotting out the maths, but it's clear even I have somewhat more understanding in this regard than Heiwa.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 03, 2013, 03:40:37 PM
I've never been able to find a source that confirms whether or not MON was used...

It was.

Thanks.  I assumed that was probably the case but could never find proof of it.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 03, 2013, 03:58:26 PM
Thanks.  I assumed that was probably the case but could never find proof of it.

True, but your instinct was correct.  What you purchase as "gasoline" is principally gasoline but also a minestrone of additives and other fuels such as ethanol.  Similarly what we refer to as nitrogen tetroxide is principally that, but also various impurities and additives such as other oxides.  The bottom line is that there is hardly ever any reason to use 100-percent pure N2O4 as an oxidizer, for the reasons you and others have mentioned, so unless it says otherwise it's defensible to assume you're dealing with mixed oxides.  Scrupulously one should specify MON-x, but Apollo hadn't had that degree of standardization yet.

The bottom line is that sometimes you have to work in the industry to know these "unwritten" practices and nomenclature.  "Naturally" nitrogen tetroxide refers to the principal oxidizer plus any necessary minority stabilizers and additives.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Abaddon on January 03, 2013, 04:54:20 PM
As an engineer, and a businessman, I cannot but conclude that Heiwa is just taking the mick. Nobody in their right mind would put that crap on their professional website. Nobody.

Even if one really believed it, one wouldn't pollute one's professional reputation that way.

ETA: OK before anyone points it out, if one were flat out bonkers, then maybe.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Tanalia on January 03, 2013, 05:47:32 PM
Wow, long thread...

My personal theory is that they dropped a house on his mother.
That is one of the funniest comebacks I have ever read. Is it original with you? I want to give proper credit.
Hmmm... I think that specific phrasing is; it just seemed to fit. Wizard of Oz reference, o' course.
Reminds me of a line from Beetlejuice (more context here (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094721/quotes?qt=qt0337251)):
Quote
Don't mind her. She's still upset, because somebody dropped a house on her sister.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 03, 2013, 05:54:33 PM
I cannot but conclude that Heiwa is just taking the mick.
As a clueless Yank, I had to look that one up. "taking the mick" == pulling one's leg, i.e., teasing. Or trolling in an Internet context.

Supposedly "mick" is short for the rhyming slang "Mickey Bliss", but the phrase that forms is also unfamiliar to most Americans.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: grmcdorman on January 03, 2013, 06:03:44 PM
You know, I was thinking about this today. Isn't the whole point to a rocket engine basically throwing (reaction) mass away? It doesn't matter whether it's an AJ10-137 engine or Ivan Ivanovitch chucking rocks, although one will be a wee bit more efficient than the latter. The former just uses the heat-energy of combustion to make the reaction products go really, really fast, and the engine design constrains the direction they go, yes?

I mean, freaking bottle rockets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottle_rocket_%28model%29) (a.k.a. water rocket).

I would ask Heiwa how he thinks a bottle rocket gets its KE, but I don't think it'd go farther than "from the pressure".
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 03, 2013, 06:42:04 PM
Isn't the whole point to a rocket engine basically throwing (reaction) mass away?

That's exactly correct.  It's a pure application of Newton's third law of motion.

Quote
...or Ivan Ivanovitch chucking rocks...

That's pretty much how the Vostok RCS worked.  ;D

Quote
The former just uses the heat-energy of combustion to make the reaction products go really, really fast...

Yes.  The faster you can throw mass, the better you are.  A good way to get mass to go a certain direction is to establish the mass as a fluid and create a pressure difference in a strong container that expels it through an opening in the container, in one direction.  And a good way to create that pressure difference is to heat it up within that container.  And a good way to heat it up is to combust something in or around it, again in that chamber.  Brilliantly, we create the working fluid as the product of the combustion, such that we achieve optimal thermodynamic efficiency.

We've used other methods, such as the nuclear rocket.  We superheat the working fluid using a nuclear reaction to transfer heat into the fluid.  Any way you can raise the pressure of a confined working fluid, typically by raising its temperature, you have the basis for a putative rocket.  Theoretically a steampunk rocket could be made using a boiler and a suitable nozzle.

There are also electrostatic rockets that create the working mass (not even really a fluid) as ions and then use powerful magnetic fields to accelerate the working mass in a single direction at colossal velocity.  The last Boeing spacecraft chassis I worked on directly allowed this type of engine as one of the options for stationkeeping thrusters.

Quote
...and the engine design constrains the direction they go, yes?

Yes.  For chemical rockets we typically use the de Laval nozzle design, which has proven itself for more than a hundred years to be a successful mechanical apparatus for converting pressure to unidirectional velocity.  However as you note with the bottle rocket, a simple hole works well enough.  Because the fluid expands also to the sides (i.e., it disperses), only the component of the momentum that's parallel to the bottle's axis works for propulsion.

For the electrostatic rockets there is no nozzle.  The working mass has negligible gas behavior, so doesn't need to be constrained against static pressure.  Instead there is simply a pinhole where the ions emerge in a thin stream from the magnet assembly.

Solid rocket motors generally use conical nozzles.  This is because far more of them are needed than for liquid fueled rockets, and they work well enough while being more reliable and keeping costs down.  Conical nozzles are generally cooled by an ablation layer, which is easier to lay up in a conical frame and generally retains its expansion performance consistently as the layer erodes.  They work "well enough," which is to say that they do not perfectly convert pressure to velocity and they allow for a certain degree of plume expansion that reduces overall efficiency, but the performance is good enough in practice.

Probably the most curious mechanical design for an apparatus to convert pressure to velocity is the so-called Aerospike, which allows the plume to ride along the outside of a shaped structure.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on January 03, 2013, 06:53:51 PM
What makes aerospikes particularly interesting is that the surrounding atmosphere acts as the nozzle wall, allowing them to operate with greater efficiency at a wider range of altitudes,which is great for, say, a Single Stage to Orbit vehicle.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 03, 2013, 07:42:57 PM
OK Heiwa, you want to do a simple energy difference calculation? Fine. Forget burning the fuel. Just imagine that the spacecraft dumps all that fuel overboard in a non-propulsive way. Its mass decreases, it's velocity remains unchanged. Its kinetic energy therefore has decreased. Where did that energy go? How did the kinetic energy of the spacecraft change? The answer to that might help you with the answer to your original issue.

Where did that energy go? It was dumped! What are you trying to say? This discussion is getting sillier and sillier. Like the post about space navigation by sextant and compass and charts at high g (like in a WWII bomber) while swinging into Moon orbit or that weak structures like tin boxes can slow down from 11 200 m/s to 100 m/s (re-entry) by friction/turbulence without burning up. Sorry, you have to do much better to earn topic!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on January 03, 2013, 08:07:45 PM
Where did that energy go? It was dumped!

Jason clearly referenced kinetic energy. So answer his question and say how the kinetic energy changed.

Hint 1: Fuel != kinetic energy.
Hint 2: Since you're clearly pretending to be an engineer and clearly have little grasp of physics I'll help you a little more and tell you that the symbol "!=" means "does not equal"
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 03, 2013, 08:45:36 PM
Where did that energy go? It was dumped!

Jason clearly referenced kinetic energy. So answer his question and say how the kinetic energy changed.

Hint 1: Fuel != kinetic energy.
Hint 2: Since you're clearly pretending to be an engineer and clearly have little grasp of physics I'll help you a little more and tell you that the symbol "!=" means "does not equal"

?? Kinetic energy (J) per mass unit (kg) is just a function of velocity v (m/s) squared (v²) and when v is unchanged the kinetic energy (per mass unit) is unchanged. What are you trying to say? Instead of asking stupid question try to explain what you want to say.
Can you, e.g. explain re-entry. You are aboard the famous International Space Station, ISS, that according NASA is orbiting Earth every 90 minutes at 400 000 m altitude (almost vacuum) at 7 200 m/s velocity and you want to go down to Earth. It means you have to go down 400 000 m and slow down from 7 200 m/s to 0 m/s speed. How to do it?

Do you jump into a little capsule with a little rocket engine to slow you down? Yes, apparently you do that and the result is that you arrive at 120 000 m altitude but that the velocity then has increased to 9 000 m/s as some potential energy of the capsule has become kinetic energy = greater velocity. It is like diving from the 10 m board. It gets faster the closer you get to the water.

At 120 000 m altitude there is a thin atmosphere with nitrogene and oxygene atoms that you collide with and ... MAGIC ... suddenly you slow down to 100 m/s (at say 5 000 m altitude) and deploy a parachute and land. In a desert in Kazakstan. Where nobody lives. In the middle of nowhere!

Imagine that - you slow down from 9 000 m/s to 100 m/s just by colliding with atoms. But why don't you slow down to 0 m/s by colliding with atoms? Let me ask a stupid question or two? Why do you need a parachute at the end? What is wrong with colliding with atoms to the end?

When you dive from a 10 m board you do not need a parachute.



Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: grmcdorman on January 03, 2013, 09:19:17 PM
I just had a thought that should underscore the absurdity of Heiwa's "analysis”.

Let's take an imaginary spacecraft that has two identical engines, arranged directly opposite each other, and which do not impart any turning moment, i.e. they can't change the craft's spin or attitude.

Ivan is the operating engineer, and he decides to fire both engines for the same, identical duration at the same time.

Let's say the craft has a mass of 1,000 kg and a velocity of 1,000 m/s before the engines fire.

That means its KE is 1/2 × 1000 × 1000 × 1000, or 5×10^5 J (if I've got my units right).

Let's also say the burn consumes 500 kg.

So afterwards, the craft is still travelling at the same velocity - same speed, same direction - but it now has half the KE (1/2 × 500 × 1000 × 1000 = 2.5 × 10^5 J).

Where did the KE go, Heiwa?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Halcyon Dayz, FCD on January 03, 2013, 09:26:28 PM
An engineer who has never heard of terminal velocity or even doesn't understand why it exists?

A bright 8-year-old could figure that one out.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 03, 2013, 09:36:20 PM
Can you, e.g. explain re-entry. You are aboard the famous International Space Station, ISS, that according NASA is orbiting Earth every 90 minutes at 400 000 m altitude (almost vacuum) at 7 200 m/s velocity and you want to go down to Earth. It means you have to go down 400 000 m and slow down from 7 200 m/s to 0 m/s speed. How to do it?

My layman's explanation: you fire your engine in a retrograde direction until your periapsis is far enough inside the atmosphere to use atmospheric drag to slow your speed to terminal velocity, and then you use parachutes to finish the job.

Quote
It is like diving from the 10 m board. It gets faster the closer you get to the water.

You don't constantly accelerate, eventually you reach terminal velocity (the point where the downward force of gravity and the air resistance balance out).

Quote
At 120 000 m altitude there is a thin atmosphere with nitrogene and oxygene atoms that you collide with and ... MAGIC ... suddenly you slow down to 100 m/s (at say 5 000 m altitude) and deploy a parachute and land. In a desert in Kazakstan. Where nobody lives. In the middle of nowhere!

Would you rather they dropped the Soyuz capsule in the middle of a major city?

Quote
Imagine that - you slow down from 9 000 m/s to 100 m/s just by colliding with atoms. But why don't you slow down to 0 m/s by colliding with atoms?

You would reach 0 m/s if you collided with the atoms that make up the ground.

Quote
Let me ask a stupid question or two?

I haven't stopped you from doing so before, so why start now?

Quote
Why do you need a parachute at the end? What is wrong with colliding with atoms to the end?

Because air resistance isn't enough (on Earth) to slow you down to a safe (survivable) speed. But we'll add "terminal velocity" to the many things you don't understand (but still consider yourself an expert in).

Quote
When you dive from a 10 m board you do not need a parachute.

The key points here are the fact that you're only diving from 10m and can't reach a high speed, and the fact that you're diving into water and not into the ground.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 03, 2013, 09:36:33 PM
Of course, you are light years off topic about the Heiwa €1M Challenges...

Nonsense.  You have claimed to be a qualified and skilled engineer.  You have offered a substantial prize for anyone who can refute your findings, which you characterize as having come from a rigorous engineering background.  Your personal qualifications and expertise are therefore very much part of the question, and they will be investigated by any means possible.

-                      ---- SNIP FOR SPACE ----

After all that, you really can't figure out why you provoke such a strong reaction among people with legitimate qualifications and expertise?

Well spoken.

"Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"   - Wolfgang Pauli

Edit: Oh, and Heiwa? Lunar Orbit Insertion (swinging into moon orbit")  hardly qualifies as a High-G maneuver;  Delta-V of 889.1 m/s over 362 seconds would be an average acceleration of 2.456 m/s2 - about a quarter of a g.

I'm no engineer, but I can certainly do simple arithmetic.


Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on January 03, 2013, 09:42:31 PM
?? Kinetic energy (J) per mass unit (kg) is just a function of velocity v (m/s) squared (v²) and when v is unchanged the kinetic energy (per mass unit) is unchanged. What are you trying to say? Instead of asking stupid question try to explain what you want to say.

It's a function of velocity and mass...something that is not unchanged in the described situation.


Imagine that - you slow down from 9 000 m/s to 100 m/s just by colliding with atoms. But why don't you slow down to 0 m/s by colliding with atoms? Let me ask a stupid question or two? Why do you need a parachute at the end? What is wrong with colliding with atoms to the end?

So, it looks like we can add terminal velocity to the list of physical phenomena that Heiwa/Anders Björkman is unfamiliar with.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on January 03, 2013, 09:47:19 PM
Where did that energy go? It was dumped! What are you trying to say?

Yes, it was dumped - that is exactly the point.  According to your layman's energy-balance technique, since Vf = Vi in this scenario, the kinetic energy of the vehicle did not change - while even you acknowledge it did. 

His scenario was intended to demonstrate to you how your method doesn't work.  And it doesn't work; real engineers have been telling you this for quite a while now.  Now that it has been presented to you in the simplest possible form, do you finally get it?

This discussion is getting sillier and sillier. Like the post about space navigation by sextant and compass and charts

The Apollo navigation solutions were all computed beforehand with allowances for variances in actual mass, performance, event times, and so on.  They were updated constantly on the ground by some of the most powerful computers available.  In any case, I already provided you detailed references on the methods and means of Apollo navigation (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8745#msg8745).  Feel free to provide an informed criticism, if you have one; all you have at this point is an appeal to ignorance, which is rejected as unfounded and uninformed.

at high g

The LOI burn duration was 357.5 seconds long with a velocity change of 2917.5 ft/sec, for an average acceleration of 8.2 ft/sec2, or approximately 1/4 G.   "High g"?  Really?  How do you survive living in a 1 G environment?  Or would you simply care to admit your mistake?

(like in a WWII bomber)

Wrong again.  Or do you really believe bomber navigators took Sun sights while their ships were maneuvering to avoid FW-190s? 

while swinging into Moon orbit


Wrong again.  The spacecraft computer managed the burn, including attitude control.

or that weak structures like tin boxes

Wrong again.  The CM featured an outer stainless-steel honeycomb structure around the inner pressure vessel, an aluminum honeycomb structure - a very common construction technique in air- and spacecraft.  Your characterization is nothing more than an appeal to ridicule, but once again serves only to make you look ridiculous because - once again - you have no idea what you are talking about.

can slow down from 11 200 m/s to 100 m/s (re-entry) by friction/turbulence without burning up.

Wrong in many ways: first, not by turbulence, as has been explained to you already.  Second, by use of an ablative heat shield - standard engineering practice, as has been explained to you already.  Third, the absolute maximum G load at any point during any Apollo reentry was 7.19 during Apollo 16 reentry - less than that commonly encountered during aerobatics or air combat.

Sorry, you have to do much better to earn topic!

You've already been proven wrong on almost everything you've said in this thread.  All you accomplished in this post was to demonstrate further ignorance. 

Now, I ask you again to address the three main issues with your "challenge" (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8604#msg8604):

1. You are offering money you don't have, for a challenge you have defined poorly and has no proper adjudication.

2. Your primary calculation is completely wrong because you don't understand energy balances.

3. You have no idea what you are talking about, and no apparent interest or ability in relieving your own ignorance.

In light of these issues, I ask again - do you have any intention of actually learning anything at all, or are you just trolling?  Because right now, the bit-bucket yawns wide.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 03, 2013, 10:06:03 PM
Yes.  The faster you can throw mass, the better you are.

Yes, but putting maximum energy into your exhaust isn't what you're really trying to do. You want to put maximum momentum into your exhaust so that in pushing on it, by Newton's Third Law, you'll impart an equal and opposite momentum to your spacecraft. That's how rockets work.

Momentum is simply proportional to velocity:

p = mv

So if you double the velocity of your exhaust, you double the momentum you get out of each kilogram of propellant, and you'll only have to carry half as much. Cool.

But there's a problem. Pushing on any moving object takes energy, but that energy increases as the square of the velocity:

Ke = 1/2 m v2

So doubling your velocity doubles your momentum rate, but quadruples the power required. And the energy available to eject each kilogram of propellant is limited by the energy stored in that kilogram.

Solving for velocity we get

v = sqrt(2 Ke/m).

If we have an ideal rocket that somehow converts all of the stored energy in its propellants into kinetic energy of the exhaust, then Ke/m is the energy stored in each unit of propellant. We can't throw it any faster than v because, as the saying goes, "Cap'n, we haven't the power"!

This is rocketry's "dismal equation". If you want to minimize the propellant weight you have to carry, you have to eject it at a high velocity, so you want the most energetic ones you can find (i.e., with the greatest energy per unit mass). Chemicals like this tend to be unstable or toxic or hard to handle or expensive -- or all four.

But suppose the energy to eject the propellant came from something other than the propellant itself? That's what's neat about nuclear thermal or electric propulsion. They separate the two combined roles of a chemical propellant: reaction mass to push on, and stored energy to push on it with.The reaction mass can be chosen to be cheap and/or easy to store and handle and/or nontoxic and/or for other purposes, such as good radiation shielding. You can take a lot of energy from a nuclear reactor or big solar panels and put it all into a tiny amount of propellant, ejecting it really really fast, and you'll get by with much less propellant. That's how ion engines, especially, get their extremely high performance. But because so much energy is required to eject each unit of propellant, the mass flow rates tend to be very low, and so is the thrust. So you have to be patient.

One non-chemical engine with a lot of promise is the nuclear thermal rocket, because reactors can produce a lot of power in a very small volume and produce thrusts comparable to chemical rockets. One was actually developed and tested in the early 1960s but was then cancelled. None have ever been flown, but it is probably an enabling technology for interplanetary human space flight.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on January 03, 2013, 10:10:43 PM
At 120 000 m altitude there is a thin atmosphere with nitrogene and oxygene atoms that you collide with and ... MAGIC

No, it's called "aerodynamic drag", known to laymen like you - let's drop the pretense that you are any kind of engineer - as "friction".
... suddenly
Not "suddenly".  And the literature has reams and reams of research into atmospheric braking; in fact, there are file cabinets full of it - decades of work - in my office, in this case pertaining to the atmospheric reentry of isotope heat sources.
you slow down to 100 m/s (at say 5 000 m altitude) and deploy a parachute and land. In a desert in Kazakstan. Where nobody lives. In the middle of nowhere!

Or you glide to a stop at the Shuttle Landing Facility on Merritt Island after making a precision approach - in fact, I was at the first night landing at KSC.  Where you land depends on which kind of blunt lifting body technology you choose to employ - the tradeoffs of which are the kinds of things engineers do.

Imagine that - you slow down from 9 000 m/s to 100 m/s just by colliding with atoms. But why don't you slow down to 0 m/s by colliding with atoms?
Terminal velocity, as any reasonably-educated high-school student should know, happens when aerodynamic drag balances gravitational acceleration.   Again, let's drop the silly pretense that you are an engineer when you display such ignorance.
Let me ask a stupid question or two? Why do you need a parachute at the end? What is wrong with colliding with atoms to the end?
For the same reason a skydiver needs a parachute.  And, if you choose a glider-type approach, you don't need a parachute at all - the Shuttle only added a drag chute on rollout as an extra safety measure, and had landed just fine without one.  Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.
When you dive from a 10 m board you do not need a parachute.
When you dive from a 1000 m platform you do.  Let alone from 105 m.

After making yet another staggeringly ignorant post, Heiwa, and having your head handed to you yet again, one has to ask - don't you ever get embarrassed by being so routinely and spectacularly wrong?  Me, I would be embarrassed, and would regroup and try to understand what I was talking about rather than keep making a fool of myself, but you just keep right on talking.

Don't you have any desire to actually learn anything, rather than to stubbornly repeat your errors and keep demonstrating your ignorance?

Or are you just saying stupid things to get attention?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on January 03, 2013, 10:13:59 PM
One non-chemical engine with a lot of promise is the nuclear thermal rocket, because reactors can produce a lot of power in a very small volume and produce thrusts comparable to chemical rockets. One was actually developed and tested in the early 1960s...
Well, as it turned out it was merrily using the reactor core as additional reaction mass.  But that's another story.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Not Myself on January 03, 2013, 10:22:46 PM
Imagine that - you slow down from 9 000 m/s to 100 m/s just by colliding with atoms. But why don't you slow down to 0 m/s by colliding with atoms?

You do.  That's why when the engines on an aeroplane go out, it just hangs there, and they have to send someone up to rescue the occupants.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on January 03, 2013, 10:28:13 PM
Heiwa, as I am not an engineer I imagine you are not interested in reading what I have to say, but I think it is still worth saying: even I can see that there is nothing inherently implausible in the ideas of: (a) using the atmosphere to slow down, (b) having a spacecraft's trajectory altered by gravity, (c) firing a rocket engine to change a spacecraft's trajectory, or (d) being able to calculate the effects of these accurately enough to send a spacecraft to the Moon and successfully retrieve it.

As mentioned, I'm not an engineer, but I'm familiar enough with the concept of separating the direction the spacecraft is travelling from the direction it's pointing. One of the games I play with my sons when they're riding in a shopping trolley is to spin the trolley as I walk down the aisle of the supermarket. Depending on the trolley, in the best case I can make the trolley complete a 360 degree spin and have the handle return to my hands without me having to change the speed or direction I'm walking.

Accordingly, the idea that a spacecraft could be made to face backwards to use its engine to slow down into orbit or to head for land just seems completely unremarkable. I seriously don't understand how someone claiming to be an engineer could fail to Get It.

Incidentally, Heiwa, your objections are all very interesting, but you then have to explain how NASA has possession of ~380 kilograms of material from the Moon. But perhaps that's better suited to another thread.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 03, 2013, 10:36:03 PM
One non-chemical engine with a lot of promise is the nuclear thermal rocket, because reactors can produce a lot of power in a very small volume and produce thrusts comparable to chemical rockets. One was actually developed and tested in the early 1960s but was then cancelled. None have ever been flown, but it is probably an enabling technology for interplanetary human space flight.

The nuclear rocket program, Project Rover,  actually lastest until the end of 1972.  I don't know when the last test firing was, but I know tests ran at least as late as 1968.  The work my father did for NASA during that time was part of the Rover program.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on January 03, 2013, 10:54:33 PM
Actually, since Heiwa claims to have all this nautical engineering know-how, maybe he would care to explain why a ship with a constant propulsive force doesn't "slow down to 0 m/s by colliding with atoms?"

This is an exact analogy to a spacecraft undergoing an essentially constant downward force (mg) falling through the atmosphere and experiencing drag force.  At terminal velocity, the aerodynamic drag force is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the gravitational force.  The exact same thing applies to a ship when the propulsive force is balanced by hydrodynamic drag.

It's baffling that someone who claims to be an engineer is unaware of such simple concepts.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 03, 2013, 11:01:51 PM
Can you, e.g. explain re-entry. You are aboard the famous International Space Station, ISS, that according NASA is orbiting Earth every 90 minutes at 400 000 m altitude (almost vacuum) at 7 200 m/s velocity and you want to go down to Earth. It means you have to go down 400 000 m and slow down from 7 200 m/s to 0 m/s speed. How to do it?

Do you jump into a little capsule with a little rocket engine to slow you down? Yes, apparently you do that and the result is that you arrive at 120 000 m altitude but that the velocity then has increased to 9 000 m/s as some potential energy of the capsule has become kinetic energy = greater velocity. It is like diving from the 10 m board. It gets faster the closer you get to the water.

Where do you get your numbers, dude?  At an altitude of 400,000 m, orbital velocity is 7,669 m/s, not 7,200.  And you won't be going anywhere near 9,000 m/s at 120,000 m.  The exact velocity will depend on the perigee of your reentry orbit, but your velocity will certainly be less than 7,900 m/s.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 03, 2013, 11:13:00 PM
Quote
Let me ask a stupid question or two?

I haven't stopped you from doing so before, so why start now?

Oh, that was beautiful!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: peter eldergill on January 03, 2013, 11:13:48 PM
Again a curious (probably yes or no answer)

Are the speeds used for lunar spacecraft susceptible to relativistic effects? I know that for GPS satellites to work properly you need to take that into account

Pete
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 03, 2013, 11:51:36 PM
Are the speeds used for lunar spacecraft susceptible to relativistic effects? I know that for GPS satellites to work properly you need to take that into account
Relativistic effects are present at any speed. It's just that at low speeds they're usually too small to notice, and are swamped by various errors.

It's actually somewhat of a misconception that GPS won't work without explicitly taking relativity into account. GPS is a closed-loop system that provides position and time with respect to a set of ground tracking stations and ground reference clocks. The loop is closed when these stations upload orbital elements and clock correction data that each satellite rebroadcasts to the users for use in calculations. This data repeats every 30 seconds and changes every 2 hours.

If relativity were simply ignored, its effects would appear as additional errors to be corrected by the monitoring stations. The system would still provide accurate position and time, but the clock error terms would be considerably larger and take more time to transmit. Since the GPS data rate is only 50 bps, and receiving it is a major cause of receiver first-fix delays, this is important. By including relativity in the model (particularly by biasing the clocks slow before launch to account for the general relativistic blue shift of gravity) only the unmodeled "noise" in the spacecraft clock needs to be transmitted in the ephemeris, and the system is faster and easier to use.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on January 04, 2013, 12:28:52 AM
At 120 000 m altitude there is a thin atmosphere with nitrogene and oxygene atoms that you collide with and ... MAGIC ... suddenly you slow down to 100 m/s (at say 5 000 m altitude) and deploy a parachute and land.

So atmospheric drag will work with parachutes but it won't work with anything else?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 04, 2013, 12:36:37 AM
So atmospheric drag will work with parachutes but it won't work with anything else?
It works with cats:

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/11/domestic-cats-can-fall-from-any-height-with-a-remarkable-survival-rate/
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 04, 2013, 12:50:00 AM
Actually, since Heiwa claims to have all this nautical engineering know-how, maybe he would care to explain why a ship with a constant propulsive force doesn't "slow down to 0 m/s by colliding with atoms?"



A sea going ship, engine of which via the propeller applies a force F to the ship, proceeds at constant speed, say x knots, while the environment (water/air/friction/collisions with atoms) applies a force -F to the ship = there is balance.

If you ran out of fuel and the engine applies force F=0 to the ship, the ship slows down until the speed is 0 knots, when all forces acting on the ship including atom colliding with it add upp to 0.

Evidently if the ship is in a sea current you have to consider that the sea current may modify the ship's speed.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 04, 2013, 01:05:13 AM
Your other post was not approved due to it being rather trollish.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 04, 2013, 01:11:49 AM
Evidently if the ship is in a sea current you have to consider that the sea current may modify the ship's speed.

I suspect this correction will do as much good as any of the others, but "evidently" doesn't mean the same thing as "obviously."  It is closer to "apparently."  What you basically said there is that you guess you'd have to consider the current, if the ship is in a current, but you are sure there are arguments against it.  Though of course, if you did mean that, it would be about equal to the rest of the knowledge you've shown about physics.
Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sus_pilot on January 04, 2013, 01:49:27 AM
Actually, since Heiwa claims to have all this nautical engineering know-how, maybe he would care to explain why a ship with a constant propulsive force doesn't "slow down to 0 m/s by colliding with atoms?"



A sea going ship, engine of which via the propeller applies a force F to the ship, proceeds at constant speed, say x knots, while the environment (water/air/friction/collisions with atoms) applies a force -F to the ship = there is balance.

If you ran out of fuel and the engine applies force F=0 to the ship, the ship slows down until the speed is 0 knots, when all forces acting on the ship including atom colliding with it add upp to 0.

Evidently if the ship is in a sea current you have to consider that the sea current may modify the ship's speed.

Ok, good. 

Now, take an object, say, a re-entry vehicle using a blunt body, or a glider, like the Shuttle, or an airplane with the engine shut down and imagine that the force to move it is gravity pulling it towards Earth.  Since said object encounters aerodynamic drag, the forces will, at some point balance out and a certain velocity will be reached, depending on the amount of drag said shape will encounter.

"But wait!" I hear you cry.  "Why does an airliner need engines?  Just like my ocean liner, it needs them to move forward.  Your whole analogy is wrong!"

No - in level flight, an airplane needs enough thrust to maintain the same speed at a given angle of attack.  Else, to stay level, it would have to increase the wing's angle of attack, increasing drag, and slowing down. At some point, the wings' critical angle of attack will be exceeded and it will cease to fly, and the aircraft will simply fall (unless the pilot recovers from the stalked condition by lowering the angle of attack).  Or, without engines, if it maintains the same angle of attack (and same drag), it will descend, converting potential energy to kinetic, to overcome said drag.

"Ah!  I still have you!  What about the fact that the airplane climbs?"

Well, the if you have more thrust than is needed to maintain level flight for a given angle of attack, that energy has to go somewhere.  You can either lower the angle of attack, reducing induced drag, and go faster (until induced, parasite, and form drag all equal thrust, so you stabilize at your new speed).  Or you can keep the same angle of attack and climb. 

Oh, one more thing.  A vessel does not "know" about current.  It just knows about the mass of fluid, be it water for a ship, or air for an aircraft, blunt body, whatever.  The only time currents or wind come into play is at boundary of two masses moving at different velocities and/or directions (else, how can I have flown a Cessna 172 at a ground speed of over two hundred knots without damaging the airplane when it's never-exceed speed is 163 knots?).
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 04, 2013, 02:18:08 AM
Are the speeds used for lunar spacecraft susceptible to relativistic effects?
It really depends on the spacecraft and the mission as to whether the effects are noticeable. For Apollo, probably not; there were enough other sources of error, such as the incompletely modeled lunar gravity field, to swamp out the effects of relativity.

But for a mission like the recently concluded GRAIL spacecraft pair that measured that lunar gravity field, the instrumentation was probably sensitive enough to detect relativistic effects, so they had to be accounted for in the data processing.
Title: Re: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 04, 2013, 02:42:44 AM
OK Heiwa, you want to do a simple energy difference calculation? Fine. Forget burning the fuel. Just imagine that the spacecraft dumps all that fuel overboard in a non-propulsive way. Its mass decreases, it's velocity remains unchanged. Its kinetic energy therefore has decreased. Where did that energy go? How did the kinetic energy of the spacecraft change? The answer to that might help you with the answer to your original issue.

Where did that energy go? It was dumped!

So kinetic energy of spacecraft before = kinetic energy of spacecraft after + kinetic energy of dumped propellant?

That's energy balance. What you've been doing isn't energy balance because you're missing out terms. That's why you keep getting the wrong answer.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 04, 2013, 02:47:52 AM
Hint 1: Fuel != kinetic energy.
<snipped for space>
When you dive from a 10 m board you do not need a parachute.

Let me start off by also reinforcing that I am most certainly not an engineer. I am nothing more than a bloke with a keen interest in the Apollo program.
I can recognise when people do know what they are talking about, and when people don't. And I have learned an absolute load about Apollo from reading this forum, including learning enough to correct parts of my understanding.


Heiwa,
This thread is now 44 pages long with nearly 700 posts in it. During it's course you have repeatedly been shown to have fundamental errors in your understanding and knowledge. You have been given copious examples that demonstrate, sometimes in painful detail, where you have been in error. The post above shows just how thin your understanding is, or alternatively how desperate you appear to be to be wilfully ignorant and a troll.

Do you you accept this?

Do you acknowledge where your understanding has been incorrect and can you state that you have corrected your thinking?

Instead of throwing up another spurious example of your lack of understanding, can you address these issues? Doing so would go a long to showing that you are not deliberately being obtuse and trolling for reaction, but that you are able to learn new things and correct errors in your understanding.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 04, 2013, 03:12:03 AM
Where did that energy go? It was dumped!

Dumped where? In the mass of the fuel that was thrown overboard? Fine. So if you are considering the overboard fuel mass in that case, why are you ignoring it in the case of an engine burn?

Quote
This discussion is getting sillier and sillier.

That's down to you and you alone.

Quote
Sorry, you have to do much better to earn topic!

How many times do I have to tell you I don't give a damn about the million euros because I am certain you don't have it and that you have no intention of handing it over even if you did?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 04, 2013, 03:23:44 AM
A sea going ship, engine of which via the propeller applies a force F to the ship, proceeds at constant speed, say x knots, while the environment (water/air/friction/collisions with atoms) applies a force -F to the ship = there is balance.

So why do you think this business of drag doesn't apply to an object falling through air? Constant force from gravity, drag from air. Balance is achieved, velocity reaches constant value and the falling spacecraft can't accelerate without a force being applied. Terminal velocity is too high to survive impact of the spacecraft with the ground, so a parachute is used to slow it further.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on January 04, 2013, 03:58:56 AM
Björkman has changed his page again. In green are the new additions.

Quote
(The spaceship velocities used here are absolute to the planets or Moon in question. The planets evidently rotate around themselves and orbit around the Sun at other velocities. Space travel experts suggest that I should add the velocity of the Earth/Moon orbiting the Sun plus the velocity of the Sun orbiting the Universe to the velocities given here but as I do not know the latter I just use the velocities given by NASA ... to calculate the kinetic energies involved. Just to get a feel of the situation ... as zero velocity or kinetic energy does not exist in space)

As far as I can remember, nobody here suggested such a thing. Heiwa, if this was written about the discussion here, point out the post where this suggestion was made, otherwise I'll just assume that you are lying.

We also get this gem (the whole paragraph is new text):
Quote
It thus took about 73 hours or 262&nbsp;800 seconds to travel the distance 384 000 000 meters. Average velocity during Moon trip was only 1 460 m/s. If start velocity to get away from Earth was 11 200 m/s and arrival velocity was 2&nbsp;400 m/s with a minimum velocity at about 9/10th of the distance travelled due to Earth gravity, you really wonder how space ship velocity varied during the trip to the Moon.

Apparently all the discussion about the energy balance really confused him:
Quote
The spaceship kinetic energy before braking was 43574*2400²/2 = 125.4 GJ and after braking 32676*1500²/2 = 36.76 GJ, i.e. change in kinetic energy due braking was 88.64 GJ. Space travel experts suggest that you cannot calculate the kinetic energy in space as the 'space' is moving at another velocity to be added or subtracted to the ones given but as the latter speed is not known to them, I keep it simple as indicated. It seems we agree that fuel/energy, in this case 10 898 kg, was used to change the velocity of the space craft that became 10 898 kg lighter.

Heiwa, answer me this: those 10 898 kg of mass had kinetic energy before the burn, as you include them in the mass of the spacecraft. What do you think happened with that kinetic energy when the fuel was spent?

The rest of the changes on the page seem to be trivial.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 04, 2013, 04:02:59 AM
Quote
It thus took about 73 hours or 262&nbsp;800 seconds to travel the distance 384 000 000 meters. Average velocity during Moon trip was only 1 460 m/s. If start velocity to get away from Earth was 11 200 m/s and arrival velocity was 2&nbsp;400 m/s with a minimum velocity at about 9/10th of the distance travelled due to Earth gravity, you really wonder how space ship velocity varied during the trip to the Moon.

Ah, I see he falls into the usual hole of assuming you can treat the journey as a straight line....
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 04, 2013, 04:43:25 AM
Quote
(The spaceship velocities used here are absolute to the planets or Moon in question.

Something cannot be absolute to anything. They are relative to something. In the case of the Apollo spacecraft the speeds described are relative to the Earth.

Quote
Space travel experts suggest that I should add the velocity of the Earth/Moon orbiting the Sun plus the velocity of the Sun orbiting the Universe to the velocities given here

Please do point out where anyone has actually said you should do any such thing.

Quote
Space travel experts suggest that you cannot calculate the kinetic energy in space as the 'space' is moving at another velocity to be added or subtracted to the ones given

Again, please point out where this was said by anyone. The only thing you have been told needs to be added or subtracted is the velocity (and hence the kinetic energy) of the exhaust from the engine burn. It consists of mass that was part of the spacecraft before but is now no longer part of it. The thing we are trying (with frankly no hope of success) to get you to grasp is that you cannot ignore this mass in your calculations just because it is no longer attached to the spacecraft, as it is still part of the system in which energy and mass are conserved.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Dinorupe on January 04, 2013, 04:59:36 AM
Ive seen web pages where people claim every manned mission,from Gemini to the ISS was all staged in a huge underwater tank.
Its funny how there are countless articles available online completely free by qualified/verified engineers etc supporting the landings but all the hoaxers are either self-taught engineers/former librarians (lol) or people just trying to sell a book.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 04, 2013, 05:03:37 AM
The internet is a wonderful thing. It has made so many Apollo-related resources freely available from the comfort of your own living room. And yet there are still people out there who insist this stuff is not available, or that there are 'only' so many pictures. Just look at the number of time Heiwa has insisted that data he wants are not available. The disturbing thing is when people keep on insisting this stuff is not available even when it is handed to them on a plate....
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Dinorupe on January 04, 2013, 05:09:07 AM
Just like how the Saturn V and LM blueprints have mysteriously disappeared....dont tell NASA but i have them on my phone and they werent hard to find!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gwiz on January 04, 2013, 06:06:09 AM
Something cannot be absolute to anything. They are relative to something. In the case of the Apollo spacecraft the speeds described are relative to the Earth.
I think the LOI velocities we've been discussing are relative to the moon.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 04, 2013, 06:28:19 AM
Ah, that would make sense. I stand corrected.

Heiwa, please note how easy those words came. You might want to try using them yourself some time.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 04, 2013, 06:43:06 AM
Heiwa, do you know Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion? You really seem confuses about how an object should move in an orbit.

It takes a very delusional mind to think that when faced with something you don't understand, it's the whole world that's wrong and not just your understanding.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 04, 2013, 06:55:09 AM
It takes a very delusional mind to think that when faced with something you don't understand, it's the whole world that's wrong and not just your understanding.

But that is the mindset of a lot of hoax believers, isn't it? They selectively filter what they see and hear. They have the time to watch countless YouTube videos but yet won't spend an afternoon on the Lunar Surface Journal or the NASA Technical Documents Server.

For sure, some HB have never been shown the places to get information. Once they have they realise just what a magnificent achievement that the Apollo program was. Vincent McConnell is an example...he came here (IIRC) as a HB.

The ones that I really don't get are the ones like Heiwa. They have been presented with information and yet refuse to acknowledge it. They are wilfully ignorant, and personally I find that the lowest form of intellectual cowardice there is.   I think that they have invested so much of their energies into believing the hoax that to climb down off their hobby horse would be impossible for them. So they keep ploughing their own furrow and ultimately keep well away from places like this (hence why I think that Heiwa's behaviour will get more extreme resulting in a ban, or he will flounce...its happened loads of times before).
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 04, 2013, 07:41:10 AM
OK Heiwa, you want to do a simple energy difference calculation? Fine. Forget burning the fuel. Just imagine that the spacecraft dumps all that fuel overboard in a non-propulsive way. Its mass decreases, it's velocity remains unchanged. Its kinetic energy therefore has decreased. Where did that energy go? How did the kinetic energy of the spacecraft change? The answer to that might help you with the answer to your original issue.

Where did that energy go? It was dumped! What are you trying to say? This discussion is getting sillier and sillier. Like the post about space navigation by sextant and compass and charts at high g (like in a WWII bomber) while swinging into Moon orbit or that weak structures like tin boxes can slow down from 11 200 m/s to 100 m/s (re-entry) by friction/turbulence without burning up. Sorry, you have to do much better to earn topic!
I think maybe you have the wrong picture in your head when reading this phrase. The sextant used by the Apollo spacecraft wasn't the ages-old traditional style seaman's sextant:
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt353/jarvisn/000220-Sextant_zpsac01dc08.jpg)
It was built into the outer wall of the Command Module and was part of the navigation station in the lower equipment bay:
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt353/jarvisn/Apollo-8-Lovell-in-lower-equipment-bay-taking-sightings-300x206_zps11359a5e.jpg)
Honestly, if you want to debate a legitimate question that's one thing, but making fun by pretending to misunderstand the terminology is beneath an adult human.
Besides, the Apollo Program took place only about 20 years after the end of WWII - why wouldn't similar technology still be in use?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 04, 2013, 07:46:47 AM
It takes a very delusional mind to think that when faced with something you don't understand, it's the whole world that's wrong and not just your understanding.

But that is the mindset of a lot of hoax believers, isn't it? They selectively filter what they see and hear. They have the time to watch countless YouTube videos but yet won't spend an afternoon on the Lunar Surface Journal or the NASA Technical Documents Server.

For sure, some HB have never been shown the places to get information. Once they have they realise just what a magnificent achievement that the Apollo program was. Vincent McConnell is an example...he came here (IIRC) as a HB.

The ones that I really don't get are the ones like Heiwa. They have been presented with information and yet refuse to acknowledge it. They are wilfully ignorant, and personally I find that the lowest form of intellectual cowardice there is.   I think that they have invested so much of their energies into believing the hoax that to climb down off their hobby horse would be impossible for them. So they keep ploughing their own furrow and ultimately keep well away from places like this (hence why I think that Heiwa's behaviour will get more extreme resulting in a ban, or he will flounce...its happened loads of times before).
And those that do spend time on ALSJ and other sites use that time in looking for the tiny inconsistencies that are part of any human endeavor and trying to make them out to somehow support their own pet theories.

EDIT:
Oh, and Heiwa's already flounced a couple of times, but he keeps coming back (gotta give him points for persistence, I suppose) and lately seems to be skating right on the edge of a ban. IMO, LO has shown a lot of forbearance - I think he doesn't like to ban anyone unless their behavior just becomes too antisocial to be borne.

Besides, we haven't had a real HB around to play with in ages.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 04, 2013, 07:47:37 AM
For numerous and diverse reasons no doubt, they have a desire and need to believe in the conspiracy theory.

Just recently, DakDak, when confronted with the uncomfortable fact that he didn't know anything and we did (something he could at least recognize on some level unlike Heiwa) practically had a nervous breakdown.

Then advancedboy, when told that Kaysing had made up the conspiracy theory, seemed genuinely heart broken that his prophet was a liar (believing 400,000 people who worked on the project are liars is no problem for him on the other hand).

Many of the HB's cling to this or any other conspiracy theory like a life vest.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Tanalia on January 04, 2013, 08:10:24 AM
Björkman has changed his page again. In green are the new additions.

Quote
(The spaceship velocities used here are absolute to the planets or Moon in question. The planets evidently rotate around themselves and orbit around the Sun at other velocities. Space travel experts suggest that I should add the velocity of the Earth/Moon orbiting the Sun plus the velocity of the Sun orbiting the Universe to the velocities given here but as I do not know the latter I just use the velocities given by NASA ... to calculate the kinetic energies involved. Just to get a feel of the situation ... as zero velocity or kinetic energy does not exist in space)

As far as I can remember, nobody here suggested such a thing. Heiwa, if this was written about the discussion here, point out the post where this suggestion was made, otherwise I'll just assume that you are lying.

Pretty sure he's referring to cjameshuff's post #266 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8183#msg8183) but, as usual, completely missing the point that you don't need to take any of those velocities into account, any more than you do for a man walking on a plane or for calculating a change in velocity.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 04, 2013, 08:12:29 AM
Maybe an illustration would be helpful.

Here is an excerpt from a thread titled "Spacecraft Design For Dummies" in the Orbiter Forum; OP was jedidia.

Thrust and ISP

Let's get back to how a rocket works: By expelling its own mass. There are two major characteristics to this process, thrust and ISP, which I'll try to explain to those who don't understand them yet.
Let's assume we have some anonymous spacecraft, and its rather brutish, old fashioned captain has found a group of clowns that escaped from the circus stowing away on board. Being the rather strict, and very well aware of the value of any of mass in space, he decides to throw them out the airlock.
So our Captain stands in the airlock with the first clown, and gives him a good shove with his boot, we won't mention where.
By Newtons law, this will have two effects. One is that our unhappy clown will float out the airlock with a certain velocity depending on the force of the shove the captain gave him. The other thing that happens is that the ship gets accelerated in the opposite direction by the same force. Heureka, we just made a rocket! We accelerated the ship using mass it carried along, and then expelled with force (no, the flames and the noise are not a strict part of the definition of the rocket engine, although they are usually included, and we'll soon see why).
Of course, this is a terribly inefficient rocket. Our meager clown weights a lot less than the vessel, so the force applied to it is, for all intents and purposes, unmeasurable. This won't do. If our captain wants to make some real use of his stowaways, he'll need to change tactics.
He can choose between two basic options, but both more or less mean that he will just have to kick harder: The first thing that may come to mind is to take a fatter clown! If he kicks that fat clown with more force than the one before, he may well give him the same velocity as the lighter clown earlier. This passes more force to the ship, obviously. We have generated more thrust, but until now we have only done so by increasing the force of the 'engine', as the captain could kick anything with that force, and the result on his ship would be the same!

But what would happen if the captain took a clown that weights even less than the first one, and kicks him with the same esprit he kicked the fat one? Well, the clown will fly off a lot faster than the fat one. We still have the same force applied to the ship, since the captain has kicked with the same force. But we have expended less mass to apply it! What we have actually done is improved efficiency! The lighter the clown, the less mass we need to expel with each kick, while the applied change of velocity to the vessel remains the same as long as our captain doesn't tire. The side effect of this is that the velocity of the spaced clown has increased. Which means that we increased the exhaust velocity, or, more technically, the ISP (specific impulse) of our engine.

Now of course this can't really be a solution. Our captain will very soon be tired. Wouldn't it be better if we had even smaller chunks of mass to expel, so the captain wouldn't have to strain himself so much and still reach a decent exhaust velocity? It sounds like a good Idea, so after doing something unspeakable to one of his poor stowaways, he continues to expel him out the airlock bit by bit. He kicks a lot less strongly now, so he can keep at it longer, giving every piece the same exhaust velocity as the light clown he kicked out before all at once. In the end this means that the same change of velocity will be passed to the vessel as before, while he could divide the effort into handy little kicks that don't tire him as much.
But oh hey, the whole procedure now takes much longer. Our Captain may now get double the DV from the same mass of clown as when we kicked out the really fat one... but it takes a lot more time! What we now did, is reduce the thrust of the rocket to optimize the exhaust velocity, and therefore its efficiency. We now get much more Delta-V per kg of clown, but we don't get it as fast. The ship, as a result, will accelerate much slower.
Now, wouldn't it be great if our captain could take the fat clown from the beginning, and kick him out at the same velocity as the small chunks of clown just now? Well, sure, it would be great, but the captain just doesn't have the strength. Even if he had, he might reach the point where he breaks his leg by the sheer force of his own kick.

And this is where I will end the morbid analogy and hope that you learned something apart from what not to do with clowns. Seriously, take politicians, it's ethically less questionable.
This is the basic struggle that any engine faces, and you will have to make a decision what you prefer: Efficiency or Thrust. It's not theoretically impossible to have both, but engineers don't care so much about the theoretically possible. The problem for whatever engine is the same as for the captain in our example: Expelling larger and larger amounts of mass at a high velocity requires more and more power. And in our spoilsport universe, great power comes with great heat. And great heat will break the engine sooner or later, as the responsible engineer will tell you.


Can't speak for anyone else, but this analogy was a big help to my poor non-engineer mind.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 04, 2013, 08:37:58 AM

Heiwa, answer me this: those 10 898 kg of mass had kinetic energy before the burn, as you include them in the mass of the spacecraft. What do you think happened with that kinetic energy when the fuel was spent?


The Apollo 11 had, according Willy of NASA, total mass incl. fuel of 43 574 kg (or 96 062 lb) and speed 2 400 m/s when a retrograde firing of the service module, SM, P-22KS rocket engine with 97 400 N thrust for 357.5 seconds reduced the speed to 1 500 m/s at 2.52 m/s² deceleration and placed the spacecraft into an initial, elliptical-lunar orbit at about 115 000 m altitude.

During the 357.5 seconds braking the space ship travelled about 697 125 meter (for that you need a brake force 127 151 N that the SM engine could not provide!) or maybe 910 000 meter, with a brake force 97 400 N provided by the P-22KS rocket engine but then it took longer - 467 seconds. Who cares? It seems we all agree the Apollo 11 had to slow down.

Mass of Apollo 11 after this brake maneuver was 32 676 kg (or 72 038 lb) according WIlly. It means 10 898 kg of fuel was used to produce the 97 400 N thrust for 357.5 seconds.

The energy of the fuel burnt in the rocket engine evidently created the 97 400 N force to reduce the speed.

The spaceship + fuel kinetic energy before braking was 43574*2400²/2 = 125.4 GJ and after braking 32676*1500²/2 = 36.76 GJ, i.e. change in kinetic energy due braking applying the force was 88.64 GJ.

That energy thus became part of the space environment outside the space craft and could not be recuperated. It is evidently still there! A cloud of burnt fuel exhaust at various velocities concentrations polluting space? 

I have to add that the asstrnuts really produced a clout burning so much fuel in so short time. I would have done it much slower over a longer time in my SF novel not to wake the passengers.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on January 04, 2013, 08:53:17 AM
Björkman has changed his page yet again. He's continuing to dig himself deeper with the determination of a "shock brigade" miner. Most of the changes are minor, again, only the larger ones:

The "absolute velocities" paragraph has been further extended:
Quote
The spaceship velocities used here are absolute to the planets or Moon in question. The planets evidently rotate around themselves and orbit around the Sun at other velocities. Space travel experts suggest that I should add the velocity of the Earth/Moon orbiting the Sun plus the velocity of the Sun orbiting the Universe to the velocities given here but as I do not know the latter I just use the velocities given by NASA ... to calculate the kinetic energies involved. Just to get a feel of the situation. It seems Moon travel is pretty easy as the Moon orbits the Earth almost circularily. If you depart from Earth orbit at exactly the right time to arrive at the Moon a few days later, you can visually see the Moon ahead of you a little to the side or up/down all the time and if you navigate correctly you will after 90% of the trip feel the Moon gravity attracting you and your space ship and your concern is then not to crash on the Moon but to get into orbit around the Moon at the right altitude/velocity. Of course the Sun radiation will heat up your space ship to 150°C during the trip, so increase the aircon inside not to get fried or boiled inside. If you miss the Moon, there is no way back because you cannot possibly turn around in space due to lack of fuel.

Apparently he has now decided that 150 degrees is the natural temperature of everything in sunlight, because he also applies it to the LM:

Quote
Armstrong stepped into the 150°&nbsp;C hot lunar surface dust at 02:56:15 UT on 21 July stating, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind". Somebody took a photo of the boot trace in the dust later. His boots didn't melt in the hot Moon dust. Aldrin followed 19 minutes later. The astronauts deployed the flag and instruments, took photographs, and collected very hot - 150° C - lunar rock and soil and dust. The astronauts traversed a total distance of about 250 meters. The visit ended at 5:11:13 UT when the astronauts returned to the LM and closed the hatch. Inside the LM it was now150° C hot. If the asstronuts filled the LM with cool air and get out of their space suits for a nap are not clear ... except that they slept for 10 hours. Then it was time to go back to the CSM!

The first two instances of "dust" used to be "sand". :)

Actually, the famous "boot trace" photo is a photo of another impression made specifically to be photographed. Armstrong's first steps got trampled by the subsequent activity.

And we can safely add "spacecraft temperature control" to the list of things Björkman is ignorant about. Hey, Heiwa, what do you think was the purpose of all that shiny foil on the lander?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 04, 2013, 09:03:36 AM
Quote
And we can safely add "spacecraft temperature control" to the list of things Björkman is ignorant about. Hey, Heiwa, what do you think was the purpose of all that shiny foil on the lander?
Yeah, Heat Transfer and the second law of thermodynamics seems to be a concept most HBs have trouble grasping.

Evidently, in HB-Land, a steak is broiled through the moment you close the oven door.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 04, 2013, 09:08:39 AM
Björkman has changed his page yet again. He's continuing to dig himself deeper with the determination of a "shock brigade" miner.

Oh dear. And he is STILL keeping up the pretence of being an engineer?


Quote
It seems Moon travel is pretty easy as the Moon orbits the Earth almost circularily. If you depart from Earth orbit at exactly the right time to arrive at the Moon a few days later, you can visually see the Moon ahead of you a little to the side or up/down all the time and if you navigate correctly you will after 90% of the trip feel the Moon gravity attracting you and your space ship and your concern is then not to crash on the Moon but to get into orbit around the Moon at the right altitude/velocity. Of course the Sun radiation will heat up your space ship to 150°C during the trip, so increase the aircon inside not to get fried or boiled inside. If you miss the Moon, there is no way back because you cannot possibly turn around in space due to lack of fuel.[/color]

So getting to the Moon now seems to be "pretty easy". The €1M should be a piece of cake to pick up then.....
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gwiz on January 04, 2013, 09:11:46 AM
Pretty sure he's referring to cjameshuff's post #266 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8183#msg8183) but, as usual, completely missing the point that you don't need to take any of those velocities into account, any more than you do for a man walking on a plane or for calculating a change in velocity.
Quite.  He completely misses the point about what we're really telling him, which is essentially that you can't do an energy balance if you miss out part of the system.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 04, 2013, 09:34:10 AM
I don't like Heiwa has linking directly to this thread on his "Is space travel possible?" page using the term "Apollo11Hoaxsters".



Heiwa

I never worked on Apollo, being born several years after the programme ended.  Nor am I anything to do with NASA - I have never even been to the US.  I am not a "hoaxster" - not only because that isn't a real word but because nothing I ever do or have done is anything to do with a hoax.  I am simply someone well-qualified in physics who knows that you are consistently in error.

It is also interesting that you describe us as "upset" and use several libellous phrases towards a poster you note by name.  One might even suggest you look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 04, 2013, 09:39:14 AM
Björkman has changed his page yet again. He's continuing to dig himself deeper with the determination of a "shock brigade" miner. Most of the changes are minor, again, only the larger ones:

Pointless for Heiwa because he won't get any of what I am about to say, but I have a spare few minutes, so:

Quote
If you depart from Earth orbit at exactly the right time to arrive at the Moon a few days later, you can visually see the Moon ahead of you a little to the side or up/down all the time

So he still thinks you need to be able to see where you are going to get there properly? Physics doesn't apply if you can't see where you are going? Heiwa, I hold out little hope that you will read this, or even understand it, but a spacecraft will go wherever it is going regardless of which way it is facing. The only time it matters which way the spacecraft is actually pointing is when you burn the engine, because the direction in which you aply that force will determine the effect on its course.

Quote
Of course the Sun radiation will heat up your space ship to 150°C during the trip, so increase the aircon inside not to get fried or boiled inside.

Or cover the spacecraft in reflective material to reject most of the incoming solar heating and set it to a slow roll so it does not overheat on one side...

Quote
If you miss the Moon, there is no way back because you cannot possibly turn around in space due to lack of fuel.[/color]

Right, because gravity can't swing your spacecraft round the back of the moon and back to Earth. Free-return trajectories are something else impossible, are they? How do inert lumps of rock and ice manage to swing back around the Sun and back to the pouter reaches of the solar system without engines then?


Quote
Somebody took a photo of the boot trace in the dust later.

No they didn't. The boot print was made specifically by Aldrin to be photographed. It was not the first footprint on the Moon.

Quote
His boots didn't melt in the hot Moon dust.

Even if we assume the Moon dust is 150 degrees as you say, why would his boots melt in it? Ever seen those silicone cake moulds?

Quote
Inside the LM it was now150° C hot.

Is it? Why? I'm intrigued to hear your thoughts on how such heating would occur, taking into account things ike the material the LM was made from and how heat is transferred in the lunar environment.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 04, 2013, 09:40:05 AM
Oh yes, why the obsession with Apollo 11 in particular, Heiwa? Surely you have grasped the fact that there were other Apollo missions by now?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 04, 2013, 09:45:04 AM
And we can safely add "spacecraft temperature control" to the list of things Björkman is ignorant about. Hey, Heiwa, what do you think was the purpose of all that shiny foil on the lander?

You can also add in the difference that atmospheric density has on the effectiveness of parachutes too.

Quote
It would evidently have been much better to use a little bigger parachute that decelerates the spaceship a little faster, so that absolute velocity had been say only 20 m/s in lieu of 80 m/s at 1 600 m altitude, so that, with final deceleration, say 0.125 m/s², you land at 0 speed 160 seconds later ... with the parachute. Or something like it. No need for rockets (!) that just complicate things. A well designed parachute should have done the job alone! But, sorry - the show must go on! Rockets add to the drama - that never took place.

In relation to the Mars Curiosity lander.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on January 04, 2013, 10:06:13 AM
Pretty sure he's referring to cjameshuff's post #266 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8183#msg8183) but, as usual, completely missing the point that you don't need to take any of those velocities into account, any more than you do for a man walking on a plane or for calculating a change in velocity.

That seems to be it. And then he says that because he didn't know what they were, he...determined they were insignificant? No. Showed they were irrelevant (as they are)? Nope. He just ignored them. Nice attention to detail there, Heiwa.

Just another demonstration of how fundamentally his basic mindset differs from that of an actual engineer...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 04, 2013, 10:41:56 AM
Quote
It thus took about 73 hours or 262 800 seconds to travel the distance 384 000 000 meters. Average velocity during Moon trip was only 1 460 m/s. If start velocity to get away from Earth was 11 200 m/s and arrival velocity was 2 400 m/s with a minimum velocity at about 9/10th of the distance travelled due to Earth gravity, you really wonder how space ship velocity varied during the trip to the Moon.

No need to “wonder” when one can figure it out.  The following is an example of a typical lunar free-return trajectory:


   Time          Distance       Distance       Velocity        Velocity
                 to Earth        to Moon    Earth relative  Moon relative
(hhh:mm:ss)         (km)           (km)          (m/s)           (m/s)
 
000:00:00 (1)       6,563        388,677        10,943          11,629
004:00:00          63,723        322,544         3,292           2,871   
008:00:00         102,344        289,876         2,474           2,050   
012:00:00         133,629        264,655         2,074           1,680   
016:00:00         160,632        243,133         1,817           1,466   
020:00:00         184,660        223,822         1,630           1,328   
024:00:00         206,427        205,947         1,485           1,235   
028:00:00         226,380        189,041         1,367           1,170   
032:00:00         244,825        172,804         1,267           1,126   
036:00:00         261,980        157,024         1,181           1,095   
040:00:00         278,012        141,553         1,106           1,075   
044:00:00         293,052        126,276         1,039           1,063   
048:00:00         307,207        111,104           979           1,057   
052:00:00         320,567         95,963           925           1,057   
056:00:00         333,214         80,788           876           1,062   
060:00:00         345,227         65,506           832           1,073   
064:00:00         356,694         50,026           794           1,093   
068:00:00         367,738         34,191           764           1,134   
072:00:00         378,602         17,635           760           1,248   
075:32:51 (2)     387,587          3,184           998           2,021
076:00:00         387,045          4,086           933           1,845   
080:00:00         376,208         21,483           752           1,207   
084:00:00         365,388         37,818           766           1,122   
088:00:00         354,309         53,551           798           1,087   
092:00:00         342,772         68,975           838           1,069   
096:00:00         330,668         84,222           883           1,060   
100:00:00         317,911         99,379           933           1,056   
104:00:00         304,423        114,513           989           1,057   
108:00:00         290,123        129,691         1,050           1,064   
112:00:00         274,916        144,989         1,118           1,078   
116:00:00         258,691        160,499         1,196           1,100   
120:00:00         241,313        176,340         1,284           1,132   
124:00:00         222,605        192,672         1,387           1,180   
128:00:00         202,334        209,717         1,510           1,249   
132:00:00         180,173        227,802         1,662           1,349   
136:00:00         155,635        247,436         1,859           1,498   
140:00:00         127,923        269,484         2,136           1,734   
144:00:00          95,528        295,676         2,583           2,154   
148:00:00          54,631        330,780         3,594           3,183   
151:10:03 (3)       6,500        387,407        10,998          11,595
 
(1)  Translunar Injection
(2)  Pericynthion
(3)  Entry Interface


(edit)  One more thing, Apollo's starting velocity was not 11,200 m/s.  That number is the approximate escape velocity from the surface of Earth, which is not applicable.  (1) escape velocity from low earth orbit is only about 11,000 m/s, and (2) Apollo did not escape, as it only needed to get to the Moon.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on January 04, 2013, 10:56:54 AM
A sea going ship, engine of which via the propeller applies a force F to the ship, proceeds at constant speed, say x knots, while the environment (water/air/friction/collisions with atoms) applies a force -F to the ship = there is balance.
Exactly.  So why would you expect a spacecraft, subject to a nearly constant gravitational force, to stop falling?  Because that is exactly what you proposed in your reply #663 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8775#msg8775). 
Imagine that - you slow down from 9 000 m/s to 100 m/s just by colliding with atoms. But why don't you slow down to 0 m/s by colliding with atoms? Let me ask a stupid question or two? Why do you need a parachute at the end? What is wrong with colliding with atoms to the end?
You actually proposed that a falling object would stop falling due to air friction.  That is one reason people are asking whether you are serious or simply trolling.
If you ran out of fuel and the engine applies force F=0 to the ship, the ship slows down until the speed is 0 knots, when all forces acting on the ship including atom colliding with it add upp to 0.
Fine.  But in case you hadn't noticed, a falling object does not run out of gravity.

Now, I ask you again to address the serious problems with your claims I brought to your attention in reply #558 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8604#msg8604):

1. You are offering money you don't have, for a challenge you have defined poorly and has no proper adjudication.

2. Your primary calculation is completely wrong because you don't understand energy balances.  Your errors have been explained to you in excruciating detail, yet you refuse to acknowledge them.

3. You have no idea what you are talking about, and no apparent interest or ability in relieving your own ignorance.


In light of these issues, I ask again - do you have any intention of actually learning anything at all, or are you just trolling?

I will continue to press these issues until you address them in a realistic manner.  You may ignore them, but you cannot run away from them.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 04, 2013, 11:15:59 AM

Heiwa, answer me this: those 10 898 kg of mass had kinetic energy before the burn, as you include them in the mass of the spacecraft. What do you think happened with that kinetic energy when the fuel was spent?


The Apollo 11 had, according Willy of NASA...

Quote
I have to add that the asstrnuts...

I will not allow any more of your posts that denigrate George Low or the astronauts. They have earned some respect. I would suggest that you start acting your age instead of your shoe size.

The post you made after the one I quoted above was not allowed because in addition to calling George Low "Willy" you also told someone they were being off topic and insulted their intelligence. When are you going to realize that you're wasting your time writing posts that you know I won't allow?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 04, 2013, 11:29:48 AM
The Apollo 11 had, according Willy of NASA, total mass incl. fuel of 43 574 kg (or 96 062 lb) and speed 2 400 m/s when a retrograde firing of the service module, SM, P-22KS rocket engine with 97 400 N thrust for 357.5 seconds reduced the speed to 1 500 m/s at 2.52 m/s² deceleration and placed the spacecraft into an initial, elliptical-lunar orbit at about 115 000 m altitude.

No no and no. You do not get to attribute all of that to George Low, for two reasons:

1: George Low did not write the report, he provided the preface and signed the report off. He was not the author. We have reports here where I work that have my name on the front page. They were written by anything up to seven people. I just compiled the report from these disparate sources. According to your reasoning I am personally accountable for everything written therein.

2: You are blatantly pulling at least the engine specs from a different source. I have been trying without success to get you to tell me why you accept that Saturn V schematic over every other published source about the Apollo SPS engine, which is an AJ10-137 engine with 91,000 lb thrust according to everything but that schematic.


Quote
Who cares?

You should. That's the point.

Quote
The energy of the fuel burnt in the rocket engine evidently created the 97 400 N force to reduce the speed.

Yes, burning the fuel ADDED energy to the system. So why then are you not accounting for that fact?

Quote
The spaceship + fuel kinetic energy before braking was 43574*2400²/2 = 125.4 GJ and after braking 32676*1500²/2 = 36.76 GJ, i.e. change in kinetic energy due braking applying the force was 88.64 GJ.

NO. The kinetic energy of the spacecraft alone was 36.76 GK. You have ignored the kinetic energy of the fuel after the burn. The exhaust still has mass and energy that you have simple elected to ignore. What you have stated is that adding energy by nurning the fuel has led to a reduction in energy overall. Impossible. Not because Apollo 11 is a fake but because YOU ARE DOING THE CALCULATION WRONG!

Quote
That energy thus became part of the space environment outside the space craft and could not be recuperated.

The fact that it could not be recovered does not mean you can simply ignore it in your calculation. The energy of the mass of the exhaust MUST be accounted for in your balancing equation.

You are not an engineer. You are a liar and a fraud.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on January 04, 2013, 11:35:18 AM
So he still thinks you need to be able to see where you are going to get there properly? Physics doesn't apply if you can't see where you are going?

The question every civilian has asked me when I tell them I navigated submarines for the US Navy was, "How do you know where you're going when you're underwater?"
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gwiz on January 04, 2013, 11:42:31 AM
The question every civilian has asked me when I tell them I navigated submarines for the US Navy was, "How do you know where you're going when you're underwater?"
Submarines have been fitted with GPS ever since they were invented in the 17th century.

Not many people know that.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 04, 2013, 11:57:20 AM
The Apollo 11 had, according Willy of NASA...

What did we say about this?

Quote
The spaceship + fuel kinetic energy before braking was 43574*2400²/2 = 125.4 GJ and after braking 32676*1500²/2 = 36.76 GJ, i.e. change in kinetic energy due braking applying the force was 88.64 GJ.

That energy thus became part of the space environment outside the space craft and could not be recuperated.

No, that is not a proper formulation of an energy-balance equation.  If you like them so much, you should learn to do them correctly.

If the system consisted of the {spacecraft + fuel} at initial conditions, it must also consist of the {spacecraft + fuel} at final conditions, even if the fuel is no longer physically in the same location it was for initial conditions.  The "system" for energy-balance purposes is an abstraction.  It is a list of predetermined components, wherever they may be located, not whatever happens to be found within some arbitrary geometric boundary from time to time.  This is your fundamental error in formulating the problem, and it's going to cost you a million euros.

Or conversely you can say that the mass of the expended propellant has left the system, along with its associated kinetic energy.  But then in that case you won't have a closed system and you cannot attribute changes in component energy by default to propulsion.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 04, 2013, 12:01:41 PM
Who cares?

You should. That's the point.

Indeed, someone who is likely to be sued for non-payment of a million euro prize should be intensely interested in the strength of the case against him.

Quote
You are not an engineer. You are a liar and a fraud.

The plot thickens when you realize that France has some of the most stringent laws in the world regarding the practice of engineering.  Criminal penalties apply to the practice of engineering without a degree or license, and to the malpractice of engineering even by licensed practitioners.  I wonder if the Beausoleil magistrates are aware of what is happening on their doorstep.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 04, 2013, 12:04:15 PM
Just another demonstration of how fundamentally his basic mindset differs from that of an actual engineer...

To wit:  "I don't know how this works or how to incorporate it into my model, so I'm just going to pretend it doesn't exist."  In France, a real engineer who did that would almost certainly wind up behind bars.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 04, 2013, 12:09:28 PM
So atmospheric drag will work with parachutes but it won't work with anything else?

Wow, I hope Boeing doesn't find out about this.  Otherwise they might ask me to return the $37 million they paid me and my company to solve nonuniform fluid dynamics problems relating to the 787 Dreamliner design.  If drag only works for parachutes then my efforts to minimize it for an airframe were clearly fraudulent.

[BTW Doug, if you're reading this, I'm kidding]
Title: Re: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 04, 2013, 12:11:15 PM

The spaceship + fuel kinetic energy before braking was 43574*2400²/2 = 125.4 GJ and after braking 32676*1500²/2 = 36.76 GJ, i.e. change in kinetic energy due braking applying the force was 88.64 GJ.

But that's a loss of kinetic energy. Your original point was that the energy that could be derived from the fuel consumed was insufficient to account for this change but that's wrong because:

1) as pointed out but never acknowledged, you used the wrong specific enthalpy change of combustion.
2) you don't need an exothermic reaction to supply heat to a DROP in internal energy. By your logic, you should be asking where the energy went not where it came from.

And you're still giving the wrong name to the SPS engine.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 04, 2013, 01:01:44 PM


The post you made after the one I quoted above was not allowed because in addition to calling George Low "Willy" you also told someone they were being off topic and insulted their intelligence. When are you going to realize that you're wasting your time writing posts that you know I won't allow?

It was Glom post #700 I replied to. Glom suggets "It takes a very delusional mind to think that when faced with something you don't understand, it's the whole world that's wrong and not just your understanding."

I simply didn't agree. The whole world is not wrong. Only Apollo 11 is SF. So why delete my reply?

And the purpose of my serious Challenge - topic here (not started by me) - is not deceive but encourage creative thinking by offering money, e.g. 1. show how the little (weak) top part C of a structure crushes the bigger, stronger bottom part A of same structure (A carries C statically) by gravity due to a failure in interface C/A or 2. show how any manned space ship manages to visit Moon (or Mars) while overpowering gravity forces and finally getting back to Earth in one piece incl. fuel used.

Re 1. many people say 'I saw it live on TV - twice - on 9/11 2001, so it must be true' ... but is it?, and re 2. many people also saw 1969 Apollo 11 take off from Earth, some blury B&W footage of people on the Moon and splash down in the Pacific five days later live on TV ... but what happened in between the three events? Did the trip really take place? Then how?

Those are my two Challenges. No big deal. Plenty of people suggesting I am broke, etc, etc. I am happy to say I am not and live comfortably in southern France with a grand view of the Med. I recommend posters to focus on topic and not divert from it.





Title: Re: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 04, 2013, 01:10:17 PM


But that's a loss of kinetic energy.

No, it is a change in kinetic energy of the space ship before/after a force was applied on it (to reduce the velocity). No kinetic energy was lost. It was transformed into heat.

You know "It takes a very delusional mind to think that when faced with something you don't understand, it's the whole world that's wrong and not just your understanding."

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 04, 2013, 01:18:08 PM
We are focusing on the topic.  We don't believe you have the million Euros, and you have consistently refused to show evidence that you do.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 04, 2013, 01:19:44 PM

The plot thickens when you realize that France has some of the most stringent laws in the world regarding the practice of engineering.  Criminal penalties apply to the practice of engineering without a degree or license, and to the malpractice of engineering even by licensed practitioners.  I wonder if the Beausoleil magistrates are aware of what is happening on their doorstep.

Aha, you are now an expert of French law? Are you suggesting I am breaking the law? That is serious! Off topic, of course. Anyway, the Tribunals d'Instance and de Grande Instance are located at Nice but you can always alert our local police municipale or nationale here at Beausoleil, if you are concerned. I think you are just upset not beating my Challenge. Yes, it is hard not to solve my Challenges.

Have you still not understand that it is IMPOSSIBLE to win my Challenges. Physical principles do not allow it. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 04, 2013, 01:23:19 PM


The post you made after the one I quoted above was not allowed because in addition to calling George Low "Willy" you also told someone they were being off topic and insulted their intelligence. When are you going to realize that you're wasting your time writing posts that you know I won't allow?

It was Glom post #700 I replied to. Glom suggets "It takes a very delusional mind to think that when faced with something you don't understand, it's the whole world that's wrong and not just your understanding."

I simply didn't agree. The whole world is not wrong. Only Apollo 11 is SF. So why delete my reply?


I deleted your reply because:

1) you continue to try to moderate the discussion by telling people they are off topic.
2) you continue to denigrate George Low by calling him "Willy".
3) you insulted Glom by telling him to be more "intelligent and clever"

How many times do I have to tell you that pretending you're the moderator, or being disrespectful of others, will not be tollerated? Why do you keep doing it?

Quote
And the purpose of my serious Challenge - topic here (not started by me) - is not deceive but encourage creative thinking by offering money, e.g. 1. show how the little (weak) top part C of a structure crushes the bigger, stronger bottom part A of same structure (A carries C statically) by gravity due to a failure in interface C/A or

Your 9/11 beliefs are off topic in this section of the forum. If your posts are off topic they may not be allowed.

Quote
2. show how any manned space ship manages to visit Moon (or Mars) and get back to Earth in one piece incl. fuel used.

And that has been done repeatedly. Your inability to understand the explanations people have given you is the real problem.

Quote
many people also saw 1969 Apollo 11 take off from Earth, some blury B&W footage of people on the Moon and splash down in the Pacific five days later live on TV ... but what happened in between the three events?

Why don't you tell us what you think really happened between the time the Saturn V rocket launched (which millions of people witnessed in person, not just on TV), and the time the Apollo capsule splashed down in the Pacific?

We have footage of the astronauts in zero gravity, with the distant Earth outside their window. The weather patterns on the Earth match the weather forecast maps (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=884) from the same time, which would be impossible to fake. So that puts the astronauts in space, many thousands of kilometers from Earth. You must provide an alternative explanation before I will discard what NASA has told us.

Quote
Those are my two Challenges. No big deal. Plenty of people suggesting I am broke, etc, etc. I am happy to say I am not and live comfortably in southern France with a grand view of the Med. I recommend posters to focus on topic and not divert from it.

And again I will tell you that without proof of the alleged contest money we have no reason to believe you. If you want your contest to be taken seriously you will have to put the money into some kind of escrow and have a third party act as the judge.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 04, 2013, 01:25:28 PM
I simply didn't agree. The whole world is not wrong. Only Apollo 11 is SF. So why delete my reply?

So you acknowledge that all the other Apollo missions are genuine and the events, as described, happened.
What's particular about 11 that is different?


Also, can you please let us know if you intend to answer this post?
This thread is now 44 pages long with nearly 700 posts in it. During it's course you have repeatedly been shown to have fundamental errors in your understanding and knowledge. You have been given copious examples that demonstrate, sometimes in painful detail, where you have been in error. The post above shows just how thin your understanding is, or alternatively how desperate you appear to be to be wilfully ignorant and a troll.

Do you you accept this?

Do you acknowledge where your understanding has been incorrect and can you state that you have corrected your thinking?

Instead of throwing up another spurious example of your lack of understanding, can you address these issues? Doing so would go a long to showing that you are not deliberately being obtuse and trolling for reaction, but that you are able to learn new things and correct errors in your understanding.
Title: Re: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 04, 2013, 01:26:24 PM

I simply didn't agree. The whole world is not wrong. Only Apollo 11 is SF. So why delete my reply?



So Apollo 12 is real? The Space Shuttle is real? ISS is real? Mars Curiosity is real?

That contradicts everything you've said before where you said all of manned spaceflight is fake as well as at least some of the unmanned spaceflight.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 04, 2013, 01:28:32 PM
Heiwa, your post #732 will not be allowed for once again telling someone they are being off topic.

Since moderation doesn't seem to be discouraging this behaviour, I will ban you for 1 week the next time you do it. If after that week you do it again you will be banned permanently.

Do you understand?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 04, 2013, 01:31:03 PM
Have you still not understand that it is IMPOSSIBLE to win my Challenges.

Once again, you have posted something accurate, though it certainly has nothing to do with physical principles.  It is impossible to win your challenges for a few reasons.

1.  The money doesn't exist.
2.  Even if the money does exist, you will never acknowledge your errors.
3.  On those rare occasions when you do acknowledge your errors (want to talk some more about Walter Cronkite?), you pretend that your previous stance never happened and change the rules of your challenge.
Title: Re: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on January 04, 2013, 01:56:13 PM


But that's a loss of kinetic energy.

No, it is a change in kinetic energy of the space ship before/after a force was applied on it (to reduce the velocity). No kinetic energy was lost. It was transformed into heat.

You know "It takes a very delusional mind to think that when faced with something you don't understand, it's the whole world that's wrong and not just your understanding."

Heat is energy.  Or do you disagree with chemistry now?

You are still subtracting Y from 2X and asking why it isn't symmetrical with adding Y to X. 

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 04, 2013, 02:01:57 PM
Does anyone else feel like we are part of some bizarre and unethical high school psych experiment?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 04, 2013, 02:05:43 PM
Where did that energy go? It was dumped!

"Dumped" is not a very engineer-like description.  Please use the correct terminology, so that there is no ambiguity when it comes to litigating your million-euro fraud.  Did that energy leave the system?  If not, how should it be properly accounted for in the energy-balance equation so that the total energy is the same on either side of the = sign?  If it did leave the system, how should an energy-balance equation for this system correctly account for factors that were once part of the system but were then lost to the environment?

As I and others have repeatedly stated, your energy-balance formulation is wrong because you redefine the system for your end conditions.  Subtracting the mass that was ejected overboard, and its associated kinetic energy, redefines the system for the purposes of balancing energy.  Hence your initial and final conditions don't relate to the same system.  You need to learn to think abstractly like an engineer, not intuitively like a layman.

Quote
What are you trying to say?

We're trying to say that your construction of the energy-balance equation in this case is wrong.  We've been saying it for more than 40 pages, and yet you still don't understand.

To illustrate your error we've applied your model to a simpler form of the same problem.  Your implied contention is that if you remove mass from the system, you no longer have to consider it part of the system for energy-balance purposes.  So what we've done is to remove velocity from the problem by holding it constant (i.e., so that it can be canceled algebraically from both sides of the equation), which allows us also to remove the parts of the equation dealing with propulsion and changes in velocity.  The resulting problem has only the mass terms at constant velocity in all cases.  That forms a useful base case.

If your model is correct, the energy equations should still balance in this base case.  Absent any chemical energy or complicating factors, you're dealing with mass moving at a constant velocity in the initial condition, and mass moving at the same constant velocity in the final condition, with no change in velocity across the equation.  But since your model requires us to subtract the separated mass from the system, we end up with less kinetic energy on the right-hand side (final condition) of the equation than there is on the left-hand side (initial condition).  Since your model doesn't balance the energy in the base case, it is incorrect.  But if we include the separated mass in the final conditions -- which is the proper way to formulate a closed system for energy-balance purposes -- the energy balances in the base case.  This proves to us that any valid model for balancing the energy in a spacecraft propulsion system must include the mass and velocity of the exhaust products.

Quote
This discussion is getting sillier and sillier.

Indeed, due entirely to your incompetence, arrogance, and stubbornness.  We have been telling you the same thing for 40 pages, and you utterly refuse to grasp why your model is incorrect, regardless of how "simple" you've made it.  You've failed to take the most elementary step of first validating your model on a simple case, and then arrogantly failed to recognize the value of it when someone else does that work for you.

You've been repeatedly given sources you continue to say don't exist.  That is blatantly dishonest.  While we may attribute your inability to see the error in your computations to an understandable lack of competence in a highly specialized and demanding field, the bald denial of the existence plainly before your face is evidence either of a criminal motivation to mislead (since you make a monetary offer based in part on the existence of such evidence), or considerable mental dysfunction.

The discussion grows increasingly silly because you keep retreating farther into a world

Quote
Like the post about space navigation by sextant and compass and charts at high g (like in a WWII bomber) while swinging into Moon orbit...

I've flown in a B-17 bomber, and it's not what I would call a "high g" experience.  The problem with navigating a B-17 is the cramped quarters, not the motion of the airplane.  Navigation sightings by any method are not attempted while the aircraft is in anything but straight and level flight.

Similarly Apollo missions didn't attempt optical navigation during accelerated flight.  For the SPS burns the crew was strapped into their couches in the CM.  And the optical methods by "sextant ... and charts" (no compass) is only the calibration step for the actual guidance and navigation controls, which were inertial in nature.  That task only had to be accomplished once every four hours or so, when the spacecraft was safely in inertial cruise flight.

Really?  A supposed marine engineer doesn't know how inertial navigation works?

And as has been belabored, SPS burns are not "high g" maneuvers.  I can routinely accelerate and corner my automobile at 0.3 g, although not today because it is icy.  That's slightly more than the SPS imparts to the occupants of the CSM.

Quote
or that weak structures like tin boxes...

What evidence have you presented that the CM is the "weak tin box" you say it is?  The entire CM outer hull and heat shield was built according to the same construction and materials methods as are used on the F-16 Falcon and F-22 Raptor, which are high-g applications.  Further, stronger materials were used for the CM (e.g., high-strength steel instead of aluminum alloy) than for the high-performance jet fighters.

Sorry, just announcing that the CM is a weak airframe does not substantiate your claim or support your belief.  You bear the burden to prove that your uninformed opinion is actually correct.

Quote
can slow down from 11 200 m/s to 100 m/s (re-entry)...

Do you deny the existence of aerodynamic drag?  Why do you think denial of a well-known physical principle is the basis from which to challenge an entire industry?

Quote
by friction/turbulence without burning up.

Your unwillingness to learn the relevant sciences and consult the references you say do not exist (but which have been provided for you right here in this forum) is not a basis from which to argue there is some mystery regarding atmospheric re-entry.  As has been amply illustrated above, you lack a fundamental knowledge of how those forces work, and especially how the heat transfer works.

You don't understand ablative cooling.  It's not a difficult science, and it's not something confined to space travel.  That means lots of people know about it and know how it works.  You can't effectively fool the world into thinking this is some mysterious pseudoscience dreamed up by NASA.

You don't understand that the particular formulation of the heat shield in Apollo actually created a gas barrier using the chemical properties of the ablation process, and that this barrier layer has a very low coefficient of thermal conduction.  If most of the heat stays in the compressed air ahead of the spacecraft and cannot easily pass into the heat-sensitive portion of the spacecraft, then aerodynamic heating is effectively managed.

It's called "insulation."  You might want to check into it.  It isn't a super-secret NASA pseudo-invention either.

Quote
Sorry, you have to do much better to earn topic!

No, sorry, the onus is on you.  We've shown that your beliefs, which you offer money to overturn, are based on denial, misconception, and in some cases bald-faced lies -- all of which you affirmatively refuse to correct in public.  The fact that you're silently changing your site to accommodate our corrections is evidence that you admit error, which was the condition of your test.  The fact that you're doing so surreptitiously is evidence that you're evading the payout, which is prima facie evidence of fraud in any jurisdiction.  I'm sure I won't have any problem finding a lawyer in France who will be happy to sue you for the sum.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 04, 2013, 02:07:44 PM
I simply didn't agree. The whole world is not wrong.

You ARE claiming the whole world is wrong, because the whole world uses the principles WE have been describing, including things like the Tsiolkovsky equation, energy systems and so on to do what not only public space programs but commercial revenue absolutely depends on. YOU are the ONLY one who is making calculations to show that those things are impossible. When faced with such a large and wide-ranging and long lasting opposition to their numbers, most people go back and check and recheck to see where they went wrong. You, on the other hand, simply restate your original position and conclude that EVERYONE else is wrong, despite decades of application of the stuff you say is wrong.

Quote
Only Apollo 11 is SF.

And what of the other Apollo flights to the moon?

Quote
So why delete my reply?

How difficult is it for you to understand that having been told 'do not do X or your reply will not be posted', doing X will result in your reply not being posted?

Quote
encourage creative thinking by offering money,

Money that you do not have. You have been presented with ways to prove you have it, but you refuse to do so. If you were serious about your challenge you would treat those who take it up seriously. You don't. You evade, taunt, insult and ignore them.

Quote
Plenty of people suggesting I am broke, etc, etc. I am happy to say I am not and live comfortably in southern France with a grand view of the Med.

No-one has suggested you are broke. Not having one million euros hardly qualifies as broke. I live comfortably too, and am nowhere near broke. I also do not have a million euros. The difference between us is that I am not fraudulently offering that million euros I don't have to anyone.
 I recommend posters to focus on topic and not divert from it. [/quote]

Whether you have the money IS the topic, and you have been told over and over again NOT to tell people to stay on topic. Did you take a course in being obtuse?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 04, 2013, 02:13:11 PM
Have you still not understand that it is IMPOSSIBLE to win my Challenges. Physical principles do not allow it. 

No, your utter and absolute refusal to acknowledge that you might be making errors and to look at relevant materials that are presented to you (indeed, to continue to claim repeatedly that they do not exist, despite them being very evidently (and I use that word correctly) in existence) is what makes it impossible. Physical principles have nothing to do with it. You have engineered the challenges to be impossible to win because your delusional, egotistical little mind simply cannot conceive of you being WRONG about anything, so you retreat from any admission of error into your own little world where everyone is against you and only you know the truth. It's really sad to watch, actually.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 04, 2013, 02:17:59 PM
No, it is a change in kinetic energy of the space ship before/after a force was applied on it (to reduce the velocity).

Yes, indeed it was. And what was applying that force? The expulsion of mass from the back of the engine.

Quote
No kinetic energy was lost. It was transformed into heat.

It was transformed also into the kinetic energy of the exhaust products of the combustion of the fuel. Burning the fuel is an exothermic reaction. It ADDS energy to the system. Energy that was previously bound up as chemical energy in the fuel itself and which played no part in the kinetic energy equation. It CANNOT reduce the overall energy. The energy and mass on both sides of the equation must be conserved. That is a FUNDAMENTAL physical principle that has been known for over a century, and applied in many places not even slightly related to space travel. You MUST include the mass and energy of the exhaust on the 'post-burn' side of the equation or else you are simply not doing the caluclation correctly.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 04, 2013, 02:25:49 PM
Does anyone else feel like we are part of some bizarre and unethical high school psych experiment?

That could explain a few things.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 04, 2013, 02:28:06 PM
Can it be that Heiwa doesn't understand mass-energy conservation?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Count Zero on January 04, 2013, 02:32:46 PM
Maybe he manages engineers.

Link (http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070706184121/cartoons/images/1/1e/Phb.png)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 04, 2013, 02:33:58 PM
Aha, you are now an expert of French law?

I have worked with French engineers.  I understand enough of the laws under which they must work to be able to satisfy the constraints that imposes upon our collaboration.  I understand that anyone offering services as an engineer in France must be licensed to do so, and that the licensure scope is even broader there than it is in the United States where I practice.  If you are pretending to be an engineer in France, and offering engineering services to the public without being properly licensed, you are criminally liable.  I understand further that under French law criminal liability attaches to the malpractice of engineering, which is defined as offering a service normally provided by an engineer, that is not properly predicated on sound engineering principles and best practices.

I do no profess to be an expert in French law, but I imagine that you may soon be contacted by people who are experts in French law as it applies to the practice of engineering, and that you may find yourself answering some very important questions from people who are not disposed to accept your bluster as an answer.

Quote
Are you suggesting I am breaking the law?

Yes.  Was that ever unclear?

And no, it isn't off topic.  You have repeatedly tried to tell us that your offer of a million euros for us to find the errors in your analysis is the primary topic of this forum.  The legitimacy of that offer is very much relevant, as well as the legal consequences of misrepresenting it.  There are laws that govern offers of money for work.  If you offer a consideration in exchange for work performed, and the work is performed, and you refuse to supply the consideration upon demand, you are liable.  Your taunts are evidence that you consider the award very much still relevant.  The validity of the award is therefore also relevant.

Quote
I think you are just upset not beating my Challenge.

You may attempt to put thoughts in my head or words in my mouth as you see fit, but that is not an appropriate answer.  I will be the authority on what I think and believe, not you.

I asked you to prove the existence of the money.  You refused.
I asked you to codify the conditions of the test.  You refused.
I asked you to substantiate your willingness to pay the reward, if required.  You refused.
I and others have asked you to do many things, some as simple as acknowledging the existence of material presented directly here.  You have refused.

In response you have silently accepted correction, thus evading a payout.
You have maintained an overarching air of arrogance.
You have clearly libeled a member of this forum, and by extension the other members of it.

I think it's clear which of us is most likely to be arguing from emotion rather than fact.  You rail against "Willy" and against the "fat lazy NASA PhDs," and you somehow wonder why this doesn't substantiate a belief that you're simply a crackpot with a personal axe to grind.

Quote
Have you still not understand that it is IMPOSSIBLE to win my Challenges.

It is impossible to win your challenge because you fraudulently advertise money you do not have, you change the conditions of the contract as soon as they are met, and you deny the existence of fact that applies to the contractual obligations.

In fact, contrary to your claim below, physical principles do allow us to prove that your theory is incorrect and thus lay a valid claim to the promised award.

Quote
Physical principles do not allow it.

Your personal understanding of physical principles does not allow it, but that's because your understanding is wrong.  We have shown you how it is wrong, but you are unwilling to address those corrections honestly.  You beg the question that you are properly informed and qualified.  We do not accept that as a premise of your argument.  You must establish that your understanding of the applicable principles is the correct one, since it is the standard against which you propose to evaluate another's claim.  Otherwise the proper answer is that your expectation is at fault.  It is additionally unfortunate that you have set a monetary condition on the correctness of your expectations.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 04, 2013, 02:35:43 PM
Can it be that Heiwa doesn't understand mass-energy conservation?

It is a certain fact that he doesn't understand it in the context of energy-balance models.  He is patently unable to define the system correctly for such an analysis, and to recognize the error when it is pointed out to him.  His insistence on the wrong model aptly determines that he has no facility with it and no understanding of the theory behind such analysis.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 04, 2013, 03:01:15 PM
I simply didn't agree. The whole world is not wrong.

Au contraire, that is explicitly your claim in a number of places here and elsewhere.  You claim that people who disagree with you are "lazy PhDs" occupying cushy positions where they do no real work and just pretend to be technical experts.  You suggest they take credit for accomplishments they never actually did.  You blatantly call liars the entire aerospace industry, which purports to operate spacecraft for commercial, scientific, and other purposes.  And when you are caught in an error, you have no problem trying to say that the point in question is one that "many engineers ... get wrong," when in fact you are the one found to be in error?

You specifically set yourself up to be an ultimate expert, passing judgment on entire industries and principles held as correct and verified by the entire world.

Quote
Only Apollo 11 is SF.

Do you believe Apollo 12 is fiction?

Quote
So why delete my reply?

Because you violated the specific instructions of the moderator.  Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Quote
...is not deceive but encourage creative thinking by offering money...

No, you have changed the conditions of the contract again.  You did not initially propose to stimulate "creative thinking."  You initially proposed that you had made a correct analysis and that the money could be claimed by anyone who showed you errors in that analysis.  You have been shown errors.  You refuse to acknowledge overtly that you have been corrected, but you secretly change your web site to incorporate those corrections, hoping that it is not apparent that you were ever wrong.  That dishonest practice is what constitutes deception.

Quote
...show how any manned space ship manages to visit Moon (or Mars) while overpowering gravity forces and finally getting back to Earth in one piece incl. fuel used.

And this has been done.

You have said Moon missions cannot have been done as advertised because they fail to match your expectations for what such a mission should require.  We have shown that your expectations are factually incorrect in some cases, and physically incorrect in other cases.  Your unwillingness to see the error in your expectation does not excuse you from the obligation you imposed upon yourself to reward those who corrected you.

Quote
Plenty of people suggesting I am broke, etc, etc. I am happy to say I am not and live comfortably in southern France with a grand view of the Med.

False dichotomy -- no one has claimed you are broke.  We do, however, doubt that you have a million euros and are willing to pay it.  You refuse to substantiate the existence of the million euros you say you will pay, which fuels the suspicion.  If you really had the money and were really serious about paying it, you should have no problem satisfying the customary international protocols for such offers.  In fact, you should be well motivated, because only then would people take you seriously.  If you are unwilling to prove that you have it and are willing to pay it, then what is the value of your challenge?  It's just idle bluster until you prove the contrary.

Quote
I recommend posters to focus on topic and not divert from it.

How many times are you going to try to moderate the thread before it sinks in that you cannot do that.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 04, 2013, 03:48:07 PM
Heiwa:

Can you tell us why you are so wedded to your attempt to draw conclusions from the kinetic energy of a spacecraft?  The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, which is derived from the linear momentum of a rocket when acted upon by outside forces, will give you an answer that accounts for the energy changes. Linear momentum (p) is directly proportional to kinetic energy, being p=mv, so Tsiolkovsky's should answer your concerns about kinetic energy changes. 

This equation has been used for 200 years (that we know of) in evaluating rocket performance and is well established as an industry standard.  Personally, the mathematics of the derivation are over my head, but the equation has been shown to be accurate in real world application over and over.

So why try to use an over-simplified approach that doesn't match the demonstrated performance? Or do you consider Tsiolkovsky's to be some kind of fiction?   Seriously?
Title: Who wants to pretend a million euros is on offer
Post by: Mag40 on January 04, 2013, 03:48:20 PM
Read it and weep -

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4280640&postcount=130
Weight (kg) or load (kg) = mass (kg). Yes, I am an engineer. What are you?

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 04, 2013, 03:52:01 PM
Heiwa:

Linear momentum (p) is directly proportional to kinetic energy, being p=mv

Not quite - it's a square relationship as KE = p2/2m

Your point about the Rocket Equation still stands, though.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on January 04, 2013, 04:39:08 PM
Heiwa:

Linear momentum (p) is directly proportional to kinetic energy, being p=mv

Not quite - it's a square relationship as KE = p2/2m

Your point about the Rocket Equation still stands, though.
And there in lies the difference between Heiwa and the rest of us clowns.
Some human beings can give and take correction. We don't pout and rant and rave, convinced we could do know wrong, that any error on our part can only mean something is wrong with the universe. We learn, we adapt, we take in new knowledge and apply it to our lives.
Watch closely, Heiwa, Noldi400 will thank Andromeda for the correction, or point out what is wrong if the correction is wrong, they will discuss it for a bit, come to an agreement, others may add their own input, and they will move on with their lives, happy with their new knowledge and/or understanding.
This is where you err, Heiwa. You can't seem to be able to accept failure on any level been of any part your fault.
Title: Re: Who wants to pretend a million euros is on offer
Post by: Zakalwe on January 04, 2013, 04:41:15 PM
Read it and weep -

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4280640&postcount=130
Weight (kg) or load (kg) = mass (kg). Yes, I am an engineer. What are you?

(http://images.topix.com/gallery/up-K2ORHNA6S1QANCQI.jpg)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on January 04, 2013, 05:25:53 PM
The whole world is not wrong.
Correct.  The whole world is not wrong.  The aerospace engineering community, and the planetary scientists, and the astronomers using spaceborne instruments, and the operators and insurers of communications satellites, and freshman physics students who can correctly formulate an energy balance, are not wrong.

You are wrong.   Your kinetic energy calculation is fundamentally wrong because you are comparing two different systems, and this has been explained to you in excruciating detail and using the simplest possible example - which immediately shows that your version produces a nonsensical result.  The only question is whether your failure to grasp this is the result of (a) complete inability to learn, (b) refusal to acknowledge an error, or (c) outright trolling.
Only Apollo 11 is SF.
Is this an admission that you accept the reality of the other Apollo missions (and Mercury and Gemini and Soyuz and Shenzhou and Skylab and Salyut and Mir and ISS and Cygnus and Genesis and etc.)?  Or that you were simply unaware of the other missions' existence?  Or that you are simply unable to keep track of your claims?  Or that you are simply trolling?
And the purpose of my serious Challenge - topic here (not started by me) - is not deceive but encourage creative thinking by offering money,
You do not have the money you claim to offer; that is an outright fabrication.  You are of course able to rebut this by providing evidence for the existence of your mythical million Euros.  But you don't have it, so you can't and won't.
2. show how any manned space ship manages to visit Moon (or Mars) while overpowering gravity forces and finally getting back to Earth in one piece incl. fuel used.
Already shown, with voluminous references supplied - the existence of which you were ignorant, and the provision of which you have pretended never happened.  Your "challenge" is not serious; it is a sham no different than the $10,000 or $1,000,000 "challenges" routinely offered by crackpots across the Web.
...many people also saw 1969 Apollo 11 take off from Earth, some blury B&W footage of people on the Moon and splash down in the Pacific five days later live on TV ... but what happened in between the three events?
Days of operations, telemetry, still and motion imagery, sample collection, tracking and telemetry - The same as happened on the other Apollo missions, eight of which went to the Moon and five of which landed on it.  All extensively documented in thousands of engineering reports and scientific papers, much of which is freely available and in fact nowadays easily found with a casual Web search.  The fact that you are ignorant of it is no excuse, and your appeal to ignorance reflects only on your ignorance.
Then how?
Asked and answered.
Those are my two Challenges. No big deal.
Correct.  The one is off-topic for this subforum, the other is simply empty bluster.
Plenty of people suggesting I am broke,
Deliberate misrepresentation.  No one has suggested you are broke.  We are simply pointing out that you don't have a million Euros to offer for your "challenge", and that said "challenge" is therefore phony.
I recommend posters to focus on topic and not divert from it.
Not only is it on topic, as has been repeatedly explained to you, but you are the only one attempting to divert from it by throwing out strawmen such as the "broke" claim.   Don't think for a minute that you are fooling anyone by such tactics.  You are not the first conspiracist to try laying down such smokescreens.

Kindly stop dodging the serious problems with your claims I brought to your attention in reply #558 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8604#msg8604):

1. You are offering money you don't have, for a challenge you have defined poorly - and redefined - and has no proper adjudication.

2. Your primary calculation is completely wrong because you don't understand energy balances.  Your errors have been explained to you in excruciating detail, yet you refuse to acknowledge them.

3. You have no idea what you are talking about, and no apparent interest or ability in relieving your own ignorance.


In light of these issues, I ask again - do you have any intention of actually learning anything at all, or are you just trolling?

I will continue to press these issues until you address them in a realistic manner..  You may ignore them, but you cannot run away from them.   If you continue to deliberately avoid these challenges, I will consider that your admission of trolling, and into the bit-bucket you will go.

ETA: fixed close parenthesis
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 04, 2013, 05:34:40 PM
many people also saw 1969 Apollo 11 take off from Earth, some blury B&W footage of people on the Moon and splash down in the Pacific five days later live on TV ... but what happened in between the three events?

Very easily answered.  Buy this, and watch it all: http://02e5a89.netsolstores.com/apollo11menonthemoon.aspx

There are DVD sets available for the rest of the manned space programme from the same company, but that one is a good start - especially given your obsession with Apollo 11.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on January 04, 2013, 05:38:40 PM
How can someone claiming to know all the minute details of Apollo 11 ask such a clanger of a question?

Heiwa, while you are acquainting yourself with the bulk of Apollo 11 history, you may want to pick up a copy of "Live TV From the Moon". It will help answer all questions you may have regarding mission TV. It even includes tables of all TV TX times so you never need ask the clanger of a question again. You see, when most people make mistakes, the sound of that mishap makes a little "ping" of a sound, but when you make mistakes it tends to "clang" louder than the Canterbury Chimes. Why?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 04, 2013, 05:40:46 PM
How can someone claiming to know all the minute details of Apollo 11 ask such a clanger of a question?

To be honest, the whole thread is a case of "How can someone claiming to know [insert concept here] ask such a clanger of a question?".
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on January 04, 2013, 05:42:44 PM
True, true.
Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sus_pilot on January 04, 2013, 06:14:45 PM
Maybe he manages engineers.

Link (http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070706184121/cartoons/images/1/1e/Phb.png)

Outstanding, sir!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Donnie B. on January 04, 2013, 06:20:08 PM
In his wonderful book  Godel, Escher, Bach, Douglas Hofstadter imagines a dialog between Achilles and the Tortoise (the characters in Zeno's formulation of his famous paradox).  Achilles is trying to get the Tortoise to accept a simple logical syllogism, along these lines:
A: All cats are mammals.
B: Felix is a cat.
Z: Therefore, Felix is a mammal.

The Tortoise readily accepts the premises A and B, but refuses to accept the conclusion Z.  No matter what Achilles tries to argue, Tortoise just won't admit that Z is valid.  Even adding an intermediate conclusion "C: If A and B are true, then Z must be true", which Tortoise accepts, Achilles can't make him budge on the issue of Z.

Finally, in frustration, Achilles cries out that "Logic takes you by the throat and FORCES you to accept it!"  Needless to say, this was no more effective in convincing Tortoise of the obvious.

I so empathize with Achilles right now.
Title: Re: Who wants to pretend a million euros is on offer
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on January 04, 2013, 06:22:47 PM
Read it and weep -
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world

Good grief! When I showed the above page to Mrs Supermeerkat she asked "does that man's carers know he uses the internet?"
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on January 04, 2013, 07:01:51 PM
carers

A new Britishism to em. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 04, 2013, 07:14:57 PM
I so empathize with Achilles right now.

Indeed, however I identify more with Michael Palin in "The Argument Clinic."
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Donnie B. on January 04, 2013, 07:20:03 PM
I so empathize with Achilles right now.

Indeed, however I identify more with Michael Palin in "The Argument Clinic."

Do not.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 04, 2013, 07:43:46 PM
Heiwa:

Linear momentum (p) is directly proportional to kinetic energy, being p=mv

Not quite - it's a square relationship as KE = p2/2m

Your point about the Rocket Equation still stands, though.
Well, yes. I phrased it badly, forgetting that you engineers are SO DAMN LITERAL! [SNICKER] (My daughter has her M.Sc. in Engineering Physics - I should know better.)

The point I was trying to get across  (hopelessly, I know) to Heiwa is that there is a specific relationship between LM and KE of a given rocket in a given circumstance; that relationship is, as you quite correctly pointed out, a square.  I temporarily forgot that "directly proportional" means "multiplied by a non-zero number" in this context.

I was just really wondering why H. is so focused on an energy equation that he clearly doesn't understand when the Rocket Equation is so straightforward and difficult to screw up, even for a non-engineer non-mathhead like me.

Then I saw this:

Quote
Mag40:
Read it and weep -

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4280640&postcount=130
Weight (kg) or load (kg) = mass (kg). Yes, I am an engineer. What are you?

I THOUGHT "Anders Bjorkman" sounded familiar - I've read some of his babbling on JREF. He's got more 'roos loose in the top paddock than the Victoria Zoos.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on January 04, 2013, 08:38:25 PM

The plot thickens when you realize that France has some of the most stringent laws in the world regarding the practice of engineering.  Criminal penalties apply to the practice of engineering without a degree or license, and to the malpractice of engineering even by licensed practitioners.  I wonder if the Beausoleil magistrates are aware of what is happening on their doorstep.

Aha, you are now an expert of French law? Are you suggesting I am breaking the law? That is serious! Off topic, of course. Anyway, the Tribunals d'Instance and de Grande Instance are located at Nice but you can always alert our local police municipale or nationale here at Beausoleil, if you are concerned. I think you are just upset not beating my Challenge. Yes, it is hard not to solve my Challenges.

Have you still not understand that it is IMPOSSIBLE to win my Challenges. Physical principles do not allow it.

Not a single person here is upset that they aren't winning your challenges.  Not a single person here believes they are serious challenges or that you have any of the money you say you do.  You have refused to provide proof and you have refused to acknowledge your many errors.

It is not impossible to win your challenges because physical principles do not allow it.  That has been shown multiple times already in this thread and IGNORED by YOU.  It is impossible to win because YOUR EGO will not allow you to admit you are wrong. 

For the record, I'm not upset either.  I'm amused by you.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 04, 2013, 08:46:00 PM
it's a square relationship as KE = p2/2m
And that's the "dismal equation" of rocketry, expressed more clearly than I did.

It shows that the energy you need to get a certain impulse (momentum) p from a reaction mass m increases as the square of the impulse p. E.g., you can get 1 newton-second (N-s) of impulse from a reaction mass of 1 kg by giving it an energy of 1/2 joule. Getting 2 N-s from that same 1 kg of ejected mass requires 2 joules of energy or 1 joule per N-s, twice the 1/2 J/N-s of the first example.

A given total impulse is therefore a tradeoff between energy and reaction mass. If you want to carry less reaction mass, you'll have to eject it with more total energy to get that same total impulse. If you can afford to carry more reaction mass, then you won't need as much energy to eject it.

It's even better if you don't have to carry any reaction mass at all because you're surrounded by it, as in the case of land, sea and air transportation.  A car only needs a source of energy; it doesn't need to carry any reaction mass because it can simply grab the road with a set of tires and use the earth as its reaction mass.

Space is (mostly) a vacuum, so you generally have to carry your reaction mass with you.

But space isn't really quite so bleak. In the inner solar system, at least, you are surrounded by fairly abundant energy from the sun, so you don't necessarily have to carry your energy with you; that's why most spacecraft are solar powered. And those same solar photons carry momentum in the form of radiation pressure, and it's possible to make use of them as reaction "mass" with a solar sail. Although I don't think a true solar sail has yet been successfully flown, the phenomenon of radiation pressure is very real and visible in the operation of many spacecraft, usually as a wanted or unwanted source of torque on a spacecraft body.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Donnie B. on January 04, 2013, 09:12:56 PM
The Planetary Society attempted to launch a true solar sail test vehicle a couple years ago, but the launcher failed.  They have an improved model ready to go and are looking for a ride to orbit.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 04, 2013, 09:13:40 PM
The Apollo SPS engine, which is an AJ10-137 engine with 91,000 lb thrust
91 kN thrust, actually.

It's only that large because it was specified before the choice of lunar orbit rendezvous, when it was thought that the entire Apollo spacecraft would land on the moon and take off again.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on January 04, 2013, 09:17:34 PM
And those same solar photons carry momentum in the form of radiation pressure, and it's possible to make use of them as reaction "mass" with a solar sail. Although I don't think a true solar sail has yet been successfully flown, the phenomenon of radiation pressure is very real and visible in the operation of many spacecraft, usually as a wanted or unwanted source of torque on a spacecraft body.

Solar sails have had bad luck just getting to the point where they can begin deployment, but IKAROS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKAROS) flew a while back. A small sailcraft, but a real sailcraft, designed to maneuver using nothing but photon pressure.

MESSENGER used solar sailing to adjust its trajectory for flybys, using its solar panels as sails. It wasn't designed for this initially, but once tried as a way to avoid a risky burn just before the first Mercury pass that could give useful science data, it apparently became a standard way to fine tune MESSENGER's trajectory:
http://www.jhuapl.edu/messenger/the_mission/publications/OShaughnessy.LCPMC.2011.pdf
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 04, 2013, 09:32:32 PM
MESSENGER used solar sailing to adjust its trajectory for flybys, using its solar panels as sails.

Does that mean they have to worry about unintended course changes just because light from the Sun just happened to be hitting the solar panels?
Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sus_pilot on January 04, 2013, 09:42:35 PM
What was the Arthur C. Clarke short story about a race involving solar yachts?  I just re-read it a week ago, but I don't have that collection handy right now... 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on January 04, 2013, 09:48:17 PM
What was the Arthur C. Clarke short story about a race involving solar yachts?  I just re-read it a week ago, but I don't have that collection handy right now... 

Sunjammer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunjammer
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on January 04, 2013, 10:18:56 PM
Does that mean they have to worry about unintended course changes just because light from the Sun just happened to be hitting the solar panels?

They have to model photon pressure on the panels to accurately control the orbit, but that's the case for Earth satellites as well. The difference is that they were able to replace small but significant adjustment maneuvers (on the order of m/s) by taking advantage of the pressure on the panels.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: grmcdorman on January 04, 2013, 10:28:32 PM
I was trying something out; I thought I'd take Heiwa at his word, specifically that the final KE of the spacecraft must equal the initial KE plus (or minus) the energy of the fuel burned.

That is, he states this formula for a reduction in velocity:
 0.5 Mi * Vi2 - 0.5 Mf * Vf2 = Mfuel*enthalpy*efficiency
or, for an increase:
 0.5 Mf * Vf2 - 0.5 Mi * Vi2 = Mfuel*enthalpy*efficiency
is true (am I using the correct term for the fuel energy, J/kg, here?).

So I solved for Vf for an acceleration, with fixed values for all but efficiency:
   Vf = sqrt( ( 0.5 Mi * Vi2 + Mfuel*enthalpy*efficiency ) / (  0.5 Mf ) )
or step wise:
   initial kinetic energy, KEi: 0.5 Mi * Vi2
   fuel energy used in velocity change, Ef: Mfuel*enthalpy*efficiency
   final KE, according to Heiwa, KEf: KEi + Ef
   final mass, Mf: Mi - Mfuel
   thus, final velocity: sqrt( 2 * KEf / Mf )
The results were surprising, especially for lower fuel energy values (i.e. Efuel << KEi).

Before I post this, can some one else do this independently so I can be sure I haven't messed up my calculations? Did this in a spreadsheet (Open Document, i.e. Libre Office/Open Office) so I can provide that as well if one sends me a PM.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 04, 2013, 10:41:51 PM
Does that mean they have to worry about unintended course changes just because light from the Sun just happened to be hitting the solar panels?
Yes, all spacecraft do. And it's not just when sunlight hits the solar panels but when it hits any part of the spacecraft.

In fact, the effect is greater when sunlight strikes a reflective surface than an absorptive one like a solar panel. When a photon is absorbed, the target picks up its momentum. But when it reflects, the target picks the photon's momentum, and then additional momentum from launching the reflected photon -- and this can be in a different direction. That's how you "tack" with a solar sail.

Because of changing cross sectional areas, absorptivities and reflection angles, solar photon pressure on spacecraft is notoriously hard to model and predict. It's one of the major residual perturbations in the orbits of the GPS satellites that requires frequent ephemeris updates.

Radiation pressure also appears to be the cause of the famous "Pioneer Anomaly". In this case the radiation was in the far infrared from the RTG generators rather than reflected visible/near-IR from the sun, and the unbalanced force was due to reflection of RTG heat from the back of the antenna. Because the antenna is pointed close to the sun, this resulted in a steady sunward acceleration of the spacecraft, opposite to the direction of solar radiation pressure which at that distance is very small anyway.

I once did a back of the envelope calculation and found that the magnitude of the Pioneer "anomaly" was close to the acceleration one would expect from its thermal radiation. So I assumed that this was the most likely reason, but mine was hardly a scientific, rigorous analysis. The Portuguese team that conclusively proved the effect used a very elaborate ray tracing model similar to that now used in rendering computer graphics: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.5222v2.pdf

Radiation pressure can have very significant effects on astronomical objects given enough time; see Poynting–Robertson effect and Yarkovsky effect.
 

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 04, 2013, 11:05:27 PM
While solar radiation pressure can affect the orbit of a spacecraft, usually the most important effect is the creation of external torques that complicate attitude control. This is usually unwanted, but it can also be taken advantage of. Many small AMSAT spacecraft have used solar radiation pressure to maintain a stabilizing spin. These spacecraft generally have "turnstile" VHF/UHF antennas consisting of metal blades (often hardware store measuring tape) projecting out from the corners of one side.

By painting one side of each blade white and the other black, the differential solar radiation pressure creates a torque that causes the satellite to spin away from the white side. (Note this is opposite to the spin in a science museum gift shop radiometer, which works on a different principle.) The satellite is kept from spinning ever faster by the damping effect of eddy currents induced in its conductive metal structure by rotating in the earth's magnetic field.

Often the solar radiation torque is unwanted. The Voyager spacecraft carried a large amount of attitude control hydrazine to counteract the expected solar radiation torque on the long magnetometer boom, but somebody realized after launch that an even easier way to do this was to simply spin the spacecraft slowly around its antenna axis (which is pointed at the earth, and thereby close to the sun) to cancel out the net torque on the boom. As a result both Voyagers have considerably more hydrazine than had been planned, enough to last until their RTGs no longer produce enough power to run them in another decade or so.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 05, 2013, 03:14:22 AM
Do you deny the existence of aerodynamic drag? 

No, evidently not, pls refer to my presentation - link in post #1. IMO the drag and lift forces acting on, e.g. the Apollo 11 command module, when velocity was say 6 000 m/s  will rotate the module and kill the people inside. The module was not stable ... like a Ford Edsel.
But I fear the module will burn up already at 7 000 m/s speed in the atmosphere.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 05, 2013, 03:29:39 AM
Heiwa:

Can you tell us why you are so wedded to your attempt to draw conclusions from the kinetic energy of a spacecraft?  The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, which is derived from the linear momentum of a rocket when acted upon by outside forces, will give you an answer that accounts for the energy changes.

I am only interested in the kinetic energy of the space ship itself before/after burning fuel. Masses/velocities are known. The difference is the kinetic energy of the fuel burnt that produce the force that change the velocity of the space ship. The Tsiolkovsky formula is not required for that - why use it? And it seems that too little fuel was available to produce the velocity changes of Apollo 11 and that the numbers produced by NASA do not add up as shown in my simple presentation.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 05, 2013, 06:23:15 AM
They do not add up when you do it because you are doing it WRONG. How many more times and ways do we need to say this before you get it? You CANNOT disregard the mass and energy of the spent fuel.

The fact that you ask 'why use it' in relation to the Tsiolkovsky equation says it all really.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on January 05, 2013, 06:29:08 AM
IMO

Your opinion as a worthless as it uninformed. A fact repeatedly noticed and commented upon.

the Apollo 11 command module, when velocity was say 6 000 m/s  will rotate the module and kill the people inside. The module was not stable ... like a Ford Edsel.

That is incorrect - the following document, Aerodynamic Stability Characteristics of the Apollo Command Module, explains in why detail

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680021973_1968021973.pdf (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680021973_1968021973.pdf)

Please don't lie about having read it.

But I fear the module will burn up already at 7 000 m/s speed in the atmosphere.

Ablative heatshields. This has been explained to you already.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 05, 2013, 06:31:45 AM
Heiwa:

Can you tell us why you are so wedded to your attempt to draw conclusions from the kinetic energy of a spacecraft?  The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, which is derived from the linear momentum of a rocket when acted upon by outside forces, will give you an answer that accounts for the energy changes.

I am only interested in the kinetic energy of the space ship itself before/after burning fuel. Masses/velocities are known. The difference is the kinetic energy of the fuel burnt that produce the force that change the velocity of the space ship. The Tsiolkovsky formula is not required for that - why use it? And it seems that too little fuel was available to produce the velocity changes of Apollo 11 and that the numbers produced by NASA do not add up as shown in my simple presentation.


Why are you interested in the kinetic energy?  If you are trying to work out whether the mechnics are correct, the Tsiolkovsky equation will do just fine and is the generally accepted way of doing it.  The delta-v required is known, the specific impulse of the spacecraft is known, the initial and final masses are known.  Do it that way.

Have you even redone your incorrect calculations using the correction energy density for Aerozine 50 and nitrogen tetroxide that we gave you?  What energy density are you using?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 05, 2013, 06:34:48 AM
I am only interested in the kinetic energy of the space ship itself before/after burning fuel.
Your interests are too narrow. Consider broadening them.
Quote
Masses/velocities are known.
Indeed they are. So why did you say they weren't?
Quote
The difference is the kinetic energy of the fuel burnt that produce the force that change the velocity of the space ship.
Wrong, as we've been telling you, and as any textbook on the subject will confirm.

Quote
The Tsiolkovsky formula is not required for that - why use it?
It most definitely is required, as you'd know if you weren't so incredibly ignorant and unable to learn.

Quote
And it seems that too little fuel was available to produce the velocity changes of Apollo 11 and that the numbers produced by NASA do not add up as shown in my simple presentation.
And it seems you're simply wrong.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 05, 2013, 06:50:40 AM
IMO the drag and lift forces acting on, e.g. the Apollo 11 command module, when velocity was say 6 000 m/s  will rotate the module and kill the people inside. The module was not stable ... like a Ford Edsel.
Your opinion is worthless because it is not informed by any facts.

The Apollo command modules (not just the Columbia of Apollo 11) were actually quite stable. But just in case, they carried a reaction control system to keep them pointed in the right direction. They even used that system to direct a lift vector that steered the trajectory to the desired recovery zone. Guess you didn't know that, huh?

Quote
But I fear the module will burn up already at 7 000 m/s speed in the atmosphere.
You're a little out of date. Fear not, it landed safely over 43 years ago. You can even see it in the Air & Space Museum in Washington DC. You can inspect for yourself the remnants of the ablative heat shield that kept it from burning up.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Mag40 on January 05, 2013, 06:59:27 AM
There is a very often used expression.....made when something is supposed to be easy to understand.

"It isn't rocket science."

Well guess what.....this is! Repeating your mistakes over and over again, whilst being shown how totally wrong you are.....by people who do this for a living.....that is either crass stupidity or trolling......or both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable-mass_system

Now read it.....go and educate yourself.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 05, 2013, 07:41:05 AM
Let me after about 785 posts remind you about topic, i.e. my Challenge about safety of space travel and associated fuel consumption. You have to demonstrate how to travel to the Moon and back to win the prize (€1M). It is not easy.

Say that your space ship has mass 32 676 kg excluding fuel and that you must slow down from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s velocity to insert into Moon orbit. Your space ship has a P-22 KS rocket engine with 97 400 N thrust (at full blast). How much fuel do you require to carry out the braking maneuver?

If you suggest, e.g. 10 898 kg, you must support your answer with proper calculations to win the prize (€1M). I have a feeling you need >80 000 kg.

Say that your space ship has mass 12 153 kg excluding fuel and that you must speed up from 1 500 to 2 400 m/s velocity to get out of Moon orbit to carry out a so called trans-Earth injection. Your space ship still has a P-22 KS rocket engine with 97 400 N thrust (at full blast). How much fuel do you require to carry out the acceleration maneuver?

If you suggest, e.g. 4 676 kg, you must support your answer with proper calculations to win the prize (€1M). I have a feeling you need > 20 000 kg.

In order to proceed with the discussion, I suggest you try to clarify above basic questions of fuel consumption.
 
Pls do not suggest that I do not know anything about space travel, astrophysics, that I am broke, a criminal that cannot carry out my work, etc, etc, because it is clear from link in post #1 what I am doing for a living. My biz is safety at sea. And I am quite good.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on January 05, 2013, 07:58:26 AM
But I fear the module will burn up already at 7 000 m/s speed in the atmosphere.

Ablative heatshields. This has been explained to you already.

His problem is not that much the heatshield, but what exactly happens during re-entry. He thinks that all the re-entry heat gets dumped into the spacecraft.

What actually happens is that the re-entering body pushes a cushion/shockwave of air, which heats due to compression, turning into ionized gas/plasma. The majority of the energy of re-entry is spent heating atmospheric air. The purpose of the heat shield is to prevent this superheated envelope from destroying the spacecraft.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 05, 2013, 08:08:23 AM
IMO the drag and lift forces acting on, e.g. the Apollo 11 command module, when velocity was say 6 000 m/s  will rotate the module and kill the people inside. The module was not stable ... like a Ford Edsel.

That's your opinion. Fine. What engineering principle is it based on? What knowledge do you have of the construction of the command module to allow you to decide if it is stable or not?

Quote
But I fear the module will burn up already at 7 000 m/s speed in the atmosphere.

That's because you don't understand how the heat shield actually worked.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 05, 2013, 08:09:49 AM

What actually happens is that the re-entering body pushes a cushion/shockwave of air, which heats due to compression, turning into ionized gas/plasma. The majority of the energy of re-entry is spent heating atmospheric air. The purpose of the heat shield is to prevent this superheated envelope from destroying the spacecraft.

Did Apollo 11 push a cushion or shockwave of air in front of it while trying to keep the trim angle right while flying up/down in the atmosphere? And only this cushion of air heats up and turns into ionized gas/plasma.
Have this strange phenomenom been tested in a laboratory or air tunnel test installation? Pls provide some evidence. I have a feeling you are just making it up SF style.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 05, 2013, 08:32:38 AM
Or, if you don't believe NASA (or any other damn Yankees) try reading Ways To Spaceflight by the German Hermann Oberth. He wrote it in 1929, about 30 years before NASA even came into being:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720008133_1972008133.pdf

See page 200 for a discussion of what has come to be known as the Oberth Effect. Oberth himself first thought he had broken the conservation of energy, only to realize that he was simply looking at the problem incorrectly. He had to account for all of the energy in the system, including that in the propellant both before and after it is burned and ejected from the rocket engine.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on January 05, 2013, 08:53:24 AM
Strike one, Heiwa.
Do you deny the existence of aerodynamic drag? 
No, evidently not, pls refer to my presentation - link in post #1. IMO
There are a number of professional engineers in this thread, some of whom actually work in aerospace.  Please explain why any of us should pay any attention to your opinion, when you have repeatedly demonstrated ignorance of even the most basic aspects of space flight and an inability to grasp even the most fundamental principles involved.
the drag and lift forces acting on, e.g. the Apollo 11 command module, when velocity was say 6 000 m/s  will rotate the module and kill the people inside. The module was not stable ...
Wrong.  Inanimate Carbon Rod (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8977#msg8977) has already provided a detailed reference - the existence of which you were ignorant - refuting this silly claim:
NASA TN-D-4688, Aerodynamic stability characteristics of the Apollo command module (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19680021973).  But you are also ignorant of other work, such as
NASA TN-D-3890, Stability characteristics of the Apollo command module (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19670010564), and
Simulation of the Apollo command module aerodynamics at high altitudes, and
Simulation of the Apollo Command Module aerodynamics at re-entry altitudes, and
NASA-TM-X-1395, Longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics of the Apollo command module at a Mach number of 20 and data comparisons over a wide Mach number-Reynolds number range (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19740072847), and on and on.

There is an enormous amount of documentation about the design and test of the Command Module and its stability and steering.   I worked (long after Apollo) for the guys who designed it.  You simply don't know what you're talking about, and you aren't even dimly aware of the work that went into it.  You aren't even remotely qualified to render an opinion about it; you're just as spectacularly wrong about this as you have been about everything else to do with Apollo in particular and space flight in general.
like a Ford Edsel.
The Edsel, whatever its faults, was stable.  Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about - to the point that you provided an example that contradicts your own claim!
But I fear the module will burn up already at 7 000 m/s speed in the atmosphere.
You are wrong, and you don't get any less wrong by repeating your ignorant opinion, and I and others have already explained how ablative shielding works - and that it has been standard engineering practice for more than half a century.   

You still need to address another claim you made:

Only Apollo 11 is SF.
Is this an admission that you accept the reality of the other Apollo missions (and Mercury and Gemini and Soyuz and Shenzhou and Skylab and Salyut and Mir and ISS and Cygnus and Genesis and etc.)?  Or that you were simply unaware of the other missions' existence?  Or that you are simply unable to keep track of your claims?  Or that you are simply trolling?

Now, as I have said several times before:  Kindly stop dodging the serious problems with your claims I brought to your attention in reply #558 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8604#msg8604):

1. You are offering money you don't have, for a challenge you have defined poorly - and redefined - and has no proper adjudication.  Your challenge is fraudulent.

2. Your primary calculation is completely wrong because you don't understand energy balances.  Your errors have been explained to you in excruciating detail, yet you refuse to acknowledge them.  You simply keep repeating your error - even after the simplest possible case provides an obviously wrong answer using your method.

3. You have no idea what you are talking about, and no apparent interest or ability in relieving your own ignorance.  Yet you continue to offer you ignorant opinion without even acknowledging the corrections and voluminous references provided to you.


Again, strike one.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on January 05, 2013, 08:57:46 AM
From Heiwa's Moontravel page:
Quote
In order to do a correct braking - reducing speed - in universe of a space ship by retrograde firing of a rocket engine close to the Moon, the rocket engine outlet must evidently be positioned in the direction of flight during the 700 000 to 900 000 m curved braking trajectory. It means that the three space pilots flew backwards, when suddenly braking to insert into Moon orbit. The trajectory was evidently not straight as you curved into Moon orbit.
(bolds are my emphasis)

Why the emphasis on the trajectory being curved? The first reference comes straight after the statement that "...the rocket engine outlet must evidently be positioned in the direction of flight..." I therefore suspect that Heiwa believes the spacecraft had to gradually change attitude during the burn to keep the engine pointed in the direction of travel.

Well, it didn't. The spacecraft was aimed in a particular direction for the burn, and remained pointed in that direction for the duration of the burn.

Heiwa might need to add "stellar inertial" to the list of concepts he needs to learn about. (For example, go to http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/02earth_orbit_tli.htm and scroll down a little way to see the difference in spacecraft attitude between a stellar inertial orbit and an orb rate orbit.)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ChrLz on January 05, 2013, 09:03:00 AM
While all this is quite fun, and I will miss it when it's over...  Heiwa, I think it's time we discovered who's right and who's wrong... :P

So, would you be kind enough to do the following?

First, identify the nearest (to you) 'centre of excellence' in regard to the topic of 'rocket science' or a related discipline like aeronautical engineering.  Then, identify the best qualified person there, who could adjudicate.  I would note that given you claim expertise in these matters, surely you must already know who that might be (as an analogy, I am very interested in the marine sciences so as soon as I moved to a new state I immediately looked up the knowledgeable locals for a bit of networking...)

Anyway, you can then name that person and their credentials, work history, peer-reviewed papers, etc - if you are a bit shy about all this, PM me and I'll take it from there.

As it's your alleged money, it's only fair that you pick the location from which the suitably credentialed/ experienced person comes, so ... have at it..



If you are not willing to do that, could you elaborate on why?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: grmcdorman on January 05, 2013, 10:18:45 AM
OK, looking up the LaTex, I can do Heiwa's equations in a more readable form. This gives another way of looking at the problem.

So, given:
miInitial mass
viInitial velocity
mfFinal mass
vfFinal velocity
eEnergy (J) available from fuel combustion

[jstex]\frac{1}{2}m_i v_i^2 - \frac{1}{2}m_f v_f^2 = e[/jstex]Equ. 1

So, solving for vf:

[jstex]\frac{1}{2}m_f v_f^2 = \frac{1}{2}m_i v_i^2 - e[/jstex]
[jstex]v_f^2 = \frac{2 ( 1/2 m_i v_i^2 - e ) }{m_f}[/jstex]
[jstex]v_f = \sqrt{ \frac{m_i v_i^2 - 2e}{m_f} }[/jstex] Equ.2

Heiwa, do you:
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 05, 2013, 10:20:57 AM
Formatting - I'd get rid of "2(1/2)" in your expression above Equ.2.  I'd just cancel the "1/2" on each side of the expression above that, just to make it even clearer.

(Sorry, I don't know how to use LaTex on this forum!)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 05, 2013, 10:32:29 AM
Let me after about 785 posts remind you about topic

You narrowly avoided a ban. That sounded an awful lot like you were trying to moderate the discussion again.

Quote
i.e. my Challenge about safety of space travel and associated fuel consumption. You have to demonstrate how to travel to the Moon and back to win the prize (€1M). It is not easy.

I suspect it was not easy to teach you how to tie your shoes.

It has been repeatedly demonstrated how Apollo went to the Moon and back. And quite frankly, I'm getting tired of seeing you waste people's time by ignoring their explanations. I don't see much point in keeping you around if you are going to keep repeating the same errors despite our best efforts to educate you.

I have no doubt that you actually believe you are correct, but you are not. Your arrogance does not allow you to admit you are wrong, so I can only foresee this discussion going in circles forever.

So what does everyone think? Is it time for me to ban Heiwa if he doesn't start showing some willingness to learn? Or are you happy to keep using Heiwa's ignorance for your own self education?

Quote
Say that your space ship has mass 32 676 kg excluding fuel and that you must slow down from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s velocity to insert into Moon orbit. Your space ship has a P-22 KS rocket engine with 97 400 N thrust (at full blast). How much fuel do you require to carry out the braking maneuver?

The method of determining the answer to that question was given to you many pages ago. You can say we are wrong all you want, but you are alone. You won't find a single expert who will agree with you.

Quote
I have a feeling you need >80 000 kg.

This is a matter of science. You don't determine the answer to questions by feelings or intuition. A structural engineer who says "I have a feeling that this foundation will support the building above it" is likely going to get people killed. You are not an engineer. If you are offering your services as one then I hope someone stops you before someone gets hurt.

Quote
In order to proceed with the discussion, I suggest you try to clarify above basic questions of fuel consumption.

Another attempt to steer the discussion. I guess you're lucky that there was enough in your post that I wanted to respond to, otherwise you'd have been banned for a week. Don't expect to get away with it again.

But, again, the basic questions of fuel consumption have been answered many times by several people. You are ignoring their answers. Why?
 
Quote
Pls do not suggest that I do not know anything about space travel, astrophysics, that I am broke, a criminal that cannot carry out my work, etc, etc, because it is clear from link in post #1 what I am doing for a living.

You don't know anything about space travel or physics. You probably aren't broke, but I'm certain you don't have 1 million Euro to give away. Promoting a prize that you have no intention of ever awarding is fraud and makes you a criminal in my opinion. I doubt the courts will waste their time going after you though. If anything gets you into trouble it will be your ineptitude as an engineer. I recommend that you retire now and live out the rest of your life on that 1 million Euro.

Quote
My biz is safety at sea. And I am quite good.

You keep telling yourself that. You're delusional if you actually believe it though because its clear to the rest of use that you don't know what you're talking about.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: grmcdorman on January 05, 2013, 10:37:17 AM
Formatting - I'd get rid of "2(1/2)" in your expression above Equ.2.  I'd just cancel the "1/2" on each side of the expression above that, just to make it even clearer.

(Sorry, I don't know how to use LaTex on this forum!)
Thanks. I'd agree, but I want to keep the equation as close to the original as possible. You'll note that in the last derivation, I do multiply through the 2.

You can find a thread in Tech Support on LaTex, with some examples there. You can also hit Quote on my post to see the raw LaTex (unfortunately the Preview has issues; I've just posted in Tech Support on that).
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gwiz on January 05, 2013, 10:39:32 AM
Did Apollo 11 push a cushion or shockwave of air in front of it while trying to keep the trim angle right while flying up/down in the atmosphere? And only this cushion of air heats up and turns into ionized gas/plasma.
Have this strange phenomenom been tested in a laboratory or air tunnel test installation? Pls provide some evidence. I have a feeling you are just making it up SF style.
Any blunt object at supersonic speed will have a shockwave and a region of hot high-pressure air in front of it.  If the speed is high enough the air will be heated sufficiently to turn to plasma. 

Just consult any textbook on aerodynamics.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 05, 2013, 10:43:31 AM
Let me after about 785 posts remind you about topic,

For heaven's sake, which bit of the plain English of 'do not try to moderate the discussion and tell people to stay on topic' have you not understood? You are an incredibly tiresome individual.

Quote
You have to demonstrate how to travel to the Moon and back to win the prize (€1M).

Actually your original challenge was to show where you were wrong. That has been done, several times, and you have silently corrected your website, thereby accepting without public acknowledgement that your prize has been won. Since you cannot bring yourself to admit you were wrong about anything you simply change the conditions of your challenge.

Quote
Say that your space ship has mass 32 676 kg excluding fuel and that you must slow down from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s velocity to insert into Moon orbit. Your space ship has a P-22 KS rocket engine with 97 400 N thrust (at full blast). How much fuel do you require to carry out the braking maneuver?

Since you cannot possibly calculate the fuel requirements without knowing the mass of spaceship plus fuel in the first place, you cannot answer the question the way you think it should be.

And AGAIN, will you please explain why you maintain your insistence on referring to the P 22K S engine when there is NO other source on Apollo that gives the SPS that designation?

Quote
I have a feeling you need >80 000 kg.

Your feelings are irrelevant. No qualified engineer ever bases his conclusions on feelings.

Quote
In order to proceed with the discussion, I suggest you try to clarify above basic questions of fuel consumption.

Again, stop trying to dictate where this discussion can go.
 
Quote
Pls do not suggest that I do not know anything about space travel, astrophysics,

No-one is suggesting any such thing. They are stating it outright. You have DEMOMNSTRATED you know nothing about space travel and astrophysics. You want to prove you know something, find someone who agrees with you. Just one qualified in a relevant field. Go on. I challenge you. We already have provided the backing up of our statements in the form of reams of documents, various professionals, even the founders of the whole science of travelling in space. Where is your support?

Quote
that I am broke,

Don't put words in our mouths. No-one claims you are broke. Not having a million euros doesn't make you broke. However, it is abundantly clear that you do NOT have that money. You have consistently refused to prove it. Why should we take your word?

Quote
it is clear from link in post #1 what I am doing for a living. My biz is safety at sea. And I am quite good.

Your website is junk. It is not the website of a serious business provider. Every single page has garbage about conpsiracies and other things about which you are evidently ignorant. If you are so good, please provide the evidence of your past achievements. Surely you must have large numbers of satisfied customers?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 05, 2013, 10:48:38 AM
... I therefore suspect that Heiwa believes the spacecraft had to gradually change attitude during the burn to keep the engine pointed in the direction of travel.

Well, it didn't. The spacecraft was aimed in a particular direction for the burn, and remained pointed in that direction for the duration of the burn.


In post #786 the question was about how much fuel was used (to produce a force) in order to just slow down a space ship to get into Moon orbit or to the speed up the space ship to get out of Moon orbit. Nobody seems to know the answer as no replies have turned up.

Another question is evidently in what direction this force is applied during the speed change maneuver. And for how long.

To get into Moon orbit you must, apart from slowing down, change course from a straight one into an elliptical/circular one around the Moon and Moon gravity will assist. Peter B suggests that during a 6 (or eight) minutes burn (30 kg/s fuel burnt) applying 97 400 N force in one particular direction suffices.

It is a complicated maneuver in 3-D. The inertia force of the space ship is applied in one direction, Moon gravity pulls in another direction (I assume the trajectorey is already curved due to Moon gravity) and then you apply a third force - the brake force - in a third, particular direction while losing 10 800 kg mass in the SM ... that you keep steady all the time? If the brake force is not in the direction of travel, it will evidently also change the direction.

There is then quite a number of factors to keep an eye on. Just how to keep the space ship stable in one - the right - direction during 6 minutes braking/turning, while you loose 10 800 kg mass (30 kg/s) is complicated. Imagine if the space ship tips over and goes away in the wrong direction ... and you have no fuel left or means to correct it.

So I am happy, Peter B, that you have pointed out that the brake force cannot be applied in the direction of travel but in another particular direction where it is held steady when the space ship changes direction and looses mass and slows down. You are a genious.

Now tell me how much fuel you need to slow down! :) 


Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 05, 2013, 10:49:37 AM
Quote
Did Apollo 11 push a cushion or shockwave of air in front of it while trying to keep the trim angle right while flying up/down in the atmosphere?

Yes, as does any other object travelling at sufficient speed through the air.

Quote
And only this cushion of air heats up and turns into ionized gas/plasma.

No, that cushion of compressed air is the main source of heat. The heat shield then stops that heat from penetrating the spacecraft by charring and burning away, carrying the heat away from the spacecraft. It is a well-known physical principle that compressing a gas causes it to heat up.

Quote
Have this strange phenomenom been tested in a laboratory or air tunnel test installation?

It is only a strange phenomenon to you, and of course it has been tested.

Quote
Pls provide some evidence.

What would be the point? You will simply maintain it does not exist anyway. You went for page after page after page on this thread saying no-one knew what mass of fuel was burned, despite being pointed to the very information you needed on one of your own linked references. You've insisted you asked NASA what the heat shield was made from and were not given the information, which you again descfribed as secret. Do you now retract that claim too, having been given the exact information you said did not exist?

More to the point, why ahven't YOU done the research into this phenomoenon you claim is made up? Why can't YOU find the information? It really isn't hard to find.

Quote
I have a feeling you are just making it up SF style.

Of course you do, because you need to keep that nice cosy feeling for your own ego, otherwise you would have to admit yet again that you were wrong about something. Your self image must be really fragile, judging by the lengths you go to to protect it and avoid admitting mistakes at every turn.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 05, 2013, 10:50:50 AM


So what does everyone think? Is it time for me to ban Heiwa if he doesn't start showing some willingness to learn? Or are you happy to keep using Heiwa's ignorance for your own self education?


FWIW I have learned loads in this thread. My vote is to let himself punch himself out (as long as he keeps the smarmy comments under control).
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 05, 2013, 10:51:59 AM
Quote
Your website is junk. It is not the website of a serious business provider. Every single page has garbage about conpsiracies and other things about which you are evidently ignorant.

It's a pretty good advertisement for his competitors though. :)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 05, 2013, 10:52:54 AM
Keep him around. The more he writes this junk online, the more he proves himself incapable of sensible debate, the more he shows himself for the imbecile he really is, the more his so-called business risks losing customers. I don't know anyone who would employ a consultant who behaves the way he does. If he wants to keep undermining himself in public let him.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on January 05, 2013, 10:57:27 AM
Let me after about 785 posts remind you about topic, i.e. my Challenge about safety of space travel and associated fuel consumption. You have to demonstrate how to travel to the Moon and back to win the prize (€1M). It is not easy.

You are using your "challenge" as a way to shift the burden of proof away from yourself and onto others.  No one here cares about winning your challenge nor are we trying to. It is only a gimmick.  The fact of Apollo does not hinge on anyone winning your challenge.  Simply, if you think Apollo was a hoax, then the burden of proof remains with you and that burden cannot be skirted by your gimmick. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 05, 2013, 10:58:06 AM
I didn't want to do this.

Heiwa

The European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) is a European Union agency charged with reducing the risk of maritime accidents, marine pollution from ships and the loss of human lives at sea by helping to enforce the pertinent EU legislation.

I wrote to EMSA a few days ago.  Not only did they say Heiwa Co was not in any way connected with them, or European maritime safety, but they had never even heard of Heiwa Co.

You are acting fraudulently, yet you froth and foam with rage while launching accusation at others.  Do you see why we are having problems?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 05, 2013, 11:00:43 AM
Have this strange phenomenom been tested in a laboratory or air tunnel test installation? Pls provide some evidence. I have a feeling you are just making it up SF style.

Appeal to incredulity.

Its not strange to anyone that has done a modicum of research. Heating as part of hypersonic re-entry was being studied back in the 1950s as part of the research into ICBM re-entry. Harry Julian Allen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Julian_Allen) in 1951, in research at Ames Research Centre, did the calculations and came up with the concept of using a "blunt-body" shape to creat a compressive "bow-wave" to create a boundary layer between the hot compressed gas of the atmosphere and the structure of the ICBM.  Allen and Eggers classified report into blunt-bodies and hypersonic heating effects was published in 1953.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 05, 2013, 11:01:31 AM


Your website is junk. It is not the website of a serious business provider. Every single page has garbage about conpsiracies and other things about which you are evidently ignorant. If you are so good, please provide the evidence of your past achievements. Surely you must have large numbers of satisfied customers?

The only references to Heiwa Co I can find online are about his conspiracy theories.  There are no professional reviews etc that I can find.  I strongly suspect Heiwa has not actually done any engineering work in his life (thankfully).
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 05, 2013, 11:07:43 AM
What was the Arthur C. Clarke short story about a race involving solar yachts?  I just re-read it a week ago, but I don't have that collection handy right now...
The Wind From The Sun? I don't remember the author right this second; it was in the collection The Science Fictional Olympics ed. by Issac Asimov.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on January 05, 2013, 11:10:28 AM
So what does everyone think? Is it time for me to ban Heiwa if he doesn't start showing some willingness to learn? Or are you happy to keep using Heiwa's ignorance for your own self education?

Perhaps we could enforce the requirement that he limit the discussion to answering direct questions. It will at least give him one last chance to make a point. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on January 05, 2013, 11:16:42 AM
I didn't want to do this.

Heiwa

The European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) is a European Union agency charged with reducing the risk of maritime accidents, marine pollution from ships and the loss of human lives at sea by helping to enforce the pertinent EU legislation.

I wrote to EMSA a few days ago.  Not only did they say Heiwa Co was not in any way connected with them, or European maritime safety, but they had never even heard of Heiwa Co.

You are acting fraudulently, yet you froth and foam with rage while launching accusation at others.  Do you see why we are having problems?

Yeah, Heiwa, where is the pleasure you seem to derive from pointing out other people's error, now that the tables have turned? Or is that an element of you that the some would say is "best left unsolved"?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 05, 2013, 11:33:51 AM

It has been repeatedly demonstrated how Apollo went to the Moon and back.

Yes, it has in several reports that I use as reference - see link in post #1. I evidently do not believe these reports and therefore we have this friendly discussion. Let's keep it that way.

See, e.g. my post #786. Can you really show by engineering calculations that you can slow down a 43.5 ton space ship from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s speed in space by burning 10.8 ton fuel at 30 kg/s producing a 97 400 N force?

Or that a 5.6 ton module of thin plates/stiffeners arriving into Earth's atmosphere at 11 200 m/s speed is slowed down by friction turbulence to 100 m/s speed during 18 minutes without heating up the inside at all? A few centimeters away the air is glowing hot, the heat shield is at 1600°C and inside - 20°C!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on January 05, 2013, 11:56:11 AM
I want to see Heiwa's equation for aerodynamic drag that somehow allows a parachute to slow an object, doesn't allow a re-entering spacecraft to slow down, but does allow a meteroid to burn up in the atmosphere. I'm sure every automobile manufacturer would pay a billion dollars for an equation that actually worked in the real world that would enable them to create a drag-free 1000 mile per gallon car.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 05, 2013, 12:10:12 PM
I didn't want to do this.

Heiwa

The European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) is a European Union agency charged with reducing the risk of maritime accidents, marine pollution from ships and the loss of human lives at sea by helping to enforce the pertinent EU legislation.

I wrote to EMSA a few days ago.  Not only did they say Heiwa Co was not in any way connected with them, or European maritime safety, but they had never even heard of Heiwa Co.

You are acting fraudulently, yet you froth and foam with rage while launching accusation at others.  Do you see why we are having problems?

I'm finding it difficult to believe that someone who has a M.Sc in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering (achieved at Chalmers University in Sweden) would act in this way and be so ignorant of fairly basic physics and mathematics.
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/cv.htm

Is it possible to see if he was an alumnus in 1969?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on January 05, 2013, 12:11:21 PM
Can you really show by engineering calculations that you can slow down a 43.5 ton space ship from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s speed in space by burning 10.8 ton fuel at 30 kg/s producing a 97 400 N force?

Or that a 5.6 ton module of thin plates/stiffeners arriving into Earth's atmosphere at 11 200 m/s speed is slowed down by friction turbulence to 100 m/s speed during 18 minutes without heating up the inside at all? A few centimeters away the air is glowing hot, the heat shield is at 1600°C and inside - 20°C!


The facts of Apollo are on record and widely accepted by the relevant experts.  The  burden of proof is on you to show that it was not possible and to provide an alternate hypothesis to explain the observations.  Your challenge gimmick does not relive you of this burden, so stop dodging.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 05, 2013, 12:18:57 PM
I didn't want to do this.

Heiwa

The European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) is a European Union agency charged with reducing the risk of maritime accidents, marine pollution from ships and the loss of human lives at sea by helping to enforce the pertinent EU legislation.

I wrote to EMSA a few days ago.  Not only did they say Heiwa Co was not in any way connected with them, or European maritime safety, but they had never even heard of Heiwa Co.

You are acting fraudulently, yet you froth and foam with rage while launching accusation at others.  Do you see why we are having problems?

I'm finding it difficult to believe that someone who has a M.Sc in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering (achieved at Chalmers University in Sweden) would act in this way and be so ignorant of fairly basic physics and mathematics.
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/cv.htm

Is it possible to see if he was an alumnus in 1969?

And why would it take 4 years?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 05, 2013, 12:24:23 PM
And why would it take 4 years?

Engineering degrees generally take 4 years or more in Europe.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Abaddon on January 05, 2013, 12:24:47 PM
... I therefore suspect that Heiwa believes the spacecraft had to gradually change attitude during the burn to keep the engine pointed in the direction of travel.

Well, it didn't. The spacecraft was aimed in a particular direction for the burn, and remained pointed in that direction for the duration of the burn.


In post #786 the question was about how much fuel was used (to produce a force) in order to just slow down a space ship to get into Moon orbit or to the speed up the space ship to get out of Moon orbit. Nobody seems to know the answer as no replies have turned up.

Another question is evidently in what direction this force is applied during the speed change maneuver. And for how long.

To get into Moon orbit you must, apart from slowing down, change course from a straight one into an elliptical/circular one around the Moon and Moon gravity will assist. Peter B suggests that during a 6 (or eight) minutes burn (30 kg/s fuel burnt) applying 97 400 N force in one particular direction suffices.

It is a complicated maneuver in 3-D. The inertia force of the space ship is applied in one direction, Moon gravity pulls in another direction (I assume the trajectorey is already curved due to Moon gravity) and then you apply a third force - the brake force - in a third, particular direction while losing 10 800 kg mass in the SM ... that you keep steady all the time? If the brake force is not in the direction of travel, it will evidently also change the direction.

There is then quite a number of factors to keep an eye on. Just how to keep the space ship stable in one - the right - direction during 6 minutes braking/turning, while you loose 10 800 kg mass (30 kg/s) is complicated. Imagine if the space ship tips over and goes away in the wrong direction ... and you have no fuel left or means to correct it.

So I am happy, Peter B, that you have pointed out that the brake force cannot be applied in the direction of travel but in another particular direction where it is held steady when the space ship changes direction and looses mass and slows down. You are a genious.

Now tell me how much fuel you need to slow down! :) 



I checked the numbers and 10,800 Kg looks on the money.
I will split the million with Peter B.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 05, 2013, 12:26:02 PM
Let me after about 785 posts remind you about topic, i.e. my Challenge about safety of space travel and associated fuel consumption. You have to demonstrate how to travel to the Moon and back to win the prize (€1M). It is not easy.

Say that your space ship has mass 32 676 kg excluding fuel and that you must slow down from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s velocity to insert into Moon orbit. Your space ship has a P-22 KS rocket engine with 97 400 N thrust (at full blast). How much fuel do you require to carry out the braking maneuver?

If you suggest, e.g. 10 898 kg, you must support your answer with proper calculations to win the prize (€1M). I have a feeling you need >80 000 kg.

OK, let's work through that. This will be simple math as - once again - I'm not an engineer and my math skills aren't that deep. Despite your comments, Tsiolkovsky gives us all we need.

BTW, without a time frame thrust is pretty much irrelevant - since we're talking about Apollo, I'm going to assume a P22K AJ10-137   rocket engine with an exhaust velocity of 3079 m/s.

So. The Rocket Equation:

Delta-V = EV * ln(m0/m1)

Where m0 = Total mass before the burn
          m1 = mass after the burn
          ln = natural logarithm
          EV = exhaust velocity

So, let's plug in the figures and solve for the difference between m1 and m0, which will be the fuel used to produce the desired change in velocity.

Delta-V = 2400 - 1500 = 900 m/s change in velocity.

900 m/s = 3079 m/s *  ln(m0/32676)   ; divide both sides by 3079 (units cancel out)

0.2923 =  ln(m0/32676)                       ; take the inverse ln of each side

1.3395 = m0/32676                             ; multiply both sides by 32676

43769.5 = m0                                      ; which gives us the mass before the burn...

43769.5 - 32676 = 11093.5                                   ; subtract the mass of the spacecraft and voila!
                                                                           ; we get the amount of mass expended.

And there's your answer, arrived at using the figures you provided and some ninth grade math.

Some of you professional number-crunchers want to check my work, please?








Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 05, 2013, 12:26:45 PM
And why would it take 4 years?

Engineering degrees generally take 4 years or more in Europe.

Chalmers website says their MSc programmes are currently 2 years long?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 05, 2013, 12:30:14 PM
The maths looks good to me, Noldi400.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 05, 2013, 12:31:15 PM
And why would it take 4 years?

Engineering degrees generally take 4 years or more in Europe.

Chalmers website says their MSc programmes are currently 2 years long?

Perhaps he was held back a couple of times?  :P ;) ;D
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Abaddon on January 05, 2013, 12:37:22 PM

It has been repeatedly demonstrated how Apollo went to the Moon and back.

Yes, it has in several reports that I use as reference - see link in post #1. I evidently do not believe these reports and therefore we have this friendly discussion. Let's keep it that way.

See, e.g. my post #786. Can you really show by engineering calculations that you can slow down a 43.5 ton space ship from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s speed in space by burning 10.8 ton fuel at 30 kg/s producing a 97 400 N force?
Expending that fuel gives a delta v of 1018 m/s, so also on the money. Where's my million?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 05, 2013, 12:38:33 PM
43769.5 - 32676 = 11093.5                                   ; subtract the mass of the spacecraft and voila!
                                                                           ; we get the amount of mass expended.

And there's your answer, arrived at using the figures you provided and some ninth grade math.

Some of you professional number-crunchers want to check my work, please?
Looks right to me for the specific numbers provided. Note that they're not the actual figures for the Apollo 11 mission.

Please wire me my share of the prize money.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 05, 2013, 12:39:25 PM
It is a complicated maneuver in 3-D. The inertia force of the space ship is applied in one direction, Moon gravity pulls in another direction (I assume the trajectorey is already curved due to Moon gravity) and then you apply a third force - the brake force - in a third, particular direction while losing 10 800 kg mass in the SM ... that you keep steady all the time? If the brake force is not in the direction of travel, it will evidently also change the direction.

It's not all THAT complicated. If a spacecraft is traveling on a course that passes 96 km from the moon and it slows down to 1500 m/s, it's going into orbit - it's unavoidable. There's no need to do anything special to "curve into orbit".
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 05, 2013, 12:40:26 PM

It has been repeatedly demonstrated how Apollo went to the Moon and back.

Yes, it has in several reports that I use as reference - see link in post #1. I evidently do not believe these reports and therefore we have this friendly discussion. Let's keep it that way.

See, e.g. my post #786. Can you really show by engineering calculations that you can slow down a 43.5 ton space ship from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s speed in space by burning 10.8 ton fuel at 30 kg/s producing a 97 400 N force?
Expending that fuel gives a delta v of 1018 m/s, so also on the money. Where's my million?


(http://i1336.photobucket.com/albums/o657/Andromeda_Apollo/image_zps236b5c5b.jpg)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Abaddon on January 05, 2013, 12:41:41 PM
Let me after about 785 posts remind you about topic, i.e. my Challenge about safety of space travel and associated fuel consumption. You have to demonstrate how to travel to the Moon and back to win the prize (€1M). It is not easy.

Say that your space ship has mass 32 676 kg excluding fuel and that you must slow down from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s velocity to insert into Moon orbit. Your space ship has a P-22 KS rocket engine with 97 400 N thrust (at full blast). How much fuel do you require to carry out the braking maneuver?

If you suggest, e.g. 10 898 kg, you must support your answer with proper calculations to win the prize (€1M). I have a feeling you need >80 000 kg.

OK, let's work through that. This will be simple math as - once again - I'm not an engineer and my math skills aren't that deep. Despite your comments, Tsiolkovsky gives us all we need.

BTW, without a time frame thrust is pretty much irrelevant - since we're talking about Apollo, I'm going to assume a P22K AJ10-137   rocket engine with an exhaust velocity of 3079 m/s.

So. The Rocket Equation:

Delta-V = EV * ln(m0/m1)

Where m0 = Total mass before the burn
          m1 = mass after the burn
          ln = natural logarithm
          EV = exhaust velocity

So, let's plug in the figures and solve for the difference between m1 and m0, which will be the fuel used to produce the desired change in velocity.

Delta-V = 2400 - 1500 = 900 m/s change in velocity.

900 m/s = 3079 m/s *  ln(m0/32676)   ; divide both sides by 3079 (units cancel out)

0.2923 =  ln(m0/32676)                       ; take the inverse ln of each side

1.3395 = m0/32676                             ; multiply both sides by 32676

43769.5 = m0                                      ; which gives us the mass before the burn...

43769.5 - 32676 = 11093.5                                   ; subtract the mass of the spacecraft and voila!
                                                                           ; we get the amount of mass expended.

And there's your answer, arrived at using the figures you provided and some ninth grade math.

Some of you professional number-crunchers want to check my work, please?









It's all good. Three way split on the million?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 05, 2013, 12:43:06 PM
To get into Moon orbit you must, apart from slowing down, change course from a straight one into an elliptical/circular one around the Moon and Moon gravity will assist.

Gravity will not 'assist'. Gravity will do it anyway even if the spacecraft is unpowered. The way Apollo 11 was headed as it passed the Moon, the lunar gravity would have pulled it right round and sent it off on a heading back to Earth. This was the free return trajectory designed into the early missions as a safety factor. If the astronauts did nothing at this point they would still come home safely.

Quote
There is then quite a number of factors to keep an eye on. Just how to keep the space ship stable in one - the right - direction during 6 minutes braking/turning, while you loose 10 800 kg mass (30 kg/s) is complicated. Imagine if the space ship tips over and goes away in the wrong direction ... and you have no fuel left or means to correct it.

And so we add intertia and stability to the things you know nothing about. The spacecraft when pointing in any given direction will mainitain that attitude regardless of what direction it is travelling. When the engine was buring, keeping the ship stable was the job of the RCS system, those little rocket nozzles you were shown right near the beginning of this thread. The inertial guidance system had a continuous eye on the spacecraft attitide measured against the gyroscopically stabilised guidance platform contained the the spacecraft. If the spacecraft started to turn in one direction it would fire the relevant thrusters to comensate and keep the ship pointed the same way. That was a tried and tested technology by the time of Apollo. The astronauts didn't need to do anything except point their craft the right way and fire the engine. The computer did the rest, for the most part.

And a spacecraft in space doesn't randomly tip over and point the wrong way. That's another bit of inertia for you.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 05, 2013, 12:44:02 PM
Yes, it has in several reports that I use as reference - see link in post #1. I evidently do not believe these reports and therefore we have this friendly discussion. Let's keep it that way.
That you "evidently do not believe those reports" is your problem, not ours. You have to show good cause for not "believing" them. That does not include "I don't want to believe them simply because I'd have to concede that I'm wrong".
Quote
See, e.g. my post #786. Can you really show by engineering calculations that you can slow down a 43.5 ton space ship from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s speed in space by burning 10.8 ton fuel at 30 kg/s producing a 97 400 N force?
Yes, as several people have already shown.

I note, however, that your figures do not match the actual Apollo 11 mission. The SPS thrust is only 91 kN, not 97.4 kN. The figures you provide, specifically 97.4 kN of thrust and 30 kg/s mass flow rate implies an exhaust velocity of 3247 m/s and an Isp of 331 seconds, greater than the actual performance of the Apollo SPS engine (314 sec). Yet that engine was perfectly capable of placing the Apollo stack into lunar orbit, just as I showed several days ago. Why have you ignored it?

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Abaddon on January 05, 2013, 12:46:04 PM
43769.5 - 32676 = 11093.5                                   ; subtract the mass of the spacecraft and voila!
                                                                           ; we get the amount of mass expended.

And there's your answer, arrived at using the figures you provided and some ninth grade math.

Some of you professional number-crunchers want to check my work, please?
Looks right to me for the specific numbers provided. Note that they're not the actual figures for the Apollo 11 mission.

Please wire me my share of the prize money.

Yes, but the numbers are close enough to give a good approximation:

I used

Thrust = 91000 N
Isp=314.6 s
Burn = 357.53 s
M0=38418 Kg
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 05, 2013, 12:47:58 PM
Yes, it has in several reports that I use as reference - see link in post #1. I evidently do not believe these reports and therefore we have this friendly discussion. Let's keep it that way.

Ah, an acknowledgement that the data you said did not exist does in fact exist? You don't believe them because you don't understand how they are actually right.

Quote
See, e.g. my post #786. Can you really show by engineering calculations that you can slow down a 43.5 ton space ship from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s speed in space by burning 10.8 ton fuel at 30 kg/s producing a 97 400 N force?

No, because the Apollo SPS was NOT a 97,400 N engine. You don't believe the reports with the data you need in them, and yet you hold up that one simplified 9and incorrect) schematic as gospel truth every single time. When you get back from your seven day ban perhaps you will deign to answer the question I have repeatedly asked you about why you insist on using that spec when there is NOT ONE supporting spec for that designation of the SPS engine.

Quote
Or that a 5.6 ton module of thin plates/stiffeners arriving into Earth's atmosphere at 11 200 m/s speed is slowed down by friction turbulence to 100 m/s speed during 18 minutes without heating up the inside at all? A few centimeters away the air is glowing hot, the heat shield is at 1600°C and inside - 20°C!

That is also a well-known science. Have you never seen those demonstrations of heat shield material where someone puts a blowtorch on one side and their hand on the other side?

You know nothing about the subject you are trying to draw conclusions about. You simply dismiss everything that shows you to be wrong, and assume you must be right. That's a very worrying personality trait, and one I would not want from a safety consultant.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 05, 2013, 12:49:26 PM
43769.5 - 32676 = 11093.5                                   ; subtract the mass of the spacecraft and voila!
                                                                           ; we get the amount of mass expended.

And there's your answer, arrived at using the figures you provided and some ninth grade math.

Some of you professional number-crunchers want to check my work, please?
Looks right to me for the specific numbers provided. Note that they're not the actual figures for the Apollo 11 mission.
I know. I used his figures deliberately so he couldn't call shenannigans.

Quote
Please wire me my share of the prize money.
Sure thing. I'll let you know when "the check's in the mail". ;)

You know, despite it looking like a "video game", Dr. Schweiger's Orbiter really provides an excellent learning experience.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 05, 2013, 12:50:55 PM
When the engine was buring, keeping the ship stable was the job of the RCS system, those little rocket nozzles you were shown right near the beginning of this thread.
And the gimbals on the SPS nozzle. During a burn they could control attitude in pitch and yaw (but not roll) but I believe they were actually used only to ensure that the SPS thrust vector acted through the center of mass of the entire spacecraft. That minimized the work that the RCS pitch and yaw jets had to do. (Jay can probably check me on this.)
Quote
The inertial guidance system had a continuous eye on the spacecraft attitide measured against the gyroscopically stabilised guidance platform contained the the spacecraft. If the spacecraft started to turn in one direction it would fire the relevant thrusters to comensate and keep the ship pointed the same way. That was a tried and tested technology by the time of Apollo. The astronauts didn't need to do anything except point their craft the right way and fire the engine. The computer did the rest, for the most part.
Correct. The computer did start and stop the engine but the astronauts, being astronauts, watched over it like hawks. They had their finger on the manual stop button just in case the computer didn't stop at the right time. They may have pushed the button a few times but I don't think it was ever actually necessary.

The SPS gimbals were a major electrical load that could actually exceed the power output of the three fuel cells. They required the CM entry batteries to provide the extra power, and they had to be recharged after each burn.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on January 05, 2013, 12:52:04 PM
Did Apollo 11 push a cushion or shockwave of air in front of it while trying to keep the trim angle right while flying up/down in the atmosphere? And only this cushion of air heats up and turns into ionized gas/plasma.
Yes, as did alll the other manned Apollo missions, and a couple of unmanned ones, and many other spacecraft as well.  That's what people have been trying to tell you, except that if you had been paying attention, you would also know that as a blunt lifting body, the Apollo CM is both actively steered and aerodynamically stable.  Real engineers - not pretend ones like you - have known this all along.
Have this strange phenomenom been tested in a laboratory or air tunnel test installation? Pls provide some evidence. I have a feeling you are just making it up SF style.
I can only conclude that you are deliberately lying, as this has been shown to you already:
raven noted many results from the NASA Technical Reports Server. (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8130#msg8130) and reminded you the formulation is not "secret" (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8203#msg8203), as you wrongly claimed (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8033#msg8033).  So did Jason Thompson (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8041#msg8041) and JayUtah (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8043#msg8043) and nomuse (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8090#msg8090).  So did I when I pointed out that a simple Google search returned a report discussing the heat shield in detail. (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8604#msg8604)

But just to rub your nose in it:
NASA TN-D-7564, Apollo Experience Report - Thermal Protection Subsystem (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19740007423)
NASA CR-130827, Apollo heat shield test plan (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19730062509)
NASA TN-D-3329, Heat-shield ablation measurements using radioisotope techniques (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19660010305)
NASA TN-D-3028, Heat-transfer rate and pressure measurements obtained during Apollo orbital entries (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19700031842)
Convective and radiative heat transfer during reentry and advanced techniques for their simulation (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19690009636)
NASA CR-155280, Apollo Ablative Materials Study (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19780070148)

There are many more; that's just a sample of some of the documentation related to Apollo.  The Apollo CM heat shield is far from the only application for ablative techniques.  In my office, for example, we have hundreds of design, test, and analysis reports about ablative heat shielding for heat sources, dating back more than half a century. 

It's one thing to be as ignorant as you are regarding the existence and use of ablative shielding and aerobraking.  That just means, well, you have no idea what you're talking about.  But to pretend the question hasn't already been answered for you - that means you're a liar. 

1. You have lied about your challenge; you don't have a million Euros to offer, and have no intention of acknowledging correct answers anyway - as you have repeatedly shown here.

2. You are still, unbelievably, unable and/or unwilling to acknowledge the very basic error in your clumsy attempt at an energy balance, despite the efforts of real engineers and educated laymen to educate you.

3. You have no idea what you're talking about - you have made an amazing series of laughably ignorant claims and continue to pretend that correct data hasn't been provided to you.   That's not just ignorance; it's willful denial.


Strike two.  The bit-bucket beckons.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 05, 2013, 12:54:44 PM
And the gimbals on the SPS nozzle.

Ah yes, I forgot the SPS engine was gimballed. Thanks. :)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 05, 2013, 12:56:01 PM
I wonder if Heiwa thinks aircraft have to aim downwards to land, if gravity is only 'assisting' during the landing phase as it changes from level flight to a curve downwards to land...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Nowhere Man on January 05, 2013, 01:01:01 PM
What was the Arthur C. Clarke short story about a race involving solar yachts?  I just re-read it a week ago, but I don't have that collection handy right now...
The Wind From The Sun? I don't remember the author right this second; it was in the collection The Science Fictional Olympics ed. by Issac Asimov.
The Wind from the Sun and Sunjammer are the same story, about racing solar-sail yachts, by Arthur C. Clarke.

Fred
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Abaddon on January 05, 2013, 01:01:25 PM
I wonder if Heiwa thinks aircraft have to aim downwards to land, if gravity is only 'assisting' during the landing phase as it changes from level flight to a curve downwards to land...
It would certainly make for some interesting landings in heiwa world.
But it is a good earthbound example of how your velocity is not necessarily where you are pointing. "Kai Tak extreme landing" is a good search term on Youtube for this. Such as https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDgQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DpMOCAfSMnqQ&ei=RGroUKvNAtOzhAfO5IDwBA&usg=AFQjCNHEn8LT1S4k60PIZy404A1kSK9pKA&sig2=jUpy9v4Kx9SzmAiTeUVDMw&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.ZG4 (https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDgQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DpMOCAfSMnqQ&ei=RGroUKvNAtOzhAfO5IDwBA&usg=AFQjCNHEn8LT1S4k60PIZy404A1kSK9pKA&sig2=jUpy9v4Kx9SzmAiTeUVDMw&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.ZG4)

Even better http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PdUdaXDHm4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PdUdaXDHm4)
Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sus_pilot on January 05, 2013, 01:11:30 PM

What actually happens is that the re-entering body pushes a cushion/shockwave of air, which heats due to compression, turning into ionized gas/plasma. The majority of the energy of re-entry is spent heating atmospheric air. The purpose of the heat shield is to prevent this superheated envelope from destroying the spacecraft.

Did Apollo 11 push a cushion or shockwave of air in front of it while trying to keep the trim angle right while flying up/down in the atmosphere? And only this cushion of air heats up and turns into ionized gas/plasma.
Have this strange phenomenom been tested in a laboratory or air tunnel test installation? Pls provide some evidence. I have a feeling you are just making it up SF style.

I believe so. Then it was tested by launching dummy warheads in the late 50's. Eisenhower conducted a speech from the Oval Office with a test article that had been successfully launched and returned sitting next to him.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Abaddon on January 05, 2013, 01:18:39 PM

What actually happens is that the re-entering body pushes a cushion/shockwave of air, which heats due to compression, turning into ionized gas/plasma. The majority of the energy of re-entry is spent heating atmospheric air. The purpose of the heat shield is to prevent this superheated envelope from destroying the spacecraft.

Did Apollo 11 push a cushion or shockwave of air in front of it while trying to keep the trim angle right while flying up/down in the atmosphere? And only this cushion of air heats up and turns into ionized gas/plasma.
Have this strange phenomenom been tested in a laboratory or air tunnel test installation? Pls provide some evidence. I have a feeling you are just making it up SF style.

I believe so. Then it was tested by launching dummy warheads in the late 50's. Eisenhower conducted a speech from the Oval Office with a test article that had been successfully launched and returned sitting next to him.
That's a problem for heiwa. If re-entry cannot be accomplished then there are no nuclear weapons.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on January 05, 2013, 01:22:33 PM
Let me after about 785 posts remind you about topic, i.e. my Challenge about safety of space travel and associated fuel consumption...
You did your calculation wrong; you don't understand how to do it right.
You have to demonstrate how to travel to the Moon and back to win the prize (€1M)...
There is no prize; you do not have the money to offer.  You are lying and your "prize" is fraudulent.
Pls do not suggest that I do not know anything about space travel, astrophysics,
I do not suggest it; I state it as a fact.  You can't even identify the SPS engine correctly; you had no idea how any of the vehicles might turn themselves; you were completely unaware of the existence of heat shielding on Apollo and the Shuttle (and by extension everything else); you thought the Shuttle reentered backwards; you are unable to formulate a simple energy balance; you do not grasp the concept of terminal velocity.  That's just a short sampler or your ignorance and incompetence.

I will say it again, clearly: You do not know anything about space travel or astrophysics. 

You can't even get the name of the discipline right: the one you're fumbling for is astrodynamics.  You don't know anything about that either.
that I am broke,
Straw man.  No one has suggested you are broke.  Please don't think we don't notice when you try to lay down such a smokescreen.
a criminal that cannot carry out my work, etc, etc, because it is clear from link in post #1 what I am doing for a living.
I haven't looked at anything to do with you and "safety at sea" because I don't care.  However, you manifestly cannot carry out any work related to space flight; you don't know anything about it and you don't grasp even the most elementary principles.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on January 05, 2013, 01:26:58 PM
Did Apollo 11 push a cushion or shockwave of air in front of it while trying to keep the trim angle right while flying up/down in the atmosphere? And only this cushion of air heats up and turns into ionized gas/plasma. Have this strange phenomenom been tested in a laboratory or air tunnel test installation? Pls provide some evidence. I have a feeling you are just making it up SF style.

Geez. This blunt body wind tunnel photograph is in every book about the history of space exploration:


(http://i.imgur.com/uPvHN.png)

The only way you could not have seen it is if you had never opened a book about space exploration.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 05, 2013, 01:33:37 PM
Say that your space ship has mass 32 676 kg excluding fuel and that you must slow down from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s velocity to insert into Moon orbit. Your space ship has a P-22 KS rocket engine with 97 400 N thrust (at full blast). How much fuel do you require to carry out the braking maneuver?

If you suggest, e.g. 10 898 kg, you must support your answer with proper calculations to win the prize (€1M). I have a feeling you need >80 000 kg.

Heiwa, putting aside the fact that your methods and calculations are complete buffoonery, let’s at least get your numbers and facts straight.

Say that your space ship has mass 32 676 kg excluding fuel

32,676 kg was not the mass “excluding fuel”.  It was the CSM/LM mass at LOI cutoff, which still included a large amount of unused propellant.  I must congratulate, however, in that this is one of the few numbers you got right.  According to this source (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-37_Selected_Mission_Weights.htm), the mass was 72,037.6 lbm, or 32,675.7 kg.

you must slow down from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s velocity to insert into Moon orbit

No, those velocities are incorrect.  From this source (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_11g_Lunar_Orbit_Phase.htm) we see that Apollo 11’s velocity at LOI ignition was 8,250.0 ft/s (2,514.6 m/s) and at LOI cutoff was 5,479.0 ft/s (1,670.0 m/s).

The cutoff velocity can also be confirmed using orbital mechanics, as it is simply the orbital velocity at that point.  We see that Apollo 11’s orbit at LOI cutoff was 60 n.mi. x 169.7 n.mi, and that the altitude at LOI cutoff was 60.1 n.mi.  I’m not going to show the math, but the velocity at an altitude of 60.1 n.mi. in a 60 x 169.7 n.mi. orbit is in fact 1,670 m/s.

Furthermore, your quoted numbers suggest that the delta-v was 2400 – 1500 = 900 m/s.  This again is incorrect.  From the same source was see that the velocity change was 2,917.5 ft/s, or 889.25 m/s, which is the delta-v imparted by the SPS.

Why is the delta-v not simply the initial velocity minus final velocity, i.e. 2,514.6 – 1,670.0 = 844.6 m/s?  This is because the spacecraft was also changing altitude during the burn – Apollo 11’s altitude at LOI ignition was 86.7 n.mi.  The drop in altitude caused a positive change in velocity (resulting from potential energy converting to kinetic energy) at the same time the propulsion system was slowing Apollo down.  For this reason, the amount of delta-v delivered by the propulsion system is more than the actual apparent change in velocity.

This is another reason, Heiwa, that your attempted energy balance fails so miserably, you’ve completely ignored changes in potential energy resulting the spacecraft’s change in altitude.  An energy balance must account for all energy, kinetic + potential, and must account for all system elements, spacecraft dry mass + fuel/exhaust mass.

Fortunately, the entire problem is more easily and correctly solved in terms of momentum using Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation.  In this case we need not even know the initial and final velocities.  All we need to know is the delta-v, which is 889.25 m/s

Your space ship has a P-22 KS rocket engine.

No it doesn’t; the SPS engine was an AJ10-137.

with 97 400 N thrust (at full blast).

The rated thrust was 91,189 N (20,500 lbf), though that’s not necessarily the actual on the job performance.  Things as simple as the initial temperature of the propellants will have an effect of thrust.  In reality the thrust varied depending on factors such as temperature, upstream pressure at the injector, ablative liner wear, and probably other things I’m not thinking of.  However, it’s possible to back calculate the actual thrust based on the known and recorded performance.

If you suggest, e.g. 10 898 kg

That number is close to accurate.  Referring back to this source (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-37_Selected_Mission_Weights.htm) we see that the CSM/LM mass at LOI ignition was 96,061.6 lbm, or 43,572.8 kg.  The change in mass, therefore, was 43,572.8 – 32,675.7 = 10,897.1 kg.  Although the vast majority of that change is due to the consumption of SPS propellant, I suspect a small part was RCS propellant.

How much fuel do you require to carry out the braking maneuver?

We’ll get to this later.

Say that your space ship has mass 12 153 kg excluding fuel and that you must speed up from 1 500 to 2 400 m/s velocity to get out of Moon orbit to carry out a so called trans-Earth injection. Your space ship still has a P-22 KS rocket engine with 97 400 N thrust (at full blast). How much fuel do you require to carry out the acceleration maneuver?

If you suggest, e.g. 4 676 kg, you must support your answer with proper calculations to win the prize (€1M). I have a feeling you need > 20 000 kg.

In order to proceed with the discussion, I suggest you try to clarify above basic questions of fuel consumption.

Again, many of your facts are wrong, though it looks like you managed to get a few right.

Say that your space ship has mass 12 153 kg excluding fuel

I cannot confirm the above number from my current source, though it does appear to be approximately the mass I’d expect at TEI cutoff.

If you suggest, e.g. 4 676 kg

Adding these two number together we get, 12,153 + 4,676 = 16,829 kg, which should represent the CSM mass at LEI ignition.  Referring back to this source (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-37_Selected_Mission_Weights.htm) we see the CSM mass after LM jettison was 37,100.5 lbm (16,828.5 kg).  This appears to confirm that Heiwa is using legitimate mass numbers, so I’ll concede these two numbers are probably correct.

you must speed up from 1 500 to 2 400 m/s velocity to get out of Moon orbit to carry out a so called trans-Earth injection.

Wrong again on the velocities.  From this source (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_11h_Transearth_Phase.htm) we see that the pre- and post-TEI velocities were 5,376.0 ft/s (1,638.6 m/s) and 8,589.0 ft/s (2,617.9 m/s) respectively.

However, as before, we don’t need to know the velocities to solve the problem.  All that’s important is the delta-v, which we see is 3,279.0 ft/s, or 999.44 m/s.

Your space ship still has a P-22 KS rocket engine

Only the most obtuse person on the planet or a troll would still be calling the engine a P-22 KS.

97 400 N thrust (at full blast)

As previously stated, 91,189 N rated, actual to be determined.

How much fuel do you require to carry out the acceleration maneuver?

To come.

In order to proceed with the discussion, I suggest you try to clarify above basic questions of fuel consumption.

Already done ad nauseum.


When I started this post my intent was only to point out may of Heiwa’s factual errors – I had no intent to actually perform the calculations.  However, even though much of it has already been done, why not recap?

Lunar Orbit Insertion

Let’s start by recognizing that the rated specific impulse of the AJ10-137 is 314 seconds, though like the thrust, actual performance varies depending on a multitude of factors.  The first calculation assumes actual Isp = rated Isp.

Final mass = 32,675.7 kg
Delta-v = 889.25 m/s

Effective exhaust gas velocity, C = Isp * go  = 314 * 9.80665 = 3,079.3 m/s

Using Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation,

Initial mass =  Final mass * EXP[ delta-v / C ]
Initial mass =  32675.7 * EXP[ 889.25 / 3079.3 ] = 43,615.6 kg

Propellant used = Initial mass – Final mass
Propellant used = 43615.6 – 32675.7 = 10,939.9 kg

Knowing the actual initial and final masses, and the actual delta-v, we can also solve the problem to determine the actual effective exhaust gas velocity, and thus the actual specific impulse.  In this case we see that the actual propellant consumption was less than that calculated above, indicating we got above nominal performance.  Let's determine,

Initial mass = 43,572.8 kg

Rearranging Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation,

C = Delta-v / LN[ Initial mass / Final mass ]
C = 889.25 / LN[ 43572.8 / 32675.7 ] = 3,089.8 m/s

Therefore,

Isp = C / go = 3089.8 / 9.80665 = 315.07 s

We can also calculate the actual thrust of the engine, thus

Time of burn = 357.53 s

Propellant flow rate, q = (43572.8 – 32675.7) / 357.53 = 30.479 kg/s

Thrust = C * q = 3,089.8 * 30.479 = 94,174 N

(These calculations assume that the entire change in mass is due to the consumption of SPS propellant, ignoring the possibility some may be RCS propellant.)


Transearth Injection

Final mass = 12,153 kg
Delta-v = 999.44 m/s

Again using the rated Isp of 314 s, we obtain

Initial mass = 12153 * EXP[ 999.44 / 3079.3 ] = 16,812.8 kg

Propellant used = 16812.8 – 12153 = 4,659.8 kg

This time the actual propellant consumption appears to be greater than our calculation, therefore the engine performance was a little below nominal.  Let’s find out,

Initial mass = 16,828.5 kg

C = 999.44 / LN[ 16828.5 / 12153 ] = 3,070.5 m/s

Isp = C / go = 3070.5 / 9.80665 = 313.10 s

Let’s finish up by calculating the thrust during the TEI burn,

Time of burn = 151.41 s

Propellant flow rate, q = (16828.5 – 12153) / 151.41 = 30.880 kg/s

Thrust = C * q = 3,070.5 * 30.880 = 94,817 N


As we can see, the flow rate and thrust of the second burn was a little higher than the first, though the specific impulse went down a bit.  As described earlier, these variations are not unexpected as conditions change.  Say for instance, the Isp might have dropped because the propellants were colder, and the flow rate might have increased because of erosion of the ablative nozzle throat.  There are many reason that can account for the difference.

Heiwa, your challenge has been met time and time again.  Only your ignorance prevents you from seeing it.


EDIT:  I had to revise several of the above LOI calculations because in the middle of the computations I inadvertently started using 886.25 for the delta-v instead of the correct number of 889.25 m/s.  It was just a simple typo that is now corrected.
Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sus_pilot on January 05, 2013, 01:50:50 PM
@Heiwa: several here have qualified for the prize. I suggest that you split it up, giving Bob B. the largest share for his excellence and clarity of explanation in his last post

@Lunar Orbit:  let's keep him around. As a competent manager who could do the math if necessary (but hates it - that's what engineers do so well), I find these conversations illuminating, watching real experts tear apart a rank amateur.  Besides, it takes me back to when I was young watching history take place before my eyes.

Eta: fixed punctuation
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 05, 2013, 01:54:43 PM
That's a problem for heiwa. If re-entry cannot be accomplished then there are no nuclear weapons.

Not a problem for Heiwa at all, since he already does not believe there are nuclear weapons anyway, whether they need re-entry or not.

Yeah....
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Abaddon on January 05, 2013, 02:20:48 PM
That's a problem for heiwa. If re-entry cannot be accomplished then there are no nuclear weapons.

Not a problem for Heiwa at all, since he already does not believe there are nuclear weapons anyway, whether they need re-entry or not.

Yeah....
Let's not go down that OT road. If heiwa wants to discuss it let him start a new thread.

That said, no matter which way you follow the equations, you end up at about 10,800 Kilos feul used. Does heiwa have any further leg to stand on?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 05, 2013, 02:25:45 PM
That's a problem for heiwa. If re-entry cannot be accomplished then there are no nuclear weapons.

Not a problem for Heiwa at all, since he already does not believe there are nuclear weapons anyway, whether they need re-entry or not.

Yeah....
Let's not go down that OT road. If heiwa wants to discuss it let him start a new thread.

That said, no matter which way you follow the equations, you end up at about 10,800 Kilos feul used. Does heiwa have any further leg to stand on?

No, he will just refuse to acknowledge it.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Abaddon on January 05, 2013, 02:35:10 PM
Did Apollo 11 push a cushion or shockwave of air in front of it while trying to keep the trim angle right while flying up/down in the atmosphere? And only this cushion of air heats up and turns into ionized gas/plasma. Have this strange phenomenom been tested in a laboratory or air tunnel test installation? Pls provide some evidence. I have a feeling you are just making it up SF style.

Geez. This blunt body wind tunnel photograph is in every book about the history of space exploration:


(http://i.imgur.com/uPvHN.png)

The only way you could not have seen it is if you had never opened a book about space exploration.
Putting a layman's hat on, The first one looks like it should be the way to go. After all, that's what we know spaceships really should look like.

Meself, I could see number one going "sphtang" off the atmosphere into oblivion. Every time.

Still, it is interesting to see the development from the mad to what will actually work in real life.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 05, 2013, 02:39:03 PM
That said, no matter which way you follow the equations, you end up at about 10,800 Kilos feul used. Does heiwa have any further leg to stand on?

Heiwa hasn't had any legs to stand on for some considerable time. he just refuses to acknowledge the fact. He seems to be rather like a cartoon character that will continue blithely walking on thin air simply because he hasn't realised he walked off a cliff some while back. I wouldn't like to be around when he looks down and realises where he actually is and what must inevitably happen...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 05, 2013, 03:06:56 PM
@Heiwa: several here have qualified for the prize. I suggest that you split it up, giving Bob B. the largest share for his excellence and clarity of explanation in his last post.

"The" prize?  The way I see it, we’ve won several €1M prizes.  Every time we win one he offers up a new challenge.  I think we’re probably up to about €5M by now.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sharpeneer on January 05, 2013, 03:10:56 PM
That said, no matter which way you follow the equations, you end up at about 10,800 Kilos feul used. Does heiwa have any further leg to stand on?

Heiwa hasn't had any legs to stand on for some considerable time. he just refuses to acknowledge the fact. He seems to be rather like a cartoon character that will continue blithely walking on thin air simply because he hasn't realised he walked off a cliff some while back. I wouldn't like to be around when he looks down and realises where he actually is and what must inevitably happen...

Hang on. That sounds very much like Heiwa's concept of how gravity works...

I didn't know the cartoon world had access to the internet. Perhaps he can only get to this forum? Might explain why he avoids all these links.

BTW everyone - I joined up because of this thread. I work in building structures, and I don't like things moving. So seeing the maths play out has been quite enlightening.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 05, 2013, 03:17:42 PM
Welcome, Sharpeneer.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Donnie B. on January 05, 2013, 04:17:11 PM
BTW everyone - I joined up because of this thread. I work in building structures, and I don't like things moving. So seeing the maths play out has been quite enlightening.

PLEASE don't tell me you're planning to hire Heiwa/Anders as a consultant! ;)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 05, 2013, 04:25:56 PM
BTW everyone - I joined up because of this thread. I work in building structures, and I don't like things moving. So seeing the maths play out has been quite enlightening.

PLEASE don't tell me you're planning to hire Heiwa/Anders as a consultant! ;)

What you do is ask Heiwa what he would do, and then do the opposite.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on January 05, 2013, 04:26:10 PM
BTW everyone - I joined up because of this thread. I work in building structures, and I don't like things moving. So seeing the maths play out has been quite enlightening.

PLEASE don't tell me you're planning to hire Heiwa/Anders as a consultant! ;)
Maybe in a Bloody Stupid Johnson fashion. If he says do it, don't. ;D
Edit: Crikey, Ninja's! And on this forum!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 05, 2013, 04:28:13 PM
lol I got that one in just in the nick of time. ;)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on January 05, 2013, 04:30:19 PM
lol I got that one in just in the nick of time. ;)
By Jove, you did, a matter of mere seconds! :o
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 05, 2013, 04:31:51 PM
BTW everyone - I joined up because of this thread. I work in building structures, and I don't like things moving. So seeing the maths play out has been quite enlightening.

Welcome aboard, Sharpeneer. I have learned a lot from these discussions too, so it makes dealing with a few hoax theorists worth while.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on January 05, 2013, 04:59:26 PM
Did Apollo 11 push a cushion or shockwave of air in front of it while trying to keep the trim angle right while flying up/down in the atmosphere? And only this cushion of air heats up and turns into ionized gas/plasma. Have this strange phenomenom been tested in a laboratory or air tunnel test installation? Pls provide some evidence. I have a feeling you are just making it up SF style.

Geez. This blunt body wind tunnel photograph is in every book about the history of space exploration:

(http://i.imgur.com/uPvHN.png)

The only way you could not have seen it is if you had never opened a book about space exploration.

Here's a larger version of one of those pictures:
http://www.fluids.eng.vt.edu/msc/gallery/shocks/a2375b.jpg

And here's a more modern one in color, with a really blunt projectile:
http://www.fluids.eng.vt.edu/msc/gallery/shocks/crkn.jpg

The whole gallery is really interesting: http://www.fluids.eng.vt.edu/msc/gallery/gall.htm

Anyway, we know that detached shock waves can form. We also know that air heats up adiabatically when compressed. And atmospheric re-entry has been extensively tested with rockets* and ballistic missiles before repeatedly confirmed by "proper" spacecraft.

* For example, go here (http://www.astronautix.com/fam/scout.htm) and search for "entry". (Edited by LunarOrbit to fix the broken link)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sharpeneer on January 05, 2013, 05:33:09 PM
PLEASE don't tell me you're planning to hire Heiwa/Anders as a consultant! ;)

Err, no. There's only room for one idiot in my office, and I intend to keep that job for life.

Thanks for the welcome folks.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ChrLz on January 05, 2013, 07:25:45 PM
I agree that Bob (and Jay, and.. well, you know who you are!) deserve the lion's share of the 'prize' (which would seem to simply be the kudos of being the major sources of correct information..).

I think the current moderation is perfect, but I also think that he should be made to start answering the key unanswered questions - if any post doesn't contain at least one answer, then it should be disallowed.  Heiwa should not be banned, lest he claims that we were trying to suppress him - although that is now less likely to be an issue as:
- clearly no-one believes he has or ever had the money (unless by inheritance..:D)
- clearly no-one believes he is an engineer
- he has been given plenty of opportunity to post an almost uncountable number of errors
- the challenge is an obvious farce as it is not being judged by an unbiased, competent, credentialed person

On that last one, I am still waiting for Heiwa to nominate someone of his choosing, so we can see how he goes about choosing that person..

So I'll ask again - Hiewa / Anders Bjorkman, please tell us who you would accept as an adjudicator on this challenge, and why.

Also, could you supply the following information:
- the details of your MSc. please, such that it can be verified?
- the names of at least two of your 'company's current clients - strangely.. that isn't on your website.

Thanks in advance for that.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on January 05, 2013, 07:33:02 PM
(http://www.myspacefx.net/import/graphics/Funny_Graphics_and_Pics/lol-cats_i-love-this-thread-so-much.jpg)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: DataCable on January 05, 2013, 10:27:33 PM
Since everyone else is busy pummeling Björkman with properly-crunched numbers, I'll just jump on this little nugget which (understandably, given the sheer volume of wrongness he is able to excrete) has gone unchallenged:

To get into Moon orbit you must, apart from slowing down, change course from a straight one into an elliptical/circular one around the Moon
Straight?  Straight?  You think the trip from the earth to the moon was straight?  There is no "straight" in space travel, at least not inside anything as gravitationally lumpy as a solar system.  Hey Bob, you still have that animation of a translunar flight you compiled from orbital data?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Donnie B. on January 05, 2013, 10:41:45 PM
Well, any object in an inertial frame is following a straight path -- in curved spacetime.  Oddly enough, the only time the Apollo spacecraft were NOT going straight (in that sense) were when the engines were operating.

But I'd be willing to venture a guess that Heiwa/Anders doesn't think any more highly of Einstein than he does of Newton.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 05, 2013, 11:03:02 PM
So now, we all see here what happens when you take one day off for a family get-together!  You miss everything.  But I have a question.  Isn't the answer to "how much fuel would it take?" "it depends on what kind of fuel"?  And isn't the kind of fuel one of the things he's gotten wrong?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 05, 2013, 11:12:18 PM
... I therefore suspect that Heiwa believes the spacecraft had to gradually change attitude during the burn to keep the engine pointed in the direction of travel.

Well, it didn't. The spacecraft was aimed in a particular direction for the burn, and remained pointed in that direction for the duration of the burn.

In post #786 the question was about how much fuel was used (to produce a force) in order to just slow down a space ship to get into Moon orbit or to the speed up the space ship to get out of Moon orbit. Nobody seems to know the answer as no replies have turned up.

Another question is evidently in what direction this force is applied during the speed change maneuver. And for how long.

To get into Moon orbit you must, apart from slowing down, change course from a straight one into an elliptical/circular one around the Moon and Moon gravity will assist. Peter B suggests that during a 6 (or eight) minutes burn (30 kg/s fuel burnt) applying 97 400 N force in one particular direction suffices.

It is a complicated maneuver in 3-D. The inertia force of the space ship is applied in one direction, Moon gravity pulls in another direction (I assume the trajectorey is already curved due to Moon gravity) and then you apply a third force - the brake force - in a third, particular direction while losing 10 800 kg mass in the SM ... that you keep steady all the time? If the brake force is not in the direction of travel, it will evidently also change the direction.

There is then quite a number of factors to keep an eye on. Just how to keep the space ship stable in one - the right - direction during 6 minutes braking/turning, while you loose 10 800 kg mass (30 kg/s) is complicated. Imagine if the space ship tips over and goes away in the wrong direction ... and you have no fuel left or means to correct it.

So I am happy, Peter B, that you have pointed out that the brake force cannot be applied in the direction of travel but in another particular direction where it is held steady when the space ship changes direction and looses mass and slows down. You are a genious.

Now tell me how much fuel you need to slow down! :)

Sorry to burst your bubble, Heiwa, but Peter B. is correct – there is no need to keep the thrust vector constantly aligned with the velocity vector.  (I addressed this way back in post #434 but you ignored it.)  The spacecraft can be aligned with one fixed point in space and then maintained in that attitude throughout the burn.  That doesn’t mean it’s always done that way, but it usually is.

For example, suppose the spacecraft travels through an arc of 20 degrees during the course of the burn.  The thrust vector can be aligned in a direction that causes the angle between it and the velocity vector to change between –10 degrees and +10 degrees from the time of ignition to the time of cutoff.  If we break the thrust down into its components, we find that the component that’s aligned with the velocity vector is equal to the thrust times the cosine of the angle between the vectors.  In the worst case, COS(10) = 0.985.  If we integrate over the entire burn we find that 99.5% of the thrust goes into the direction we want it to.  A loss that small is tradeoff that is generally acceptable.

Of course, this also means that there is a thrust component that is perpendicular to the velocity vector, which is equal to the thrust times the sine of the angle between the vectors.  My response to this is, who cares?  It is a known quantity and can be accounted for when designing the maneuver.  Furthermore, if the angle between the vectors changes from negative to positive (such as in the example I’ve given), the sideways thrust also changes from negative to positive, thus canceling out much of its effect.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 05, 2013, 11:13:09 PM
But I have a question.  Isn't the answer to "how much fuel would it take?" "it depends on what kind of fuel"?
Indirectly, yes. The kind of fuel is incorporated into the effective exhaust velocity, Ve, which is equal to the specific impulse, Isp, times the acceleration of earth gravity. (The reason for this strange use of earth gravity even by a rocket operating in deep space has to do with pitfalls in the English system of units, don't get me started).

Every propellant combination (fuel + oxidizer) has a theoretical exhaust velocity. Real engines always do a little worse  because of various losses. One of the biggest losses comes when you have to operate in the atmosphere, but that's not an issue for the Apollo spacecraft.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 05, 2013, 11:20:21 PM
Isn't the answer to "how much fuel would it take?" "it depends on what kind of fuel"?  And isn't the kind of fuel one of the things he's gotten wrong?

Yes.  I believe he said the fuel was hydrazine.  In addition to hydrazine, N2H4, there are two derivatives of hydrazine that are also frequently used as a rocket fuel - unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine (UDMH) and monomethyl hydrazine (MMH).  The Apollo SPS used a fuel called Aerozine 50, which is a 50/50 mixture by mass of hydrazine and UDMH.  Straight hydrazine is actually be a better performing fuel than Aerozine 50, but it has other properties that makes it undesirable for this particular application.  If straight hydrazine were used, less of it would be required becuase of its higher specific impulse.  Specific impulse is really just thrust per unit mass of propellant.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 05, 2013, 11:32:30 PM
Hey Bob, you still have that animation of a translunar flight you compiled from orbital data?

I sure do.  This one is the free return trajectory (click on it to see full size):

(http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/pics/freereturn.gif) (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/pics/freereturn.gif)

And in this one I show a hybrid trajectory with an orbit insertion lasting five orbits (click on it to see full size):

(http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/pics/hybrid.gif) (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/pics/hybrid.gif)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 05, 2013, 11:40:33 PM
Bob, this makes me wonder. Can you make a thrust-free (or nearly thrust-free) "cycler" orbit that would continually fly around the moon, then fly close to earth (without re-entering) and then back to the moon?

Buzz Aldrin discovered the first of a class of orbits that do this with Mars and Earth, so it seems like it should be possible with the moon.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 06, 2013, 12:25:31 AM
Bob, this makes me wonder. Can you make a thrust-free (or nearly thrust-free) "cycler" orbit that would continually fly around the moon, then fly close to earth (without re-entering) and then back to the moon?

I don't know; I've never considered the problem before.  If the moon's orbit were circular, I'd say it might be possible.  However, considering the moon's ellipticity, I believe that mid-course corrections will probably be required each trip to altered the trajectory for the next cycle.  Not only is there the ellipticity problem, but the moon's orbit also has quite a number of cyclical variations and perturbations.  It seems like it should be possible, though.  If each cycle were roughly six days in duration, we'd make five trips each lunar orbit.  Every pass around Earth would advance the next outbound leg 72 degrees on average.  I might be able to derive a hypothetical solution using a simplified circular and coplanar model, but I certainly don't have the time or inclination to work out a real world solution (if I'm even capable).
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on January 06, 2013, 02:20:03 AM
... I therefore suspect that Heiwa believes the spacecraft had to gradually change attitude during the burn to keep the engine pointed in the direction of travel.

Well, it didn't. The spacecraft was aimed in a particular direction for the burn, and remained pointed in that direction for the duration of the burn.
In post #786 the question was about how much fuel was used (to produce a force) in order to just slow down a space ship to get into Moon orbit or to the speed up the space ship to get out of Moon orbit. Nobody seems to know the answer as no replies have turned up.
Saying that over and over doesn't make it true.

Anyway, Noldi400 at post #819 has the definitive answer, using your own data. Do you have any comments?

Quote
Another question is evidently in what direction this force is applied during the speed change maneuver. And for how long.

To get into Moon orbit you must, apart from slowing down, change course from a straight one into an elliptical/circular one around the Moon and Moon gravity will assist. Peter B suggests that during a 6 (or eight) minutes burn (30 kg/s fuel burnt) applying 97 400 N force in one particular direction suffices.

It is a complicated maneuver in 3-D. The inertia force of the space ship is applied in one direction, Moon gravity pulls in another direction (I assume the trajectorey is already curved due to Moon gravity) and then you apply a third force - the brake force - in a third, particular direction while losing 10 800 kg mass in the SM ... that you keep steady all the time? If the brake force is not in the direction of travel, it will evidently also change the direction.
That's true.

Quote
There is then quite a number of factors to keep an eye on. Just how to keep the space ship stable in one - the right - direction during 6 minutes braking/turning, while you loose 10 800 kg mass (30 kg/s) is complicated. Imagine if the space ship tips over and goes away in the wrong direction ... and you have no fuel left or means to correct it.
The business of keeping a rocket stable had been worked out by the Germans with their V-2 rockets back during World War Two. It was hardly a mystery to either the Americans or the Soviets. I can think of at least three methods which can be used to keep a spacecraft pointed in a desired direction while its rocket engine is firing. Two of the three can also be used when its rocket engine isn't firing.

1. Redirect the flow of the rocket engine exhaust. On the V-2 this was done by placing directable vanes in the rocket exhaust. On the Saturn V rocket, and the CSM engine and the LM Descent Engine, it was done by swivelling the engine bell. It was also done with the Space Shuttle: watch some footage of the Space Shuttle Main Engines before and during ignition; watch them swivel.

2. Retro-rockets. On the Apollo Command and Service Module, those cross-shaped rocket engines on the Service Module (which others have already pointed out to you) could be used to change the direction the spacecraft was pointing.

3. Gyroscopes. These are used on the Hubble Space Telescope so it can change the direction it faces without needing to use rocket engines.

Using methods 1 or 2 to keep the spacecraft pointed in the right direction seem straightforward to me: accelerometers at 90 degrees to each other measure movement on three axes; if an accelerometer measures anomalous movement then a combination of retro-rockets fires to counteract the movement.

And anyway, why should the spacecraft suddenly topple over? The fuel being burned in the SPS engine was stored in tanks which were symmetrically located in the Service Module. So as the two tanks drained, the spacecraft's mass remained evenly distributed. It's not rocket science - if you were wearing a beer hat what do you think would happen if you drank all the beer from one can first?

Quote
So I am happy, Peter B, that you have pointed out that the brake force cannot be applied in the direction of travel but in another particular direction where it is held steady when the space ship changes direction and looses mass and slows down. You are a genious.
Ouch, the sarcasm.

Quote
Now tell me how much fuel you need to slow down! :)
I refer you again to Noldi400's post #819.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 06, 2013, 05:43:00 AM
I don't know; I've never considered the problem before.  If the moon's orbit were circular, I'd say it might be possible.
Mars' orbit is also highly elliptical. It's also somewhat out of the ecliptic.

The Aldrin cyclers have periods equal to integer multiples of the synodic period of Earth and Mars (about 2 years). He proposes two separate cyclers, one with a quick Earth-Mars transfer and another with a quick Mars-Earth transfer.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 06, 2013, 05:50:14 AM
2. Retro-rockets. On the Apollo Command and Service Module, those cross-shaped rocket engines on the Service Module (which others have already pointed out to you) could be used to change the direction the spacecraft was pointing.
You mean reaction control systems (RCS). They could be used as retrorockets if the required delta-V was small enough, though when the CSM came back from earth orbit the retro burn was usually performed with the SPS.
Quote
3. Gyroscopes. These are used on the Hubble Space Telescope so it can change the direction it faces without needing to use rocket engines.
There are two kinds: momentum wheels and control moment gyros. The first vary their speed to change the stored angular momentum, and the second operate at constant speed but are turned around by other motors to redirect that angular momentum vector relative to the spacecraft.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on January 06, 2013, 06:19:14 AM
2. Retro-rockets. On the Apollo Command and Service Module, those cross-shaped rocket engines on the Service Module (which others have already pointed out to you) could be used to change the direction the spacecraft was pointing.
You mean reaction control systems (RCS). They could be used as retrorockets if the required delta-V was small enough, though when the CSM came back from earth orbit the retro burn was usually performed with the SPS.
Sorry, yes, that's what I meant.
Quote
Quote
3. Gyroscopes. These are used on the Hubble Space Telescope so it can change the direction it faces without needing to use rocket engines.
There are two kinds: momentum wheels and control moment gyros. The first vary their speed to change the stored angular momentum, and the second operate at constant speed but are turned around by other motors to redirect that angular momentum vector relative to the spacecraft.
Oops, okay, I didn't know about the CMGs, only the momentum wheels, which is what I understand Hubble has.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 06, 2013, 06:44:48 AM
Oops, okay, I didn't know about the CMGs, only the momentum wheels, which is what I understand Hubble has.
Control moment gyros are generally used on large spacecraft because they're more energy-efficient than momentum wheels, but (and I'm not sure) Hubble uses momentum wheels because they provide finer pointing control at the expense of speed and energy efficiency.

Control moment gyros are even used on some ships for roll stabilization. They're set up to produce an angular momentum vector of variable magnitude (including negative) along the ship's roll axis.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on January 06, 2013, 07:07:27 AM
Björkman has changed his page again. And again, only the most significant changes follow:

By the skillful insertion of a single word, the Apollo 11 mission report is now "approved by" Low, instead of only "by" him. :)

In several places, he has tried to provide citations more specific than "[1]", which include something I presume are section numbers. There are also a few quoted paragraphs from the report.

Quote
Apollo 11 with three asstronuts aboard launched from Cape Kennedy on July 16, 13.32.00 G.m.t, 1969 fitted on top of a hugh, 100 + meter tall three stages rocket or fire works looking like something right. Three minutes later the launch escape three motors system on top the CM was jettisoned ... one way or another. Why it was  fitted in the first place is not clear.
*jaw drops* Why am I still surprised, after the RCS debacle... Heiwa, was it that hard to look up "launch abort system" on Wikipedia?

An entirely new paragraph:
Quote
Just prior to powered descent the LM crew managed the following important manual check on intertial platform drift at 1&nbsp;500 m/s speed:

"Just prior to powered descent, the angle between the line of sight to the sun and a selected axis of the inertial platform was compared with the onboard computer prediction of that angle and this provided a check on inertial platform drift."[1-4.10.2]

Imagine that - manually checking the computer calculations!

They checked the result of the computer's calculations against reality. They didn't have to re-do the calculations. Also, I'm curious why Heiwa thinks the "speed" of the craft makes any difference.

The section on lunar samples got this long insert:
Quote
"Collecting the bulk sample required more time than anticipated because the modular equipment stowage assembly table was in deep shadow, and collecting samples in that ares was far less desirable than taking those in the sunlight. It was also desirable to take samples as far from the exhaust plume and propellant contamination as possible."[1-4.12.4]

or ... another version:

"Approximately 20 selected, but unphotographed, grab samples (about 6 kilograms ) were collected in the final minutes of the extravehicular activity. These specimens were collected out to a distance of 0 to 15 meters in the area south of the lunar module and near the east rim of the large double crater. ... During bulk sampling, rock fragments were collected primarily on the northeast rim of the large double crater southwest of the lunar module".[1-11.1.5]</p>

Strangely enough the asstronuts didn't measure the temperature of the samples. Maybe it was too hot?

No gravity experiments were carried out, e.g. to drop a piece of rock from the LM platform down to ground, distance 3.61 meters, and film it. The drop would take exactly 2 seconds (compared with 0.86 seconds on Earth). But why drop it? Throw it upwards instead. It will really go far!

My jaw is already starting to hurt... Someone really didn't do their homework on Apollo...

There's also a paragraph on "cosmic particles" citing the report.

Some of the numbers in the "calculations" section have been changed, with cites to specific sections of the A11 report. Someone is learning. Very, very slowly...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on January 06, 2013, 07:27:36 AM
Control moment gyros are generally used on large spacecraft because they're more energy-efficient than momentum wheels, but (and I'm not sure) Hubble uses momentum wheels because they provide finer pointing control at the expense of speed and energy efficiency.

I'm not sure there's a big difference in energy efficiency, but CMGs are more complex. You need gyroscopes on motor-driven mounts, while momentum wheels can just be anchored to a fixed frame. The precision argument is probably correct...CMGs require fine control of absolute angular position, which means high precision rotary encoders, stepper motors with lots of gear reduction, etc. Momentum wheels only require fine control of rotation rate, which can be done simply by using synchronous motors controlled from a stable clock.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 06, 2013, 07:39:54 AM
I wonder will he (Heiwa) come back on here after he has had his a*se resoundably handed to him in quite such a manner.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 06, 2013, 07:41:02 AM
I'm not sure there's a big difference in energy efficiency, but CMGs are more complex.
No question, CMGs are more complex but they're also much more energy efficient. Creating torque with a momentum wheel requires applying (or taking) power to/from the wheel, while creating it with a CMG requires only forcing a constant-speed wheel to precess. That takes little power. The difference can be several orders of magnitude.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 06, 2013, 07:44:56 AM
They checked the result of the computer's calculations against reality. They didn't have to re-do the calculations.
The purpose wasn't to check the computer or its calculations. As it says, the purpose was to check for drift of the inertial reference platform. This was practically an obsession during every Apollo mission, particularly before major burns as platform drift would cause the computer to point the burn in an equally wrong direction.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on January 06, 2013, 08:13:06 AM
I wonder will he (Heiwa) come back on here after he has had his a*se resoundably handed to him in quite such a manner.

I'm betting he will. He doesn't even recognize that he's so thoroughly lost.

I'm reminded of Ronald Satz, a recent crank who showed up in BAUT/Cosmoquest and Rationalwiki who was able to selectively fail to comprehend simple high-school algebra. At one point, after I posted a voltage plot demonstrating clearly with no room for doubt that he was wrong, he accused me of refusing to take the measurements that voltage plot represented. (He himself never gave similar measurements supporting his own theory, despite repeated prompting and claims to have made such measurements.)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on January 06, 2013, 08:31:30 AM
No question, CMGs are more complex but they're also much more energy efficient. Creating torque with a momentum wheel requires applying (or taking) power to/from the wheel, while creating it with a CMG requires only forcing a constant-speed wheel to precess. That takes little power. The difference can be several orders of magnitude.

Peak power requirements might be higher for the momentum wheel while increasing the rotation rate when already spinning at high speed (similar to rocket engines, stored energy is proportional to the square of rotation rate while angular momentum is directly proportional), but you'll sometimes be decreasing the rotation rate, which takes no power. And when you're holding orientation, odds are you're maintaining a lower rotation rate for the momentum wheels than you would for CMGs, which need to be running at high speed constantly...higher speeds, higher losses, higher power requirements.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 06, 2013, 09:18:50 AM
He doesn't know what the LES is?

We're beyond Dunning-Kruger at this point.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on January 06, 2013, 09:20:47 AM
He doesn't know what the LES is?

And can't infer its purpose from its name.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: grmcdorman on January 06, 2013, 09:27:32 AM
Indeed. What do we call an order of magnitude beyond not even wrong?

By the way, it occurred to me, based on his comments about stability during burns, that he may have the pencil-on-a-finger conception of rocket thrust - something that was proved wrong well before the German V2s, even.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 06, 2013, 09:36:33 AM
I don't know; I've never considered the problem before.  If the moon's orbit were circular, I'd say it might be possible.
Mars' orbit is also highly elliptical. It's also somewhat out of the ecliptic.

The Aldrin cyclers have periods equal to integer multiples of the synodic period of Earth and Mars (about 2 years). He proposes two separate cyclers, one with a quick Earth-Mars transfer and another with a quick Mars-Earth transfer.

Mr. Aldrin has an advantage on me - he's got a PhD in orbital mechanics while I'm just an amateur who's read a few books and perused the Internet.  I can't do what he did.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 06, 2013, 09:41:24 AM
Quote
Three minutes later the launch escape three motors system on top the CM was jettisoned ... one way or another. Why it was  fitted in the first place is not clear.

I never realized that the function of a launch escape system was so cryptic.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 06, 2013, 10:33:25 AM
I never realized that the function of a launch escape system was so cryptic.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt that he certainly doesn't deserve, perhaps he wonders why it's discarded after only 3 minutes when the launch continues for some time?

We know the reason, of course, is that the LES is needed only on the pad and during atmospheric flight when aerodynamic forces are extreme. Things can go to hell in a handbasket very, very quickly. So quickly that there may be no time for the commander to turn the celebrated abort handle. There's an automatic abort system called the Emergency Detection System (EDS).

Once they're out of the atmosphere, things become relatively laid back. Acceleration is much lower, and there's time to initiate an abort manually, if necessary, and it can be conducted with the existing propulsion systems in the CSM.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Mag40 on January 06, 2013, 11:09:35 AM
I never realized that the function of a launch escape system was so cryptic.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt that he certainly doesn't deserve, perhaps he wonders why it's discarded after only 3 minutes when the launch continues for some time?

We know the reason, of course, is that the LES is needed only on the pad and during atmospheric flight when aerodynamic forces are extreme. Things can go to hell in a handbasket very, very quickly. So quickly that there may be no time for the commander to turn the celebrated abort handle. There's an automatic abort system called the Emergency Detection System (EDS).

Once they're out of the atmosphere, things become relatively laid back. Acceleration is much lower, and there's time to initiate an abort manually, if necessary, and it can be conducted with the existing propulsion systems in the CSM.

IIRC on Apollo 12, Pete Conrad was very close to engaging the LES after all hell broke loose with the lightning strikes, the question is, would it have actually worked :)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: AtomicDog on January 06, 2013, 11:18:02 AM
Indeed. What do we call an order of magnitude beyond not even wrong?

By the way, it occurred to me, based on his comments about stability during burns, that he may have the pencil-on-a-finger conception of rocket thrust - something that was proved wrong well before the German V2s, even.

I keep reading HBs say that the lunar module was a fake because a rocket can't balance and land on a single engine,  then I watch the SpaceX grasshopper test:


And I laugh my head off.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on January 06, 2013, 11:25:58 AM
Indeed. What do we call an order of magnitude beyond not even wrong?

By the way, it occurred to me, based on his comments about stability during burns, that he may have the pencil-on-a-finger conception of rocket thrust - something that was proved wrong well before the German V2s, even.

Are you referring to the pendulum rocket fallacy? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_rocket_fallacy)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on January 06, 2013, 11:43:11 AM
Quote
Three minutes later the launch escape three motors system on top the CM was jettisoned ... one way or another. Why it was  fitted in the first place is not clear.

I never realized that the function of a launch escape system was so cryptic.

I dont think Anders had a chat to Little Joe. I'm sure he would have cleared up LES for him immensely.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on January 06, 2013, 11:43:21 AM
Björkman has changed his page again...
Quote from: Heiwa
Three minutes later the launch escape three motors system on top the CM was jettisoned ... one way or another. Why it was  fitted in the first place is not clear.
*jaw drops* Why am I still surprised, after the RCS debacle... Heiwa, was it that hard to look up "launch abort system" on Wikipedia?
Actually, one wonders why the words "launch escape motors [sic] system" didn't provide some sort of clue.  Heiwa styles himself as this engineering genius, but not only are his research skills virtually nonexistent, he is unusually clue-resistant to even the most obvious information - as in when the words are actually staring him in the face.

ETA: I am reminded of another HB on BAUT who demanded where a certain picture was taken - apparently "Dryden Flight Research Center" in big letters across the bottom was too subtle.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 06, 2013, 12:23:23 PM
It is not easy.

The only difficulty is in getting you to acknowledge your corrections openly.  You keep changing you site as a result of these discussion.  Clearly you admit you are in error.  You are just unwilling to admit to it openly because you have invested so much emotionally in the challenge.  This is what makes you a liar.

Quote
Say that your space ship has mass 32 676 kg excluding fuel and that you must slow down from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s velocity to insert into Moon orbit. Your space ship has a P-22 KS rocket engine with 97 400 N thrust (at full blast).

None of these "facts" has anything to do with Apollo.  You have been given the right facts but you disregard them.  You have been asked to prove your version of the facts is correct, but you refuse.

Quote
If you suggest, e.g. 10 898 kg, you must support your answer with proper calculations to win the prize (€1M).

This has been done for you many, many times.

Quote
I have a feeling you need >80 000 kg.

Great.  While you fumble around with your "feelings" based on wrong information and incompetent analysis, the rest of us will just keep building and flying spacecraft professionally.  Did it ever occur to you that sooner or later in your virtual internet travels you'd encounter real engineers who would be able to expose your fraud?

Quote
In order to proceed with the discussion, I suggest you try to clarify above basic questions of fuel consumption.

It has been clarified to you many times.  You have the wrong information to start with, and you do not know how to do the calculations properly.  Your expectation is based on misinformation and layman's ignorance, hence it is not a suitable standard against which to judge reality.

Quote
Pls do not suggest that I do not know anything about space travel...

It is not a suggestion.  It is an observation of fact.  Along with STS60, let me state it clearly:  You do not know anything about space travel.  Any line of reasoning that requires us to accept your claim to be an expert engineer is a non-starter.  I do not accept you as an expert in space operations, astrodynamics, rocketry, engineering, or in fact in basic high-school physics.

Just in case you missed it the second time:
You do not know anything about space travel.
Quote
that I am broke...

Again the same straw man.  You have simply been asked to prove that you a have a million euros and that you would be willing to award it.  You cannot or will not do that, hence no one believes your claim.  There is a difference between asking you to prove you are as wealthy as you say, and saying you are broke.

Quote
...because it is clear from link in post #1 what I am doing for a living. My biz is safety at sea. And I am quite good.

Your made-up company on a free web site?  Did you forget that we investigated the validity of your "agency" and found it to be bogus?  "Safety at sea" has nothing to do with anything you're trying to claim here, or in fact with the agglomeration of conspiracy theories you promote as part of your alleged business.

No, you do not get to point to a free web site you created to spread your nonsense and on that basis say that your minority opinion, supported only by wrong computations, makes you competent to dispute the validity of space travel.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 06, 2013, 12:31:07 PM
I wonder will he (Heiwa) come back on here after he has had his a*se resoundably handed to him in quite such a manner.

"It's only a flesh wound."

Never underestimate the ability of someone who simply refuses to see reality.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 06, 2013, 12:45:19 PM
(http://i1336.photobucket.com/albums/o657/Andromeda_Apollo/heiwasign_zps3600b18f.jpg)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 06, 2013, 12:56:19 PM
Lol I'm going to have to remember customroadsign.com (http://customroadsign.com), it seems like a good way to get some of my moderator comments noticed.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: grmcdorman on January 06, 2013, 01:52:15 PM
Indeed. What do we call an order of magnitude beyond not even wrong?

By the way, it occurred to me, based on his comments about stability during burns, that he may have the pencil-on-a-finger conception of rocket thrust - something that was proved wrong well before the German V2s, even.

Are you referring to the pendulum rocket fallacy? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_rocket_fallacy)
Yes indeed.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 06, 2013, 02:42:49 PM
Maybe this has been glaringly obvious to everyone else, but yaknow, it really just dawned on me...

Heiwa's whole claim with regards to the LOI burn is that - with no experimental data, real world experience, or even a computer model to point to - he FEELS THAT you can't get that much change of velocity with that amount of fuel. That's just personal incredulity.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 06, 2013, 03:03:15 PM
I wonder will he (Heiwa) come back on here after he has had his a*se resoundably handed to him in quite such a manner.

"It's only a flesh wound."

Never underestimate the ability of someone who simply refuses to see reality.

When you have skin as thick as our erstwhile hero's appears to be, I think that a samurai sword would probably only inflict scratches.... :D :D
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: grmcdorman on January 06, 2013, 03:08:51 PM
Maybe this has been glaringly obvious to everyone else, but yaknow, it really just dawned on me...

Heiwa's whole claim with regards to the LOI burn is that - with no experimental data, real world experience, or even a computer model to point to - he FEELS THAT you can't get that much change of velocity with that amount of fuel. That's just personal incredulity.
Not quite. He's misapplying kinetic energy (by redefining the boundaries of the system) and hence getting a nonsensical result. Specifically, he claims that the equation [jstex]\frac{1}{2}m_i v_i^2 - \frac{1}{2}m_f v_f^2 = e[/jstex]is true, where e is the enthalpy of combustion for the fuel and mi is the mass of the spacecraft before the burn including fuel, and mf is the mass of the spacecraft after the burn excluding expended fuel. Of course this won't conserve KE, and of course he gets nonsense results.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 06, 2013, 03:09:44 PM
I think that's what is so irritating.

Being ignorant of something isn't, in itself, shameful.  I could probably reel off a dozen things I don't understand right now.

However, to be wilfully ignorant and scream abuse at people who understand better than you is a big problem.  In the long run, someone who behaves like this does no favours for themselves or anyone around them.

I am happy to help and teach people who are interested and would like to understand.  I have no time for people who abuse others for their intelligence and ability.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on January 06, 2013, 03:22:49 PM
"It's only a flesh wound."

Never underestimate the ability of someone who simply refuses to see reality.

And not just on Apollo matters. "If you don't follow these rules, your posts won't go through" seems simple enough, but it seems his sheer arrogance makes him incapable of dealing with a world that doesn't bend to his whims. He didn't just flounce off again...he kept trying without altering the behaviors that led to his posts not even being allowed through. I sort of wonder if he's still trying to post despite being temporarily banned.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 06, 2013, 03:24:16 PM
"It's only a flesh wound."

Never underestimate the ability of someone who simply refuses to see reality.

And not just on Apollo matters. "If you don't follow these rules, your posts won't go through" seems simple enough, but it seems his sheer arrogance makes him incapable of dealing with a world that doesn't bend to his whims. He didn't just flounce off again...he kept trying without altering the behaviors that led to his posts not even being allowed through. I sort of wonder if he's still trying to post despite being temporarily banned.

Yes - that behaviour really puzzles me.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 06, 2013, 05:27:05 PM
I sort of wonder if he's still trying to post despite being temporarily banned.

As a matter of fact, he has tried to login several times since I banned him yesterday. It seems like a waste of time considering the forum tells him that he is banned and when it expires. But maybe he isn't reading the error message and thinks there is something wrong with the forum.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 06, 2013, 06:11:19 PM
All this makes me even more confident that he isn't a troll.  I mean, that behaviour doesn't even really bother anyone.  It's an obvious and complete failure to understand.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 06, 2013, 06:17:24 PM
Exactly. He seems to understand English so it's not a language issue... what we say just doesn't seem to sink in.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 06, 2013, 07:32:37 PM
Maybe this has been glaringly obvious to everyone else, but yaknow, it really just dawned on me...

Heiwa's whole claim with regards to the LOI burn is that - with no experimental data, real world experience, or even a computer model to point to - he FEELS THAT you can't get that much change of velocity with that amount of fuel. That's just personal incredulity.
Not quite. He's misapplying kinetic energy (by redefining the boundaries of the system) and hence getting a nonsensical result. Specifically, he claims that the equation [jstex]\frac{1}{2}m_i v_i^2 - \frac{1}{2}m_f v_f^2 = e[/jstex]is true, where e is the enthalpy of combustion for the fuel and mi is the mass of the spacecraft before the burn including fuel, and mf is the mass of the spacecraft after the burn excluding expended fuel. Of course this won't conserve KE, and of course he gets nonsense results.
You, and I and most everyone else in this forum know his results are nonsense, and we know why - he didn't do the KE calculation correctly.

But how does he know it's nonsense? About the actual mass of fuel used, on his website he states:
Quote
I would expect that about at least 8 times (!) more fuel/energy had to be used to slow down the heavy - 32.7 ton - space ship.
My point is, from where did he get that expectation?  Typically, when someone gets an answer to a calculation that seems wrong, they go back over their calculations to see where they made a mistake, or they check the answer by using a different calculation method, or they get someone else to check their figures.

There's no indication that Heiwa has done any of these. Having no expertise in astronautics, he just "feels" that the number he got is too high. His calculation method was wrong, of course, but whether his result is right or wrong is almost irrelevant. It's only his personal incredulity that tells him it "can't" be right - he could just as easily be saying the same thing if he had done the calculation correctly.

I think that definitely fits squarely in the category of "not even wrong".

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Mag40 on January 06, 2013, 08:10:40 PM
He behaves in similar fashion to the multi-sock puppet doctor......the one who claimed they landed the LM remotely for some weird military purpose. Seems like a missed opportunity...maybe they should have a chat ;D

For sheer comedic value it would be one of those bucket of popcorn moments.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on January 06, 2013, 08:15:22 PM
All this makes me even more confident that he isn't a troll.  I mean, that behaviour doesn't even really bother anyone.  It's an obvious and complete failure to understand.
I agree. He really believes in conspiracies and tries his best to convince himself and others it is something objective that can show them to be true.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on January 06, 2013, 09:17:52 PM
Another thing which intrigued me was his rejection of the reality of the Space Shuttle. I mean, here was a program which consisted of 135 manned flights over a period of 30 years, including two which ended in fatal accidents. What conceivable reason would NASA have to fake 135 missions over a period of 30 years when they could simply say there's no way to return a spacecraft safely to the Earth?

(And yes, if you include all preceding and concurrent non-Shuttle manned missions, the numbers get even larger and the logic even less tenable.)

I remember seeing many times footage of someone pulling a Shuttle thermal protection system tile out of an oven, and then picking it up with bare hands. It's not like they made any secret of their means of protecting the Shuttle during re-entry.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Abaddon on January 06, 2013, 09:34:23 PM
Another thing which intrigued me was his rejection of the reality of the Space Shuttle. I mean, here was a program which consisted of 135 manned flights over a period of 30 years, including two which ended in fatal accidents. What conceivable reason would NASA have to fake 135 missions over a period of 30 years when they could simply say there's no way to return a spacecraft safely to the Earth?

(And yes, if you include all preceding and concurrent non-Shuttle manned missions, the numbers get even larger and the logic even less tenable.)

I remember seeing many times footage of someone pulling a Shuttle thermal protection system tile out of an oven, and then picking it up with bare hands. It's not like they made any secret of their means of protecting the Shuttle during re-entry.
I remember seeing that for the first time decades ago and thinking "How cool is that?" (pun intended)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on January 06, 2013, 10:06:58 PM
Before the shuttle's first launch I remember reading a NatGeo article about the tiles. It included a picture of a block of pure silicon glowing red hot and a guy holding it by the corners with his bare fingers!

But the 'for de-orbit burn they were pointed backwards so how did it turn around before re-entry?' line was priceless.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Abaddon on January 06, 2013, 10:26:20 PM
I think it was a BBC Tomorrows World proggy where they did the same thing with a single tile. Heated it up until it glowed, then handled it with bare hands.

It's a long time ago, but I can still see it in my minds eye.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 06, 2013, 11:05:16 PM
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on January 07, 2013, 07:16:35 AM
But the 'for de-orbit burn they were pointed backwards so how did it turn around before re-entry?' line was priceless.

It is worthy of the moonman prize for cluelessness. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on January 07, 2013, 07:44:44 AM

Thanks LO. Watching that actually gave me a little shiver of fear for the people picking up the tiles. Also, seeing the glow on the large tile when the smaller one is picked up...amazing technology.

I assume the 2200 degrees was Fahrenheit, which would make about 1200 degrees Celsius. The highest temperature I deal with is 220 degrees, cooking pizzas in the oven. Obviously no problems putting my hands in the air there, but I'm very careful to not touch anything. Adding another 1000-odd degrees on top of that, and picking the tiles up within seconds...

But, according to Heiwa, no use for protecting the Shuttle. And anyway, he couldn't work out how they stuck them on, despite all the news stories from the late 1970s about the problems NASA had working out exactly that.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Abaddon on January 07, 2013, 12:11:13 PM

Not the one I was thinking of but the very same principle.

Love the shaky hand going to pick it up, LOL.

Bet I would be pretty cautious too. It flies in the face of intuition.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 07, 2013, 12:28:17 PM
Watching that actually gave me a little shiver of fear for the people picking up the tiles.

Always by the edges.  If you pick them up by the faces, you may lose your fingerprints.  The faces are still very, very hot.

Quote
...amazing technology.

They make good frisbees too.  The material has about the same density as expanded polystyrene.  It's just weighty enough to throw, but not so dense that it hurts when one hits you.  Don't ask.

Quote
The highest temperature I deal with is 220 degrees, cooking pizzas in the oven. Obviously no problems putting my hands in the air there, but I'm very careful to not touch anything.

The commercial pizza ovens I used were set to 370 C and could cook a full-sized pizza in 5-7 minutes.  It's a conveyor oven so you don't have to reach inside.  But you still use gloves and pliers to handle the products.  Now I want to put a shuttle tile in one and see what happens.

Quote
But, according to Heiwa, no use for protecting the Shuttle.

Right, according to him nothing works unless he can personally figure out how.

Quote
And anyway, he couldn't work out how they stuck them on...

More proof that he doesn't work in any sort of engineering science or industry.  One thing you learn working in aerospace, or indeed in any scientific or industrial field, is that you get to use technologies and products whose capability far exceeds anything you find in the consumer world.  For safety reasons the people who handle and use them often have to be trained and certified, so they can't be sold directly to the public.  Industrial adhesives are a good example.  We have some epoxies that produce harmful fumes, are tremendously toxic until the cure, and will practically stick a car to the side of a building.  And we have some pressure-sensitive adhesives that will literally tear your skin if you accidentally put your finger on them.  Obviously for liability purposes these products are used by or sold to the general public, but they exist in the inventory of materials we can bring to bear.

Shuttle tile stickum is serious stuff.  I wonder what Anders would say if he found out the wing spars on commercial airliners are glue-laminated aluminum.  But you can see why he's so desperate to be seen as some kind of engineer.  If Joe Random Layman can't figure out how something is done in the space program, it's because it's, well, the space program.  But if he argues, "I can't see how this could have been done, and I'm a very smart engineer with lots of expertise," then the argument almost becomes convincing.  That's why he bristles when people tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on January 07, 2013, 01:33:25 PM
Although I've been in and around various Shuttles, I have no experience with the tiles other than seeing a lot of them at close range.  In my current line of work, we deal with quite the opposite of the superlightweight, fragile, reusable tiles - mostly three-dimensional heavy graphite forms to ablatively protect heat sources during reentry.  These derive from similar technologies used for missile reentry vehicles - a dry euphemism for the things intended to erase cities from the map.  These heat sources, though (iike the ones on Cassini or New Horizons or Curiousity), are intended to tumble upon reentry and disperse the heating and ablative wear, while keeping the fuel clads inside at the right temperature to remain ductile for maximum impact resistance.

And there has been a huge amount of analysis and test that have gone into such materials and items, over many decades, over all the applications of ablative techniques.  It's hysterically funny that Heiwa makes out that ablative materials are "SECRET" and "magic" as if plenty of information isn't a few seconds away by Google.  It's like saying that GE or Rolls-Royce is hiding what goes on inside a jet engine - actually, it's more like being unaware of the existence of jet propulsion. 

It's not just ignorance; it's aggresively incompetent ignorance.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on January 07, 2013, 05:01:53 PM
And we have some pressure-sensitive adhesives that will literally tear your skin if you accidentally put your finger on them.
I've been looking for something like that for quite some time to solve a problem that would otherwise cost ~$500 for a professional to solve by replacing a long gasket.  But the fumble finger factor is a concern. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on January 07, 2013, 08:20:32 PM


The only thing more unbelievable than the material science is that they're inviting people to handle them.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 07, 2013, 09:05:07 PM
I know I'd be nervous about picking one up. I'd be worried that it would slip from my fingers and I'd instinctively try to catch it.

It makes me think of the glass floor in the CN Tower... I know they say it's strong enough to support 4 elephants (or something like that), but I still have a mini heart attack when some kid jumps up and down on it beside me.

While I was looking for that other video I also found another one from the late 1970s that shows people practicing the application of the tiles on an old DC-3.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 07, 2013, 09:51:18 PM
It makes me think of the glass floor in the CN Tower... I know they say it's strong enough to support 4 elephants (or something like that), but I still have a mini heart attack when some kid jumps up and down on it beside me.

"Fourteen large hippos".  I'm not sure how they quantify "large" though!

http://www.cntower.ca/en-CA/Plan-Your-Visit/Attractions/Glass-Floor.html
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on January 07, 2013, 09:55:22 PM
I've always wondered what would have happened if the Shuttle had been operational in time to visit Skylab? Not much of a change, I know, but still a wonderment worthwhile asking.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 07, 2013, 10:53:34 PM

Not the one I was thinking of but the very same principle.

Love the shaky hand going to pick it up, LOL.

Bet I would be pretty cautious too. It flies in the face of intuition.
I realize that this work was being done years after Apollo, but how - to reference a claim you seem to hear a lot - can a person with enough intelligence to scratch when they itch think it would be that difficult to design boots that would stand up to a hot lunar surface?

Jay, I have a question for you, if you don't mind. I know we hear that it would take us a time measured in decades to make a return manned lunar trip.

However, let me put it this way: what if the conditions were similar to those at the time of Apollo? i.e., IF it were put on the footing of a National Crash Program (as Apollo was), and IF the public (and therefore politicians) were squarely behind it, and IF the budget was practically unlimited, and IF we were willing to take greater calculated risks with astronaut safety... how long do you think it would take, given our current level of technology and knowledge?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Tanalia on January 07, 2013, 11:03:01 PM
Obviously for liability purposes these products are used by or sold to the general public, but they exist in the inventory of materials we can bring to bear.

I think you wanted the opposite sense on the first part of that...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on January 07, 2013, 11:11:53 PM
I realize that this work was being done years after Apollo, but how - to reference a claim you seem to hear a lot - can a person with enough intelligence to scratch when they itch think it would be that difficult to design boots that would stand up to a hot lunar surface?
What the heck does he thinks firefighters wear?  Open-toes sandals?   My turnout boots would have no problem with such temperatures - and the Apollo crews left before the surface got that hot.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on January 07, 2013, 11:14:00 PM
It makes me think of the glass floor in the CN Tower... I know they say it's strong enough to support 4 elephants (or something like that), but I still have a mini heart attack when some kid jumps up and down on it beside me.

"Fourteen large hippos".  I'm not sure how they quantify "large" though!

http://www.cntower.ca/en-CA/Plan-Your-Visit/Attractions/Glass-Floor.html

I'll pass. Canadians aren't known for making sturdy glass structures: snopes.com: Window Test Death (http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/window.asp)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on January 07, 2013, 11:56:12 PM
From the description, I would say it wasn't the glass that gave way but whatever was used to bind it to the frame. That being said, when Mythbusters tested this myth, they found that the glass could shatter frighteningly unexpectedly.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Count Zero on January 07, 2013, 11:56:51 PM
I've always wondered what would have happened if the Shuttle had been operational in time to visit Skylab? Not much of a change, I know, but still a wonderment worthwhile asking.

Interesting reading (http://www.astronautix.com/articles/skyyfate.htm) that discusses advantages & disadvantages (mostly compatibility issues).
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 08, 2013, 01:19:57 AM
I realize that this work was being done years after Apollo, but how - to reference a claim you seem to hear a lot - can a person with enough intelligence to scratch when they itch think it would be that difficult to design boots that would stand up to a hot lunar surface?
What the heck does he thinks firefighters wear?  Open-toes sandals?   My turnout boots would have no problem with such temperatures - and the Apollo crews left before the surface got that hot.
Nor did mine, back when I used them. Although they weren't expected to stand up to hours of exposure. But it's almost as if HBs have this mindset that the engineers who spent literally years working on these problems either never thought of them, or didn't know how to solve them.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 08, 2013, 03:05:42 AM
It makes me think of the glass floor in the CN Tower... I know they say it's strong enough to support 4 elephants (or something like that), but I still have a mini heart attack when some kid jumps up and down on it beside me.

"Fourteen large hippos".  I'm not sure how they quantify "large" though!

http://www.cntower.ca/en-CA/Plan-Your-Visit/Attractions/Glass-Floor.html

I'll pass. Canadians aren't known for making sturdy glass structures: snopes.com: Window Test Death (http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/window.asp)

From the description, I would say it wasn't the glass that gave way but whatever was used to bind it to the frame.

Raven is right.  The glass didn't break in that case, it popped out of the frame.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 08, 2013, 03:15:05 AM
The allegations was the Canadians can't make glass structures. I would say binding glasses panes to supports falls under the remit of making glass structures so the criticism stands on that basis.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 08, 2013, 03:30:50 AM
The allegations was the Canadians can't make glass structures. I would say binding glasses panes to supports falls under the remit of making glass structures so the criticism stands on that basis.

*shrug*  I wouldn't rely on just a single example though.  Besides, I doubt the glaziers expected anyone to launch themselves at that window (twice)!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Count Zero on January 08, 2013, 03:42:49 AM
This calls for rigorous scientific testing.
First, we line-up a bunch of HBs in front of 24th-story windows...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 08, 2013, 04:12:58 AM
I suspect Heiwa is going be unimpressed by our going off-topic when he gets back.

So, how 'bout that local sports team?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on January 08, 2013, 05:07:44 AM
So, how 'bout that local sports team?

They will only break your heart in the end.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on January 08, 2013, 05:38:31 AM
Interesting reading (http://www.astronautix.com/articles/skyyfate.htm) that discusses advantages & disadvantages (mostly compatibility issues).
Interesting indeed! Thank you for sharing.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 08, 2013, 12:37:03 PM
It makes me think of the glass floor in the CN Tower... I know they say it's strong enough to support 4 elephants (or something like that)...

14 large hippos, which makes me wonder how they got the hippos up there in the elevator.

Quote
While I was looking for that other video I also found another one from the late 1970s that shows people practicing the application of the tiles on an old DC-3.

The question now is whether they tested the DC-3's re-entry characteristics.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 08, 2013, 12:49:19 PM
I suspect Heiwa is going be unimpressed by our going off-topic when he gets back.

I'm fully confident he'll try to moderate us back into shape upon his return.  After all, that's easier than answering questions, or being a rocket scientist.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: peter eldergill on January 08, 2013, 01:37:24 PM

14 large hippos, which makes me wonder how they got the hippos up there in the elevator.


It's a big elevator :)

Pete
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on January 08, 2013, 02:09:48 PM

14 large hippos, which makes me wonder how they got the hippos up there in the elevator.


It's a big elevator :)


It was only a matter of time until the obesity epidemic hit Canada.

Now on to the next step of our plan.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 08, 2013, 02:38:09 PM

14 large hippos, which makes me wonder how they got the hippos up there in the elevator.


It's a big elevator :)

That's a good thing because I pity the guy who would've had to herd them up the steps.

Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sus_pilot on January 09, 2013, 12:40:13 AM

14 large hippos, which makes me wonder how they got the hippos up there in the elevator.


It's a big elevator :)

That's a good thing because I pity the guy who would've had to herd them up the steps.

That reminds me of a great scene from the old Hill Street Blues series when Renko and his partner encountered a steer rustled from the stockyards that someone snuck into an inner-city walk-up apartment on the fourth floor:  "You got a problem, officer!  Cows got up genes!  They ain't got no down genes!"
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on January 09, 2013, 08:01:12 AM
Björkman has decided to spend his involuntary vacation from the forum polishing his page. I caught several revisions, but decided to wait until they accumulate. Some of the changes since my last diff (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg9127#msg9127) include:

The title element of the page* has been changed from "Is space travel possible?" to "Space travel is not possible!". :D (*The title element contains the text displayed in the title bar of the browser's window.)

There's another dig at SpaceX in the beginning (again, I've marked the added text in green):
Quote
If you think I am crazy I recommend that you emmigrate to Mars and make a fortune there. The space ship is ready (http://www.space.com/18596-mars-colony-spacex-elon-musk.html)! But can you really trust the space travel agent Elon Musk selling the tickets? Elon is performing SpaceX re-entries [link to the SpaceX section in the article] today. But is anybody really up there in the ISS being re-entered? The ISS is 99% NASA that created the Apollo 11 hoax paid for by US tax payers. I have a feeling the show is just going on. Prove me wrong! (http://www.members.tripod.com/heiwaco/chall.htm)

Heiwa, I suggest looking up the ownership of the different components of the ISS and who put them up there. I guess it will be a surprise to you that there is a sizable Russian part. I also suggest updating your page, because it talks about the Dragon's flight to the ISS in future tense, and it's already old news. You also seem to be unaware of the initial Dragon flight and reentry that didn't go to the ISS. For your education, here's SpaceX's website:
http://www.spacex.com/

The assertions that the "official version" is inconsistent about the LM's propellant load and its capacity have been quietly removed, most clearly seen in these two consecutive paragraphs: (in red is the removed text, part of which was in red in the original):
Quote
Total fuel used by the LM for descent and ascent was 10 237 kg according [1] (http://"http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11MIssionReport_1971015566.pdf"). How it was possible as the LM could only carry 8 777 kg fuel remains a mystery.

The LM was jettisoned into lunar orbit at 00:01:01 UT on 22 July and remained in lunar orbit, where it should still be today as there is no friction stopping it. According some sources there was still fuel aboard the LM, when it was dumped. Very confusing. And indication that it was a hoax.

...but he's still doubling down on the "not enough fuel for the CSM" assertion:
Quote
I would expect that about at least 8 times (!) more fuel/energy had to be used to slow down the heavy - 32.7 ton - space ship. And to carry it + the extra fuel to the Moon you needed a three or four times bigger rocket to get off from Earth in the first place.&nbsp;Which USA didn't have 1969. So NASA decided to just make it up! I am certain.

("Slow down" used to be "stop". :))

He's also apparently enamored with the newfound insight that the Saturn V couldn't have worked because of the increased fuel load required by his incompetent calculations:
Quote
It means in my opinion that you need 5-6 times more fuel than suggested by NASA to brake into Moon orbit (events # 5-6) and to get out of Moon orbit (events # 14-15) and and there is no place to carry it and makes the whole space ship weight mass much greater at departure, say around 100 000 kg, that requires more fuel, etc, etc. If the Apollo space ship including fuel must weigh say 100 000 kg at departure, the Saturn three stages rocket is much too small to eject it into space.

He has also intensified the digs against his opponents. He has added a sentence to the attack against Glom ("What a comedy!") and there's also this:
Quote
Actually only way to go to Moon and back is using very light weight robots and modules and to chose a long, slow velocity path through space using Sun's gravity, so that arrival speeds and energy requirements are minimum to reduce fuel consumption for braking and accelerating. Prove me wrong and earn € 1 000 000:- (http://"http://www.members.tripod.com/heiwaco/chall.htm"). Only fools believe human space travel is possible at all ... and there are many such persons, incl. PhDs of all kind and rocket scientists all paid for by the military, etc, etc. But the hoax show must go on. The ISS and the Shuttle for example! Read on:

Heiwa, does that include the people on this forum? Who do you think gets paid by the military here?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 09, 2013, 08:06:08 AM
Easier to believe eeveryone  who shows you up is a disinformation  agent than that they are actually  right.

Sent from my GT-P5100 using Tapatalk HD before i drop it backnto the shop (big screen is cool but it's  awkward to use)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 09, 2013, 11:35:34 AM
That reminds me of a great scene from the old Hill Street Blues series when Renko and his partner encountered a steer rustled from the stockyards that someone snuck into an inner-city walk-up apartment on the fourth floor:  "You got a problem, officer!  Cows got up genes!  They ain't got no down genes!"

Graham suggests I remind everyone of the scene in Terry Pratchett's Jingo with the donkey at the top of the minaret.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 09, 2013, 01:00:18 PM
The title element of the page* has been changed from "Is space travel possible?" to "Space travel is not possible!". :D

So he's clearly not learning.

Quote
The assertions that the "official version" is inconsistent about the LM's propellant load and its capacity have been quietly removed...

Of course quietly.  We directly confronted him about his sources and the values he gleaned from them.  He realized he made a mistake, but didn't want anyone to see that he had.  If he's correcting his site based on our feedback, it's so much harder for him to claim that no one qualifies for his prize.  He's ever so sleazy that way.

Quote
...but he's still doubling down on the "not enough fuel for the CSM" assertion:

Well in 60 pages he's failed to understand basic rocketry and basic physics, so I don't see why he should suddenly correct all his errors at once.

Quote
He has also intensified the digs against his opponents.

Of course, the primary purpose of his web site is to stroke his own ego by calling "fools" the people who do what he only aspires to do.  His whole "career" is trying to find fault with the work of others.  He patently has no technical understanding, skill, or expertise, so he creates his phantom company as an ego-centric construct from which he can hurl invective against qualified practitioners.

He's desperate to write off the expertise being demonstrated here by any means possible.  He originally speculated that I and others were "lazy NASA PhDs," which he had previously proposed to dismiss as mere shills.  Now he's changed horses and suggested, apparently, that we're all "paid by the military."  We aren't, of course, but why would it matter if any of us were?  It's the same old conspiracy theory dodge when presented with superior skill -- try to convert the argument to one of bias and credibility rather than actual expertise.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Count Zero on January 09, 2013, 01:21:45 PM
That reminds me of a great scene from the old Hill Street Blues series when Renko and his partner encountered a steer rustled from the stockyards that someone snuck into an inner-city walk-up apartment on the fourth floor:  "You got a problem, officer!  Cows got up genes!  They ain't got no down genes!"

Graham suggests I remind everyone of the scene in Terry Pratchett's Jingo with the donkey at the top of the minaret.

He beat me to it!  :)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 09, 2013, 02:37:32 PM
He beat me to it!  :)

He'll be pleased to know it.

While I freely cop to being lazy, NASA wouldn't be foolish enough to hire me and I haven't even gone to grad school.  Does that make me better or worse than you actual engineers?  And my good friend who works for JPL works in their business office, not doing actual science or engineering.  Bet Heiwa doesn't realize how many people work there doing ordinary things.  (My friend also laments that, apparently, she's too D-list to get invited to the good after-Oscar parties.)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: AtomicDog on January 09, 2013, 02:41:52 PM
Why do none of these HBs ever offer themselves up to NASA or the military as paid shills or disinformation officers so that they could get the goods on them and bust them to the media?

If they are so convinced that paid shills exist,  then PROVE IT!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on January 09, 2013, 02:46:18 PM
Think of Han Solo on the Family Guy being told what a parsec really is, and you'll get an approximation of the HB response to your suggestion.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on January 11, 2013, 04:19:53 PM
And to add, I'm just rolling out and vacuuming the red carpet for the hopeful return tomorrow of his emminence.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Abaddon on January 11, 2013, 06:21:05 PM
Think of Han Solo on the Family Guy being told what a parsec really is, and you'll get an approximation of the HB response to your suggestion.
Link or it didn't happen, ROFL.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on January 11, 2013, 07:20:16 PM
Think of Han Solo on the Family Guy being told what a parsec really is, and you'll get an approximation of the HB response to your suggestion.
Link or it didn't happen, ROFL.

http://video.adultswim.com/family-guy/meet-han-solo.html
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Abaddon on January 11, 2013, 07:46:52 PM
Not available outside the US. Soz.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: AtomicDog on January 11, 2013, 08:03:47 PM
Think of Han Solo on the Family Guy being told what a parsec really is, and you'll get an approximation of the HB response to your suggestion.
Link or it didn't happen, ROFL.

http://video.adultswim.com/family-guy/meet-han-solo.html
 

I had to view it a couple of times to get it.

Dwight, you're right.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on January 11, 2013, 08:15:37 PM
del
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on January 12, 2013, 01:14:19 AM
I note from Heiwa's website that he was born in 1946. I wonder what his thoughts were at the time the Apollo missions were happening.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 12, 2013, 06:10:27 AM
And to add, I'm just rolling out and vacuuming the red carpet for the hopeful return tomorrow of his emminence.

Me too.  He tried to log in again yesterday!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 12, 2013, 09:20:07 AM
Think of Han Solo on the Family Guy being told what a parsec really is, and you'll get an approximation of the HB response to your suggestion.
So Han did shoot first!

Physicists (and astronomers) might validly argue that time and distance are equivalent in the same way that mass and energy are equivalent; the latter by c2 and the former by c. In natural units where c=1, they are the same...

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on January 12, 2013, 09:43:09 AM
there is a retcon where the Kessel run is a route that runs very close to multiple black holes.  The closer you get to them the shorter your route but the greater chance you'll get pulled in.  by flying faster and being a good pilot you can take a shorter route.  Doubt that is what Lucas meant when it was first written though.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on January 12, 2013, 09:53:13 AM
Daggerstab started the So, who wants to win 1 million Euro? (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg7828#msg7828) thread by quoting from Heiwa’s site (http://www.members.tripod.com/heiwaco/moontravel.htm), and Heiwa joined in with additional claims.  I thought I’d organize some of the claims Heiwa made and assign them some rather arbitrary numbers.

Claim 1:       Heiwa has a million Euros to offer as a prize for his challenge. (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg7865#msg7865)  However, despite saying the money is “evidently” there (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg7983#msg7983), he has failed to provide any evidence to back up this rather extraordinary claim.  The consensus is that he does not have a million Euros to offer and that his claim is therefore a priori fraudulent, even though no court is any more likely to bother with this than any other random crank claim on the Internet.

2.   Heiwa claims the CSM/LM could not carry enough fuel to get into lunar orbit:

2a.   He used the wrong values for the vehicle speeds, and did not account for the change in mass due to propellant burned, (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg7910#msg7910) claiming that NASA “cannot inform” him of the actual values… after the exact reference for said values had already been provided for him, a number of places.  He continued to use wrong numbers as specific references were provided to him (such as here (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8325#msg8325)).

2b.   He calculated a certain value for a fixed mass and initial and final speeds.  The proper way to do it was demonstrated to him by ka9q (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg7976#msg7976) and by BobB (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8497#msg8497) and others.   Nevertheless, he keeps insisting that his energy balance equation works by comparing the kinetic energy of the CSM+propellants+LM before the LOI burn to the CSM+remaining propellant+LM after the burn, neglecting (on purpose!) the expelled reaction mass.  ”I like energy balances. You study A and B and the difference in energy between A and B” (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8311#msg8311), except that A and B are different because he is discarding part of the system A to make system B.  He claims this is perfectly OK (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8507#msg8507) because “It is gone.  Forever.” 

Countless explanations that his approach is fundamentally wrong bounce off of him.  Jason Thompson finally illustrates how his approach is clearly broken by the example of a non-propulsive propellant dump. (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8747#msg8747)  This reduction to the simplest possible case goes right over Heiwa’s head.

3.   He is not a conspiracy theorist.  (“I am not in conspiracy theories…”  “…pls do not call me a conspiracy theorist…”)  (At posts linked above and below.)  But he believes that Apollo, the ISS, the Shuttle, etc. are all hoaxes perpetrated and covered up by NASA.

4.   “Every change in speed or direction during Moon travel requires energy.” (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg7868#msg7868)  And yet he contradicts this by statements such as below, where changes of speed and direction are caused by the gravitation of the Earth and other bodies.

5.   Earth satellites are possible, but not probes to other planets, (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg7876#msg7876) “because the gravity of [other bodies] may pull them down at arrival, so they crash before they start orbiting, or they miss…  all together [sic].”  He does not support this argument, and of course the gravity of other bodies acts the same way as the gravity of Earth.

6.    He was unaware of how the CSM and LM could change their orientations or translate other than by their main engines. (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg7880#msg7880)  (“At some time on the flight to the Moon the lunar module, LM, was shifted from below the SM to the top of the CM. How it was done is unclear”.)  A number of people immediately explained the existence and purpose of the reaction control subsystem (RCS) engines. 
 
6a.   Heiwa did also not know what kind of fuel was used by the SPS, and kept on making the error despite repeated corrections such as this one (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8367#msg8367).

7.    He thought  (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg7880#msg7880) the surface temperature was 150°C during Apollo 11 EVA (wrong), that the astronauts’ boots should have melted at that temperature (wrong), that their visors were made of “glass” (wrong) and should have cracked(wrong).

8.   Heiwa incorrectly identifies the SPS engine as a “P-22KS” (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg7982#msg7982), despite having it pointed out to him numerous times that the engine is an AJ10-137 (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/20100027319) (manufactured by Aerojet, whom in the interests of full disclosure I should mention is a former employer).

9.    The Shuttle reenters the atmosphere backwards, has no heat shield, and does “loops”. (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8004#msg8004)  There’s not much to be said about this, except that no one who has even casually read about the Shuttle would make such egregious howlers.  Heiwa kept on repeating this frankly idiotic claim. (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8134#msg8134)  Then he said it turned around – although he was ignorant of how – but went back to saying it had no heat shield. (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8146#msg8146)  I guess all those black tiles are for decoration.

10.   Apollo 4 went around the Moon. (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8004#msg8004)  When this was immediately pointed out to be wrong, Heiwa dodged for a little bit and said that he didn’t believe it actually went around the Moon – an obvious evasion of his mistake in claiming that Apollo 4 was alleged to have gone around the Moon (wrong).  He finally tried to wave off his error (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8019#msg8019) as “No big deal, actually, and nothing to get upset about”.

11.    He claims no spacecraft could return from orbit (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8025#msg8025) because they are “thin steel structures” and are heated by turbulence.  He keeps repeating the bit about “turbulence” despite multiple explanations provided him about compressive heating and the role of the stagnation layer in managing heat transfer into the bulk of the heat shield and the vessel structure itself.  He called heat shield technology “nonsense” and said he could not get information from NASA because it was “SECRET!” (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8033#msg8033)  Detailed documentation of the ablative shielding provided by NASA was immediately provided to him, but as far as I know he never acknowledged it.

12.    No one has ever actually seen the Shuttle or ISS, just some “other satellite” (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8137#msg8137).  Of course, Heiwa is completely ignorant of the amateurs who have imaged both in excellent detail, like this guy (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8356656/Amateur-photographer-captures-space-shuttle-from-back-garden.html) and this guy (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/25/shuttle-and-station-imaged-from-the-ground/), not to mention the radio hams who routinely communicate with ISS crew (http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/ariss/).

13.   Heiwa does not understand how a spacecraft could be navigated or guided in space (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8639#msg8639), and claims that “nobody, incl… NASA, can explain what systems - manual and or automatic - were used to carry out maneuvers…”  This is refuted by a number of posters, including explicit references  such as provided here (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8745#msg8745).

There's much more, but that's enough effort for a partial catalog of Heiwa's errors and inconsistencies.  I left out all the silly 12-year-old-level insults he's been generating.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 12, 2013, 10:04:35 AM
So, in summary, he's your common-or-garden nutjob, is fruitier than the very best fruit cake and madder than a box of frogs.

 :o :o ;D
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 12, 2013, 10:06:00 AM
Wow. I'd forgotten there was so much stupid.

I like the bits where he admits his ignorance of basic things like TD&E but doesn't piece it together that maybe he should show some humility and realise he could be wrong.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on January 12, 2013, 10:34:55 AM
And here comes the next update! (It's from the 10th - sorry about the delay, family matters.)

Almost no changes this time:

Björkman now refers to himself in the third-person in the introduction - "Anders Björkman explains:" - and provides a link to his homepage.

He has also expanded the caption of Mark Kelly's picture:
Quote
Above (fake) photo is of US Air Force captain Mark Kelly floating in space of the ISS (or in an airplane against a green screen!) just prior to return to Earth in the last Shuttle. It is very simple to return to Earth from the ISS! Jump into the Shuttle, speed away from the ISS and then step on the brakes all the way down. But easier to trick film it at Hollywood. Then remember to kiss your wife Gaby Giffords on her head on arrival; the head that was hit by a bullet earlier. How to play guitar in the ISS swimmingpool = ! (http://"[/url)

(The "guitar" link is to some conspiracist video on YouTube claiming that the ISS is fake.)

While it's true that weightlessness can be simulated in airplanes moving on a ballistic trajectory (such as the "Vomit Comet"), the period of weightlessness is quite short - about half a minute of full weightlessness or so. On YouTube, there are videos from the ISS and other space stations that easily exceed this limit. The bluescreen claim is no less ridiculous, as astronauts can be seen interacting with their environment during those videos. There are even videos showing what it looks like on the inside during re-boost - this can't be simulated in an aircraft, as the overload during the "bottom" of the trajectory is higher than 1g, unlike the gentle thrust of the reboost.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 12, 2013, 10:50:52 AM
I don't think airplane zero-G is a particularly good way to fake even a short space video. Look at any number of videos taken on zero-G parabolas and you'll see people, although floating free in the cabin, suddenly seeming to accelerate without having hit the walls or anything else.

The airplane experiences only approximate zero-G; its wings still have to maintain a zero angle of attack, and that requires a continuous pitch-down maneuver that means only its center of mass can be truly weightless. And in reality, wind shears and control errors mean even the plane's center of mass won't follow a perfect parabolic trajectory.

So long as you don't touch the walls, floor or ceiling of the plane you'll (by definition, actually) experience true zero-G, but the plane itself won't and that's why it will move relative to those who are floating within it.

Along with the rapid edits, this was a giveaway in numerous scenes of "Apollo 13".


Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on January 12, 2013, 11:13:01 AM
So basically Anders is such a genius engineer that not even the laws of physics have had time to catch up?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 12, 2013, 11:19:54 AM
One thing to his credit though (of a sort). Believing that all manned spaceflight is fake is more internally consistent than the usual thing of thinking that some spaceflight and fake and some isn't. That assumes a compartmentalisation to spaceflight that just isn't the case.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 12, 2013, 03:36:41 PM
 ka9q touches on something the HBs always seem to miss (or just ignore): from Apollo 13 to From The Earth To The Moon, movies create the illusion of low- or zero-gee. One main device of course, is that a shot rarely lasts longer than a second or two.

Contrast this with the minutes and hours of continuous Apollo video. IMO, there is no way in hell that the best  FX or CGI shop in the world - or all of them working together - could keep up a realistic low-grav gag for hours on end. 

Somehow, you never see anyone who actually works in film say "Sure, we could duplicate that".
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on January 12, 2013, 03:47:53 PM
I got in touch with one of Hollywood's leading compositing companies and asked their CEO whether chroma-key could have conceivably been utilized on image compositing of the Apollo TV record. The response was a resounding "NO!!" Unfortunately following the crash of my PC system, I lost all reference to who and when. The main thing was that the industry leader in such effects resoundly said there was no way that keying was used and not noticeable*.

*ie to industry professionals who actually do know what they are looking at and not guessing what is and isnt keying.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 12, 2013, 03:52:43 PM
So the ISS is a fake as well?  ::) ::)

How the hell does he explain that bright thing that shoots across the sky then? And the thousands of amateur astronomers (myself included) that have seen it through our own telescopes? Or people like Thierry Legault (http://legault.perso.sfr.fr/satellites.html) who is an expert at imaging the ISS?
http://legault.perso.sfr.fr/iss_100424.html

Truly, some people are dumber than rocks.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 12, 2013, 03:58:20 PM
I know. I've seen the bloody thing. During STS 134 with Discovery (?) docked, it was really bright. The following night after undocking, it was a dimmer light with another bright light trailing it (or was it leading?).
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on January 12, 2013, 04:01:34 PM
If someone is wondering where Heiwa went after being banned and where he's getting his arguments explaining away the ISS...
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=59&start=1065#p2379753

Given some of the things posted in that thread, I think he fits perfectly there.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Mag40 on January 12, 2013, 04:08:59 PM
If someone is wondering where Heiwa went after being banned and where he's getting his arguments explaining away the ISS...
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=59&start=1065#p2379753

Given some of the things posted in that thread, I think he fits perfectly there.

They missed off the word "no" in front of the title.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 12, 2013, 06:46:09 PM
Someone should tell that one guy that the BABB isn't defunct, just merged.  I don't remember his specific thread, but if his banning happened the way he described it, I'll eat my hat.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on January 12, 2013, 06:59:12 PM
So the ISS is a fake as well?  ::) ::)

How the hell does he explain that bright thing that shoots across the sky then? And the thousands of amateur astronomers (myself included) that have seen it through our own telescopes? Or people like Thierry Legault (http://legault.perso.sfr.fr/satellites.html) who is an expert at imaging the ISS?
http://legault.perso.sfr.fr/iss_100424.html

Truly, some people are dumber than rocks.
or the images that have been taken during scheduled spacewalks where you can see the astronaut outside the ISS?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on January 12, 2013, 07:30:56 PM
or the images that have been taken during scheduled spacewalks where you can see the astronaut outside the ISS?
Cool! Do you have any links to images like that?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 12, 2013, 07:47:44 PM
Such images are usually so awesome as to render my life meaningless.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on January 12, 2013, 08:04:22 PM
or the images that have been taken during scheduled spacewalks where you can see the astronaut outside the ISS?
Cool! Do you have any links to images like that?
http://atramateria.com/spacewalking-astronaut-seen-from-the-ground/
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on January 13, 2013, 06:32:30 PM
If someone is wondering where Heiwa went after being banned and where he's getting his arguments explaining away the ISS...
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=59&start=1065#p2379753

Given some of the things posted in that thread, I think he fits perfectly there.
Oh, reading that made my head hurt.

Plus I noticed Heiwa has been a member there for a few years. Well, I hope he's happy there.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on January 13, 2013, 06:38:28 PM
If someone is wondering where Heiwa went after being banned and where he's getting his arguments explaining away the ISS...
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=59&start=1065#p2379753

Given some of the things posted in that thread, I think he fits perfectly there.
Oh, reading that made my head hurt.

Plus I noticed Heiwa has been a member there for a few years. Well, I hope he's happy there.

I'm sure he is.  He appears to have his own cheering section that is just as clueless as he is.  Reminds me of Jack White only not as competent.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 13, 2013, 06:47:40 PM
Reminds me of Jack White only not as competent.
I didn't know that competence could go negative. Oh well, learn something every day!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on January 13, 2013, 06:52:52 PM
Reminds me of Jack White only not as competent.
I didn't know that competence could go negative. Oh well, learn something every day!


to be fair, they are both on the negative side.  When your incompetence encourages others to emulate you I'd say you're on the downward slide.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 14, 2013, 08:03:46 AM


The way Apollo 11 was headed as it passed the Moon, the lunar gravity would have pulled it right round and sent it off on a heading back to Earth. This was the free return trajectory designed into the early missions as a safety factor. If the astronauts did nothing at this point they would still come home safely.



Hm, according NASA the Apollo 11 fired its rocket engine to get into permanent Moon orbit at 1500 m/s and at suitable altitude. I assume you agree that purpose of firing the rocket engine was to slow down? Pls advise.
It seems ~10 tons of fuel was used for this maneuver. Do you agree? Pls advise.

According you, had Apollo 11 not fired its rocket, it would still go into Moon orbit and, after half an orbit, Apollo 11 would escape Moon orbit again and return to Earth - free return trajectory. Are you certain? Pls advise.

Has any meteor arriving close to Earth ever got into Earth orbit and then ... WHOOPS - escaped again out of orbit - a free return? Small meteors burn up, big meteors crash. Pls explain about free meteor return!

In my opinion you could never escape from Moon gravity/orbit unless you applied a new force to your space ship, e.g. by using your rocket engine. Moon gravity may change your course, pull you into orbit or pull you so you crash. Probability for a 180° course change is 0.


In order to win my Challenge - see post #1 - I feel you have to understand these basic questions.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 14, 2013, 08:15:48 AM


... the LES is needed only on the pad and during atmospheric flight when aerodynamic forces are extreme. Things can go to hell in a handbasket very, very quickly. So quickly that there may be no time for the commander to turn the celebrated abort handle. There's an automatic abort system called the Emergency Detection System (EDS).

Once they're out of the atmosphere, things become relatively laid back. Acceleration is much lower, and there's time to initiate an abort manually, if necessary, and it can be conducted with the existing propulsion systems in the CSM.

Well, before you can even use the SM rocket engine you have to do the famous 180° flip and connect the CM to the LM. But first you have to get away the LES on top of the CM.
How are you getting along with topic? My €1M Challenge! See link #1.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 14, 2013, 08:39:23 AM
I note from Heiwa's website that he was born in 1946. I wonder what his thoughts were at the time the Apollo missions were happening.
Yes, it is correct that I was born 1946 and thus 23 years old when the Apollo 11 hoax took place. I had just graduated from Chalmers University of Technology with an M.Sc degree in naval architecture and marine engineering. Great stuff. To me it was obvious then that the Apollo 11 space ship was 100% unspaceworthy. And now 43 years later I have put a web page together about it. Better late than never.
How old are you?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 14, 2013, 10:53:04 AM
So the ISS is a fake as well?  ::) ::)

How the hell does he explain that bright thing that shoots across the sky then? And the thousands of amateur astronomers (myself included) that have seen it through our own telescopes? Or people like Thierry Legault (http://legault.perso.sfr.fr/satellites.html) who is an expert at imaging the ISS?
http://legault.perso.sfr.fr/iss_100424.html

Truly, some people are dumber than rocks.

Yes, the ISS is fake. NASA informs me regularly when the ISS passes above my roof terrace at dusk 5-7 pm (sun below west horizon) in 3-4 minutes and, I agree, something, a light dot, is passing at the given times. I have seen it many times. But the 100 m across ISS is a 400 000 m altitude and cannot be seen by naked eye. I have tried with binocular w/o success. Telescope? Doubt it. Object moves too quickly. Photos of it being the ISS published are fake. We have wondered what it can be. Some unmanned superdrone at 50 000 m altitude?
The ISS is fake because you cannot get down from it alive. Try to win my Challenge - see post #1.

I agree some people are pretty dumb. I have worked in the heavy industry for 45 years and for that you have to be clever. What about you?

Maybe I saw this thing being tested in  the sky - http://news.cnet.com/8301-10797_3-57563829-235/space-station-to-test-$17-million-inflatable-room/
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 14, 2013, 01:07:13 PM
I'm sure he is.  He appears to have his own cheering section that is just as clueless as he is.  Reminds me of Jack White only not as competent.

Bird(brains) of a feather.  And I agree that when one's arrogance and incompetence reaches the point of drawing others away from legitimate knowledge and understanding, one's reputation falls into some sort of negative territory.

It follows from my hypothesis about why Björkman does this that he would be more comfortable where clueless people cheer him on.  People who believe a thing for political, social, or religious reasons latch onto pseudoscientists who can put an intellectual veneer over those beliefs.  It reduces their cognitive dissonance that arises from believing an unpopular or controversial thing.  It also gives them a champion.  It comforts them to believe that a smart, professional person endorses their belief.  On the other side, Björkman's fantasy construct -- the one where he's a talented engineer -- gradually becomes populated with real people.  This makes the construct more real for him.

I predict a betting chance that he'll be back for some kind of fringe reset, but not for any meaningful debate.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on January 14, 2013, 01:51:55 PM
If someone is wondering where Heiwa went after being banned and where he's getting his arguments explaining away the ISS...
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=59&start=1065#p2379753

Given some of the things posted in that thread, I think he fits perfectly there.
Oh, reading that made my head hurt.

Plus I noticed Heiwa has been a member there for a few years. Well, I hope he's happy there.

I'm sure he is.  He appears to have his own cheering section that is just as clueless as he is.  Reminds me of Jack White only not as competent.

I note that Heiwa said he had "no idea" what was going on here after being banned... despite the fact you can read the forum without even being a member, and in fact he was "active" on the board (logged in, I presume) less than an hour ago.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 14, 2013, 02:12:44 PM
Less than an hour ago? Do you think he knows he can post again?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on January 14, 2013, 02:14:21 PM
Less than an hour ago? Do you think he knows he can post again?
I can't wait. ::)
Who wants to bet his first post will be to tell us all off for going off topic and to 'remind' us what this thread is 'really' about?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 14, 2013, 02:23:49 PM
Less than an hour ago? Do you think he knows he can post again?
I can't wait. ::)
Who wants to bet his first post will be to tell us all off for going off topic and to 'remind' us what this thread is 'really' about?

I've got a bet on with Jason that Heiwa will claim that there was "something wrong with the forum" for the past week because he doesn't understand that he was banned any more than he understood that he isn't the moderator.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on January 14, 2013, 02:56:52 PM
Less than an hour ago? Do you think he knows he can post again?
And again less than an hour ago (as of 1550 Eastern time, or 19 2050 UTC).

(waves) Hi, Heiwa.  Are you still claiming to have a million Euros to give out?  And are you still claiming the Shuttle has no heat shield?  And that no one has seen the ISS or Shuttle in orbit?  And that you can form an energy balance by ignoring part of the system in the final state after including it in the initial state?  Etc., etc. (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg9724#msg9724) 

Looking forward to your direct answers to these and other questions, and your evidence for your claims.

Edit: Oops, we're on Standard time.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on January 14, 2013, 03:45:59 PM
I can't wait. ::)
Who wants to bet his first post will be to tell us all off for going off topic and to 'remind' us what this thread is 'really' about?

I've got a bet on with Jason that Heiwa will claim that there was "something wrong with the forum" for the past week because he doesn't understand that he was banned any more than he understood that he isn't the moderator.
That would not surprise me in the slightest. :P
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 14, 2013, 09:41:35 PM
Sorry guys, he posted hours ago but I was at work and couldn't moderate them. It seems Raven was more or less correct that his first (or one of his first) posts warned people to stay on topic. Which is partly why he's banned for another 7 days (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=109.msg9815#msg9815).
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on January 14, 2013, 10:15:56 PM
The way Apollo 11 was headed as it passed the Moon, the lunar gravity would have pulled it right round and sent it off on a heading back to Earth. This was the free return trajectory designed into the early missions as a safety factor. If the astronauts did nothing at this point they would still come home safely.

Hm, according NASA the Apollo 11 fired its rocket engine to get into permanent Moon orbit at 1500 m/s and at suitable altitude. I assume you agree that purpose of firing the rocket engine was to slow down? Pls advise.
The LOI burn was designed to reduce the spacecraft's speed relative to the Moon.

Quote
It seems ~10 tons of fuel was used for this maneuver. Do you agree? Pls advise.
Yes, about that, according to the Apollo Flight Journal: http://history.nasa.gov/ap11fj/11day4-loi1.htm

Quote
According you, had Apollo 11 not fired its rocket, it would still go into Moon orbit and, after half an orbit, Apollo 11 would escape Moon orbit again and return to Earth - free return trajectory. Are you certain? Pls advise.
It wouldn't enter and leave orbit. It would swing around the Moon, its trajectory bent by the Moon's gravity.

Right, so you also don't understand orbital mechanics. Read this page: http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm

Do you not think that a spacecraft's path past a planet might differ depending on how fast it's going?

Quote
Has any meteor arriving close to Earth ever got into Earth orbit and then ... WHOOPS - escaped again out of orbit - a free return? Small meteors burn up, big meteors crash. Pls explain about free meteor return!
Right, you've completely missed the point. Meteors passing close to the Earth very quickly don't enter orbit and then leave. They just whip by, their paths bent by the Earth's gravity. The amount of bending depends on how fast the meteor is going and how close it passes to the Earth. Exactly the same with Apollo 11 (and 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17) and the Moon.

Quote
In my opinion you could never escape from Moon gravity/orbit unless you applied a new force to your space ship, e.g. by using your rocket engine.
That's correct - if you actually enter orbit in the first place. In the case of Apollo, that was the Trans-Earth Injection burn. But if you don't slow down in the first place, you don't enter lunar orbit.

Quote
Moon gravity may change your course, pull you into orbit or pull you so you crash. Probability for a 180° course change is 0.
Can you show us your calculations for that.

Quote
In order to win my Challenge - see post #1 - I feel you have to understand these basic questions.
In order to win your Challenge we need to know the money exists. Please provide proof.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 14, 2013, 10:29:11 PM
I would suggest that the first, most important question for him to answer is "What proof do you have that the money exists?"  Until that, there is no million-euro challenge.  There's just a series of misunderstandings about physics and engineering; in short, nothing new or interesting.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on January 14, 2013, 10:43:27 PM
... the LES is needed only on the pad and during atmospheric flight when aerodynamic forces are extreme. Things can go to hell in a handbasket very, very quickly. So quickly that there may be no time for the commander to turn the celebrated abort handle. There's an automatic abort system called the Emergency Detection System (EDS).

Once they're out of the atmosphere, things become relatively laid back. Acceleration is much lower, and there's time to initiate an abort manually, if necessary, and it can be conducted with the existing propulsion systems in the CSM.
Well, before you can even use the SM rocket engine you have to do the famous 180° flip and connect the CM to the LM.
Why? Do you know what the word 'abort' means? Just to confirm, it means 'end the mission early', because something has gone wrong. In the case of an abort during launch there's no need for the CM to dock with the LM.

Quote
But first you have to get away the LES on top of the CM.
Dear Lord, you have no clue, do you.

1. The first stage of the Saturn V generated high levels of acceleration. In addition the rocket still had most of its fuel, making any explosion larger. Therefore in the case of an abort it was necessary to get the CM far away quickly. Hence the LES.

2. The second and third stages of the Saturn V produced much lower levels of acceleration, and the rocket had by then used a lot of its fuel, making any explosion smaller. The SPS engine provided enough thrust to get the CM away if an abort was needed. Why get rid of the LES? Simply because if the SPS engine could do the job, the LES was unnecessary additional weight.

How about reading the Apollo Flight Journal page for the launch of Apollo 11. It explains the different abort modes during launch: http://history.nasa.gov/ap11fj/01launch.htm

Quote
How are you getting along with topic? My €1M Challenge! See link #1.
How are you getting along with the proof of the existence of your one million euros?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on January 14, 2013, 10:51:13 PM
I note from Heiwa's website that he was born in 1946. I wonder what his thoughts were at the time the Apollo missions were happening.
Yes, it is correct that I was born 1946 and thus 23 years old when the Apollo 11 hoax took place. I had just graduated from Chalmers University of Technology with an M.Sc degree in naval architecture and marine engineering. Great stuff.
I'm sure it was great stuff. I know virtually nothing about naval architecture or marine engineering, so I'll happily bow to your knowledge in that field.

Quote
To me it was obvious then that the Apollo 11 space ship was 100% unspaceworthy.
Why? On the basis of your naval architecture and marine engineering? Did your course include any units involving Kepler's or Newton's maths regarding orbits?

Quote
And now 43 years later I have put a web page together about it. Better late than never.
How old are you?
I'm 45. So I was two at the time of Apollo 11. I remember nothing of Apollo or Skylab. The first space mission I have a vague memory of was Apollo-Soyuz.

I have a Graduate Diploma in Professional Writing. That course included nothing about orbital mechanics. But I learned a lot on the course about narrative. As far as I'm concerned the Apollo narrative is coherent and sensible. I've never read an Apollo Hoax narrative which was coherent or sensible.

I've learned a lot from the internet about how orbits and spacecraft work. I have no reason to doubt anything I've read.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on January 14, 2013, 11:05:00 PM
So the ISS is a fake as well?  ::) ::)

How the hell does he explain that bright thing that shoots across the sky then? And the thousands of amateur astronomers (myself included) that have seen it through our own telescopes? Or people like Thierry Legault (http://legault.perso.sfr.fr/satellites.html) who is an expert at imaging the ISS?
http://legault.perso.sfr.fr/iss_100424.html

Truly, some people are dumber than rocks.

Yes, the ISS is fake. NASA informs me regularly when the ISS passes above my roof terrace at dusk 5-7 pm (sun below west horizon) in 3-4 minutes and, I agree, something, a light dot, is passing at the given times. I have seen it many times. But the 100 m across ISS is a 400 000 m altitude and cannot be seen by naked eye. I have tried with binocular w/o success. Telescope? Doubt it. Object moves too quickly.
Here's a link to a page with orbital data for the ISS. Use it to point a telescope. If you can't do that, then talk to your local astronomical society. I'm sure they'll be happy to help: http://www.heavens-above.com/orbit.aspx?satid=25544&lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=UCT

Quote
Photos of it being the ISS published are fake. We have wondered what it can be. Some unmanned superdrone at 50 000 m altitude?
Why? Why would every nation and company which has retrieved spacecraft from space be in on this conspiracy of silence? Why wouldn't the Americans and Soviets have said back in the 1950s that it was impossible to retrieve objects from space? Why the need to maintain the conspiracy all these years?

Quote
The ISS is fake because you cannot get down from it alive.
Despite the number of times people have explained to you that the heat of re-entry is not dumped into the spacecraft?

Out of interest, do you believe that sounding rockets are real? That is, rockets which head up into space at less than orbital speed, then return to Earth. Is Bert Rutan's SpaceShip One real? Was the V-2 real?

Quote
Try to win my Challenge - see post #1.
Try to prove to us you have a million euros to give away.

Quote
I agree some people are pretty dumb. I have worked in the heavy industry for 45 years and for that you have to be clever. What about you?
And perhaps you are quite clever in marine matters. But you certainly aren't showing that with space matters.

Quote
Maybe I saw this thing being tested in  the sky - http://news.cnet.com/8301-10797_3-57563829-235/space-station-to-test-$17-million-inflatable-room/
Why that and not the ISS?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on January 15, 2013, 12:11:40 AM
So the ISS is a fake as well?  ::) ::)

How the hell does he explain that bright thing that shoots across the sky then? And the thousands of amateur astronomers (myself included) that have seen it through our own telescopes? Or people like Thierry Legault (http://legault.perso.sfr.fr/satellites.html) who is an expert at imaging the ISS?
http://legault.perso.sfr.fr/iss_100424.html

Truly, some people are dumber than rocks.

Yes, the ISS is fake. NASA informs me regularly when the ISS passes above my roof terrace at dusk 5-7 pm (sun below west horizon) in 3-4 minutes and, I agree, something, a light dot, is passing at the given times. I have seen it many times. But the 100 m across ISS is a 400 000 m altitude and cannot be seen by naked eye. I have tried with binocular w/o success. Telescope? Doubt it. Object moves too quickly. Photos of it being the ISS published are fake. We have wondered what it can be. Some unmanned superdrone at 50 000 m altitude?
The ISS is fake because you cannot get down from it alive. Try to win my Challenge - see post #1.

I agree some people are pretty dumb. I have worked in the heavy industry for 45 years and for that you have to be clever. What about you?

Maybe I saw this thing being tested in  the sky - http://news.cnet.com/8301-10797_3-57563829-235/space-station-to-test-$17-million-inflatable-room/

So you think a balloon at 50,000 meters can look the same as a satellite at 400,000 meters?

I'm pretty sure high school geometry is required before they let you into engineering school, much less graduate it.

That'd be some balloon, too.  Or weren't you aware of the speed of a visual pass?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 15, 2013, 12:13:41 AM
Hm, according NASA the Apollo 11 fired its rocket engine to get into permanent Moon orbit at 1500 m/s and at suitable altitude.

You have been informed that the 1500 m/s number in incorrect.  Please acknowledge this and stop repeating incorrect numbers.

Quote
I assume you agree that purpose of firing the rocket engine was to slow down? Pls advise.

Yes, the purpose of the “lunar orbit insertion” burn was to decrease the spacecraft’s velocity.

Quote
It seems ~10 tons of fuel was used for this maneuver. Do you agree? Pls advise.

The mass of propellant used is well documented and was confirmed by calculations in post #843.  Please acknowledge this.

Quote
According you, had Apollo 11 not fired its rocket, it would still go into Moon orbit

Incorrect.  No one here has said any such thing.

Quote
and, after half an orbit, Apollo 11 would escape Moon orbit again and return to Earth - free return trajectory.

Incorrect.  On a free return trajectory the spacecraft never enters lunar orbit.  In respect to the Moon the spacecraft is on a hyperbolic trajectory.

Quote
In my opinion you could never escape from Moon gravity/orbit unless you applied a new force to your space ship, e.g. by using your rocket engine.

You can escape the Moon’s gravity is you never slow down to less than escape velocity.  This is what happens in a free return hyperbolic trajectory.  Without the LOI burn the spacecraft’s velocity remains above the Moon’s escape velocity.  The spacecraft simply flies past the Moon and then escapes.

Quote
Moon gravity may change your course, pull you into orbit or pull you so you crash. Probability for a 180° course change is 0.

The spacecraft is traveling faster than lunar escape velocity, but not Earth escape velocity, that is, it is in Earth orbit.  The Moon simply provides a perturbing force that deflects the spacecraft’s trajectory.  After the spacecraft swings by the Moon, Earth gravity again becomes the dominant force and the spacecraft is once again moving in a geocentric elliptical orbit.  The Moon deflects the trajectory enough that the geocentric flight path angle is changed from positive to negative, so the spacecraft is on an inbound trajectory after its lunar encounter.

Earlier I posted the following graphic of a free retrun trajectory (click on image to enlarge):

(http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/pics/freereturn.gif) (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/pics/freereturn.gif)

Note that the above is the trajectory as viewed from a stationary Earth perspective.  If we view it from a stationary Moon perspective we can see that the trajectory is NOT deflected 180 degrees by the Moon.  Below is a lunar-centric view of a free return trajectory (click on image to enlarge).  The blue disk at the top is Earth’s position a TEI and the blue disk at the bottom is Earth’s position at entry interface.  The Moon is the gray disk at the origin of the axes.  The trajectory in the vicinity of the Moon is hyperbolic.

(http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/pics/mooncentric.gif) (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/pics/mooncentric.gif)

Quote
In order to win my Challenge - see post #1 - I feel you have to understand these basic questions.

I understand them just find.  You don’t.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 15, 2013, 12:21:18 AM
But the 100 m across ISS is a 400 000 m altitude and cannot be seen by naked eye.

Nonsense.  Satellites much smaller than the ISS are easily seen any clear dark evening.  I've seen a hundred on them.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on January 15, 2013, 12:34:59 AM
Quote
...Moon gravity may change your course, pull you into orbit or pull you so you crash. Probability for a 180° course change is 0.

The spacecraft is traveling faster than lunar escape velocity, but not Earth escape velocity, that is, it is in Earth orbit.  The Moon simply provides a perturbing force that deflects the spacecraft’s trajectory.  After the spacecraft swings by the Moon, Earth gravity again becomes the dominant force and the spacecraft is once again moving in a geocentric elliptical orbit.  The Moon deflects the trajectory enough that the geocentric flight path angle is changed from positive to negative, so the spacecraft is on an inbound trajectory after its lunar encounter.

Earlier I posted the following graphic of a free retrun trajectory (click on image to enlarge):

(http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/pics/freereturn.gif) (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/pics/freereturn.gif)

Note that the above is the trajectory as viewed from a stationary Earth perspective...
Bob

Would it be possible to extend the graphic at the bottom, please. I'm interested to see where the Moon is at TLI, to see the difference between where the Moon is and the direction the spacecraft is headed. Like a cricket fielder or baseball outfielder running across the field to catch a ball travelling at 90 degrees to their path, the spacecraft heads to where the Moon will be, not where it is.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on January 15, 2013, 01:19:12 AM
But the 100 m across ISS is a 400 000 m altitude and cannot be seen by naked eye.

Nonsense.  Satellites much smaller than the ISS are easily seen any clear dark evening.  I've seen a hundred on them.

I've also seen a few things in the sky that were a mite bit further out than that.  As in, hundreds of light years.

But to give Anders some slack, I think he's talking about resolving an image.  Strangely, though, this would-be engineer doesn't bother to attempt to calculate the angular size of the ISS on a best-case visible pass...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 15, 2013, 01:19:51 AM
Bob

Would it be possible to extend the graphic at the bottom, please. I'm interested to see where the Moon is at TLI, to see the difference between where the Moon is and the direction the spacecraft is headed. Like a cricket fielder or baseball outfielder running across the field to catch a ball travelling at 90 degrees to their path, the spacecraft heads to where the Moon will be, not where it is.

Redoing the animation is more work than I want to do, but I can probably produce still image showing the Moon at TLI.  I don't know when I'll get to it though.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 15, 2013, 01:32:01 AM
But to give Anders some slack, I think he's talking about resolving an image.

OK, I think you're probably right.

Strangely, though, this would-be engineer doesn't bother to attempt to calculate the angular size of the ISS on a best-case visible pass...

Assuming the 100 m dimension is correct, then, when straight overhead, the ISS would be the same apparent size as Jupiter at opposition.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 15, 2013, 02:41:58 AM
Heiwa, did you ever consider that it's a wee bit nutty to think that all manned spaceflight over the past 50 years is an ongoing fraud? Did you also consider the possibility that your issues with the concept is down to your understanding?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on January 15, 2013, 02:57:35 AM
Indeed. What is the motivation? If it's impossible, it's impossible, why pretend otherwise? Seems a major waste of time and effort to pretend 'Yeah, we can do that' for something most people, sadly but honestly, don't care much about.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 15, 2013, 04:45:54 AM
Telescope? Doubt it. Object moves too quickly. Photos of it being the ISS published are fake.
Did you even notice the mention of Thierry Legault's videos of the ISS as cited in the text you quoted? If so, did you bother to look at them, or to understand how he did it?

Did it occur to you to use standard optics formulas to see if his images are consistent with the ISS's size and distance and the resolving power of his telescope?

Oh, and have you ever heard of a newfangled device called a "computer" that can calculate so quickly that it can even keep a telescope pointed at an orbiting object like the ISS?

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 15, 2013, 04:56:55 AM
Maritime engineering, maybe. Orbital mechanics, not so much. I'm sure that trying to comprehend Voyager 2's "Grand Tour" would give him a migraine.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 15, 2013, 05:00:57 AM
Has any meteor arriving close to Earth ever got into Earth orbit and then ... WHOOPS - escaped again out of orbit - a free return?
First of all, a "meteor" is the fiery object in the act of plunging through the earth's atmosphere. Before it hits the atmosphere it's called a "meteoroid", and if it survives to hit the ground it becomes a "meteorite".

That said, the answer to your question is 'no'. However, objects from deep space regularly fly past the earth and return to deep space. One such object, 2012 DA14, will pass next month within 34,000 km of the center of the earth, closer than the satellites in geostationary orbit. But it will never enter earth orbit because it has far too much velocity; it will follow an open hyperbolic path. This is exactly what Apollo 13 did at the moon when it flew around it on April 15, 1970.

Other objects have approached the earth so closely as to actually graze the atmosphere and create a temporary fireball without losing enough energy to burn up entirely or be captured in orbit. An example is the "Great Daylight 1972 Fireball", which passed within 57 km of the earth's surface only to return to space. It was witnessed by many people in the USA and Canada.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 15, 2013, 05:12:35 AM
I'm sure that trying to comprehend Voyager 2's "Grand Tour" would give him a migraine.
I'm sure that trying to comprehend anything would give him a migraine. But that seems too unlikely a prospect to worry about.

But yeah, just imagine if he were to actually hear of the "gravity assist maneuver" and that it's been used routinely by dozens of spacecraft since Pioneer and Voyager proved the concept in the 1970s by converting closed elliptical solar orbits into open hyperbolic solar system escape trajectories with hardly any propellant use at all!

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on January 15, 2013, 05:40:52 AM
From what I can gather, according to Anders* things either orbit or they move in perfect straight lines, with no possible manoeuvres in between. ::)
*wonder if that's really his last name as it was also the last name of an Apollo 8 astronaut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Anders). Not an impossible conincidence by any stretch but still a fairly large one.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 15, 2013, 05:47:05 AM
But the 100 m across ISS is a 400 000 m altitude and cannot be seen by naked eye. I have tried with binocular w/o success.

Yes it can be seen with the naked eye.
Please show your calculations that you have used to be able to declare this. Angles subtended? Resolution of the human eye? Please also show how you have accounted for the reflective nature of some of the surfaces (you might want to look up Iridium flares too).


Telescope? Doubt it. Object moves too quickly. Photos of it being the ISS published are fake.

That, my friend, is bovine chewed grass. I presume that you know absolutely nothing about telescopes and telescope mounts? There are a number of ways of tracking Earth satellites, available to even amateurs of modest means such as myself. Free planetarium software (example Stellarium and Cartes du Ciel) all have satellite orbit data available to them, and they can interface with telescope mounts via the ASCOM standard (last night I was using this free-to-all software to find and track the Horsehead nebula to allow me to take 600-second long exposures of the same. With sub-pixel accuracy). There are also a number of free guiding programs available (for example, Craid Starkey's PHD software which is used to lock onto and follow guide stars).
Similar programs are available to allow 'scopes to lock onto and to guide a fast moving object. Here is an example of similar software being used to track aircraft:

Here's alink to the software's creators webpage:
http://www.optictracker.com/Home.html

I presume that your next wild and speculative claim is that amateur telescopes and airplanes don't exist?

I have also seen someone imaging the ISS without the benefit of a tracking telescope. He used a Dobsonian mounted Newtonian and tracked the ISS using the finder telescope. It took a fair bit of practice over a good few nights, but he managed it.

Here is a friend of mine explaining in detail how he has created his ISS images:


I suppose you are going to tell me that Dion (the guy in the video) is also a fake??? If you care to follow his detailed video then you too could try this for yourself (I bet YOU €1M that you will not try this). Or are you trying to tell me that he is lying? Your assumption that it can't be done is pretty amazing as it means that you are saying that my experience is incorrect. That is a pretty staggering claim to make.....

The ISS is fake because you cannot get down from it alive. Try to win my Challenge - see post #1.

I am now firmly of the opinion that you have suffered some sort of mental or emotional trauma that renders you incapable of assimilating the learning that others have shown you. It has been explained to you, in somewhat tedious detail, how ablative heatshields work.  I even gave you links to the original publishers of the papers on blunt-bodies and heating effects in this post:

Heating as part of hypersonic re-entry was being studied back in the 1950s as part of the research into ICBM re-entry. Harry Julian Allen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Julian_Allen) in 1951, in research at Ames Research Centre, did the calculations and came up with the concept of using a "blunt-body" shape to creat a compressive "bow-wave" to create a boundary layer between the hot compressed gas of the atmosphere and the structure of the ICBM.  Allen and Eggers classified report into blunt-bodies and hypersonic heating effects was published in 1953.

Did you even see this? Can you acknowledge that you have been presented (over and over) with information on ablative heatshields and the process of compressive heating? Why then do you insist on repeating the same old balderdash over and over again?

I agree some people are pretty dumb. I have worked in the heavy industry for 45 years and for that you have to be clever. What about you?
You have been asked multiple time to show some credentials or testimonies to back these claims up. As yet, you have not. Personally, I take these claims with as much seriousness as I take your other outlandish claims.

Try to win my Challenge - see post #1.
Again, you have been asked many times to show that you have the money available and the criteria for measuring and claiming. As yet (what a shock) you have provided none of this. As such, your "Challenge" appears as groundless as all your other claims.

Maybe I saw this thing being tested in  the sky - http://news.cnet.com/8301-10797_3-57563829-235/space-station-to-test-$17-million-inflatable-room/

Maybe you did. But I thought it was your contention that the ISS was a fake?
"Oh! what a tangled web we weave; When first we practice to deceive!"
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 15, 2013, 07:02:15 AM
So, Anders Björkman has €1m available for anyone to prove his challenge. As yet he has spectacularly failed to provide any evidence (credible or otherwise) of the money, of the existence of his company Heiwa Co, or provide any testimonials of any of his customers.

Please don't post personal information (like home addresses) about another person in the forum. I know it's on Heiwa's website, but it's not the kind of thing that should be shared here. - LunarOrbit

Searching on the French White Pages does list an Anders Björkman at that address.

Searching on the French registered companies Registrar finds no registered company called Heiwa. Nor does it list any Anders Björkman as an executive office of ANY French registered limited company. Of course, there are exceptions to the results listed (such as an individual "trading as". But would such parties have access to €1M and be able to throw it away on a whim?).
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 15, 2013, 07:09:13 AM
What whim? By definition, he's always right.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 15, 2013, 08:03:22 AM
Right, I see Heiwa has been banned again for another seven days for yet again spectacularly failing to grasp the very simple conditions he was asked to follow, but since he directly replied to me i feel obliged to respond, despite these points already having been covered.

Quote
I assume you agree that purpose of firing the rocket engine was to slow down? Pls advise.

Yes, that is the purpose of the LOI burn.

Quote
It seems ~10 tons of fuel was used for this maneuver. Do you agree? Pls advise.

I agree with the figures from NASA, yes.

Quote
According you, had Apollo 11 not fired its rocket, it would still go into Moon orbit and, after half an orbit, Apollo 11 would escape Moon orbit again and return to Earth - free return trajectory. Are you certain? Pls advise.

No, that is not what I said at all. A free return is a single pass behind the Moon, curving round it and heading back towards Earth. There is no entering orbit. It is simply a deflection of the vehicle by the Moon’s gravity. The spacecraft is moving too fast to get captured by the Moon’s gravity but that doesn’t make it immune to its effects. Without slowing down they get swung around the moon. By slowing down they can be captured into orbit. Physics.

Quote
Has any meteor arriving close to Earth ever got into Earth orbit and then ... WHOOPS - escaped again out of orbit - a free return?

No, because that is NOT what a free return path actually is. You have had this explained to you over and over again but you just can’t get it, can you?

Quote
Small meteors burn up, big meteors crash. Pls explain about free meteor return!

The ones that burn up and crash entered the atmosphere. We’re talking about things that pass by. Have you never grasped what comets do when they swing round past the Sun? 

Quote
In my opinion

We don’t care about your opinion, since it is not actually based on any understanding whatsoever.

Quote
you could never escape from Moon gravity/orbit unless you applied a new force to your space ship, e.g. by using your rocket engine.

It already has enough momentum to escape the Moon’s gravity. That’s why they had to use the rocket engine to slow down to enter orbit in the first place. How hard is this to grasp?

Quote
Moon gravity may change your course, pull you into orbit or pull you so you crash. Probability for a 180° course change is 0.

Please show the proof of that assertion, and the proof that a 180 degree change in course is anything to do with a free-return trajectory. Remember everything is in motion, so going ‘back’ to Earth does not mean turning round and going back to the same point you left from.

Quote
In order to win my Challenge - see post #1 - I feel you have to understand these basic questions.

Your challenge is irrelevant. You don’t have the money, and you are not willing to surrender it even if you did have it. Prove me wrong on the first point and we might start taking your challenge seriously. I don’t believe you even have a successful consultancy business. Your website is not a professionally designed and operated website, and you can offer no testimonials from satisfied customers.

Quote
Well, before you can even use the SM rocket engine you have to do the famous 180° flip and connect the CM to the LM.

A very straightforward manoeuvre using the RCS system of the CSM, but then you didn’t even know that system existed before you declared the whole thing bunk, did you?

Quote
But first you have to get away the LES on top of the CM.

Since the LES has a rocket on it, disposing of it isn’t hard...

Quote
Yes, it is correct that I was born 1946 and thus 23 years old when the Apollo 11 hoax took place. I had just graduated from Chalmers University of Technology with an M.Sc degree in naval architecture and marine engineering. Great stuff. To me it was obvious then that the Apollo 11 space ship was 100% unspaceworthy.

Please do feel free to explain how a degree in marine engineering qualifies you to judge the spaceworthiness of the Apollo spacecraft? Please also explain how for four decades you managed to miss all the information we have been providing you with, despite it being widely available for some time.

Quote
Yes, the ISS is fake. NASA informs me regularly when the ISS passes above my roof terrace at dusk 5-7 pm (sun below west horizon) in 3-4 minutes and, I agree, something, a light dot, is passing at the given times. I have seen it many times. But the 100 m across ISS is a 400 000 m altitude and cannot be seen by naked eye.

Really? Let’s do some trigonometry, shall we?

The angle subtended by a 100 m object at 400,000 m distance is the inverse sine of 100/400,000 (or the inverse tangent: when the difference between the opposite side of the triangle and the other two sides is on the order of 4000 times, there is no significant difference between the lengths of the other two sides). That works out to be about 52 arcseconds.

The resolving power of the human eye is about 60 acrseconds, so it would appear to be below the ability of the naked eye to detect. Except of course that it’s a pretty damn bright object. Jupiter ranges in angular size from about 20 to 50 arcseconds in diameter. Not only can I see that with my naked eye, it is one of the brightest things in the sky. No star in the sky resolves to more than a fraction of an arcsecond, yet I don’t need any optical aids to see stars in the sky. Do you?

Quote
Photos of it being the ISS published are fake.

Prove it. And keep in mind that proof has to satisfy those of us who know people who have actually done what you claim to be impossible.

Quote
The ISS is fake because you cannot get down from it alive.

You really do work at being obtuse and unteachable, don’t you? The way heat shields work has been explained over and over again. You’ve been shown the material, you’ve been shown the papers describing the research that went into developing heat shields, and you must surely have seen some of the amazing insulating materials where people can put a blowtorch on one side and their hand on the other without ill effect. Which bit of your brain has a loose connection that doesn’t allow you to see how that stuff works or even exists?

Quote
I have worked in the heavy industry for 45 years and for that you have to be clever.

Depends where in the industry you worked, really. Bill Kaysing worked in the aerospace industry but that didn’t make him an expert on rocketry.  I still have significant doubts about your professional claims here, since you are unwilling (and I assume unable) to substantiate any of them. The EMSA has never heard of you, which is odd for someone who claims to have several decades’ experience as a European maritime safety consultant. Your ‘company’ address on your website appears to be your own home, which is not in and of itself suspect, but there seems to be no record of your company actually existing at all, and you can’t point to anyone who is a past customer of yours. Furthermore your ‘company website’ is frankly nothing of the kind. It;’s just page after page of conspiracy theory claptrap, with NOTHING about the service you actually offer or any list of past achievements or testimonials. You don’t stand out as a professional safety consultant at all. If you want to earn money, your website is a very strange way of going about it.

You are, in short, a fraud, and I suspect you are trolling. You desperately want to get your ‘banned at Apollohoax’ badge of honour so you can crow about it on other fora. It’s just a shame that your posts here make it so clear what you are trying to do. I wonder how anyone would react if they saw your behaviour here while they were looking for a maritime safety consultant....
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on January 15, 2013, 08:48:03 AM
Small meteors burn up, big meteors crash.

Interesting that Heiwa accepts that large meteors can get through the atmosphere, since if you consistently apply his reasoning, this is just as impossible...doubling the mass of the meteor doubles the kinetic energy, so there's always enough energy involved to destroy the meteor, no matter how big.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 15, 2013, 09:06:37 AM
Interesting that Heiwa accepts that large meteors can get through the atmosphere, since if you consistently apply his reasoning, this is just as impossible...doubling the mass of the meteor doubles the kinetic energy, so there's always enough energy involved to destroy the meteor, no matter how big.

The two important words are in bold.
He isn't consistent and he doesn't have much reasoning.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on January 15, 2013, 11:31:37 AM
Moon gravity may change your course, pull you into orbit or pull you so you crash.
You are contradicting yourself.  Earlier, you said
Every change in speed or direction during Moon travel requires energy...
So you contradicted your initial statement.  But it gets better.

You had also said
... it is evidently possible to shoot up satellites of all kind from Earth in all directions, e.g. orbiting Earth.
Problem is to get them into orbit around the Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn because the gravity of the Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn may pull them down at arrival, so they crash before they start orbiting, or they miss the Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn all together. You can try to use the Sun gravity to maneuvre but it is difficult...
Of course, in between "crash" and "miss all together" is "orbit" - in fact, an infinite variety of orbits.  This is a necessary result of your claim, because a complete "miss" means the vehicle has greater than escape speed for the target body and passes by it, never to return - and a "crash" means that the vehicle has less than escape speed, and is therefore gravitationally bound to it.   Since you accept that satellites can orbit the Earth, you implicitly admit the existence of such a set of solutions - you can't avoid it.

According to your own words, it must be possible for a spacecraft to enter orbit around another celestial body.

Congratulations!  First you contradicted your own claim, and then you debunked yourself rather neatly.

Edited to add: This is what happens when you don't know what you are talking about, and simply make up stuff.


Added missing "you"s
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on January 15, 2013, 12:29:06 PM
Yes, the ISS is fake. NASA informs me regularly when the ISS passes above my roof terrace at dusk 5-7 pm (sun below west horizon) in 3-4 minutes and, I agree, something, a light dot, is passing at the given times. I have seen it many times. But the 100 m across ISS is a 400 000 m altitude and cannot be seen by naked eye. I have tried with binocular w/o success. Telescope? Doubt it. Object moves too quickly.

Spectacularly wrong.  A little research - nay, a moment's Googling - would have shown you how silly this claim is.

I own a very cheap (less than US$200) telescope, which has computerized mount which can slew at 4 deg/sec.  A trivial bit of trignometry shows that the ISS moves across the sky at about 1.3 degrees/second.  So of course it doesn't move "too quickly" for amateur telescopes.

And, of course, you can buy telescopes that will track satellites right out of the box. (http://meade.com/lx90)

Don't you ever get embarrassed by making such silly, manifestly wrong claims?

Photos of it being the ISS published are fake.

Simple denial is not an argument.  You can stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and shout "la la la" all you want, but the fact is that people have imaged the ISS and Shuttle in orbit, and described how they did it in detail.  So your assertion that ISS photos are faked is rejected. 

We have wondered what it can be. Some unmanned superdrone at 50 000 m altitude?

First, the record for sustained flight by a winged aircraft is about 30,000 m.  So you're way off - again.

Second, let's take a look at what the observed rate of angular motion of the ISS would mean for a vehicle moving at 50000 m. 

1.3 degrees/sec = .023 radians/sec.  The linear motion is then that angular rate * the distance from the observer, or .023 s-1 * 50,000 m = 1150 m/s or 4140 km/h - much faster than an SR-71, the speed record-holder for any airbreathing aircraft.

Do you ever think before you post?  At all?

The ISS is fake because you cannot get down from it alive.

Your inability to understand aerobraking and ablative shielding, even when they are explained to you, is nobody's problem but your own.  Reflexive disbelief is not an argument.  Your claim that "you cannot get down from it alive" is rejected.

Try to win my Challenge - see post #1.

Your "challenge" is fraudulent.   You do not have a million Euros to offer. 

I agree some people are pretty dumb. I have worked in the heavy industry for 45 years and for that you have to be clever.

I don't know if you are dumb, but in regards to anything connected with space flight, or simple things like energy balances, or even just doing some simple research, you are manifestly incompetent.  Many examples have already been cited.  I also do not accept that longevity implies cleverness; lots of people have long, mediocre careers.  But I don't care about your maritime history; you're talking about aerospace, and you don't know what you're talking about.

What about you?

I actually work in the field in which you are blundering about making silly mistakes, and have been for over twenty years, and will be for a long time to come.  I actually work on the things you claim are impossible, or of the existence of which you are entirely ignorant. 

Imagine if I told you that a ship's boilers were for the purpose of lifting the ship above the water on a carpet of steam and pushing it along by jets of steam, and that I had no idea of the existence of things like propellers or rudders.  You would rightly recognize that I had no idea what I was talking about.  Your claims about aerospace are at least that ridiculous.

Maybe I saw this thing being tested in  the sky - http://news.cnet.com/8301-10797_3-57563829-235/space-station-to-test-$17-million-inflatable-room/

The referenced item is to be attached to the ISS in orbit.  You just cited a reference which contradicts you.  Congratulations.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 15, 2013, 01:18:03 PM
Seriously, why don't people ever get the difference between "stupid" and "ignorant"?  I like to think that we can all agree that I am not stupid, but I am profoundly ignorant of orbital mechanics--not to mention quite a lot of other things.  There is no shame in ignorance, only willful ignorance.  Stupidity can't be helped.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on January 15, 2013, 01:20:03 PM
Finally, Heiwa, your recent posts (before getting yourself suspended again for inability to follow forum rules) were largely non-responsive to the long but not complete lists of errors I already posted. (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg9724#msg9724)

When you come back from your latest suspension, please address these other problems with your claims.  I am particularly, but by no means solely, interested in your egregiously wrong claim that Apollo ablative materials were "SECRET!"

----

Also, here is a little exercise for you to address your completely broken idea of energy balances (item #2b in my list referenced above).  You like ships, so:

A vessel with a mass (excluding cargo) of 10,000 kg is carrying 1000 kg of cargo on the deck and moving at 10 m/s - nice round numbers.  At time t the precariously-balanced and unsecured cargo tips overboard; nothing else changes.

The kinetic energy of the ship+cargo just before is 1/2 * 11000 kg * (10m/s)2 = 550,000 J.

The instant after, the kinetic energy of the ship is 500,000 J.

According to your approach, the cargo is "gone" and is no longer included in the accounting; thus according to you the ship must have expended fifty thousand joules of energy in that instant.   How did it do that, exactly? 

This is just a recapitulation of the simplest possible exercise (non-propulsive propellant dump) (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8747#msg8747) already presented to you by Jason Thompson, which you failed to grasp.  It shows that your method gives nonsense answers, because it is simply wrong.  Maybe by putting the example in salt water, you might finally get it; let's see if you're capable of doing so.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 15, 2013, 01:27:05 PM

Please don't post personal information (like home addresses) about another person in the forum. I know it's on Heiwa's website, but it's not the kind of thing that should be shared here. - LunarOrbit


Please accept my apologies. I did think before posting it and decided to go ahead. I had assumed that the fact that Heiwa had posted the information on his own web-page that it was an acceptable risk as it was clearly in the public domain.
I clearly got that bit wrong, and I apologise to Lunar Orbit and to Heiwa.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 15, 2013, 02:51:10 PM
Note that the above is the trajectory as viewed from a stationary Earth perspective.  If we view it from a stationary Moon perspective we can see that the trajectory is NOT deflected 180 degrees by the Moon.  Below is a lunar-centric view of a free return trajectory (click on image to enlarge).  The blue disk at the top is Earth’s position a TEI and the blue disk at the bottom is Earth’s position at entry interface.  The Moon is the gray disk at the origin of the axes.  The trajectory in the vicinity of the Moon is hyperbolic.

Thank you for this diagram - I had always wondered about that apparent 180o turn. My math is weak but I didn't see how that was a possible para- or hyperbolic trajectory.

Heiwa, please take note: If there's something about Apollo you don't think is possible, assume the fault is with your understanding until proven otherwise.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 15, 2013, 03:34:37 PM
So of course it doesn't move "too quickly" for amateur telescopes.

Sheesh I have a catalogue here in my office for a tracking sextant from Photosonics that will slew an 800-lb. telescope at 60 degrees per second.  That's enough to cause serious injury to you if you're in its way.

Quote
I actually work in the field in which you are blundering about making silly mistakes, and have been for over twenty years, and will be for a long time to come.  I actually work on the things you claim are impossible, or of the existence of which you are entirely ignorant.

Ditto, ditto, ditto, and ditto.

Anders seems to have so demonized the aerospace industry, and to have so far removed himself from its theory and practice, that he is incapable of seeing its practitioners as anything other than the silly caricatures he imagines.  Hence his retreat to the walled garden where he can pontificate unhindered.

Quote
Your claims about aerospace are at least that ridiculous.

Endorsed.  This is not a matter of a few esoteric principles that only a few in the high priesthood of engineering would understand, but a matter of fairly common knowledge in a vast industry that thousands of ordinary people participate in.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 15, 2013, 03:47:46 PM
Thank you for this diagram - I had always wondered about that apparent 180o turn. My math is weak but I didn't see how that was a possible para- or hyperbolic trajectory.

I had the same trouble.  I didn't doubt it was possible, but was having trouble visualizing exactly what was happening during the lunar encounter.  To help me understand, I created a three-body simulation and worked with it until I got a free-return trajectory.  It is from this simulation that I was able to produce the diagrams that I've posted in this thread.  After seeing the animation and the lunar-centric view, it became apparent what was really happening.  From the Moon's perspective, the encounter looks much different than the figure-8 trajectory generally depicted in diagrams.  If you think of the Moon as moving toward the 12:00 position on a clock, the spacecraft approaches from about the 11:00 position, swings around the 3:00 position, and then departs in the 7:00 direction.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 15, 2013, 04:04:01 PM
So of course it doesn't move "too quickly" for amateur telescopes.

Sheesh I have a catalogue here in my office for a tracking sextant from Photosonics that will slew an 800-lb. telescope at 60 degrees per second.  That's enough to cause serious injury to you if you're in its way.


Indeed.

Here's an ASA DDM85 mount chucking a 24 inch Newtonian about without breaking into a sweat.



The DDM 85 is top-end amateur stuff (€11,000), to be fair. My mount is a Skywatcher EQ6 which is far more affordable and it can achieve 3.5 °/sec, which is more than ample to track the ISS across the sky.

Heiwa: Are you now going to retract this ridiculous claim?
Telescope? Doubt it. Object moves too quickly. Photos of it being the ISS published are fake.

Don't forget that I have a €1M challenge too...
If you care to follow his detailed video then you too could try this for yourself (I bet YOU €1M that you will not try this). Or are you trying to tell me that he is lying? Your assumption that it can't be done is pretty amazing as it means that you are saying that my experience is incorrect. That is a pretty staggering claim to make.....
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 15, 2013, 04:49:43 PM
Others have picked clean Heiwa's latest offering, but there's a good point I want to make.

According you, had Apollo 11 not fired its rocket, it would still go into Moon orbit and, after half an orbit, Apollo 11 would escape Moon orbit again and return to Earth - free return trajectory. Are you certain? Pls advise.

Has any meteor arriving close to Earth ever got into Earth orbit and then ... WHOOPS - escaped again out of orbit - a free return? Small meteors burn up, big meteors crash. Pls explain about free meteor return!

In my opinion you could never escape from Moon gravity/orbit unless you applied a new force to your space ship, e.g. by using your rocket engine. Moon gravity may change your course, pull you into orbit or pull you so you crash. Probability for a 180° course change is 0.

One of the hardest parts of disputing a conspiracy theory is trying to figure out what wrong-headed idea the conspiracist is arguing and how it might possibly have gotten into his head (e.g., from popular literature, intuition, some obscure source).  You, Anders, seem to have a childishly simplistic concept of orbits as a closed, roughly circular path.  You cannot demonstrate any proper knowledge of how orbits work, and I'm sure that none of your schooling or your claimed experience as a maritime safety specialist gave you the proper expertise in orbital mechanics.  It is difficult to know where to begin to correct you when you have such a fundamentally flawed understanding of the basics and your ego keeps you from being teachable.  But that's what's wrong here.  You have an intuitively-derived concrete understanding of one kind of orbit, and are unable to think of it in any more abstract terms.

The free-return trajectory is not a spontaneous entry into some circular or elliptical lunar orbit ("go into Moon orbit").  It does not require an equally spontaneous exit from that parking orbit onto a new path ("escape Moon orbit again").  You're trying to force the idea of a generalized orbital solution into your simplistic notion of "orbit" as a closed circular/elliptical path around a body.

"Moon gravity changing your course" is exactly orbital mechanics.  You need to read a real book on the subject or otherwise learn to conceive of all celestial motion as a product of celestial mechanics, and thus of all unaccelerated spacecraft trajectories as celestial motion -- especially the cases involving more than two bodies.  If I had to guess (and I do), you seem to be thinking of spaceships as if they were little different from oceangoing vessels.  There is no useful similarity.

You must think of navigating to the Moon as a three-body problem, or at least a restricted three-body problem.  You cannot model it as a ship sailing to a destination along some straight-line course and then "entering port" (i.e., attaining a parking orbit).  Every spacecraft in space is in some kind of orbit at all times while it's flying.  There is no unaccelerated path a spacecraft can follow that cannot be described by orbital mechanics.  The translunar trajectory would be a long-period highly eccentric closed orbit around Earth but for the Moon's timely arrival near its apogee.  Similarly a free-return trajectory could be a long-period eccentric orbit around the Moon, but for the effect of the nearby Earth.  A translunar trajectory is an orbit defined principally by three masses:  the Earth, the Moon, and the spacecraft.  So is a free-return trajectory.

You wrongly conceive of "Moon orbit" as a rigidly defined domain of activity.  As such you can conceive of entry into and exit out of this domain as an accelerated maneuver.  There is no such thing as "Moon orbit" as you've tacitly defined it.  All manner of paths can exist, governed solely by momentum and gravitation, and very few of them are circular or comfortably elliptical.

Your meteor question reveals the same wrong-headed notion of an orbit.  A meteor on a close encounter with Earth does not "enter Earth orbit" and then leave it again, as if it were an imaginary fenced-off area of space around Earth, with clearly demarcated boundaries between zones of different dymamics.  Rather, it's in an orbit the whole time even when only marginally affected by Earth's gravity.  As it approaches Earth and is more affected by Earth's gravity, it's still in an orbit.  As it skirts past its perigee and sails off in a new direction, it's still in an orbit.  Not every object that has a close orbital encounter with Earth comes close enough to meet atmosphere.  Of those that do, not all either burn up or crash.  If you had any sort of meaningful grasp of astronomy, you'd realize that the study of Earth-grazing objects has a pretty vast data set associated with it, as well as some pretty compelling footage.

You can't conceive of the free-return trajectory or any other useful orbital maneuver because you have only a comical, grade-school notion of what an orbit is and how it's described.  Most people, when faced with something outside their knowledge, will investigate the possibility that their knowledge needs to be expanded.  You, on the other hand, possess an ego that will not accept the proposition that there's something out there other people know, but you don't.  Therefore anything that doesn't fit your childish preconception must "obviously" be invented or unreal.  When your simplistic notions are revealed for what they are, you retreat to claims of expertise.  They do not save you from being just plain wrong.

Quote
In order to win my Challenge - see post #1 - I feel you have to understand these basic questions.

"These basic questions" are, in this case, just a recitation of your fundamental misunderstanding of the relevant sciences.  You refuse to consider that your "basic questions" are exactly what you're getting wrong.  You've set up your non-existent prize as a tautology:  in order to be eligible for the prize, we have to stipulate that you're correct on the exact points we propose to prove you're wrong about.  You beg a million-euro question, so no one takes you seriously.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on January 15, 2013, 05:08:38 PM
Thank you for this diagram - I had always wondered about that apparent 180o turn. My math is weak but I didn't see how that was a possible para- or hyperbolic trajectory.

I had the same trouble.  I didn't doubt it was possible, but was having trouble visualizing exactly what was happening during the lunar encounter.  To help me understand, I created a three-body simulation and worked with it until I got a free-return trajectory.  It is from this simulation that I was able to produce the diagrams that I've posted in this thread.  After seeing the animation and the lunar-centric view, it became apparent what was really happening.  From the Moon's perspective, the encounter looks much different than the figure-8 trajectory generally depicted in diagrams.  If you think of the Moon as moving toward the 12:00 position on a clock, the spacecraft approaches from about the 11:00 position, swings around the 3:00 position, and then departs in the 7:00 direction.


The diagram was very helpful to me as well.  I spent some time looking at it visualizing the approach as it would be seen from a telescope from different locations.  It seems to me, that from the surface of the moon facing the earth, a free return flight would approximate the geocentric view of a figure 8.  Then I imagined a position above the moons north pole that maintained a stellar alignment.  That is the position that you use and that observer it would see the luna-centric hyperbolic flight path just as you plotted it.

Thanks. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 15, 2013, 06:45:07 PM
+1 on the animation.

I have to say that it made an appearance over the weekend.  I saved the animated GIF.  We were watching Apollo 13 and then For All Mankind, and someone noticed a marked difference between the translunar diagram in the Ron Howard movie and the one from the historical footage; the latter being apparently far more to scale.  I pulled up the diagram to illustrate the actual Earth-fixed scale arrangement.  So thanks again from me as well.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 15, 2013, 08:29:33 PM
Please accept my apologies. I did think before posting it and decided to go ahead. I had assumed that the fact that Heiwa had posted the information on his own web-page that it was an acceptable risk as it was clearly in the public domain.
I clearly got that bit wrong, and I apologise to Lunar Orbit and to Heiwa.

No problem. The fact that Heiwa publishes the information on his website means he can't really complain. But I wouldn't want some nut to stalk him (or worse), and if he doesn't even live there then it's someone else that might get hurt. Better safe than sorry.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ineluki on January 16, 2013, 07:27:34 AM
.
Do you ever think before you post?  At all?

Hey, it is hard work to be that wrong ...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 16, 2013, 03:20:35 PM
Diagrams are not the only way of seeing the route to the moon.

One of the interesting things that came up when I was looking at my satellite image comparisons was in using Stellarium to look at where the terminator line should be at the time an Apollo photograph was taken, or to use that Stellarium view of Earth from the moon to work out a time for a photograph.

The further away the Apollo missions were from the moon, the least like the Stellarium view of Earth the photographs are in terms of the shape of the lit portion of the surface, and this gradually changes over translunar coast until there is an exact match.

The explanation is, of course, simple. In the early part of the mission, they are not on the moon, they are pointing towards where the moon will eventually be when they get there, and quite obviously this gives a different view of the Earth in space. The fact that this view of Earth changes gradually to become the same as the Stellarium depiction is yet another clue to the fact that are in space following a trajectory that will put them on a lunar intercept.

You can see the same effect in reverse with pictures of Earth on the way home, and also by comparing the view of the moon from Earth with photographs of the receding moon taken during trans-earth coast. These views start by showing areas not visible from Earth (after the far side TEI burn) and with a lunar phase obviously different  to the terrestrial view. The closer they get to Earth, the more like the view from Earth the lunar photographs are.

The evidence Heiwa needs to see how the Apollo trajectories work are all in those photographs. No equations necessary, just joined up thinking.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 16, 2013, 04:25:02 PM
The evidence Heiwa needs to see how the Apollo trajectories work are all in those photographs. No equations necessary, just joined up thinking.

Oh dear.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Mag40 on January 16, 2013, 04:43:13 PM
Diagrams are not the only way of seeing the route to the moon.

One of the interesting things that came up when I was looking at my satellite image comparisons was in using Stellarium to look at where the terminator line should be at the time an Apollo photograph was taken, or to use that Stellarium view of Earth from the moon to work out a time for a photograph.

The further away the Apollo missions were from the moon, the least like the Stellarium view of Earth the photographs are in terms of the shape of the lit portion of the surface, and this gradually changes over translunar coast until there is an exact match.

The explanation is, of course, simple. In the early part of the mission, they are not on the moon, they are pointing towards where the moon will eventually be when they get there, and quite obviously this gives a different view of the Earth in space. The fact that this view of Earth changes gradually to become the same as the Stellarium depiction is yet another clue to the fact that are in space following a trajectory that will put them on a lunar intercept.

You can see the same effect in reverse with pictures of Earth on the way home, and also by comparing the view of the moon from Earth with photographs of the receding moon taken during trans-earth coast. These views start by showing areas not visible from Earth (after the far side TEI burn) and with a lunar phase obviously different  to the terrestrial view. The closer they get to Earth, the more like the view from Earth the lunar photographs are.

The evidence Heiwa needs to see how the Apollo trajectories work are all in those photographs. No equations necessary, just joined up thinking.


I personally think Heiwa already realises he is hopelessly wrong and totally out of his depth. This is the old ego thing.....a CTer will never own up to such a colossal mistake.....particularly when he has put his real name to it.

Your website is amazing....bookmarked!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on January 18, 2013, 12:38:16 PM
Björkman hasn't updated his website since the 10th, thus sadly depriving me of a reason for procrastination. :( What I didn't notice the last time I checked it is that he had replaced the strange emblem in the top-right corner with his photo.

[offtopic] Speaking of Stellarium, if you need insight in its workings, I can be of some help - I am one of the current developers, though I haven't been active recently for a number of reasons. [/offtopic]
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on January 18, 2013, 02:12:19 PM
[offtopic] Speaking of Stellarium, if you need insight in its workings, I can be of some help - I am one of the current developers, though I haven't been active recently for a number of reasons. [/offtopic]

Yeah! How the hey do you manually add orbital elements to the ssystem.ini file and make it freaking work? I've read the users manual and tons of websites and tried everything and nothing works.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on January 19, 2013, 12:04:34 PM
Until heiwa returns again, I thought I'd offer some counselling sessions for those of us here who are devestated by the fact that we didn't win the 1 million euros. I think our best method would be groups therapy whereby our fears and dissapointment are laid out and we develop coping mechanisms to help deal with our collective feelings of loss.

Who is in?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on January 19, 2013, 12:14:20 PM
He's decided to try CosmoQuest now. (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/140583-Can-someone-help-me-with-a-bit-of-rocket-science?p=2099517#post2099517) Trying to be sneaky about his intentions by not mentioning Apollo. How long do you suppose that'll last?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on January 19, 2013, 01:31:49 PM
Who is in?

I'm Echnaton, and I didn't with the million euros. 

I am devastated but that is the best I can muster right now. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 19, 2013, 01:42:16 PM
He's decided to try CosmoQuest now. (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/140583-Can-someone-help-me-with-a-bit-of-rocket-science?p=2099517#post2099517) Trying to be sneaky about his intentions by not mentioning Apollo. How long do you suppose that'll last?

How much do you want to bet his next post there will involve him telling people they're off topic? ;)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on January 19, 2013, 01:43:04 PM
I'm Dwight and I'm a recovering didn't-win-heiwa's-million-euros-holic. I've been devestated about that for a few weeks now, but thanks to watching the restored Apollo 11 video continually for 3 weeks straight I deal with my sadness one day at a time.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 19, 2013, 02:42:04 PM
Until heiwa returns again, I thought I'd offer some counselling sessions for those of us here who are devestated by the fact that we didn't win the 1 million euros. I think our best method would be groups therapy whereby our fears and dissapointment are laid out and we develop coping mechanisms to help deal with our collective feelings of loss.

Who is in?

You might have to counsel Heiwa yet....after all, he has yet to respond to MY €1M challenge to him......

If you care to follow his detailed video then you too could try this for yourself (I bet YOU €1M that you will not try this)

 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on January 19, 2013, 03:19:29 PM
I'm Dwight and I'm a recovering didn't-win-heiwa's-million-euros-holic. I've been devestated about that for a few weeks now, but thanks to watching the restored Apollo 11 video continually for 3 weeks straight I deal with my sadness one day at a time.

Hi, Dwight.  Your strength is inspiring to us all.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on January 19, 2013, 03:26:47 PM
How much do you want to bet his next post there will involve him telling people they're off topic? ;)

I predict a different but equally obvious form of deflection.
Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sus_pilot on January 19, 2013, 05:06:27 PM
He's decided to try CosmoQuest now. (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/140583-Can-someone-help-me-with-a-bit-of-rocket-science?p=2099517#post2099517) Trying to be sneaky about his intentions by not mentioning Apollo. How long do you suppose that'll last?

How much do you want to bet his next post there will involve him telling people they're off topic? ;)

Oh, I dunno. How about a million euros?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 19, 2013, 10:44:05 PM
I'm Gillian, and I'm devastated that I haven't won the imaginary million Euros.  Still, I get through one day at a time.  Maybe someday, I will not win a real million Euros instead.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 20, 2013, 12:11:16 PM
Anyone fancy a million Euros?

(This will only make sense to anyone who has seen The Fast Show, but trust me it's funny. :) )
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Donnie B. on January 20, 2013, 01:45:46 PM
How about a million fancy Euros?  Struck in gold-pressed latinum, perhaps?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on January 20, 2013, 02:01:16 PM
After ten days of inactivity, Björkman has made some changes to his page. I won't bother presenting them, though. I think I'll wait until the changes accumulate. Does anyone care?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Mag40 on January 20, 2013, 02:01:53 PM
Anyone fancy a million Euros?

(This will only make sense to anyone who has seen The Fast Show, but trust me it's funny. :) )



One minute long and just hilarious.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 20, 2013, 02:05:19 PM
(http://i1336.photobucket.com/albums/o657/Andromeda_Apollo/image_zps28abcdf1.jpg)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on January 20, 2013, 02:41:57 PM
After ten days of inactivity, Björkman has made some changes to his page. I won't bother presenting them, though. I think I'll wait until the changes accumulate. Does anyone care?

Unless the changes actually fix the massive amounts of intentional ignorance, does it really matter?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: DataCable on January 20, 2013, 02:46:08 PM
Andromeda wins the internet.

[ETA:] And here it is:
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 20, 2013, 03:24:50 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Isn't it kind of dangerous keeping the Internet in Europe? That's where Heiwa lives... what if he gets too close?
Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sus_pilot on January 20, 2013, 04:01:04 PM
He can't. He'd have to change directions as he approached it, and we all know that's impossible.

Unless you're  on a ship. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 20, 2013, 04:09:33 PM
Naaa... he couldn't possibly carry enough fuel.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 20, 2013, 04:41:19 PM
Anyone fancy a million Euros?

(This will only make sense to anyone who has seen The Fast Show, but trust me it's funny. :) )

One of my all-time favourite TV shows. Paul Whitehouse got it so right on that show


Comedy timng at it's best. Its a minute long, we all know exactly what's going to happen and it's still funny when it does  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on January 20, 2013, 06:31:42 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Isn't it kind of dangerous keeping the Internet in Europe? That's where Heiwa lives... what if he gets too close?

I work for the internet. We move it around the EU in a truck, with a series of identical, empty trucks in other parts of the EU acting as decoys. We got the idea from the end of The Dark Knight Rises.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on January 20, 2013, 08:33:34 PM
and it's still funny when it does

????  Perhaps it isn't as funny over the American Interntet.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on January 21, 2013, 12:17:03 AM
Canadian Internet also seems to lose something in transportation. Which is surprising as everyone knows Canadian electrons are very funny.
Or was that something else . . .?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Mag40 on January 21, 2013, 06:31:53 AM
Anyone fancy a million Euros?

(This will only make sense to anyone who has seen The Fast Show, but trust me it's funny. :) )



One minute long and just hilarious.

Try this one above, if it doesn't make you laugh out loud, "I'll get me coat".
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on January 21, 2013, 08:12:09 AM
Which is surprising as everyone knows Canadian electrons are very funny.

Particularly the ones that take on a red-green shade!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 21, 2013, 09:34:26 AM
and it's still funny when it does

????  Perhaps it isn't as funny over the American Interntet.

...best not get into the whole UK v USA humour thing....after all, we know what a shambles you lot made of The Office...

 :o :o ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on January 21, 2013, 09:50:33 AM
Even worse what happened with Kath & Kim!!!!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on January 21, 2013, 09:51:47 AM
My favorite shows are both from BBC, Doctor who and Top Gear.  Talk about shambles, have you ever seen the American Top Gear. 

There is just something in a lot of British physical humor that doesn't work for me.  I've always preferred the Argument Clinic to the Ministry of Silly Walks.

Over either of those I'd prefer to win a million euro from a challenge on the Internet.  Steven Hawking just won $3.0 million for discovering black hole radiation, (http://www.fundamentalphysicsprize.org/news/news3) or something like that.  Why can't we get a few bills for debunking Heiwa? 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 21, 2013, 10:41:36 AM
What did I miss over the weekend?  Oh that.

Don't worry, I've sorted it. Heiwa will read my reply and immediately see the light. :^p
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Mag40 on January 21, 2013, 12:20:38 PM
Judging by his latest response on CQ, I suspect a mod hammer coming down sometime soon. That is always the case with a CTer....when you nail them down....they have nothing but evasion or re-assertion.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 21, 2013, 12:39:38 PM
He gave a facetious non-answer to one question, attempting to moderate the thread in another post and acted tried his simplification guff again almost in the post after I pointed out the fallacy of such a thing.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 21, 2013, 12:40:47 PM
This is better than a soap opera.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on January 21, 2013, 01:15:55 PM
That thread at BA///UT////CQ///whatever they call it now just got me the Stundie for the week:

Quote
Sorry, the equation does not consider rocket fuel consumption,

-- Heiwa

This being the, you know, Tsichovsky Equation.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on January 21, 2013, 07:49:43 PM
This is better than a soap opera.
Talk about damned by faint praise.

I just read the CQ thread, now just onto its 5th page. It's as though it has an energy all its own...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on January 21, 2013, 08:05:41 PM
I wonder how long until the hanger-arounder-of-sea-merchant-scum realises he's able to post here again?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on January 21, 2013, 11:05:19 PM
My favorite shows are both from BBC, Doctor who and Top Gear.  Talk about shambles, have you ever seen the American Top Gear. 

There is just something in a lot of British physical humor that doesn't work for me.  I've always preferred the Argument Clinic to the Ministry of Silly Walks.

Over either of those I'd prefer to win a million euro from a challenge on the Internet.  Steven Hawking just won $3.0 million for discovering black hole radiation, (http://www.fundamentalphysicsprize.org/news/news3) or something like that.  Why can't we get a few bills for debunking Heiwa?

And now you've given me the terrifying image of an American version of Doctor Who.

The Movie was bad enough (well, actually, wasn't so bad, and Paul McGann made an even better Doctor in his later work with Big Finish.  But a series?  I shudder.)


Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on January 21, 2013, 11:34:45 PM
My favorite shows are both from BBC, Doctor who and Top Gear.  Talk about shambles, have you ever seen the American Top Gear. 

There is just something in a lot of British physical humor that doesn't work for me.  I've always preferred the Argument Clinic to the Ministry of Silly Walks.
You should watch The Goodies. British made, from the 1970s, but it was played repeatedly on Australian TV in the 1980s (much more than in the UK). Lots of physical humour and funny one-liners, but many of the shows actually covered serious topics of the time ("Apart Height" for one).
Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sus_pilot on January 22, 2013, 01:49:56 AM
My favorite shows are both from BBC, Doctor who and Top Gear.  Talk about shambles, have you ever seen the American Top Gear. 

There is just something in a lot of British physical humor that doesn't work for me.  I've always preferred the Argument Clinic to the Ministry of Silly Walks.

Over either of those I'd prefer to win a million euro from a challenge on the Internet.  Steven Hawking just won $3.0 million for discovering black hole radiation, (http://www.fundamentalphysicsprize.org/news/news3) or something like that.  Why can't we get a few bills for debunking Heiwa?

'Allo, 'allo!. Best comedy from the BBC.  Ever.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 22, 2013, 03:55:45 AM
I don't know if Heiwa will be back for more, now that he has wandered off to pastures new.

if he does, then I'm waiting for a response to post 1018 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg9840#msg9840). I'd also like to hear his views on Ralf Vandenbergh's amazing site....
http://ralfvandebergh.startje.be/

And I'm waiting for a retraction of this ridiculous claim:
Telescope? Doubt it. Object moves too quickly. Photos of it being the ISS published are fake.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on January 22, 2013, 07:16:44 AM
And now you've given me the terrifying image of an American version of Doctor Who.


Noooooooo. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 22, 2013, 07:29:41 AM
My favorite shows are both from BBC, Doctor who and Top Gear.  Talk about shambles, have you ever seen the American Top Gear. 

There is just something in a lot of British physical humor that doesn't work for me.  I've always preferred the Argument Clinic to the Ministry of Silly Walks.

Over either of those I'd prefer to win a million euro from a challenge on the Internet.  Steven Hawking just won $3.0 million for discovering black hole radiation, (http://www.fundamentalphysicsprize.org/news/news3) or something like that.  Why can't we get a few bills for debunking Heiwa?

And now you've given me the terrifying image of an American version of Doctor Who.

The Movie was bad enough (well, actually, wasn't so bad, and Paul McGann made an even better Doctor in his later work with Big Finish.  But a series?  I shudder.)




Having seen some of the proposals for that planned revival, the fact that we ended up with something that actually remained quite true to the spirit of the show is little short of a miracle. 'Power up the crystals, Cardinal!' indeed....
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on January 22, 2013, 08:50:13 AM
1084 posts so far and nobody has claimed my €1 M - see post #1.
Of course it is very difficult but maybe somebody has learnt something? Bye, bye!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 22, 2013, 11:59:53 AM
I basically redid Bob's calculations from a couple of posts earlier.  Thought it would be better to effectively spam the threads with the calculations he says don't exist.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on January 22, 2013, 01:58:28 PM
I basically redid Bob's calculations from a couple of posts earlier.  Thought it would be better to effectively spam the threads with the calculations he says don't exist.

Yeah, this "no one has answered my question" nonsense is getting really old.  One of the reason I quoted my post from here was to show that not only has his question been answered, but that is was answered weeks ago.

I've also tried to re-frame the issue with my question in posts #119 and #154.  My question is just a straightforward physics problem involving force, mass and time.  I'm trying to find out what points Heiwa agrees with and what points he doesn't.  If he'll agree that the thrust and duration was adequate to produce the change in velocity, then the question becomes "can a mass flow rate of 30.5 kg/s produce a thrust of 94,000 N?"  Although I'm sure he won't be any less pigheaded, at least it might allow the discussion to advance in a different direction than continuing to debate his flawed energy-balance method (since that's going nowhere).
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on January 22, 2013, 03:30:17 PM
Björkman has changed his page yet again, and the accumulated changes this time are more substantial. I am too tired to provide a diff, though. For now I'll just say that he has discovered blockquote tags and the LRV (which must have been heated to 150°C, too. :D). I think this makes the first mention of the "other" missions on the page, but I may be wrong.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on January 22, 2013, 06:59:39 PM
And now you've given me the terrifying image of an American version of Doctor Who.



There was, it was Doctor Who: The Movie, the 8th Doc's only onscreen appearance - a relaunch and BBC-US production aimed at the US market. Very underrated, IMO.

(fingers crossed for a Doc 8 appearance in the 50th anniversary specials).
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Abaddon on January 22, 2013, 07:48:39 PM
Björkman has changed his page yet again, and the accumulated changes this time are more substantial. I am too tired to provide a diff, though. For now I'll just say that he has discovered blockquote tags and the LRV (which must have been heated to 150°C, too. :D). I think this makes the first mention of the "other" missions on the page, but I may be wrong.
Wait a second, doesn't this mean that we are in essence, in control of his web pages?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 22, 2013, 08:18:02 PM
Wait a second, doesn't this mean that we are in essence, in control of his web pages?

Bwah ha ha!  The power!  The power!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: RAF on January 22, 2013, 08:23:29 PM
Only a sick mind would feed him faulty information just to see him post it to his website, and make a bigger fool of him than he is now...

Oh, wait..."I" just thought of that. :D
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Abaddon on January 22, 2013, 08:59:34 PM
Only a sick mind would feed him faulty information just to see him post it to his website, and make a bigger fool of him than he is now...

Oh, wait..."I" just thought of that. :D
Yeah, I am feeling a little sick. What shall I do?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Abaddon on January 22, 2013, 09:07:28 PM
The Krzyzewski equation proves Heiwa correct. Look it up, I am not doing your homework for you. LOL
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Mag40 on January 23, 2013, 03:50:11 AM
1084 posts so far and nobody has claimed my €1 M - see post #1.
Of course it is very difficult but maybe somebody has learnt something? Bye, bye!

You are just a very sad troll......flouncety flounce. You have been publicly humiliated. You are a fraud.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 23, 2013, 04:10:50 AM
1084 posts so far and nobody has claimed my €1 M - see post #1.

You don't have a million euros. You've had ample opportunity to prove it but you refuse. Why do you feel the need to lie about it?
 
Quote
Of course it is very difficult

Of course it is, and on Cosmoquest you demonstrated why it is so difficult very eloquently when you made the offer to give the money to anyone who could prove you wrong, then dismissed everyone who explained why you were wrong as 'idiots best ignored'. There is nothing difficult about proving you wrong. That's been done an uncountable number of times. The difficulty is in getting you to acknowledge you are wrong. That's your problem.

Quote
but maybe somebody has learnt something?

I've learned quite a bit, but nothing of it came from you.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ineluki on January 23, 2013, 10:01:15 AM
How long do you suppose that'll last?

And, as he already managed his first suspension (and will probably achieve his ban by the end of February) where will he appear next?



Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 23, 2013, 10:25:16 AM
He might stick to hanging around Cluesforum.  They are utterly convinced by the hoax so he has plenty of adoration there.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on January 23, 2013, 10:36:47 AM
1084 posts so far and nobody has claimed my €1 M - see post #1.
You are lying; you do not have a million Euros to offer.  Your claim is therefore not only null and void, but also fraudulent.

Of course, you could refute this by providing actual evidence for a million Euros in a suitable prize escrow account, but won't -  because you can't.

Of course it is very difficult
No.  It's trivially easy to point out the numerous errors in your claims.  Since you said on your web site:
    Prove me wrong and earn € 1 000 000
and you have been proven wrong on many claims, but refuse to acknowledge it, your "offer" is manifestly false regardless of the money.  You are lying not only about the money, but about the seriousness of the offer itself.

but maybe somebody has learnt something?
I've learned that you have no idea what you are talking about.  I've also learned that in addition to being utterly incompetent in anything related to space flight, you're also transparently dishonest.

As far as actually learning something related to space flight in this thread, despite working in this field, I have learned things from folks like ka9q and BobB.  There is nothing you can teach me, however.  You can't even get the most basic facts right.

Bye, bye!
This is now the third time you've flounced off.  You can't even tell the truth about leaving a forum.

Please try to grasp this, Heiwa: you're not original.  You're not the first ignorant and incompetent conspiracist to come here spouting nonsense, or to demonstrate an appalling lack of research skills, or to pretend to offer money you don't have, or to pretend answers haven't been handed to you, or to pretent your alleged expertise in another field qualifies you as some sort of expert in mine.  Or even to say you're leaving and not do so.   
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cos on January 23, 2013, 10:40:12 AM
The cluesforum is as depressing as the david icke site. Heiwa is convinced that the ISS is a fake but notes that an object appears in the sky exactly at the times nasa give for the ISS and was wondering what it was. The ISS apparently is not an acceptable answer. If he got hold of a decent pair of binoculars he could discover that the mysterious object is also shaped like the ISS.  But I suppose that would qualify as research and all HBs are allergic to that.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on January 23, 2013, 11:11:06 AM
The cluesforum is as depressing as....
...practically anything else I have read.  This is my first time on the forum and I couldn't get past a few pages without wanting to wash my eyeballs in lye. It would be less painful than continuing to read.  Clueless forum would be a better name.  Heiwa can have his fun over there with his analytically challenged allies.  But I suspect they will get tired of his persistent begging to be the center of attention as well. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: RAF on January 23, 2013, 11:51:22 AM
Assesment of the clueless forum is unfortunately completely correct.

Just for "giggles", I took a thread at random...a thread about the death of Neil Armstrong. Get this, they "use" his death as a chance to bash him as a liar.

There are absolutely no redeaming qualities whatsoever to the forum...the owners should be ashamed of themselves for being such (pick your own curse word as it certainly applies).


A bunch of very sick puppies...Heiwa should feel right at home there.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: BazBear on January 23, 2013, 02:01:54 PM
Wow, that forum is nothing but a guano mine...well maybe that's not fair, as guano at least has uses, whereas Not-A-Clueforum has no value whatsoever that I can see.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 23, 2013, 02:28:19 PM
1084 posts so far and nobody has claimed my €1 M - see post #1.
Of course it is very difficult but maybe somebody has learnt something? Bye, bye!

Jesus H. Christ Bjorkman... Is that the best you can do? Ignore everything that others have tried to get past your skull with nary a comment?? And then to skulk off??

I notice that you have not made any, not even a tiny attempt, at MY €1M challenge. It just goes to show how little faith you have in your own crackpot ideas.

Honestly, if this is the best that the HB community can come up with, then they'd be better off going home. I mean you jokers can't even do a decent flounce!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 23, 2013, 03:15:00 PM
Now DakDak, he could do a flounce!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on January 23, 2013, 04:24:56 PM
Now DakDak, he could do a flounce!

I still occasionally think about that flounce and smile.
Title: Re: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 23, 2013, 04:31:58 PM
Now DakDak, he could do a flounce!

I still occasionally think about that flounce and smile.

It was the many stages of it that made it such a classic.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Donnie B. on January 23, 2013, 06:29:33 PM
Multiple stages make for a much more efficient flounce.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Donnie B. on January 23, 2013, 06:42:58 PM
Heiwa's behavior reminded me of something.  I know it's probably useless to speculate about the psychology of an HB, especially any sort of clinical diagnosis.  But consider this...

In Oliver Sachs' brilliant book The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat, he describes various patients with neurological deficits (or enhancements).  One such case was of an older woman who complained that her caregivers weren't giving her enough food.  Sachs observed her at meals and discovered that she would eat everything on the right side of her plate and stop, never touching the left side.  She wasn't being picky or uncooperative -- she literally could not see anything in the left half of her field of view.  She wasn't even aware that she had this deficit.  (The solution was to rotate her plate 90 degrees after she finished the right half, so she would eat half of what was left, and so on.)

There seem to be real similarities between this woman's situation and that of certain HBs.  It's as if they can't see the facts even when they are laid right in front of them.  It makes me wonder if we aren't seeing symptoms of a neurological problem, a sort of logical blindness. 

After all, for most people, Achilles was right: Logic will take you by the throat and force you to accept its conclusion.  But if someone like Heiwa is involved, Logic can't get a grip.  Dealing with him is like a real-life Pythonesque Argument Sketch.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 24, 2013, 01:45:08 AM
In Oliver Sachs' brilliant book The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat

I keep being told to read that, I'll stick it on my wishlist.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Mag40 on January 24, 2013, 06:00:14 AM
Dealing with him is like a real-life Pythonesque Argument Sketch.

No it isn't ;D
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on January 24, 2013, 06:05:04 AM
In Oliver Sachs' brilliant book The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat

I keep being told to read that, I'll stick it on my wishlist.
I haven't read it, but Stephen Pinker describes it in How the Mind Works. Though it is rather sad, it is also rather fascinating due to the insights it gives in, well, how the mind works, or at least the brain.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: twik on January 24, 2013, 10:15:46 AM
It's a very good book, with little jargon and a compassion that is often missing in more clinical works.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 24, 2013, 10:33:26 AM
I got a copy and am reading it now!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 24, 2013, 10:42:06 AM
I keep being told to read that, I'll stick it on my wishlist.

Time spent listening to or reading Dr. Sachs cannot be deducted from your life.  My father was a great fan of Sachs and I inherited his library.

As to the underlying question, I wrote about this on Cosmoquest.  It would be easier to believe Bjorkman to be in the grip of some neurological impairment if he weren't so two-faced about his debates.  If he really, literally could not comprehend the answers, he wouldn't be surreptitiously changing his web site.  His blindness would have to extend there too.  But since he maintains one posture in public and another in private, it's more parsimonious to believe it's an act.

That's still no excuse for not reading Sachs.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ipearse on January 24, 2013, 11:42:04 AM
Dealing with him is like a real-life Pythonesque Argument Sketch.

No it isn't ;D

Sorry, is this the 5-minute argument, or the full half-hour?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: twik on January 24, 2013, 11:52:26 AM
Dealing with him is like a real-life Pythonesque Argument Sketch.

No it isn't ;D

Sorry, is this the 5-minute argument, or the full half-hour?

It's HBers - it's six months, and 60 pages.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on January 24, 2013, 01:14:01 PM
Björkman has updated his page again. Choice quote from the new material: "It is not easy to pilot a space ship as training in Earth is ... not available." :D There's another howler, but I'll provide a fuller coverage once I get back to an OS with a reasonable diff utility.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on January 24, 2013, 03:46:36 PM
Björkman has updated his page again. Choice quote from the new material: "It is not easy to pilot a space ship as training in Earth is ... not available."
Really?  Hahahahaha!  That's hilarious.  Five different training methods used for Apollo piloting come immediately to mind, and there are quite a few more I'm forgetting about at the moment.

Once again, Heiwa has no idea whatsoever what he's talking about.   
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on January 24, 2013, 05:51:13 PM
Björkman has updated his page again. Choice quote from the new material: "It is not easy to pilot a space ship as training in Earth is ... not available." :D There's another howler, but I'll provide a fuller coverage once I get back to an OS with a reasonable diff utility.
Because he has so much personal experience!  [/sarcasmoff]
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 24, 2013, 05:58:05 PM
Once again, Heiwa has no idea whatsoever what he's talking about.

Indeed.  The methods we use to train space pilots don't differ from the ways we train airline pilots or ship captains.  All three start in ground-based simulators.  Eventually a ship captain moves on to commanding a real ship at sea.  An airline pilot moves on to his first flight.  And a space pilot moves on to his first mission.  To say that ground-based simulation does not prepare one adequately applies equally to air and sea.

I see this a lot, actually.  Some people seem so overwhelmed by the notion of "space" (ermagherd!) that they are unable to think of it as just another set of environmental parameters to be designed for.  They project their own alienation onto everyone else.  To them the space environment is incomprehensibly alien and therefore unchartable.  I wonder if that's what's happening here.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on January 24, 2013, 06:37:54 PM
And because the lunar environment was alien - but comprehensibly so because of a vigorous robotic campaign leading up to Apollo - they tackled the training in many different ways.  Classroom training, part-task simulators, motion simulators with artificial views, the LLRV/LLTV 1/6 G trainers, "flying" video cameras over a large-scale lunar surface, flying aircraft over land with artificially created craters arranged like the expected LZ, navigation training in planetariums (I refuse to say "planetaria"), etc., etc.  As said before, intensive multimodal training for all phases of the mission.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Count Zero on January 24, 2013, 06:44:57 PM
(ermagherd!)

I - like totally - read that with a Moon Unit voice (Luna unità voce?)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 25, 2013, 11:35:21 AM
I - like totally - read that with a Moon Unit voice (Luna unità voce?)

If you've spent much time on the internet, you know the meme I'm referring to.  http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ermahgerd
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 25, 2013, 11:52:53 AM
And because the lunar environment was alien - but comprehensibly so...

Indeed, to the cognoscenti.  But I surmise there remain individuals who personally cannot comprehend the comprehensibility (yes, Gillianren, laugh at my expense) of space.  To them it is foreign beyond all ability to manage, and thus their egos demand it be equally incomprehensible for all.  No experience on Earth, they imagine, can prepare a pilot for the total loss of terrestrial fixation.

This harks back to a point I make frequently throughout the Moon hoax debate saga.  People who truly understand the physical world -- and I habitually use engineers as an example, but others too -- attain that understanding by knowing how everything works, including the mundane.  I actually had this conversation Wednesday night over coffee with an airline marketing agent.  (We were drowning our sorrows over the grounding of our "baby" the 787 Dreamliner.)  The discussion came to some of the principal differences between the engineering mind and the marketing mind, and the point raised that engineers have a hard time "turning their brains off."  A good engineer is fascinated by the ordinary.  And once he understands why the ordinary happens, he is prepared to cope with the extraordinary.

What this creates is an abstract view of the universe.  Rather than seeing the familiar world as a set of unremarkable and easily disregarded stimuli, the engineer (professional or amateur) sees the world as one of several possible expressions of physical law.  As I write this, my table wobbles slightly.  The engineer is reminded of subjects such as resonance and elasticity.  When one has that reductionist habit of viewing the world, space simply becomes different values in the informal equations and relationships by which one already sees his surroundings.  It is that preparation that allows engineers to reason dispassionately enough about the physical world to create what they do.

In contrast the intuitive view of the universe accepts it all as one coherent whole.  The holistic view is just as informative as any other in making one's path through life adept.  The goal in each case is to relate cause to effect.  And that intuitive view encompasses air and sea.   Few these days have not been on a boat or in an airplane.  But it doesn't encompass space.  When one's experience is calibrated holistically, one can become quite anxious to contemplate an environment where so much has differed.  In an airplane you're simply high up on a moving platform.  Motion and altitude do not seem alien.  Banking into turns, and the feeling of rising and falling do not seem alien.  Commensurately although we may be uncomfortable at sea, it does not present us with many foreign variables.

But in summary, when a self-proclaimed engineer tells us how incomprehensibly foreign the space environment must be, it speaks in great volumes to whether he is successful as an engineer.  He does not seem to have the requisite abstract view of the physical world to understand it the way and engineer would need to relate to it.  The intuitive approach does not work here.

Quote
...navigation training in planetariums (I refuse to say "planetaria"), etc., etc.

Well there's always plane'arium (South Park reference).  Or, as my colleague's ex-wife once referred to it, "a space aquarium."
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 25, 2013, 12:33:52 PM
You know, I've been accused of being a bad film critic because it's so hard for me to turn my brain off.  (My review of the most recent King Kong had a diatribe on predator/prey ratios.)  However, I think this means I can never be anything but a niche reviewer; I think there are plenty of people who appreciate that kind of thinking.  "This thing in the movie is wrong, and you probably won't be able to stop thinking about it" is actually valuable information I've been given from friends as to why I shouldn't see a movie that they really liked.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 25, 2013, 12:34:03 PM
I note that Heiwa has appeared over on a UK based astronomy forum (http://www.astronomyshed.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=14801&start=40#p104536) that I frequent.

He is still peddling his brand of BS. Strange that he can't seem to find his way back here to answer his outstanding questions.....
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 25, 2013, 12:53:42 PM
You know, I've been accused of being a bad film critic because it's so hard for me to turn my brain off.  (My review of the most recent King Kong had a diatribe on predator/prey ratios.)  However, I think this means I can never be anything but a niche reviewer; I think there are plenty of people who appreciate that kind of thinking.  "This thing in the movie is wrong, and you probably won't be able to stop thinking about it" is actually valuable information I've been given from friends as to why I shouldn't see a movie that they really liked.

You sound like me watching Scandal.  I should never have read all those Harlan Ellison's Watching columns.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on January 25, 2013, 02:51:38 PM
 :( Aaaand another change. Now it's "It is not easy to pilot a space  ship as training and test flying with rocket modules on Earth is ... not available."

At least he fixed the wrong preposition ("on" used to be "in"), but the sentence is still a crime against the English language. (And reality.)

Also, "space ship pilots/cosmokrauts".  ::) Seriously, what's wrong with this guy? Senile dementia?

I'm going to provide a fuller diff later. It takes time. :(
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on January 25, 2013, 03:00:17 PM
You know, I've been accused of being a bad film critic because it's so hard for me to turn my brain off.  (My review of the most recent King Kong had a diatribe on predator/prey ratios.)  However, I think this means I can never be anything but a niche reviewer; I think there are plenty of people who appreciate that kind of thinking.  "This thing in the movie is wrong, and you probably won't be able to stop thinking about it" is actually valuable information I've been given from friends as to why I shouldn't see a movie that they really liked.

You sound like me watching Scandal.  I should never have read all those Harlan Ellison's Watching columns.
I get the same way about zombie movies, and often horror movies in general, where the whole premise tends to be based on people acting as stupid as possible.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on January 25, 2013, 03:16:18 PM
You know, I've been accused of being a bad film critic because it's so hard for me to turn my brain off.  (My review of the most recent King Kong had a diatribe on predator/prey ratios.)  However, I think this means I can never be anything but a niche reviewer; I think there are plenty of people who appreciate that kind of thinking.  "This thing in the movie is wrong, and you probably won't be able to stop thinking about it" is actually valuable information I've been given from friends as to why I shouldn't see a movie that they really liked.

OT, but I have a feeling I would LOVE your critiques.  Is there a link you can share?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on January 25, 2013, 03:47:47 PM
You know, I've been accused of being a bad film critic because it's so hard for me to turn my brain off.  (My review of the most recent King Kong had a diatribe on predator/prey ratios.)  However, I think this means I can never be anything but a niche reviewer; I think there are plenty of people who appreciate that kind of thinking.  "This thing in the movie is wrong, and you probably won't be able to stop thinking about it" is actually valuable information I've been given from friends as to why I shouldn't see a movie that they really liked.
Mrs Echnaton makes these kind of distinctions in the middle of movies and I move a few seats away so I can enjoy the film. She and I have different ideas of artistic judgement of movies separate from other media or even other movies.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: twik on January 25, 2013, 04:17:47 PM
My review of the most recent King Kong had a diatribe on predator/prey ratios.

I ... I thought I was the only one who wondered about that....
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on January 25, 2013, 04:36:19 PM
And in the next remake, Kong is a giant sloth.  He spends most of his time in waking hibernation and can survive off a few villagers a year.



Have to say again how much I love Jay's essays, and I would totally pony up for a book full of them.  (And I'd love to hear some details on the Dreamliner but I imagine he's NDA'd out the APU about that).

I've been aware of that whole "not turning off" aspect of being an engineer.  I hung out around a lot of science geeks when I was younger, and they were constantly running napkin-sketches of random questions that occurred to them as they were walking around.  Of course, they were as likely to calculate the Endor Holocaust as to estimate the Ke of a passing fire engine.

It is akin to the artist's eye.  As a lighting and sound designer for live theater, I spend a lot of my out-of-the-theater time going, "What was that?  What made it sound like that?"  Of course, as an artist, in parallel with looking to see how the sound reflected off a nearby surface, estimating the effects of the wall covering and the size of the standing wave etc., etc., I am also asking, "What did the sound remind me of?  What was its effect on me emotionally?"

But I really like the insight that to the right kind of engineer, the universe is parameterizable.  So it doesn't matter if you are contemplating whether a geared stepper can rotate a metal pane, or how long an unobtanium lever mounted on the Sun would have to be until a single person could move the Earth with it.  You just need sufficient data about the environment.  Then after that, it can all be worked out from first principles.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 25, 2013, 04:48:47 PM
Have to say again how much I love Jay's essays, and I would totally pony up for a book full of them.

Save your money and read Hentry Petroski instead.  He's got more experience, he's smarter, and he's a better writer than I.

Quote
And I'd love to hear some details on the Dreamliner but I imagine he's NDA'd out the APU about that.

Not especially.  The problems seem to be in the electrical system which I did not contribute to.  If the problem were with the airfoil structural behavior or the flight parameters, then I'd have some personal investment and knowledge.  It's easy to put on the standard engineer's hat and say, "Well, that's not my fault because it's not my department."  And indeed I don't know what's wrong with the batteries and electrical system.  But in the harsh crucible of engineering reality, if you're going to share in the credit for the entire plane, you have to share in the blame for the entire plane.

Quote
It is akin to the artist's eye.  As a lighting and sound designer for live theater, I spend a lot of my out-of-the-theater time going, "What was that?  What made it sound like that?"

I'm glad you were able to find another analogue for that.  I fear what I wrote above sounds elitist.  It's not; it's just the way engineers see the world.  And when you say that artists see the world different, I can relate.  I've seen photographers, lighting directors, and set designers become very attuned to the behavior of light in the mundane, ordinary world.  This is how they know how to create certain effects in the artificial world of the studio and theater.  We become attuned to the world through the way we focus on it, and that gives us different perspectives at different levels of abstraction.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on January 25, 2013, 05:15:41 PM
And that's what freaks me so much about Jack White and others who tell a similar story (as in, professional, working photographers who can't understand what they are seeing in the Apollo surface record).

Well, really, the Big Three have external reasons.  Jack was just, well, Jack.  His incomprehension of the behavior of light is only part of a larger picture.  Kaysing just plain didn't care if what he says was true or not, and Rene outright lies -- he fakes his lighting demonstrations to return the result he wants, and in such a way it makes it obvious he understands how it really works.

I suppose when you get down to it, the endless parade of Apollo Deniers who say, "I'm an experienced photographer, and..." are really no different from the mini-parade of "experienced engineers" we just had here.  Even if they do, actually, have some working experience in photography, even if they do have that photographer's eye for light, they have chosen to turn off the mind in order to argue about Apollo.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 25, 2013, 05:26:21 PM
OT, but I have a feeling I would LOVE your critiques.  Is there a link you can share?

If you click on that little planet thingie . . . .
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on January 25, 2013, 06:44:04 PM
...I've been aware of that whole "not turning off" aspect of being an engineer.  I hung out around a lot of science geeks when I was younger, and they were constantly running napkin-sketches of random questions that occurred to them as they were walking around.  Of course, they were as likely to calculate the Endor Holocaust as to estimate the Ke of a passing fire engine.

It is akin to the artist's eye.  As a lighting and sound designer for live theater, I spend a lot of my out-of-the-theater time going, "What was that?  What made it sound like that?"  Of course, as an artist, in parallel with looking to see how the sound reflected off a nearby surface, estimating the effects of the wall covering and the size of the standing wave etc., etc., I am also asking, "What did the sound remind me of?  What was its effect on me emotionally?"...
I'm noticing the same thing as a parent. Our second son, who's two-and-a-half, is constantly asking "Wot dat?" about all sorts of things, whether a roll of wrapping paper or a bird flying past the window. It's also nice to be able to talk to our older son, who's five (and starting Big School in a week), about things in the world around us. This includes, I'm happy to say, accepting that the Moon is sometimes visible in the sky during the day. (It also includes, which makes us a bit nervous, anatomically correct bodily processes and names; thus he accurately describes the process by which his little sister was born, which is bound to make a few adults blanch.)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 25, 2013, 08:54:21 PM
And indeed I don't know what's wrong with the batteries and electrical system.
The NTSB gave a set of talks to the media yesterday, and put a bunch more photos and presentations up on their web site.

Although they didn't explicitly say so, judging from the X-rays and teardown photos of the failed battery it looks to me like a fault developed in a cell separator, leading to an internal short. This is similar to what happened in the Sony-made Apple laptop batteries a few years ago, though the specific mechanism was different (small bits of metal contaminated the Sony batteries and caused the shorts).

Although this would tend to point the finger at Yuasa, the battery manufacturer, things are not necessarily so clear cut. Some other mechanism could be at work, such as repeated ambient pressure cycling distorting the batteries mechanically and leading to the separator failure. The very last thing an accident investigator wants is to jump to a premature and incorrect conclusion. This happened the last time a commercial airliner fleet was grounded: the DC-10 after the Chicago crash in 1979. A senior NTSB official got up and presented a fractured bolt as the cause of the engine separation during takeoff. Had he consulted his metallurgists he would have found that the bolt was only a symptom of the ultimate cause: an incorrect engine removal procedure.

The basic problem with the Li-ion battery chemistry in both the 787 and the Sony batteries is that a) the electrolyte is a flammable organic solvent and b) the cathode (+ terminal) material, lithium cobalt dioxide, releases free oxygen when sufficiently heated. When one cell catches fire, e.g., from an internal short, it heats its neighbors and they too catch fire.

When the 787 battery was specified, LixCoO2 was the only cathode material available. Many other materials have since been introduced, such as LixFePO4, which is substantially less reactive and safer in a fire, albeit with lower energy density. My money is therefore on the FAA banning Li-ion batteries that use LixCoO2 and quickly approving their replacement with alternative cathode materials that are inherently much safer.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 25, 2013, 09:06:06 PM
Our second son, who's two-and-a-half, is constantly asking "Wot dat?" about all sorts of things, whether a roll of wrapping paper or a bird flying past the window.
He will probably become an engineer or scientist some day. My dad can regale you with stories of how I never stopped asking questions about everything as a kid. I was so young at the time that I don't even remember most of his examples. He also relates how angry he got at an uncle who once asked if I ever shut up.

Every Nobel winning scientist I've ever seen interviewed says much the same thing: how fortunate they feel to have retained his/her natural childhood curiosity into adulthood and to actually get paid for indulging it.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 25, 2013, 09:31:40 PM
I'm glad you were able to find another analogue for that.  I fear what I wrote above sounds elitist.  It's not; it's just the way engineers see the world.  And when you say that artists see the world different, I can relate.  I've seen photographers, lighting directors, and set designers become very attuned to the behavior of light in the mundane, ordinary world.  This is how they know how to create certain effects in the artificial world of the studio and theater.  We become attuned to the world through the way we focus on it, and that gives us different perspectives at different levels of abstraction.

I can hand you another one. After all those years as a practicing Paramedic, it's all but impossible for me to look at someone without making an automatic assessment - stance, breathing rate, skin color (as in pale/flushed/ashen, not melanin content), general appearance, etc.  I think maybe the inability to 'turn it off' is a sign that one has thoroughly absorbed that discipline, as opposed, say, to simply learning some useful information that can be referred to at need.

I'll be very surprised if that made any sense at all.
Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sus_pilot on January 25, 2013, 11:52:02 PM
I'm glad you were able to find another analogue for that.  I fear what I wrote above sounds elitist.  It's not; it's just the way engineers see the world.  And when you say that artists see the world different, I can relate.  I've seen photographers, lighting directors, and set designers become very attuned to the behavior of light in the mundane, ordinary world.  This is how they know how to create certain effects in the artificial world of the studio and theater.  We become attuned to the world through the way we focus on it, and that gives us different perspectives at different levels of abstraction.

I can hand you another one. After all those years as a practicing Paramedic, it's all but impossible for me to look at someone without making an automatic assessment - stance, breathing rate, skin color (as in pale/flushed/ashen, not melanin content), general appearance, etc.  I think maybe the inability to 'turn it off' is a sign that one has thoroughly absorbed that discipline, as opposed, say, to simply learning some useful information that can be referred to at need.

I'll be very surprised if that made any sense at all.

It very much makes sense. 

When I'm caught at a grade crossing (level crossing to you Brits and Australians), I can't help but do what is called a roll-by, looking for dragging equipment, hung brakes, hot bearings, etc.  and, yes, my phone has some key emergency numbers for my company and other railroads.

When I'm around any airplane, I start looking for things that are not right: drips, flat tires, etc., etc., etc.

It's all in what we're trained to do...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on January 26, 2013, 01:23:30 AM
...I've been aware of that whole "not turning off" aspect of being an engineer.  I hung out around a lot of science geeks when I was younger, and they were constantly running napkin-sketches of random questions that occurred to them as they were walking around.  Of course, they were as likely to calculate the Endor Holocaust as to estimate the Ke of a passing fire engine.

It is akin to the artist's eye.  As a lighting and sound designer for live theater, I spend a lot of my out-of-the-theater time going, "What was that?  What made it sound like that?"  Of course, as an artist, in parallel with looking to see how the sound reflected off a nearby surface, estimating the effects of the wall covering and the size of the standing wave etc., etc., I am also asking, "What did the sound remind me of?  What was its effect on me emotionally?"...
I'm noticing the same thing as a parent. Our second son, who's two-and-a-half, is constantly asking "Wot dat?" about all sorts of things, whether a roll of wrapping paper or a bird flying past the window. It's also nice to be able to talk to our older son, who's five (and starting Big School in a week), about things in the world around us. This includes, I'm happy to say, accepting that the Moon is sometimes visible in the sky during the day. (It also includes, which makes us a bit nervous, anatomically correct bodily processes and names; thus he accurately describes the process by which his little sister was born, which is bound to make a few adults blanch.)

I don't normally (in fact, I almost never...!) post Youtube links, but there is a great, great jazz standard that describes this:  "Dat dere" -- 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 26, 2013, 04:01:25 AM
It is akin to the artist's eye.  As a lighting and sound designer for live theater, I spend a lot of my out-of-the-theater time going, "What was that?  What made it sound like that?"  Of course, as an artist, in parallel with looking to see how the sound reflected off a nearby surface, estimating the effects of the wall covering and the size of the standing wave etc., etc., I am also asking, "What did the sound remind me of?  What was its effect on me emotionally?"

I'm a knitter.  I routinely ask people if I can examine their knitted clothing to see what stitch/colourwork pattern was used.   :-[
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 26, 2013, 10:42:48 AM
I don't normally (in fact, I almost never...!) post Youtube links, but there is a great, great jazz standard that describes this:  "Dat dere" -- 

+1
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on January 26, 2013, 11:33:05 AM
A child's curiosity is one of the most beautiful things in the universe, its loss one of the most tragic.
Thank you for sharing that. :)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 26, 2013, 01:15:29 PM
Our second son, who's two-and-a-half, is constantly asking "Wot dat?" about all sorts of things, whether a roll of wrapping paper or a bird flying past the window.
He will probably become an engineer or scientist some day. My dad can regale you with stories of how I never stopped asking questions about everything as a kid. I was so young at the time that I don't even remember most of his examples. He also relates how angry he got at an uncle who once asked if I ever shut up.

Every Nobel winning scientist I've ever seen interviewed says much the same thing: how fortunate they feel to have retained his/her natural childhood curiosity into adulthood and to actually get paid for indulging it.


Okay, this has been bothering me.  Do you have a sample group of liberal arts majors who didn't do that?  Because we are curious about the world around us, too.  We just explore it differently. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on January 26, 2013, 02:12:21 PM
I've been thinking about this.

Everything looks like a nail, but some people have a more flexible hammer. 

If I tried to analyze orbital mechanics using my tool chest of audio engineering, I wouldn't get very far.  Heiwa's tool kit of a freighter on the open ocean isn't helpful here, either.  But "hard" engineering, as well as baseline physics, are tool chests that do pretty well for most of the technical aspects of the Apollo Program.

And they are probably a good general approach as well.  Trying to work out many aspects by analogy to familiar, Earth-bound activities and processes is a poor match.  Working from first principles will get you closer -- with the caveat that where the cutting head hits the rotating workpiece there are all sorts of nasty little "technical" details that will foul you up.

The big caution being that they too can be taken too far.  The literature of other sciences is full of jokes about physicists who come along and say, "But really you could just reduce the whole thing to this simple equation.  Plus some minor variables, of course."  And there are plenty of engineers who have decided that Kirchoff Laws are all they need to understand cosmology, and they can get rid of all that messy stuff like dark matter (or even General Relativity).

But way, way back on the other side of the question, about the observer's mind... I have to agree that most artists have some form of it.  But it isn't a given.  I was thinking earlier about my experiences in the Poser community (entry-level 3d render application specialized towards depictions of the human form).  My comment, over and over in chats and critiques, was, "Please go outside and look at real people."  Because I saw render after render that failed to understand the basics of how people move, how they sit, how they hold themselves, how they balance, how they express themselves in body language.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 26, 2013, 02:22:08 PM
Oh, certainly true.  One of the ways Graham amuses himself of an evening is to look over other people's Deviant Art pages.  I saw a "tutorial" someone had done of the facial muscles where they'd put the ears way too high and otherwise not drawn a decent face.  But good artists are just as much observers of the world around them as good scientists.  It's the people who don't observe who aren't good at either.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on January 26, 2013, 02:45:59 PM
Don't get me started on people who draw only based on drawings based on drawings which, way back in the misty past, might have actually been based on real people and animals and buildings and shadows.

Not to say there is anything wrong, per se, with extremely stylized art.  I'm all for cartoons which rely on established symbolism and have left behind any attempt at representation.

But what too many fail to realize is that even the simplified facial anatomy of anime is based on (in most cases!) the artist having a conception of underlying reality.  There are these incredibly subtle dips and curves in the line that if you are just copying, you don't see.  You only see them when you realize, "Oh, right...there's a tiny jog here because from that angle, the outside corner of the jaw becomes visible."

And the difference in the result is obvious; the difference between a superhero artist who thinks, "There's this little line over here," and the one that thinks, "And here's the outside margin of the deltoid."
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 26, 2013, 05:22:24 PM
It's why Graham took human biology for his lab-science requirement toward his AA.  It's the most useful class for an artist.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ChrLz on January 26, 2013, 06:24:21 PM
This discussion has re-raised a question (or maybe just a bonnet-living bee..) of mine.

Why don't we teach Systems Analysis from grade 0?

When I was first introduced to SA (as part of a role I had way back in the 80's to introduce computers and database systems in a large gov't dept), it was a Wow! moment.  When I look back at my education, I can't help but think that we were only taught stuff - we weren't taught HOW to learn stuff, HOW to 'think', and WHY it was important to be curious about everything in your environment (and beyond).

It seems to me that if we taught thinking skills earlier and much more directly than we currently do, then more people would be able to avoid becoming a Heiwa or Patrick or Dakdak or ...

I guess educators would argue that we do that, but the more I see teaching curriculums (and I've had a fair bit of exposure to them), the less I think we are doing a good job.  And the more 'outcome' oriented we are, I believe the less we are teaching our kids to actually learn, and to continue that process later in life.  Instead we are teaching them to remember stuff for long enough to pass that test/exam...

{/rant}
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on January 26, 2013, 08:26:19 PM
Instead we are teaching them to remember stuff for long enough to pass that test/exam...
I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, we don't do enough to attract the best people to the profession, and we don't let them teach in the right way.

I'm a big believer in open-book testing as a far more realistic test of students' problem solving skills. People in the real world certainly don't memorize all the facts they'll ever need, so why expect that of students? (Believe me, good open-book tests are not easy. The hardest tests I've ever taken were open-book.)

Unfortunately, each open-book test can only be used once, so they're much more work for the teachers. That's why we have so many closed-book tests that are more about the students' ability to memorize and regurgitate facts than in actually applying them to problems.

A good education teaches not facts so much as methods -- especially how to use your references and design tools to solve problems that no one has solved before, with no answers to memorize or look up in the back of a book.



Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 26, 2013, 10:10:41 PM
The main reason we don't teach it in the US, at least these days, can be summed up by a single piece of legislation--"No Child Left Behind."  It's so incredibly important for the teacher and the school that as many children as possible pass the tests that they aren't able to be more experimental in teaching.  And the best teacher I ever had couldn't give open-book tests, because we basically never used the textbook.  The one we had for her class was so old that it didn't know how the Korean War ended, and I don't mean because it technically hasn't.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on January 27, 2013, 03:46:07 AM
A little return to the alleged topic of the thread. :)

As I can't find time for a proper diff of Björkman's latest changes, here's the other howler. Please swallow any liquids you may have in your mouth...

Quote
Reason is that too much fuel was required that could be carried and the pilot maneuvers were impossible to carry out ... and that everything was just a hoax 1969. That people believed. It was easy to fool people 1969. Since the 1940's the public had been told that Flying Saucers, UFOs, were regularly visiting Earth and that the USA could easily do space flying too.

 ??? ??? ??? ???

(And yes, he still doesn't know how to use prepositions...)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Count Zero on January 27, 2013, 03:52:56 AM
They're the thing we're not supposed to end sentences with.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: smartcooky on January 27, 2013, 04:11:12 AM
They're the thing we're not supposed to end sentences with.

(http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o35/smartcooky99/my%20smileys/41.gif)(http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o35/smartcooky99/my%20smileys/41.gif)(http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o35/smartcooky99/my%20smileys/41.gif)

Very good indeed!

I have a whole list of those, such as...

► Splitting infinitives is something to never do.
► By writing carefully, dangling participles can be avoided.
► Avoid using incorrect verbs that have snuck into the language.
► A verb have to agree with its subject.
► Last but not least, avoid clichés like the plague.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 27, 2013, 04:15:11 AM
Instead we are teaching them to remember stuff for long enough to pass that test/exam...
I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, we don't do enough to attract the best people to the profession, and we don't let them teach in the right way.

I'm a big believer in open-book testing as a far more realistic test of students' problem solving skills. People in the real world certainly don't memorize all the facts they'll ever need, so why expect that of students? (Believe me, good open-book tests are not easy. The hardest tests I've ever taken were open-book.)

Unfortunately, each open-book test can only be used once, so they're much more work for the teachers. That's why we have so many closed-book tests that are more about the students' ability to memorize and regurgitate facts than in actually applying them to problems.

A good education teaches not facts so much as methods -- especially how to use your references and design tools to solve problems that no one has solved before, with no answers to memorize or look up in the back of a book.

In the days when I taught, one of the things I used to tell students was that it wasn't necessary to know everything, it was just necessary to know how to find out. If you understood how to read and interpret technical resources, and knew where to find them, you would be fine.

I think all of us specialise in one way or another - it's the nature of the beast and we wouldn't have achieved what we have as a species in any field were it not for dogged persistence and 'satiable curiosity'. For some people it's the players of their football team and the results over the years, for others it's music, for others it's science.

 I follow a blog where you can, erm, check out electronic books before you buy them *cough*. Some of the books are incredibly obscure, and it always amazes me that the tiniest speck of human interest will have been examined under the high powered microscope of human curiosity by someone somewhere.
Title: Re: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 27, 2013, 04:48:44 AM
A little return to the alleged topic of the thread. :)

As I can't find time for a proper diff of Björkman's latest changes, here's the other howler. Please swallow any liquids you may have in your mouth...

Quote
Reason is that too much fuel was required that could be carried and the pilot maneuvers were impossible to carry out ... and that everything was just a hoax 1969. That people believed. It was easy to fool people 1969. Since the 1940's the public had been told that Flying Saucers, UFOs, were regularly visiting Earth and that the USA could easily do space flying too.

 ??? ??? ??? ???

(And yes, he still doesn't know how to use prepositions...)

What was it Jay once said? "It must be fun the live a life so unburdened by reality."

Everything in that section is wrong.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 27, 2013, 06:37:02 AM
As I reported earlier, he was briefly on a UK based astronomy forum. He was banned after about 30 minutes. It appears that his MO is to watch for new hits on his site and them to spam where the hit came from, if possible. One of the members over there raised an interesting suggestion.....the website's only purpose is as a revenue generator ( http://sourcemetro.com/heiwaco.tripod.com reports it as generating $700 per day).

Interesting idea...which would certainly through another angle on Bjorkman's pig-headedness...he is not interested in learning...in fact the more outrageous his BS the better as it generates more hits on his site.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 27, 2013, 06:47:21 AM
As I reported earlier, he was briefly on a UK based astronomy forum. He was banned after about 30 minutes. It appears that his MO is to watch for new hits on his site and them to spam where the hit came from, if possible. One of the members over there raised an interesting suggestion.....the website's only purpose is as a revenue generator ( http://sourcemetro.com/heiwaco.tripod.com reports it as generating $700 per day).

Interesting idea...which would certainly through another angle on Bjorkman's pig-headedness...he is not interested in learning...in fact the more outrageous his BS the better as it generates more hits on his site.

Okay, stupid question time because I know nothing about running websites.... Does he actually get any of that money?  Is it really possible to make money online so easily?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: AtomicDog on January 27, 2013, 08:52:54 AM
D'oh! He actually found a way to Make Money Trolling!  That SOB is smarter than the rest of us put together!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on January 27, 2013, 09:00:04 AM
Well, as P.T. Barnum allegedly said, there is a sucker born every minute.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 27, 2013, 09:02:25 AM
$700 a day? How did he pull that off?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on January 27, 2013, 09:04:41 AM
One of the members over there raised an interesting suggestion.....the website's only purpose is as a revenue generator ( http://sourcemetro.com/heiwaco.tripod.com reports it as generating $700 per day).

That "website" (sourcemetro.com) looks like a standard spam website aggregating publicly available information from other sources. The "generating" thing seems to be a theoretical value calculated on the base of some theoretical "page rank"/popularity metric. It's very likely that the estimate is inaccurate. I didn't notice any ads on Björkman's website.
Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 27, 2013, 09:47:02 AM
One of the members over there raised an interesting suggestion.....the website's only purpose is as a revenue generator ( http://sourcemetro.com/heiwaco.tripod.com reports it as generating $700 per day).

That Source Metro site says I'm making $959 daily from my other site (TheSpaceRace.com) when in fact I haven't made that much money from it in the 11 years that it has been online.

So I think that is maybe its potential income based on the traffic it gets. I doubt he's actually making any money from it. It's more likely that Tripod.com is making money from it because I think they force ads on the sites they host for free. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 27, 2013, 10:21:48 AM
One of the members over there raised an interesting suggestion.....the website's only purpose is as a revenue generator ( http://sourcemetro.com/heiwaco.tripod.com reports it as generating $700 per day).

That Source Metro site says I'm making $959 daily from my other site (TheSpaceRace.com) when in fact I haven't made that much money from it in the 11 years that it has been online.

So I think that is maybe its potential income based on the traffic it gets. I doubt he's actually making any money from it. It's more likely that Tripod.com is making money from it because I think they force ads on the sites they host for free.

That makes sense.
Heck, if $700 per week was available (never mind per day!)than I'd be creating a hoax site too!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Laurel on January 27, 2013, 11:50:14 AM
They're the thing we're not supposed to end sentences with.

(http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o35/smartcooky99/my%20smileys/41.gif)(http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o35/smartcooky99/my%20smileys/41.gif)(http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o35/smartcooky99/my%20smileys/41.gif)

Very good indeed!

I have a whole list of those, such as...

► Splitting infinitives is something to never do.
► By writing carefully, dangling participles can be avoided.
► Avoid using incorrect verbs that have snuck into the language.
► A verb have to agree with its subject.
► Last but not least, avoid clichés like the plague.

I love that list too.
"No sentence fragments."
"Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used."
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Not Myself on January 27, 2013, 11:52:32 AM
There's an exception to every rule.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 27, 2013, 01:04:32 PM
I have a whole list of those, such as...

William Safire, whom I read for grammar, not politics, called them "fumblerules."  If you can understand why they're wrong, they're both funny and a good way to show the error.

Safire, in an Apollo context, also wrote the most beautiful, haunting speech never given.  I wonder how many HBs know about it (I didn't until quite recently) and what it does to their perception of Apollo when they find out about it.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Laurel on January 27, 2013, 01:16:12 PM
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/In_Event_of_Moon_Disaster (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/In_Event_of_Moon_Disaster)

Michael Collins read a few lines of this speech in In The Shadow Of The Moon.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Not Myself on January 27, 2013, 01:25:41 PM
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/In_Event_of_Moon_Disaster (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/In_Event_of_Moon_Disaster)

Michael Collins read a few lines of this speech in In The Shadow Of The Moon.

So I guess that will be used as evidence that Apollo 11 failed.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 27, 2013, 01:27:33 PM
There's an exception to every rule.
...except this one.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 27, 2013, 01:32:22 PM
I remember a story about what may have been the record number of sentence ending prepositions...

Scenario: A father is going upstairs to read his little girl a bedtime story. He picks up what he thinks is one of her favorite books and heads up to her bedroom. Seeing the book, she winkles her little nose in disapproval and asks...

"What did you bring the book I didn't want to be read to out of up for?"

 ::)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Not Myself on January 27, 2013, 01:54:50 PM
I remember a story about what may have been the record number of sentence ending prepositions...

Scenario: A father is going upstairs to read his little girl a bedtime story. He picks up what he thinks is one of her favorite books and heads up to her bedroom. Seeing the book, she winkles her little nose in disapproval and asks...

"What did you bring the book I didn't want to be read to out of up for?"

 ::)

That's an old one!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on January 27, 2013, 03:44:55 PM
They're the thing we're not supposed to end sentences with.


(http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o35/smartcooky99/my%20smileys/41.gif)(http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o35/smartcooky99/my%20smileys/41.gif)(http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o35/smartcooky99/my%20smileys/41.gif)

Very good indeed!

I have a whole list of those, such as...

► Splitting infinitives is something to never do.
► By writing carefully, dangling participles can be avoided.
► Avoid using incorrect verbs that have snuck into the language.
► A verb have to agree with its subject.
► Last but not least, avoid clichés like the plague.

I love that list too.
"No sentence fragments."
"Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used."

Eschew obfuscation and espouse elucidation.



edited to fix quotes
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 27, 2013, 03:45:49 PM
Don't overuse exclamation points!!!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Nowhere Man on January 27, 2013, 04:24:28 PM
"This is the kind of tedious nonsense up with which I will not put." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercorrection#Preposition_at_the_end_of_a_clause) -- Allegedly Winston Churchill, but very likely not.

Fred
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 27, 2013, 04:38:02 PM
Someone calling themselves 'Heiwa' has just joined the board. If it's him, perhaps he's come here to discuss his views.

I noted some visitors to my popular web site from Apollohoaxforum so I decided to join. My name is actually Anders Björkman but on Internet forums I am Heiwa. My company is Heiwa Co. A am evidently an engineer and work scientifically using first principles all the time. I am not in conspiracy theories. I just report my observations and calculations and results. If you do not like them, tell me what is wrong with them.

Do not worry. The MONEY is there for anyone, incl. NASA, JPL, SPACEX, ESA, to show that human moon travel is possible, à la Apollo 11 1969. Just copy paste the Apollo 11 NASA data and demonstrate that it really works and the money is yours. IMHO it was a hoax 1969.

Like the 9/11 2001 WTC tower global progressive collapses from top down shown live on five US TV channels. Cannot happen in the real world, i.e. it was another Apollo 11 type hoax. I pay anybody €1M to prove me wrong there too.

You see, I am a generous person. And pls follow the forum rules when replying. Do not shoot at the piano player. Listen to the music and say what's wrong with it.
First of all, why are dissenting views moderated (his and mine)?  That's outright censorship.  Truth does not suffer investigation.  Furthermore it's decidedly Orwellian to use the word "truther" as a derogatory term (I see it a lot.)  What's wrong with seeking the truth?  And I'm a guy who was kicked off one conspiracy forum for being too liberal and proposing the ISS was real!!!

Regarding the million Euro offer, how can someone put up a million Euros when their "company website" is on Tripod?

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: alexsanchez on January 27, 2013, 04:46:41 PM
"This is the kind of tedious nonsense up with which I will not put." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercorrection#Preposition_at_the_end_of_a_clause) -- Allegedly Winston Churchill, but very likely not.

Fred
If you come up with a clever phrase, and want it to last forever, attribute it to a famous dead person.

"Don't take refuge behind the false security of consensus." - Christopher Hitchens (for real, I heard him say it on a youtube video.)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 27, 2013, 04:54:36 PM
First of all, why are dissenting views moderated (his and mine)?  That's outright censorship.

It is not the dissenting views that got you and Heiwa onto the moderation list. It's your attitudes and your refusal to follow a few simple rules intended to keep the discussion civil. I try to be fair, Alex, but this forum belongs to me. It's not a public place. I'm not the US government (I'm not even American) so I'm not bound by the US constitution. You're a guest in my home... if you're rude I'll kick you out. If you're polite I'll let you say basically whatever you want.

You'll find a lot of dissenting views on this forum (and the old Proboards forum (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/)). I rarely delete posts, and when I do it's not because I disagree with them. In fact conspiracy theorists have deleted more posts from my forum than I have.

Quote
Furthermore it's decidedly Orwellian to use the word "truther" as a derogatory term (I see it a lot.)  What's wrong with seeking the truth?

There's nothing wrong with seeking the truth. The problem with truthers is that they ignore any truth that conflicts with their predetermined beliefs. So yes, the term "truther" is derogatory, and they have earned it.

Quote
And I'm a guy who was kicked off one conspiracy forum for being too liberal and proposing the ISS was real!!!

Yes, isn't it funny how conspiracy theorists can't all agree on what the truth is?

Quote
Regarding the million Euro offer, how can someone put up a million Euros when their "company website" is on Tripod?

Delusions of grandeur aren't illegal.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 27, 2013, 04:55:27 PM
Both you and Heiwa are moderated because you were personally insulting and abusive.

Your use of the term "censorship" is laughable.  You are not being censored.  You may say whatever you please - but LunarOrbit is not required to host it.

There is nothing wrong with seeking the truth - perhaps you should try it instead of spreading abuse and falsehood as you have so far?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 27, 2013, 05:25:48 PM
First of all, why are dissenting views moderated (his and mine)?  That's outright censorship.

First of all, why are hoax believers always utterly unable to grasp the simple reasons for being moderated on forums like this one? Your dissenting views are welcome as part of a civil discussion. The reasons for your moderation were explained here:

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=348.msg10697#msg10697

It is getting very tiresome to watch hoax believers like you become rude and insulting, then complain about free speech when held to account for it, and try to suggest it is because your 'dissenting views' don't agree with ours. You're hardly the first to do it. I've been on boards like this for over a decade now, and in all that time I have never seen anyone moderated or banned or censored for believing the moon landings were fake. What they do get moderated for is simply being rude and unable to follow the simple rules of civil discussion.

Quote
Furthermore it's decidedly Orwellian to use the word "truther" as a derogatory term (I see it a lot.)  What's wrong with seeking the truth?

Nothing is wrong with seeking the truth. The problem is that people labelled as 'truthers' have already decided what the truth is and reject any evidence that says they are wrong. I have seen people go into screaming fits of rage when challenged to perform a simple experiment they could do in their own home with normal household materials to illustrate why their idea of how something works is wrong. That includes things as simple as 'go outside and look at some shadows'. That's not seeking truth, that's hiding from it.

Quote
And I'm a guy who was kicked off one conspiracy forum for being too liberal and proposing the ISS was real!!!

Yeah, funny how the people we call 'truthers' can't seem to even agree on what the truth is, isn't it?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on January 27, 2013, 05:29:18 PM
So any chance, alexsanchez, you are going to elaborate on how you established heiwa to be a credible and competent engineer?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 27, 2013, 05:33:28 PM
And I'm a guy who was kicked off one conspiracy forum for being too liberal and proposing the ISS was real!!!

Such a claim is easy to check... I can see you stormed off in a huff (multiple times) after being caught in a lie and dishing out abuse.

Isn't it funny how you and Heiwa both posted on the same thread over there?  ::)  Watching you two argue was amusing.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on January 27, 2013, 05:42:09 PM
Someone calling themselves 'Heiwa' has just joined the board. If it's him, perhaps he's come here to discuss his views.

I noted some visitors to my popular web site from Apollohoaxforum so I decided to join. My name is actually Anders Björkman but on Internet forums I am Heiwa. My company is Heiwa Co. A am evidently an engineer and work scientifically using first principles all the time. I am not in conspiracy theories. I just report my observations and calculations and results. If you do not like them, tell me what is wrong with them.

Do not worry. The MONEY is there for anyone, incl. NASA, JPL, SPACEX, ESA, to show that human moon travel is possible, à la Apollo 11 1969. Just copy paste the Apollo 11 NASA data and demonstrate that it really works and the money is yours. IMHO it was a hoax 1969.

Like the 9/11 2001 WTC tower global progressive collapses from top down shown live on five US TV channels. Cannot happen in the real world, i.e. it was another Apollo 11 type hoax. I pay anybody €1M to prove me wrong there too.

You see, I am a generous person. And pls follow the forum rules when replying. Do not shoot at the piano player. Listen to the music and say what's wrong with it.
First of all, why are dissenting views moderated (his and mine)?  That's outright censorship.  Truth does not suffer investigation.  Furthermore it's decidedly Orwellian to use the word "truther" as a derogatory term (I see it a lot.)  What's wrong with seeking the truth?  And I'm a guy who was kicked off one conspiracy forum for being too liberal and proposing the ISS was real!!!

Regarding the million Euro offer, how can someone put up a million Euros when their "company website" is on Tripod?
you are not moderated because your views are dissenting.  you are moderated because you didn't follow the rules.  Show you can follow them and you'll likely get off moderation.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 27, 2013, 06:20:30 PM
And I'm a guy who was kicked off one conspiracy forum for being too liberal and proposing the ISS was real!!!

You know, I've just checked that out for myself. Quite apart from the fact that you don't actually appear to have been kicked off the forum at all, do you honestly think that, with all the profanity and abuse you slung around on that board, believing the ISS was real was the only reason they would have 'kicked you out'?

Let me ask you another question: why do you think it is OK to be rude and insulting to people? Why do you think you should be allowed to get away with that rather than being held to rules of civility? Would you talk like that to someone to their face and expect to get away with it scott-free?

If you have the facts on your side, as you claim, why do you need to resort to abuse and rudeness in the first place?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on January 27, 2013, 08:38:59 PM
What's wrong with seeking the truth?

Nothing.  Just like there's nothing wrong with going to church.  But if you go to church and pee in the holy water, they kick you out.  They kick you out for peeing in the holy water, not because of "religious differences" or any such ideological nonsense.

If you don't want people to sanction you, quit behaving distastefully.

Quote
And I'm a guy who was kicked off one conspiracy forum for being too liberal and proposing the ISS was real!

Nope.  You showed up with an attitude.  You blatantly admitted that you both gave a dissenting opinion and behaved reprehensibly (i.e., profanity).  Now you want us to believe that the sanctions against you (if any) are for the opinion and not the attitude?  Sorry, that's standard conspiracy rhetoric:  pretend your were "banned for your beliefs."  Every conspiracy theorist tries this.  Nobody buys it.

I see that there as well as here you made lofty claims to engineering expertise and experience that you could not back up.  So do you just go from forum to forum with this same schtick until you get caught?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on January 27, 2013, 10:11:28 PM
First of all, why are dissenting views moderated (his and mine)?  That's outright censorship.  Truth does not suffer investigation.  Furthermore it's decidedly Orwellian to use the word "truther" as a derogatory term (I see it a lot.)  What's wrong with seeking the truth?  And I'm a guy who was kicked off one conspiracy forum for being too liberal and proposing the ISS was real!!!

Yawn.

The whining is the most tedious part of hoax believers.  Whining and whining instead of supporting a hoax theory.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Not Myself on January 28, 2013, 01:17:10 AM
But if you go to church and pee in the holy water, they kick you out.

You didn't learn that the hard way, did you?  ;D
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: peter eldergill on January 28, 2013, 11:02:41 PM
  Just like there's nothing wrong with going to church.  But if you go to church and pee in the holy water, they kick you out.  They kick you out for peeing in the holy water, not because of "religious differences" or any such ideological nonsense.



That sounds like a testable hypothesis to me

Heh

Pete
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on January 29, 2013, 07:14:04 PM
So where is our beloved Heiwa? I think his suspension is up now, isnt it??
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: twik on January 30, 2013, 10:08:51 AM
So where is our beloved Heiwa? I think his suspension is up now, isnt it??

He's over at CosmoQuest, ignoring answers to the questions he's asked.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Not Myself on January 30, 2013, 10:43:25 AM
So where is our beloved Heiwa? I think his suspension is up now, isnt it??

He's over at CosmoQuest, ignoring answers to the questions he's asked.

Heiwa hasn't logged in there since Jan 23.  Is there a sock?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on January 30, 2013, 11:15:48 AM
Forgot to check on Björkman's page for a few days. Latest revision is from today. Again I have no time for a proper diff, just some highlights...

He has finally split the unreadable title into multiple centered lines.

He has also added this to the UFO "argument":

Quote
Reason is that too much fuel was required that could be carried and the pilot maneuvers were impossible to carry out ... and that everything was just a hoax 1969. That people believed. It was easy to fool people 1969. Since the 1940's the public had been told that Flying Saucers, UFOs, were regularly visiting Earth and that the USA could easily do space flying too. No rocket engineers would disagre. They are generally military where everything is secret. But (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBbiZEvRur8)...

The link is to a Bart Sibrel interview with Kaysing... Can't watch it right now, so I'm not sure why it's "but".

The argument is a really stupid one, which is unsurprising. Hey, Heiwa, ever heard of the commercial satellite launching industry? Or geostationary communication satellites are a hoax now, too?

For some inexplicable reason, he has become fixated with another NASA employee, adding a random paragraph about him in the "article"'s introduction:

Quote
So how is it possible that NASA fakes their activities? The person to ask is Terrence W. Wilcutt (http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/wilcutt_bio.html), NASA's Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance. Terrence heads the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) that assures the safety and enhances the success of all NASA activities through the development, implementation, and oversight of Agencywide safety, reliability, maintainability, and quality assurance (SRM&amp;QA) policies and procedures.

[photo of Wilcutt]

"Wilcutt joined NASA in 1990 as an astronaut candidate and was accepted into the corps in 1991. He logged more than 1,007 hours in space as the pilot on two shuttle  missions, STS-68 in 1994 and STS-79 in 1996, and commander of two others, STS-89 in 1998 and STS-106 in 2000. His  technical assignments as an astronaut included work on space shuttle main engine and external tank issues; supporting shuttle launches and landings as a member of the astronaut support personnel team at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida; and technical issues for the Astronaut Office Operations Development Branch at Johnson."

It would appear Terrence W. Wilcutt is part of the NASA hoax. Imaging having been 1 007 hrs in space and done four Shuttle re-entries, flying backwards from the Mir station (twice) and ISS (once) like Mark Kelly that I describe below.

Any idea why Wilcutt warrants inclusion? Did someone mention him on CosmoQuest or somewhere else?

Hey, Heiwa, here's something for you - a list of all the people who have flown in space (and returned, one way or the other):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_travelers_by_name

Care to add something about each one of them on your page? :D

In the "sources" section, a sentence has been deleted: "This quality and excellence award is no longer (since 2006) given because nobody seems to fulfill the guidelines' conditions ... that are better forgotten."

And another source has been added:

Quote
[5] SATURN V LAUNCH VEHICLE FLIGHT EVALUATION REPORT-AS-.506 APOLLO 11 MISSION (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900066485_1990066485.pdf) (not signed by anybody and probably written by some free-lance science fiction writer 1969)

Yeah, because a grand conspiracy would employ a freelance science-fiction writer instead of someone with the required technical knowledge... Oh, wait, that's another bad attempt at ridicule. ::)

He has now corrected his page to say that the transposition and docking was done after TLI. Something has finally sunk in. :D He still thinks the maneuver was some kind of amazing "stunt" though. Apparently, he's never heard of "relative velocity".

Quote
Apollo 11 with three asstronuts aboard launched from Cape Kennedy on July 16, 09.32 local time, 1969 fitted on top of a hugh, 100 + meter tall three stages, Saturn V (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900066485_1990066485.pdf), rocket or fire works launch vehicle looking like something right. The original drawings and records how it all worked are lost! (http://amyshirateitel.com/2011/04/03/the-lost-art-of-the-saturn-v/) Three minutes later the launch escape three motors system on top the CM was jettisoned ... one way or another. Why it was fitted in the first place is not clear.

I'm curious, how many machines from 50 years ago have their whole technical documentation intact... Also, Björkman still doesn't know why a launch escape system is necessary...  :P

(The blue marks modified text - in the previous version, the time was in "G.m.t" ;D )

And now the Saturn V is a fake too:
Quote
Three stages launch vehicle Saturn V with Apollo 11 Command, Service and Lunar landing modules on top. Note the amount of fuel and thrust of the rockets that were required to first put the Apollo 11 modules in orbit around Earth and then to send them off to the Moon. The last use of a Saturn 5 rocket  was the 14 May 1973 launch of Skylab. All drawings what they looked like and records how they worked were then conveniently lost and some people wonder if they ever existed ... or if they were just one empty mock up with some jet engines at bottom and trick film! Then came another strange launch vehicle - the Shuttle - that could not land on Earth after visiting space!

Note that this is the modified caption of the big diagram of the Saturn V, the one with the wrong engine label. That is, he's protesting about the lack of "all drawings what they looked like" in the caption of such a drawing. ;D

Oh, and the proposition that the Saturns were "mockups with jet engines at the bottom and trick film" is laughable. Their launches were public events attended by many people who were direct witnesses of the events from the launch to until the rocket went too high to be visible. The reported power and effects of the engines were much more powerful than anything else existing at the time.

He also mentions dust raised by the descent/ascent engine, linking to this video:


And that pretty much everything of note in the latest update.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on January 30, 2013, 11:40:41 AM
And I suppose the massive pieces of debris that hit Australia, to the considerable embarrassment of NASA, are fake as well. ::)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: twik on January 30, 2013, 12:02:54 PM
(blinks) The Shuttle could not land on Earth?  :o What sort of shuttle would that be, exactly?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on January 30, 2013, 12:43:24 PM
(blinks) The Shuttle could not land on Earth?  :o What sort of shuttle would that be, exactly?

You haven't been to his page, have you? I suggest you skim it. He believes that nothing can return safely from space - that safe atmospheric re-entry is impossible because all the kinetic energy of a reentering body magically heats only the body itself. Hence the long discussion of heat shields and detached shockwaves earlier in the thread. :D
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Count Zero on January 30, 2013, 12:54:27 PM
Oh, and the proposition that the Saturns were "mockups with jet engines at the bottom and trick film" is laughable. Their launches were public events attended by many people who were direct witnesses of the events from the launch to until the rocket went too high to be visible.

Me, for example (see my avatar).

(blinks) The Shuttle could not land on Earth?  :o What sort of shuttle would that be, exactly?

According to Heiwa, there's no such thing as heat-shields, so atmospheric re-entry is impossible and therefore the Space Shuttle was a hoax.  See earlier in this thread (because I would rather empty a litter-box than wade through this again).
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: twik on January 30, 2013, 02:22:38 PM
Ah. Well, there's no arguing with someone who believes we're living in a Truman Show sort of world, where large chunks of our shared experience are totally fictitious, and every possible piece of contrary evidence can be dismissed with "they're lying" or "it was faked".
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on January 30, 2013, 08:41:58 PM

The link is to a Bart Sibrel interview with Kaysing... Can't watch it right now, so I'm not sure why it's "but".


I think maybe he regards Kaysing as a "rocket engineer".
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on January 31, 2013, 08:17:00 AM
The latest revision of the article claims that Terrence Wilcutt doesn't exist. No kidding:

Quote
If you try to contact Terrence, you will probably not get through. It would appear Terrence W. Wilcutt is part of the NASA hoax ... and does not exist. Imaging having been 1 007 hrs in space and done four Shuttle re-entries, flying backwards from the Mir station (twice) and ISS (once) like Mark Kelly that I describe below. It is not possible.

 :o Wait, what? Some lines below:

Quote
[snip] And if you get hold of Terrence, pls tell me!

If you think I am crazy, I recommend that you emmigrate to planet Mars with Terrence and make a fortune there.

I am really tempted to try to find out what prompted the new obsession.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on January 31, 2013, 08:48:47 AM
The latest revision of the article claims that Terrence Wilcutt doesn't exist. No kidding:

Quote
If you try to contact Terrence, you will probably not get through. It would appear Terrence W. Wilcutt is part of the NASA hoax ... and does not exist. Imaging having been 1 007 hrs in space and done four Shuttle re-entries, flying backwards from the Mir station (twice) and ISS (once) like Mark Kelly that I describe below. It is not possible.

 :o Wait, what? Some lines below:

Quote
[snip] And if you get hold of Terrence, pls tell me!

If you think I am crazy, I recommend that you emmigrate to planet Mars with Terrence and make a fortune there.

I am really tempted to try to find out what prompted the new obsession.

I'm convinced that he has suffered some sort of mental or emotional trauma in his life. I cannot square that someone that has an engineering degree (its been checked) from a good university can be so ignorant of basic maths and would act in this way.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on January 31, 2013, 09:16:17 AM
I'm convinced that he has suffered some sort of mental or emotional trauma in his life. I cannot square that someone that has an engineering degree (its been checked) from a good university can be so ignorant of basic maths and would act in this way.
Something to do with the sinking of the MS Estonia, perhaps? His area of expertise, his part of the world, and he doesn't accept the findings of the official inquiry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Estonia
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 31, 2013, 12:45:13 PM
Head trauma can do interesting things to a person, I've read.  Maybe that would explain it.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on January 31, 2013, 01:28:41 PM
Most of the one's I've dealt with in my unpaid job, it just made them dead. 

But I think it's quite a stretch to speculate trauma as the source of Heiwa's utter incompetence and childish ranting.  There are degreed incompetents out there, as well as just plain jerks, and the two set intersect.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on January 31, 2013, 02:09:11 PM
Oh, certainly true.  However, the record on minor head trauma is fascinating.  Personality changes are the least of it sometimes.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on January 31, 2013, 02:31:24 PM
Oh, certainly true.  However, the record on minor head trauma is fascinating.  Personality changes are the least of it sometimes.

Yes, it is fascinating.  However, it does worry me that we may be dealing with someone who is quite unwell.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on January 31, 2013, 03:14:29 PM
We really should avoid public speculation about traumatic causes of the bad reasoning for a specific individual.  It is sufficient to point it out. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on February 12, 2013, 09:03:09 AM
After a long period of inactivity, Björkman has updated his page again. I really shouldn't be doing this, but...

He is still amazed by the transposition, docking and extraction maneuver. He has added a picture (AS09-20-3064 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gumdrop_Meets_Spider_-_GPN-2000-001100.jpg)) of the docked LM and CSM with the following caption:
Quote
Photo of Service Module and Command Module, CSM, taken by somebody sitting on the Lunar Module, LM, fitted on top of Commande Module after release of LM and flipping CSM 180° and reconnection of LM to CSM!

He still has no idea of how relative velocity and spacecraft maneuvers work in space. Oh, and that "someone" making the picture is Schweickart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_Schweickart). The mission is Apollo 9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_9) - it was a test flight, and both the LM and the CSM never went further than low Earth orbit during the mission. One of the test objectives was the docking and re-docking of the CSM with the LM. :)

Björkman also has managed to find someone as ignorant of spaceflight as he is:
Quote
Imagine that - manually checking the computer calculations! How to steer an LM with only one big rocket engine is described here (http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/21a_Lunar-Module-descent-stage-impossible-ENGL.html)! It looks as if it is impossible.

The linked page repeats a common (and long-debunked) claim: that the LM was inherently unstable, because of the LLRV/LLTV crashes, with the Delta Clipper experimental vehicle thrown in. The author appears to rely extensively on Gerhard Wisnewski's book. He also tries to claim that photos of the LLRV/LLTV in flight are faked, alleging inconsistencies between photos. Hello, there are videos of these thing flying! There's also a picture of the LM in lunar orbit, after separation, with the following curious caption: "A Lunar Module floating through the black background, probably on a crane, surely not in "space" because the engine flame is missing." Does this guy really think that spacecraft need to be firing their engines all the time to stay in space? ;D

Back to Björkman. He has discovered retroreflectors, adding a whole new paragraph:
Quote
But they allegedly left an experiment on the lunar surface to prove that they had been there, which (2004) continues to work as well as it did the day it got there, 1969. The Apollo 11 lunar laser ranging reflector (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=605) consists of 100 fused silica half cubes, called corner cubes, mounted in a 46-centimeter (18-inch) square aluminum panel. Each corner cube is 3.8 centimeters (1.5 inches) in diameter. Corner cubes reflect a beam of light directly back toward its point of origin. Anyone can send a laser signal to it on the Moon and the signal will bounce back - ergo - the cosmokrauts were on the Moon. However, in 1969 they forgot to tell anybody about it. Imagine that! A whole or half silica cube with a diameter that bounces light!

No, the retroreflectors were left to measure precisely the distance to the Moon, not to be a "proof". They do work as evidence that someone left them there, though. And their existence was known from the very beginning. Seriously, does he really think that this is some modern invention?

And I have no idea what the last sentence is supposed to mean.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on February 12, 2013, 09:40:13 AM
Dear lord!  :o Even I know that the first returns (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17769756) from the Apollo 11 retro-reflector was on August 1st 1969.
I agree, no idea what that last . . . I don't think that even qualified as an actual sentence, let alone what it actually is supposed to mean. :-\
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 12, 2013, 10:14:12 AM
And far from forgetting to tell anyone, photographs of them were published in popular magazines and newspapers a few days after they returned.

Dear God, please keep me away from any boats he's had anything to do with.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on February 12, 2013, 10:18:54 AM
It boggles the mind that he could even wonder why a mirror placed in 1969 would still be reflective. Considering the first sentence, one guess is as good as another as to what Björkman means in the last sentence.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on February 12, 2013, 10:21:10 AM
Dear God, please keep me away from any boats he's had anything to do with.

Fortunately, he seems to be most fascinated with ships that have sunk, so unless your a diver....
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gwiz on February 12, 2013, 10:24:06 AM
Quote
Imagine that! A whole or half silica cube with a diameter that bounces light!
You wonder what he has on the back of his car or pushbike.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on February 12, 2013, 10:31:45 AM
He has added a picture (AS09-20-3064 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gumdrop_Meets_Spider_-_GPN-2000-001100.jpg))

Quite apart from his intended purpose, that's a rather good picture for illustrating the way the CM surface materials vary in appearance under differences in lighting, angle, and surroundings.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on February 12, 2013, 01:02:00 PM
Two points.

One, "it looks impossible!" is meaningless.  Unless you can show that it is impossible, what it looks like doesn't matter.

Two, there are medieval mirrors that still reflect.  Oh, perhaps not as well as they used to, but you know, they've had centuries of interaction with air degrading them.  The reflectors on the Moon?  Not so much.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on February 12, 2013, 05:44:41 PM
And far from forgetting to tell anyone, photographs of them were published in popular magazines and newspapers a few days after they returned.

Indeed, including in the December 1969 National Geographic, of which I own a pristine copy (with the phonorecord "Sounds from Space" still intact).

Quote
Dear God, please keep me away from any boats he's had anything to do with.

That's just the thing.  We can grant him some sympathy for being a fish out of water, so to speak, when talking about space.  But in fact, from what I've read, professional mariners consider him just as much of a nut case when he talks about ship safety.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on February 12, 2013, 05:57:12 PM
The Life Magazine for August 8 (http://books.google.ca/books?id=vUwEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA25&dq=%22laser%20reflector%22&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q&f=true), linked to in your site, onebigmonkey, also shows and labels it.
Unrelated, but hilarious in hindsight is the title of the article in the same issue, "Everybody Lives at the Watergate."
Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sus_pilot on February 12, 2013, 07:08:35 PM
And far from forgetting to tell anyone, photographs of them were published in popular magazines and newspapers a few days after they returned.

Indeed, including in the December 1969 National Geographic, of which I own a pristine copy (with the phonorecord "Sounds from Space" still intact).


Wow.  I am jealous of that one, Jay!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on February 12, 2013, 07:51:05 PM
Quote from: Clueless Anders Björkman
...However, in 1969 they forgot to tell anybody about it...
Aside from, you know, writing it up in the press kit (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11_PressKit.pdf)?

What an amazingly incompetent person.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on February 12, 2013, 09:15:48 PM
Can you, e.g. explain re-entry. You are aboard the famous International Space Station, ISS, that according NASA is orbiting Earth every 90 minutes at 400 000 m altitude (almost vacuum) at 7 200 m/s velocity and you want to go down to Earth. It means you have to go down 400 000 m and slow down from 7 200 m/s to 0 m/s speed. How to do it?

Do you jump into a little capsule with a little rocket engine to slow you down? Yes, apparently you do that and the result is that you arrive at 120 000 m altitude but that the velocity then has increased to 9 000 m/s as some potential energy of the capsule has become kinetic energy = greater velocity. It is like diving from the 10 m board. It gets faster the closer you get to the water.

At 120 000 m altitude there is a thin atmosphere with nitrogene and oxygene atoms that you collide with and ... MAGIC ... suddenly you slow down to 100 m/s (at say 5 000 m altitude) and deploy a parachute and land. In a desert in Kazakstan. Where nobody lives. In the middle of nowhere!

Imagine that - you slow down from 9 000 m/s to 100 m/s just by colliding with atoms. But why don't you slow down to 0 m/s by colliding with atoms? Let me ask a stupid question or two? Why do you need a parachute at the end? What is wrong with colliding with atoms to the end?

This was nominated for a Stundie and it is the clear leader in the voting.  (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=253203)

What is it about hoax believers that gives them the clear edge in the Stundies?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on February 12, 2013, 09:36:18 PM
Amusingly, he just silently vanished from his CosmoQuest thread (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/141335-Heiwa-s-thread) shortly after getting the same answers from largely the same people and a few new ones, including a multiple approaches to his favorite fuel consumption problem.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on February 12, 2013, 10:04:55 PM
Superheroes tend to do that. Save the world from itself one moment and then they're off to fight another bad guy.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: smartcooky on February 13, 2013, 03:39:07 AM
Can you, e.g. explain re-entry. You are aboard the famous International Space Station, ISS, that according NASA is orbiting Earth every 90 minutes at 400 000 m altitude (almost vacuum) at 7 200 m/s velocity and you want to go down to Earth. It means you have to go down 400 000 m and slow down from 7 200 m/s to 0 m/s speed. How to do it?

Do you jump into a little capsule with a little rocket engine to slow you down? Yes, apparently you do that and the result is that you arrive at 120 000 m altitude but that the velocity then has increased to 9 000 m/s as some potential energy of the capsule has become kinetic energy = greater velocity. It is like diving from the 10 m board. It gets faster the closer you get to the water.

At 120 000 m altitude there is a thin atmosphere with nitrogene and oxygene atoms that you collide with and ... MAGIC ... suddenly you slow down to 100 m/s (at say 5 000 m altitude) and deploy a parachute and land. In a desert in Kazakstan. Where nobody lives. In the middle of nowhere!

Imagine that - you slow down from 9 000 m/s to 100 m/s just by colliding with atoms. But why don't you slow down to 0 m/s by colliding with atoms? Let me ask a stupid question or two? Why do you need a parachute at the end? What is wrong with colliding with atoms to the end?

This was nominated for a Stundie and it is the clear leader in the voting.  (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=253203)

What is it about hoax believers that gives them the clear edge in the Stundies?

Did anyone suggest that they test their theory by jumping off the nearest cliff or high-rise building?



EDIT:

IMO, these two are both fully deserving of honourable mention!

No. 5. What an awesome kitchen this guy has with his own vacuum oven......wait what recipe calls for that?
Quote
Hammer and feather shows another proof moon mission was a fake, because no feather can bare environment of a 250F as is on moon under sun light. Heat up your oven to even 200F, place a feather in it and mesure its duration before melt down or ignition, i suppose it should be below 10sec. p.s I dont mention rubber bottom shoes all appolonists warred

No. 16: On the moon oxygen goes all contrary and acts like it has an atomic mass of 4.002602 ± 0.000002 u. Hopefully it is just a phase.
Quote
Another damn good question is why the **** did their voices not sound high pitch because of gravity? Ever huff helium? It makes your voice high pitch because it weighs less. Wouldn't that mean oxygen on the moon would weigh less therefor making their voices higher pitched?


Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on February 13, 2013, 05:33:03 AM
Of course he got it totally wrong; it's the molecular mass and temperature of the gas, not its weight in a gravitational field, that affects the speed of sound and thereby the resonant frequencies of the vocal tract and the properties of speech. But I have to give him credit for actually trying...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on February 13, 2013, 07:25:24 AM
No. 5. What an awesome kitchen this guy has with his own vacuum oven......wait what recipe calls for that?
Quote
Hammer and feather shows another proof moon mission was a fake, because no feather can bare environment of a 250F as is on moon under sun light. Heat up your oven to even 200F, place a feather in it and mesure its duration before melt down or ignition, i suppose it should be below 10sec. p.s I dont mention rubber bottom shoes all appolonists warred

Oh if only I could be bothered to respond to him and point out two things:

1: That is such a simple experiment that he could do it himself, so one wonders why he doesn't.

2: If he did, he'd note the same result I did when I did exactly what he proposed some years ago (and described on the old board in a relevant thread). Specifically, the result of baking two feathers in an oven at 200 degrees Fahrenheit was....

... absolutely nothing happened to them.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on February 13, 2013, 09:49:06 AM
Did anyone suggest that they test their theory by jumping off the nearest cliff or high-rise building?

That way they would win both the Stundie Award and the Darwin Award.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Valis on February 13, 2013, 10:31:10 AM
Oh if only I could be bothered to respond to him and point out two things:

1: That is such a simple experiment that he could do it himself, so one wonders why he doesn't.

2: If he did, he'd note the same result I did when I did exactly what he proposed some years ago (and described on the old board in a relevant thread). Specifically, the result of baking two feathers in an oven at 200 degrees Fahrenheit was....

... absolutely nothing happened to them.
While it's good to do the experiment (flawed as it may be) yourself, the result is not surprising, as keratins usually have melting points above 150 °C. Check the temps available for hair curling irons; I've not seen my wife's hair melt or ignite when she's used temperatures way past 200 °F.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on February 13, 2013, 10:50:30 AM
A fact I also pointed out on the old board. Feathers are anhydrous keratin scaffolds. They can't even dehydrate at 200 degrees!

I also find it odd that he would think feathers should spontaneously combust in seconds at temperatures significantly lower than those used to cook most foods....
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on February 13, 2013, 11:24:09 AM
A fact I also pointed out on the old board. Feathers are anhydrous keratin scaffolds. They can't even dehydrate at 200 degrees!

I also find it odd that he would think feathers should spontaneously combust in seconds at temperatures significantly lower than those used to cook most foods....

I can testify from personal experience that a person can tolerate a 200o environment with no special protection, at least for relatively brief periods.

In my youth I worked in a textile factory where part of the weekly routine was cleaning the huge dryers we used. Each one was a steel box about 50m long, perhaps 4m wide and high; upholstery went through it on sort of a conveyor belt arrangement. They normally operated at about 370o F; once a week they were shut down for cleaning and once they were cooled down to 200o, the younger employees went inside to clean the "flock" (accumulated lint) off the filters. Obviously you didn't want to overexert yourself, and you were careful not to touch any metal surfaces with a bare hand, but otherwise it was quite tolerable for the 15-20 minutes you were inside at a time. 

OSHA probably requires more stringent safety procedures these days, but 40 years ago no one thought anything of it.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Bob B. on February 13, 2013, 11:35:55 AM
Saunas often have temperatures in the 200° F range.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on February 13, 2013, 11:44:45 AM
Saunas often have temperatures in the 200° F range.

And in a humid environment where condensation delivers heat to cooler surfaces faster than conduction alone would.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: pzkpfw on February 13, 2013, 02:14:11 PM
And in a humid environment where condensation delivers heat to cooler surfaces faster than conduction alone would.

Possibly counter-intuitive*; I could imagine an HB claiming "the water cools you down, duh".

(* in the usual "HB doesn't understand much physics but still can judge whether various space systems would work" way.)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on February 13, 2013, 02:47:49 PM
Possibly counter-intuitive*; I could imagine an HB claiming "the water cools you down, duh".

Fortunately (for those of us who haven't been involved directly) there has been quite a bit of information accumulated about steam burns.

You can wave your fingers through a candle flame with no harm, only a slight feeling of warmth. Coffee makers, tea kettles, rice cookers, etc can produce jets or plumes of steam that are much worse burn hazards than open flames, despite their lower temperature.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: DataCable on February 13, 2013, 03:16:18 PM
What an awesome kitchen this guy has with his own vacuum oven......wait what recipe calls for that?
The way some people seem to think heat transfer occurs instantly in a vacuum, I've often tinkered with the idea of suggesting that one patent and manufacture such a device.  Think of it, cooking a 20lb turkey, in no time flat!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on February 13, 2013, 03:23:50 PM
I've also seen those who claim, with all apparent seriousness, that heat can't transfer out in a vacuum. :o They never seemed to be able to answer the question how it gets colder at night then.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on February 13, 2013, 03:51:08 PM
Or how it gets warm in the daytime, especially when standing in sunlight.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on February 13, 2013, 03:59:00 PM
That too. Seriously, the whole thing was flabbergastingly insane.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: armillary on February 13, 2013, 05:01:30 PM
I recently sterilized a bunch of goose quills in my oven. They seemed to have no trouble staying in there for about 45 minutes, at 100-120o C. (Hey, I believe in being thorough)

Seriously, it's an experiment so easy to perform that it's blatantly obvious the HBers are looking for ammunition rather than truth.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: twik on February 13, 2013, 05:47:06 PM
... suddenly you slow down to 100 m/s (at say 5 000 m altitude) and deploy a parachute and land. In a desert in Kazakstan. Where nobody lives. In the middle of nowhere!

Out of many of the things wrong with Heiwa's statement, this one makes me laugh. Where would he LIKE the capsule to land? In Red Square? On top of buildings, and tourists?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: twik on February 13, 2013, 05:50:11 PM
I also find it odd that he would think feathers should spontaneously combust in seconds at temperatures significantly lower than those used to cook most foods....

You see, that's why no one ever bothers to pluck poultry before roasting. The feathers will all spontaneously combust anyway, so why worry about removing them?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on February 13, 2013, 05:59:34 PM
Heck, it's even lower than the boiling point of water, for Pete's sake!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on February 13, 2013, 06:05:19 PM
And let's not forget that neither a pot of boiling water nor a hot oven is remotely analogous to the thermal conditions on the Moon.

The stupid, it (almost) burns!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on February 13, 2013, 08:59:18 PM
And let's not forget that neither a pot of boiling water nor a hot oven is remotely analogous to the thermal conditions on the Moon.

The stupid, it (almost) burns!
Another case of "not even wrong". Putting a feather into a 200o oven has nothing to do with lunar surface conditions. But he's even wrong about what will happen to the feather in the oven!  So not only is his experiment totally meaningless, he assumed the wrong result.

It makes you wonder how some people ever learn to put their socks on before their shoes...

(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt353/jarvisn/logic-fail_zpsa2960234.jpg)
Title: Re: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on February 13, 2013, 11:22:01 PM
That too. Seriously, the whole thing was flabbergastingly insane.

You have to remember that they didn't start with such egregious misunderstanding of physics. They invented it when they thought it might help their conspiracy theory.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on February 13, 2013, 11:38:26 PM
I especially like it when they end one of those baffingly insane, not-even-wrong claims with:

"It's physics!"

Cartoon physics, perhaps.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on February 14, 2013, 12:59:10 PM
Another case of "not even wrong". Putting a feather into a 200o oven has nothing to do with lunar surface conditions. But he's even wrong about what will happen to the feather in the oven!  So not only is his experiment totally meaningless, he assumed the wrong result.

That's what makes it a Stundie.  In order to be a Stundie nominee, it's not enough merely to be wrong.  You have to be spectacularly wrong.

On a more serious note, I never know what to do with those arguments that are wrong in multiple ways.  In law you attack all the ways in which an argument is wrong, because you never know which one(s) the trier of fact will deem valid, so you present the entire case.  But often in informal debate it's better to stick to one line of rebuttal and follow it to the end.  The argument is clearer that way and avoids the impression that you're "all over the place."
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on February 14, 2013, 01:13:17 PM
I especially like it when they end one of those baffingly insane, not-even-wrong claims with:

"It's physics!"

Cartoon physics, perhaps.

Indeed.  When I hear arguments along the lines of, "The official story violates the laws of physics," what I hear in my head is, "I'm giving you my socially- and politically-motivated emotional response to a load of intuition someone else spoon-fed me, but in order to make it sound less like made-up nonsense I'm going to make vague allusion to a required class I barely squeaked through in high school and haven't used in the intervening 15 years."
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Halcyon Dayz, FCD on February 14, 2013, 02:05:56 PM
On GLP there are currently a bunch of folk who refuse to understand that the mass of an asteroid (specifically 2012 DA14) is irrelevant to its orbit.
Even after having it explained to them twenty times over.

It's annoying to say the least.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on February 14, 2013, 03:46:45 PM
I just had a look at some of the DA14 threads on GLP.  I am stunned not only at the wilful ignorance but at the appalling abuse.  I feel a bit sick :(
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Abaddon on February 14, 2013, 05:24:40 PM
I just had a look at some of the DA14 threads on GLP.  I am stunned not only at the wilful ignorance but at the appalling abuse.  I feel a bit sick :(
Aww, now you made me go look at the stupid.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: smartcooky on February 14, 2013, 05:51:57 PM
On GLP there are currently a bunch of folk who refuse to understand that the mass of an asteroid (specifically 2012 DA14) is irrelevant to its orbit.

[devil's advocate]So if the moon was much more massive than it is in reality, say, it was the same physical size that it is now, but had the mass of Jupiter, it would trundle along happily in it's current orbit around the Earth; 29.53 days at at distance of 384,000 km? Really?[/devil's advocate]

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on February 14, 2013, 06:04:44 PM
I just had a look at some of the DA14 threads on GLP.  I am stunned not only at the wilful ignorance but at the appalling abuse.  I feel a bit sick :(

Linky? Please don't make me search GLP for it.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on February 14, 2013, 07:55:35 PM
I especially like it when they end one of those baffingly insane, not-even-wrong claims with:

"It's physics!"

Cartoon physics, perhaps.

Indeed.  When I hear arguments along the lines of, "The official story violates the laws of physics," what I hear in my head is, "I'm giving you my socially- and politically-motivated emotional response to a load of intuition someone else spoon-fed me, but in order to make it sound less like made-up nonsense I'm going to make vague allusion to a required class I barely squeaked through in high school and haven't used in the intervening 15 years."
I would say that most of them never even had the one class.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Abaddon on February 14, 2013, 08:44:32 PM
I just had a look at some of the DA14 threads on GLP.  I am stunned not only at the wilful ignorance but at the appalling abuse.  I feel a bit sick :(
Linky? Please don't make me search GLP for it.
There are two pages of DA14 threads over there. Have one at random. NASA dunnit http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2139821/pg1 (http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2139821/pg1)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on February 14, 2013, 09:08:26 PM
I would say that most of them never even had the one class.

Probably not.  It wasn't required in my high school.  You had to take one year of "physical science" (and a year of "life science") to graduate, but you could choose among several options--in my school, you had chemistry, physics, and a class just called "physical science," aimed at . . . shall we say, those who weren't college-bound?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on February 14, 2013, 09:17:50 PM
I just had a look at some of the DA14 threads on GLP.  I am stunned not only at the wilful ignorance but at the appalling abuse.  I feel a bit sick :(
Linky? Please don't make me search GLP for it.
There are two pages of DA14 threads over there. Have one at random. NASA dunnit http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2139821/pg1 (http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2139821/pg1)


Thanks.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on February 15, 2013, 02:08:58 AM
On GLP there are currently a bunch of folk who refuse to understand that the mass of an asteroid (specifically 2012 DA14) is irrelevant to its orbit.

[devil's advocate]So if the moon was much more massive than it is in reality, say, it was the same physical size that it is now, but had the mass of Jupiter, it would trundle along happily in it's current orbit around the Earth; 29.53 days at at distance of 384,000 km? Really?[/devil's advocate]

He did say "asteroid" which means M>>>>m.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on February 15, 2013, 10:37:16 AM
On GLP there are currently a bunch of folk who refuse to understand that the mass of an asteroid (specifically 2012 DA14) is irrelevant to its orbit.

[devil's advocate]So if the moon was much more massive than it is in reality, say, it was the same physical size that it is now, but had the mass of Jupiter, it would trundle along happily in it's current orbit around the Earth; 29.53 days at at distance of 384,000 km? Really?[/devil's advocate]

I may have dropped a decimal point, but wouldn't the density be getting close to black hole levels?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on February 15, 2013, 10:54:41 AM
Close, but not reaching, considering a black hole the mass of the sun would be, if I remember correctly, only few miles wide.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on February 15, 2013, 12:27:34 PM
But if the Moon was that large, the two body problem becomes less anchored. We have to start considering the orbit of both bodies about the barycentre.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on February 15, 2013, 01:23:29 PM
I have always though that the combined mass of both objects defined the orbit.  It is just that in most cases the mass of a space craft or asteroid is an insignificant component to the combined mass.  Is that not correct?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on February 15, 2013, 01:43:48 PM
I have always though that the combined mass of both objects defined the orbit.  It is just that in most cases the mass of a space craft or asteroid is an insignificant component to the combined mass.  Is that not correct?

That's correct. The period is 2*pi*sqrt(a^3/(G*(M1 + M2))). When M1 is many times M2, you can simplify M1 + M2 to M1 with little loss of accuracy. And a 1 trillion tonne object is still 70 million times smaller than the moon...the loss of accuracy from this simplification is likely to be less than the precision of your computations.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ipearse on February 15, 2013, 02:09:04 PM
I just had a look at some of the DA14 threads on GLP.  I am stunned not only at the wilful ignorance but at the appalling abuse.  I feel a bit sick :(
Linky? Please don't make me search GLP for it.
There are two pages of DA14 threads over there. Have one at random. NASA dunnit http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2139821/pg1 (http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2139821/pg1)

Apparently, my IP address has been banned from GLP...? Mind you, from what I have heard of the place, I think it's a blessing in disguise!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: smartcooky on February 15, 2013, 02:35:20 PM
I have always though that the combined mass of both objects defined the orbit.  It is just that in most cases the mass of a space craft or asteroid is an insignificant component to the combined mass.  Is that not correct?

That's correct. The period is 2*pi*sqrt(a^3/(G*(M1 + M2))). When M1 is many times M2, you can simplify M1 + M2 to M1 with little loss of accuracy. And a 1 trillion tonne object is still 70 million times smaller than the moon...the loss of accuracy from this simplification is likely to be less than the precision of your computations.

Right, so it isn't strictly speaking true that the mass of an object does not affect its orbit, its just that with the huge disparity between the solar mass and asteroid's mass, the difference is so insignificantly small that it will make no appreciable difference.

Of course the mass of the asteroid could be significant should it encounter some other solar system object, right? e.g., an asteroid with the mass of a small car will suffer greater orbital perturbation than one half the mass of the moon were either of them to pass close to Jupiter on their way to the Sun?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on February 15, 2013, 03:05:42 PM
Of course the mass of the asteroid could be significant should it encounter some other solar system object, right? e.g., an asteroid with the mass of a small car will suffer greater orbital perturbation than one half the mass of the moon were either of them to pass close to Jupiter on their way to the Sun?

The difference is still slight. Jupiter still outmasses the larger object by 50 thousand times. And you have the effect reversed...the larger object will be influenced more, because its attraction will accelerate Jupiter toward it.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 15, 2013, 03:41:00 PM
That's correct. The period is 2*pi*sqrt(a^3/(G*(M1 + M2))). When M1 is many times M2, you can simplify M1 + M2 to M1 with little loss of accuracy.

Yeah. Yeah, er, yeah. I was thinking that would be it.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on March 01, 2013, 01:17:26 AM
The things you find out watching the "Toy Story" movies...  :)

(Just bought them for the boys, and I'm happy to admit that I enjoy all of them too.)

Each DVD has a 3 minute NASA film about the International Space Station. On one of them I noticed an astronaut come inside after a spacewalk who had a Swedish flag on his arm.

I wonder if Anders Bjorkman would accept the word of fellow Swede Christer Fuglesang that it's possible to safely return to the Earth from the ISS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christer_Fuglesang
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: carpediem on March 01, 2013, 08:26:31 AM
I wonder if Anders Bjorkman would accept the word of fellow Swede Christer Fuglesang that it's possible to safely return to the Earth from the ISS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christer_Fuglesang

I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark, and go with no, he wouldn't.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: twik on March 01, 2013, 10:09:39 AM
Arguments become so easy to win, when you have two buttons to press: "They faked it," and "He's lying". I'm sure Heiwa would simply press Button #2 for Mr. Fuglesang's testimony.

Then, of course, if Mr. F. were to claim he was not lying, and gave evidence, such as photos, reports, and other documents, Heiwa can press Button #1 for that.

It's a two-note symphony.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on March 01, 2013, 07:40:50 PM
I wonder if Anders Bjorkman would accept the word of fellow Swede Christer Fuglesang that it's possible to safely return to the Earth from the ISS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christer_Fuglesang

I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark, and go with no, he wouldn't.

 :)

Yep, but at least they can argue in Swedish and leave us alone...
Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sus_pilot on March 01, 2013, 08:06:22 PM
I wonder if Anders Bjorkman would accept the word of fellow Swede Christer Fuglesang that it's possible to safely return to the Earth from the ISS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christer_Fuglesang

I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark, and go with no, he wouldn't.

 :)

Yep, but at least they can argue in Swedish and leave us alone...

"Ya, hey dere, you faked, da whole ding, you hoser."

Sorry, Northern Illinois boy here. I keep channeling the Norwegians and Swedes from the Upper Peninsula...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on March 03, 2013, 03:50:27 AM
Anders "quietly moving the goalposts" Björkman has modified his page again, last on 28 Feb. This time, a lot of the text has been shuffled around, so it's harder to find novel changes, but still not impossible.

http://www.members.tripod.com/heiwaco/moontravel.htm

Based on his usual simplistic calculations, he proclaims the Ariane 5 to be real and the Saturn 5 and the Shuttle fake. Oh, and as for this:
Quote
It is always nice to compare old and new space vehicles carrying out maneuvers and the fuel consumed. And the conclusions is clear! NASA fakes it. 44 years ago 1969 and today 2013. Only the French Ariane 5 is real!

(The emphasis is his.) Psst, dude, the Shuttles fly no more, so what exactly are NASA faking in 2013?

(He again tries to deduce the "fuel consumption" per joule from the vehicle loadout at start and the payload's orbital velocity, gets a low value for the Ariane, then decides that this is a "real" value as compared to his Apollo numbers. Hey, Heiwa! Why don't you go to the scientists and engineers that designed and built the Ariane and ask them if Apollo was real? Even better, show them your "calculations". Even engineers enjoy a laugh now and then. ;) )

Björkman has also quietly accepted the existence of a Shuttle orbiter re-entry sonic boom, migrating from "Anyone hearing a Shuttle producing a sonic boom at re-entry was therefore mistaken. Or subject to NASA propaganda!" and "And no sonic booms!" to the orbiter making "a short supersonic flight to produce a sonic boom" after being released from an airplane and speculations about the overpressure levels of the shockwave.

Oh, and he's added another picture, of a Shuttle re-entry from the ISS:
Quote
Above NASA photo (http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/573233main_image_2014_946-710.jpg) shows the space shuttle Atlantis, appearing like a bean sprout against clouds and city lights, on its way home braking through the atmosphere, as outlined above and below. It was allegedly taken by the Expedition 28 crew of the International Space Station. Airglow over Earth can be seen in the background. The photo does not look real in my view, i.e. it is another fake.

 ::) Ever heard of "long exposure", Björkman? Oh, and as for another newly added jab, shuttle re-entries can be seen from the ground, too. Remember the thermal camera imaging of Columbia?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on March 03, 2013, 09:58:54 AM
I wonder if he thinks all those Texans saw (or heard) "propaganda" in their skies on the morning of February 1, 2003. Guys like him really annoy me sometimes.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on March 03, 2013, 12:51:48 PM
I wonder how he imagines older photo-reconnaissance satellites worked;the ones that returned film from orbit.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on March 03, 2013, 01:37:07 PM
My guess?  He doesn't think they did.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on March 03, 2013, 03:57:32 PM
My guess?  He doesn't think they did.
If he even knows about them.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on March 04, 2013, 02:14:47 PM
Bwahahahahahahaha!!!

After Glom, I am the second one honoured with a mention on Björkman's website!  8) Apparently, linking to him yesterday rankled him. :D

In other words, he's changed his page again - among other things, he tries to wrestle with the mass of the SIV-B (he gets an approximate number from Wikipedia that doesn't agree with the one in the Apollo 11 report, with predictable results). He's also added more attacks against NASA and his critics. The section where he complains about Glom has several interesting additions, starting with the introduction (new inserts are in green, as usually):
Quote
This evidently upsets many Apollo11hoaxsters! (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.315) Apollo11hoaxster.net is an Internet forum run by NASA trying to make the impression that space travel works, etc. It goes, tragically, like this:

Run by NASA, huh? ::) Something must have made a mark! :D

The only modification to the paragraph describing Glom is the removal of "probably" from "has probably worked for NASA all his life". :D After that is the newly added paragraph about moi:

Quote
Another clown is Daggerstab. She thinks you can take long exposure photos when travelling at 7&nbsp;500 m/s speed around Earth.

Nope, not clown. An assassin. Nil Mortifi Sine Lucre! :D

My username is a link leading to the picture I commented on in my last post. Its caption has evolved somewhat since the last time:
Quote
Above NASA "long exposure" photo (http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/573233main_image_2014_946-710.jpg (http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/573233main_image_2014_946-710.jpg)) shows the space shuttle Atlantis, appearing like a bean sprout against clouds and city lights, on its way home braking through the atmosphere, as outlined above and below. It was allegedly long exposured taken by the Expedition 28 crew of the International Space Station. Airglow over Earth can be seen in the background if you have sharp eyes. I can just see clouds. The photo does not look real in my view, i.e. it is another NASA fake.
         
One of my ex NASA PR-agents Daggerstab (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.1260) wonders "Ever heard of "long exposure", Björkman?" He is another stupid NASA SF writer trying to make ends meet in Arizona! Try to make a long exposure of Earth below photo from a space vehicle at 7&nbsp;500 m/s speed? Thanks for the PR!

 :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Björkman, I find it curious that of all things written in my last post, you took issue only with the "long exposure" jab. Does this mean that you agree with everything else? And no word about my challenge? To repeat it: Why don't you contact the scientists and engineers that designed and built the Ariane 5 and ask them if Apollo/Saturn was real?

And what exactly is the problem with making a long exposure photo in low Earth orbit? I found a copy of the photo in a place that conserves EXIF metadata - http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-135/html/iss028e018218.html According to my EXIF reader, the exposure time was 1 second, which counts as "long" in my book. :) And spotting airglow in that picture doesn't require sharp eyes. (By the way, several sentences in the caption are plagiarized from the original NASA description, and it seems that this is not an exception.)

And also, Arizona? What are you smoking, Björkman? :D :D :D
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on March 04, 2013, 03:03:00 PM
Sigh.  When is he going to learn that "doesn't look real to me" only means something if there's any reason to believe he could spot a real picture given a half-hour headstart to do research?

Oh, wait.  He isn't.  That would be learning something.

Glom, what was it like to work for NASA as an infant?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on March 04, 2013, 07:16:53 PM
Quote
Another clown is Daggerstab. She thinks you can take long exposure photos when travelling at 7&nbsp;500 m/s speed around Earth.

Quote
One of my ex NASA PR-agents Daggerstab (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.1260) wonders "Ever heard of "long exposure", Björkman?" He is another stupid NASA SF writer trying to make ends meet in Arizona!

Gender confused much, there, Anders?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on March 04, 2013, 07:50:32 PM
Bwahahahahahahaha!!!

After Glom, I am the second one honoured with a mention on Björkman's website!  8) Apparently, linking to him yesterday rankled him. :D

In other words, he's changed his page again - among other things, he tries to wrestle with the mass of the SIV-B (he gets an approximate number from Wikipedia that doesn't agree with the one in the Apollo 11 report, with predictable results). He's also added more attacks against NASA and his critics. The section where he complains about Glom has several interesting additions, starting with the introduction (new inserts are in green, as usually):
Quote
This evidently upsets many Apollo11hoaxsters! (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.315) Apollo11hoaxster.net is an Internet forum run by NASA trying to make the impression that space travel works, etc. It goes, tragically, like this:

Run by NASA, huh? ::) Something must have made a mark! :D

The only modification to the paragraph describing Glom is the removal of "probably" from "has probably worked for NASA all his life". :D After that is the newly added paragraph about moi:

Quote
Another clown is Daggerstab. She thinks you can take long exposure photos when travelling at 7&nbsp;500 m/s speed around Earth.

Nope, not clown. An assassin. Nil Mortifi Sine Lucre! :D

My username is a link leading to the picture I commented on in my last post. Its caption has evolved somewhat since the last time:
Quote
Above NASA "long exposure" photo (http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/573233main_image_2014_946-710.jpg (http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/573233main_image_2014_946-710.jpg)) shows the space shuttle Atlantis, appearing like a bean sprout against clouds and city lights, on its way home braking through the atmosphere, as outlined above and below. It was allegedly long exposured taken by the Expedition 28 crew of the International Space Station. Airglow over Earth can be seen in the background if you have sharp eyes. I can just see clouds. The photo does not look real in my view, i.e. it is another NASA fake.
         
One of my ex NASA PR-agents Daggerstab (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.1260) wonders "Ever heard of "long exposure", Björkman?" He is another stupid NASA SF writer trying to make ends meet in Arizona! Try to make a long exposure of Earth below photo from a space vehicle at 7&nbsp;500 m/s speed? Thanks for the PR!

 :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Björkman, I find it curious that of all things written in my last post, you took issue only with the "long exposure" jab. Does this mean that you agree with everything else? And no word about my challenge? To repeat it: Why don't you contact the scientists and engineers that designed and built the Ariane 5 and ask them if Apollo/Saturn was real?

And what exactly is the problem with making a long exposure photo in low Earth orbit? I found a copy of the photo in a place that conserves EXIF metadata - http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-135/html/iss028e018218.html According to my EXIF reader, the exposure time was 1 second, which counts as "long" in my book. :) And spotting airglow in that picture doesn't require sharp eyes. (By the way, several sentences in the caption are plagiarized from the original NASA description, and it seems that this is not an exception.)

And also, Arizona? What are you smoking, Björkman? :D :D :D

As if we had any doubts, this level of unprofessionalism on his page shows he is not an engineer, at least not one that values his credibility.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on March 04, 2013, 08:55:56 PM
If he wants to argue with someone in his native language (and about his age too), he could of course also talk to Sven Grahn: http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: RAF on March 04, 2013, 09:13:16 PM
If he wants to argue with someone in his native language (and about his age too), he could of course also talk to Sven Grahn: http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/

That hardly seems fair as Sven obviously knows what he is talking about, while Bjorkman simply doesn't.

Then again, anyone who has more than a passing familiarity with the Lunar missions would be more than a match for Bjorkman....the willful ignorance runs deep in that one.



edit to add....thanks, Peter B for that link. :)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: smartcooky on March 04, 2013, 09:30:16 PM
If he wants to argue with someone in his native language (and about his age too), he could of course also talk to Sven Grahn: http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/

Ha, ha.... Ha, ha, ha

Manny Pacquiao v Pee Wee Herman would be fairer fight. How about he debate with Dolph Lundgren, someone who is more in his intellectual level.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on March 04, 2013, 10:02:57 PM
If he wants to argue with someone in his native language (and about his age too), he could of course also talk to Sven Grahn: http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/

Ha, ha.... Ha, ha, ha

Manny Pacquiao v Pee Wee Herman would be fairer fight. How about he debate with Dolph Lundgren, someone who is more in his intellectual level.

Dude. Dolph Lundgren is very, very smart.

Quote
After graduating from high school with straight As, he spent some time in the United States in the late 1970s on various academic scholarships, studying chemistry at Washington State University and Clemson University.

[...]

In 1982, Lundgren graduated with a master's degree in chemical engineering from the University of Sydney, finishing with the highest results in his class. During his time in Sydney, he earned a living as a bouncer in a nightclub at the infamous King's Cross. He was awarded a Fulbright Scholarship to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1983. However, while preparing for the move to Boston, he was spotted in the nightclub he worked at in Sydney and was hired by Grace Jones as a bodyguard.[17] He fell in love with Jones and their relationship developed dramatically, moving with her to New York City.Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolph_Lundgren#Education)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on March 04, 2013, 10:18:24 PM
See also number one on this list.

http://www.cracked.com/article_15753_8-celebrities-you-didnt-know-were-geeks.html
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: smartcooky on March 04, 2013, 10:21:20 PM

Dude. Dolph Lundgren is very, very smart.


I know, I was meaning more his "typecast" persona than him personally.

Of course, we shouldn't judge actors by the roles they play; I'm sure Arnie is smart too!

Hmmm. Now there s a thought!!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: smartcooky on March 04, 2013, 10:38:02 PM

http://www.cracked.com/article_15753_8-celebrities-you-didnt-know-were-geeks.html

Holy Moly.... Brian May!!!

I saw him on "Stargazing" a few nights ago as a guest of Prof. Brian Cox. He was introduced as "Dr Brian May" but I still didn't make the connection as to who he was.

I guess they must have known each other though their music connections as well, because from what I have heard, Brian Cox was quite rocker in his time.

(http://love-it-loud.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Brian-Cox.jpg)


Perhaps we need a webpage for "Scientists you didn't know were pot-smoking musos!!"

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on March 04, 2013, 11:10:03 PM
NASA doesn't pay enough.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on March 05, 2013, 12:40:20 AM

Dude. Dolph Lundgren is very, very smart.


I know, I was meaning more his "typecast" persona than him personally.

Of course, we shouldn't judge actors by the roles they play; I'm sure Arnie is smart too!

Hmmm. Now there s a thought!!
Apparently one reason he did Junior was because he got to be a scientist and that was one career he had wanted to get into before he got into body-building.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ineluki on March 05, 2013, 07:52:23 AM
Dude. Dolph Lundgren is very, very smart.

It's a trap...
Just imagine Lundgren, being 17 years younger than Buzz Aldrin (at the time of his confrontation with BS), weighing more and having a Martial Arts background doing his version of "Aldrin vs Sibrel". I'd almost pay money to see it...



Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: onebigmonkey on March 05, 2013, 10:07:14 AM
Dude. Dolph Lundgren is very, very smart.

It's a trap...
Just imagine Lundgren, being 17 years younger than Buzz Aldrin (at the time of his confrontation with BS), weighing more and having a Martial Arts background doing his version of "Aldrin vs Sibrel". I'd almost pay money to see it...

I'd pay money to make it happen.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on March 05, 2013, 10:25:04 AM
Quote
Another clown is Daggerstab. She thinks you can take long exposure photos when travelling at 7,500 m/s speed around Earth.

Nope, not clown. An assassin. Nil Mortifi Sine Lucre! :D

My username is a link leading to the picture I commented on in my last post. Its caption has evolved somewhat since the last time:
Quote
Above NASA "long exposure" photo (http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/573233main_image_2014_946-710.jpg (http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/573233main_image_2014_946-710.jpg)) shows the space shuttle Atlantis, appearing like a bean sprout against clouds and city lights, on its way home braking through the atmosphere, as outlined above and below. It was allegedly long exposured taken by the Expedition 28 crew of the International Space Station. Airglow over Earth can be seen in the background if you have sharp eyes. I can just see clouds. The photo does not look real in my view, i.e. it is another NASA fake.
         
One of my ex NASA PR-agents Daggerstab (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.1260) wonders "Ever heard of "long exposure", Björkman?" He is another stupid NASA SF writer trying to make ends meet in Arizona! Try to make a long exposure of Earth below photo from a space vehicle at 7&nbsp;500 m/s speed? Thanks for the PR!

 :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Björkman, I find it curious that of all things written in my last post, you took issue only with the "long exposure" jab.

It obviously hit home. He now notes in brackets that the exposure was 1 second.

Quote
Does this mean that you agree with everything else? And no word about my challenge? To repeat it: Why don't you contact the scientists and engineers that designed and built the Ariane 5 and ask them if Apollo/Saturn was real?

I'm curious to know myself.

Quote
And what exactly is the problem with making a long exposure photo in low Earth orbit? I found a copy of the photo in a place that conserves EXIF metadata - http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-135/html/iss028e018218.html According to my EXIF reader, the exposure time was 1 second, which counts as "long" in my book. :)

Because...because it's a second long, dude! And they were moving fast. And so was the Shuttle...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on March 05, 2013, 11:29:20 AM
Wonder what he'd make of the notion of the Hubble deep field. Hours of exposure from orbit....
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on March 05, 2013, 12:50:24 PM
Wonder what he'd make of the notion of the Hubble deep field. Hours of exposure from orbit....

Days of exposure actually. The Ultra Deep Field was was even longer with 267 hours total exposure.


I wonder how he thinks that astronomers take long exposure photos from Earth? After all, the earth is rotating at1670 km per hour at the Equator....
Mind you, he's already shown that he knows nothing about telescopes.

Yes, the ISS is fake. NASA informs me regularly when the ISS passes above my roof terrace at dusk 5-7 pm (sun below west horizon) in 3-4 minutes and, I agree, something, a light dot, is passing at the given times. I have seen it many times. But the 100 m across ISS is a 400 000 m altitude and cannot be seen by naked eye. I have tried with binocular w/o success. Telescope? Doubt it. Object moves too quickly. Photos of it being the ISS published are fake.

I would like him to explain to me how I took this image of M31.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/Gadfium/DSO%20Imaging/th_f91074a2.jpg) (http://smg.beta.photobucket.com/user/Gadfium/media/DSO%20Imaging/f91074a2.jpg.html)
6 hours total exposure, 6 minute individual sub-exposures.
I must have faked it too.....

He [Bjorkman] really is a special class of idiot, isn't he?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: onebigmonkey on March 05, 2013, 03:55:26 PM
I would like him to explain to me how I took this image of M31.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/Gadfium/DSO%20Imaging/th_f91074a2.jpg) (http://smg.beta.photobucket.com/user/Gadfium/media/DSO%20Imaging/f91074a2.jpg.html)
6 hours total exposure, 6 minute individual sub-exposures.
I must have faked it too.....

He [Bjorkman] really is a special class of idiot, isn't he?

Pretty impressive - especially when you consider how fast we're travelling :D
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on March 05, 2013, 04:39:16 PM
Apparently one reason he did Junior was because he got to be a scientist and that was one career he had wanted to get into before he got into body-building.
I've been known to lift a weight or two.  Kinda surprises some people.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: RAF on March 05, 2013, 05:01:54 PM
I've been known to lift a weight or two.  Kinda surprises some people.

Once I realized that, by definition, you were a polymath, I ceased being surprised by anything you do/know.

That was intended as a compliment.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on March 05, 2013, 05:34:42 PM
I keep telling people, the hardest part of the "everyone is ignorant of something" explanation is finding new and different things of which Jay is ignorant.  There just aren't all that many of them.
Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sus_pilot on March 05, 2013, 07:01:39 PM
I keep telling people, the hardest part of the "everyone is ignorant of something" explanation is finding new and different things of which Jay is ignorant.  There just aren't all that many of them.

Let's try this:  Jay, what is significant about an Alco 4-8-8-4?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on March 05, 2013, 07:10:00 PM
Well, let's see...  4-8-8-4 looks like Whyte code for a locomotive, and the only one of that size I know is the Big Boy.  Assuming I'm right, I wouldn't know which of the several things about that locomotive is the one you're thinking of.

(My grandfather was a fireman on the D&RG back in the day.  He got me many, many cab rides.)

ETA:  Naturally, to be fair, I wrote the above without any external reference or Googling.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: RAF on March 05, 2013, 08:31:02 PM
Well, let's see...  4-8-8-4 looks like Whyte code for a locomotive, and the only one of that size I know is the Big Boy.  Assuming I'm right, I wouldn't know which of the several things about that locomotive is the one you're thinking of.

Apparently there were 2 classes of "Big Boy" (http://www.steamlocomotive.com/bigboy/).

...and yes, I did have to google to "discover" that.

 
Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sus_pilot on March 06, 2013, 12:48:51 AM
Well, let's see...  4-8-8-4 looks like Whyte code for a locomotive, and the only one of that size I know is the Big Boy.  Assuming I'm right, I wouldn't know which of the several things about that locomotive is the one you're thinking of.

(My grandfather was a fireman on the D&RG back in the day.  He got me many, many cab rides.)

ETA:  Naturally, to be fair, I wrote the above without any external reference or Googling.

Hell, an aerospace engineer that knows that much is already a Renaissance man!

OK -without Googling:  Simple or compound (or Mallet)?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: smartcooky on March 06, 2013, 01:20:56 AM
I would like him to explain to me how I took this image of M31.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/Gadfium/DSO%20Imaging/th_f91074a2.jpg) (http://smg.beta.photobucket.com/user/Gadfium/media/DSO%20Imaging/f91074a2.jpg.html)
6 hours total exposure, 6 minute individual sub-exposures.
I must have faked it too.....

He [Bjorkman] really is a special class of idiot, isn't he?

Pretty impressive - especially when you consider how fast we're travelling :D


Not to mention how fast M31 is travelling!! M1 and M31 are closing in on each other at a speed fast enough to travel from Earth to the Moon in about 58 minutes!!!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on March 06, 2013, 02:41:49 AM
Not to mention how fast M31 is travelling!! M1 and M31 are closing in on each other at a speed fast enough to travel from Earth to the Moon in about 58 minutes!!!

No doubt Bjorkmann will use that as proof that I faked it....
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on March 06, 2013, 08:07:52 AM
Björkman has updated his page several times since my last post. :D I won't bother making diffs for some time, though. Let's see what stew he will cook. (Looks promising - one of the last additions is a paragraph that sounds like the usual introductions on the rationale of staged rockets, but with reversed direction. :D )

Oh, and after Björkman couldn't decide whether I am "he" or "she", he has settled for "it".  :-| And Zakalwe is the next forum member to make his hate list.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on March 06, 2013, 10:51:16 AM
Glad I've company. It was lonely at the top.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on March 06, 2013, 11:48:57 AM
Hell, an aerospace engineer that knows that much is already a Renaissance man!

Thanks, I do have many interests so that's been how people who know me personally tend to refer to me.

Quote
OK -without Googling:  Simple or compound (or Mallet)?

The Big Boy?  Mallet -- but if memory serves, not a traditional Mallet.  Definitely articulated in one way or another, though.  And I think you are supposed to be able to tell which kind from the Whyte notation.

Here's a couple of my personal photographs, cab rides on both:

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s71/clavius_examples/gcrr_2-8-2.jpg
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s71/clavius_examples/dsng_2-8-1.jpg

(The URL on the second one is a typo, not a misclassification)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on March 06, 2013, 12:19:05 PM
Apparently, linking to him yesterday rankled him. :D

I should add him to the Clavius hall of shame.  That should blow his gaskets.

Quote
Why don't you contact the scientists and engineers that designed and built the Ariane 5 and ask them if Apollo/Saturn was real?

Or if Arianes 1 through 4 were also fake.  Many of the same engineers who worked on the 5 must have worked on those other models.

Quote
According to my EXIF reader, the exposure time was 1 second, which counts as "long" in my book. :)

My rule of thumb is that if you can hear two distinct clicks -- the shutter opening and the shutter closing -- it's a "long" exposure.  For the purposes of this argument, one second is definitely a long exposure if Anders alleges something like the photo should have been blurred by orbital speed.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on March 06, 2013, 01:16:32 PM

Zakalwe is the next forum member to make his hate list.

<blushes, trips over ballgown, flutters speach notes nervously> I love you all so much.....I wanna thank my producer, the milkman, the garbage man, the bloke down the newsagents.....   ;D

It also appears that I'm ex-NASA too! Whats the pension scheme like for us ex-NASA, gubernmint shills then? ;)


He really is a weapons-grade bell-end, isn't he?


Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on March 06, 2013, 07:48:11 PM
He really is a weapons-grade bell-end, isn't he?
According to https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world...

Quote
Björkman has been nominated for the JREF forum "Stundie," an award for the looniest conspiracist statement of the month, far more times than anyone, and has been voted the "winner" several times. His avoidance of mountains of facts and expertise, his complete ignorance of the most basic engineering concepts, and his insistence that special laws of physics apply in his world, are perhaps surpassed only by the inimitable Judy "Star Wars Beams" Wood.

There follows a link to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4503873&postcount=1942 which I note was posted in 2009.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on March 06, 2013, 08:14:45 PM
He really is a weapons-grade bell-end, isn't he?
According to https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world...

Quote
Björkman has been nominated for the JREF forum "Stundie," an award for the looniest conspiracist statement of the month, far more times than anyone, and has been voted the "winner" several times. His avoidance of mountains of facts and expertise, his complete ignorance of the most basic engineering concepts, and his insistence that special laws of physics apply in his world, are perhaps surpassed only by the inimitable Judy "Star Wars Beams" Wood.

There follows a link to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4503873&postcount=1942 which I note was posted in 2009.

He won the January Stundies: February Stundie Awards Finals - JREF Forum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=254471)

for this post in this very thread: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro? (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8775#msg8775)
Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sus_pilot on March 06, 2013, 10:04:07 PM
Hell, an aerospace engineer that knows that much is already a Renaissance man!

Thanks, I do have many interests so that's been how people who know me personally tend to refer to me.

Quote
OK -without Googling:  Simple or compound (or Mallet)?

The Big Boy?  Mallet -- but if memory serves, not a traditional Mallet.  Definitely articulated in one way or another, though.  And I think you are supposed to be able to tell which kind from the Whyte notation.

Here's a couple of my personal photographs, cab rides on both:

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s71/clavius_examples/gcrr_2-8-2.jpg
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s71/clavius_examples/dsng_2-8-1.jpg

(The URL on the second one is a typo, not a misclassification)

No t-shirt because this is a bit outside your specific expertise:  Big Boys were (or are, since most are on display and not scrapped) simple engines.  Mallets first use high pressure steam (usually in the rear engine) and then the exhaust runs the front engine as low pressure steam before going out the stack.  Not fast locomotives, but they could lug tonnage.  The N&W Y- series were classics in this regard, being used as helpers going up grade.

The UP 4000 series were simple locomotives - both engines used high pressure steam directly from the boiler.  They were faster (I think the Big Boys were good for 70 MPH) and could still haul a lot of tonnage. 

In either case, they are articulated.  For the uninitiated, articulated steam locomotives are those that are so long that they "bend" around curves - essentially two locomotives under one boiler.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on March 07, 2013, 06:14:24 PM
Succinctly, that's exactly the confusion I was trying to express.  "Compounding" a steam engine (i.e., using steam over and over again until its pressure is thoroughly exhausted) is a common device in large steam engines, and every engineer learns those techniques.  They're more appropriate to large ship engines -- e.g., the "triple expansion" designs, but I was aware the principle had been used in steam locomotives.  I just wasn't exactly sure to what extent.

That the Big Boy was articulated goes without saying.  You can't wrap something that long around a curved track without it.  I knew for a fact of the articulation, but I was unsure whether the Mallet design required both the articulation and the compounding.  Hence my guess as "Mallet" (for the articulation) but not the traditional kind (because I wasn't sure about the compounding).
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on March 16, 2013, 12:08:27 PM
Björkman is still at it - the last update was today, apparently. Nothing particularly amusing to warrant a diff. He still hasn't learned anything about rocket engines and orbital mechanics. There are minor expansions and embellishments, and a few new paragraphs - he has reproduced some kind of prayer for Apollo. Based on the Ariane 5, he has managed to "calculate" that "to put 1 kg pay load in LEO you need 46.25 kg fuel!" From that he calculates that the Shuttle would need 3 750 tons of fuel to reach LEO. In addition to Apollo and the Shuttle, there are also changes to the other sections, concerning the Soyuz and a strange jab about the MSL skycrane.

And he still hasn't asked the creators of the Ariane 5 if they think that Apollo/Saturn couldn't perform as advertised.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on March 17, 2013, 03:28:09 PM
I'd like the hear Heiwa explaining this video, seeing as how the ISS is fake and all....

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ipearse on March 17, 2013, 06:14:59 PM
A wonderful video, thanks for putting up that link.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on March 17, 2013, 08:49:50 PM
I'd like the hear Heiwa explaining this video, seeing as how the ISS is fake and all...
It's all shot underwater! And it's not really Williams but an imposter wearing a mask!

(Apologies to anyone not a fan of Hunchbacked/Inquisitivemind...)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on March 17, 2013, 09:29:40 PM
From that he calculates that the Shuttle would need 3 750 tons of fuel to reach LEO.
He's a little off. The launch weight of the shuttle was roughly 2,040 tonnes, which broke down as follows:

Two SRBs: 590 t each (90.7 t structure + 499 t propellant) x 2 = 1180 t
External tank: 762 t (26.5 t structure + 629 t LOX + 106 t LH2)
Orbiter: 79.9 t structure + 16.4 - 25.5 t payload
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on March 17, 2013, 09:33:14 PM
Oddly enough, I was talking to a guy last weekend who was electrician for Cameron during The Abyss.  Says Cameron chose to film underwater scenes, well, underwater, because the movements just don't look right if you have actors in air trying to fake it.

I'm pretty sure he'd think it was ludicrous having actors underwater pretending to be floating in air, as well.

(And of all the documented films simulating zero-g, they were done either with wire-work or....well, actually not simulated at all.  Just filmed in very short segments!)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on March 18, 2013, 05:44:53 AM
Says Cameron chose to film underwater scenes, well, underwater, because the movements just don't look right if you have actors in air trying to fake it.
Ah ha! So it was Cameron who took over for Kubrick in the faking-things-for-NASA department!

Somebody tell hunchbacked/inquisitivemind...no doubt he'd do five videos on this new discovery...

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: armillary on March 18, 2013, 10:17:47 AM
Out of curiosity of what kind of loads are imposed on the connections between the tank and the orbiter/SRBs, I did a quick back-of-the envelope calculation here about the forces, at liftoff for simplicity.

The SSME has a thrust of 1.859 MN at liftoff according to wikipedia, for a total thrust of 5.577 MN
The SRBs produce 12 MN each at liftoff, rising to about 14 MN shortly afterwards

Assuming a total orbiter mass of about 100 ton, the gravitational load is:
External tank: 7.482 MN
SRBs: 5.793 MN each
Orbiter: 0.982 MN (give or take)

Subtracting the gravitational loads from the thrust, we have a net contribution to the whole stack:
SRBs: 6.207 MN
Orbiter: 4.595 MN

This shows that the external tank is more or less evenly supported by the SRBs and the SSMEs at that point.
Half the power of the SRBs goes to just lifting their own weight.

Dividing the total force by the mass gives me an acceleration of 6.5 m/s2. I wasn't sure how much excess power the shuttle had at liftoff, but this seems in line with what I've seen of the videos.

Before I studied the numbers, I would intuitively have estimated the greatest mass to be the orbiter, and the ET  to be the second heaviest. Mass is deceptive.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on March 18, 2013, 10:50:09 AM
Yeah, those SRB casings are thick steel; no wonder they're so heavy. But they produce a lot of thrust, and that's what you want at liftoff.

The orbiter/ET acceleration peaks at 3 g (and is limited there) just before MECO. The stresses at that point still might not be that high, considering that the tank is nearly empty.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on March 18, 2013, 11:05:30 AM
I seem to remember reading somewhere that a lot of engineers were opposed to the use of Solid Fuel boosters; they (understandably, I think) weren't comfortable with the idea of strapping a couple of skyrockets to a manned vehicle. i.e., (as you know, Bob) once the SRBs are lit, there's no shutdown until they burn out. IIRC, it seems there was a pretty strong 'lobby' for LRBs, which are more controllable but were rejected, probably because of expense.

Can anyone shed some light on my creaky old memory?:
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on March 18, 2013, 01:32:12 PM
I think you're right; I know I didn't like the idea of SRBs, and I even predicted that the first accident with the shuttle would involve them.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on March 18, 2013, 01:57:41 PM
I seem to remember reading somewhere that a lot of engineers were opposed to the use of Solid Fuel boosters; they (understandably, I think) weren't comfortable with the idea of strapping a couple of skyrockets to a manned vehicle. i.e., (as you know, Bob) once the SRBs are lit, there's no shutdown until they burn out. IIRC, it seems there was a pretty strong 'lobby' for LRBs, which are more controllable but were rejected, probably because of expense.

Apart from the safety benefits and the removal of the need to ship solid fuel segments around, store and dispose of unused solid fuel, the ability to abort on the pad after ignition or shut down in an abort after liftoff etc, liquids also give substantially better performance, and would have been a big upgrade in cargo capacity. There were various attempts to develop advanced liquid boosters for the Shuttle, but none of them got anywhere. There's a lot of political support for solids, due to the overlap with ballistic missile manufacture and simple pork, hence Congress basically mandating that Constellation and the SLS use them.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on March 18, 2013, 02:08:00 PM
Engergia (used to launch the Soviet shuttle Buran) used liquid fuel for its strap on boosters, which later formed the basis for the Zenit launch vehicle.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on March 18, 2013, 02:27:03 PM
Engergia (used to launch the Soviet shuttle Buran) used liquid fuel for its strap on boosters, which later formed the basis for the Zenit launch vehicle.

Several current launch systems use liquid boosters, including the Soyuz and several of the Long March rockets.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on March 18, 2013, 02:33:38 PM
Several current launch systems use liquid boosters, including the Soyuz and several of the Long March rockets.

And on the US side, the Delta IV Heavy and the Atlas V HLV are all-liquid, as is the Falcon Heavy. The last is able to use fuel crossfeed in addition, getting even more of a benefit.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on March 18, 2013, 02:58:22 PM
Engergia (used to launch the Soviet shuttle Buran) used liquid fuel for its strap on boosters, which later formed the basis for the Zenit launch vehicle.

Several current launch systems use liquid boosters, including the Soyuz and several of the Long March rockets.
Oh, I know. I thought it would be worthwhile mentioning something that was explicitly meant to be comparable to the Shuttle.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on March 18, 2013, 07:25:11 PM
I seem to remember reading somewhere that a lot of engineers were opposed to the use of Solid Fuel boosters; they (understandably, I think) weren't comfortable with the idea of strapping a couple of skyrockets to a manned vehicle. i.e., (as you know, Bob) once the SRBs are lit, there's no shutdown until they burn out. IIRC, it seems there was a pretty strong 'lobby' for LRBs, which are more controllable but were rejected, probably because of expense.

Can anyone shed some light on my creaky old memory?:
My creaky memory is that LRBs were originally planned for the Shuttle, but the cost of developing them would've been a lot higher than the cost of developing SRBs. However, the running costs of the LRBs would've been a lot lower than for the SRBs. Unfortunately for NASA, the time when they didn't have the money was when they were developing the beasts.

It's sort of like the story run on a consumer information TV show in Australia recently - the printer that's cheap to buy requires you to spend large amounts of money on replacement printer cartridges...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on March 18, 2013, 08:45:29 PM
That game became transparent when they started giving the printers themselves away.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on March 18, 2013, 10:16:06 PM
My creaky memory is that LRBs were originally planned for the Shuttle, but the cost of developing them would've been a lot higher than the cost of developing SRBs. However, the running costs of the LRBs would've been a lot lower than for the SRBs. Unfortunately for NASA, the time when they didn't have the money was when they were developing the beasts.

That's the argument for the SLS starting with Shuttle-derived SRBs, but they're hoped to be cheaper because we already have something similar to start from, and theoretically require little development to use.

Solids have often been claimed to be cheaper due to their simplicity, but they had to do a huge amount of work to ensure uniform mixing, high quality flawless castings, lots and lots of testing of the finished product, etc, never mind shipping and handling the segments and assembly into the vehicle without damaging them, and the additional expenses of working around giant fully-fueled solid rocket motors. Think of how much money we've poured into just trying to adapt Shuttle boosters for other rockets...

I suspect the justification was political from the start. The Shuttle spread pork all over the country. Even if solids were everything they were advertised as, making huge, massive, delicate, hazardous rocket components in Utah for frequent flights (the Shuttle was supposed to be the cheap, reliable workhorse to replace all expendable launchers, with dozens of flights a year) from Florida just doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on March 19, 2013, 07:10:01 AM
I've heard many of these tradeoffs between solid and liquid rockets for a long time. I'm familiar with the usual quantitative engineering tradeoffs like Isp, etc, but not with the cost figures. Can anyone cite some reliable (i.e,. experience-based, not marketroid guesswork) figures for both NRE (non-recurring engineering) and production costs for solid and liquid rocket boosters of various sizes?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Captain Swoop on March 25, 2013, 12:55:22 PM
Succinctly, that's exactly the confusion I was trying to express.  "Compounding" a steam engine (i.e., using steam over and over again until its pressure is thoroughly exhausted) is a common device in large steam engines, and every engineer learns those techniques.  They're more appropriate to large ship engines -- e.g., the "triple expansion" designs, but I was aware the principle had been used in steam locomotives.  I just wasn't exactly sure to what extent.

That the Big Boy was articulated goes without saying.  You can't wrap something that long around a curved track without it.  I knew for a fact of the articulation, but I was unsure whether the Mallet design required both the articulation and the compounding.  Hence my guess as "Mallet" (for the articulation) but not the traditional kind (because I wasn't sure about the compounding).

Strictly speaking a Mallet loco is articulated and 'compunded' It's front Low Pressure drivers and cylinders are mountred on a pivoting truck and fed from the exhaust of the fixed HP cylinders. This means the steam pipes only deal with 40 or so psi and are not too difficult to keep steam tight at their joints. As locomotives got bigger and boiler pressures higher the size of the LP cylinders got too big fo the loading gauge and the mass of the reciprocating parts got to be a problem above about walking speed. To get round this the Chesapeake & Ohio introduced all HP 'simples'. They got round the steam pipe problem by incorperating them in to the centre of the leading truck pivot so they only moved in a radial direction making the seal a lot easier. Big Boys are 'Simples' so strictly speaking not Mallets.

Off course the 'best' articulated locomotives are the Garretts. Both engine units are articulated with the cab and boiler slung between them this frees the boiler and firebox from the size constraints imposed where they are placed over the frames and running gear. It does however result in a lot more moving steam pipes and joints that have to be kept sound.

Somewhere I have a pictures of my dad on one of the big South African GL class Garretts in the 60s. They were popular on a lot of colonial railways as they are good riders on rough track and they are  tank engines and can run both directions without turning.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on March 27, 2013, 08:03:05 AM
It seems there are few really new ideas in engineering, just a lot of rediscovered old ones. Multistage expansion has been rediscovered in a slightly differerent form as the "combined cycle" used in new, highly efficient gas-fired power plants. Medium grade waste heat from the gas turbines boils water to make steam that drives turbines to make additional electricity.

The bigger the temperature difference between the hot side and the cold sides, the greater the Carnot limit.

Large modern combined cycle power plants can hit 50-60% efficiency, which is remarkable for a heat engine. What kind of efficiency did these multistage steam locomotives achieve with their far tighter constraints on size and weight?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Captain Swoop on March 27, 2013, 10:21:40 AM
Not enough to make it worthwhile. Most compound locomotives suffered from very 'sub optimal' steam path.  A long steam cycle made made them particularly sensitive to temperature-drop and condensation of the steam during its lengthy passage from boiler, through HP cylinder, Steam Chest and then through the LP cylinder.
To get round this higher boiler pressure and increased 'super heating' is needed and in most cases this resulted in no overall increase in efficiency of fuel or water.
In the forties Chapelon came the closest, he had a good grasp of thermo and fluid dynamics and he designed very efficient flow through the system. Even he had to use inovations like re-heqating the steam between the HP and LP cylinders and added a 'hot steam jacket' around the cylinders to keep the temperature up.
On later locomotives more efficient valve gear using smalle 'cut off' achieved the same efficiencies without all the extra complication so Compounding went out of fashion.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on March 27, 2013, 02:14:55 PM
Speaking of rediscovering old engineering ideas...

I frequently hear (read) the question, usually from HBs, that if we had the technology to go to the moon 43 years ago, why don't we have it now?  How can the technology have been lost, considering the tech advances we've made since then?

I've been pondering this question and it seems to me that it's not so much the technology that we don't have as the ability to (re-)construct the hardware that was used. We're all aware that the reason that the hardware didn't continue to be built and refined is simple - money.  Once the "national goal" was accomplished, public support and therefore budget allotments dropped off quickly and that was the end of the Apollo Program.  If there had been commercial profits to be had from lunar missions it would have been a different story, of course, but sadly that wasn't the case.

I guess my point is that, as a non-engineer on the outside looking in, it seems to me that the current "technology", in terms of knowledge, is not the bottleneck to future manned lunar missions so much as - once again - money.  We've gained a tremendous amount of experience in spaceflight since 1969. In other words, if Congress would open up the expletive deleted pocketbook, we could get off the ground in relatively short order.

So my question is directed at those of you in the industry, who actually know what out current tech level is. If the practically unlimited budget of the 60s were available, are there many new things we need to learn, questions we need the answers to, as it was during Gemini-Apollo when almost everything was an unknown? Or would it be pretty much a matter of putting what we already know to work. Obviously there's an HLV to build, whether the Space Launch System or something else, but how difficult would that be if the cash river was flowing?

Stupid questions, maybe, or at least naive, but some of us laymen can't help wondering.







Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on March 27, 2013, 02:35:12 PM
I am willing to bet a lot of relearning would be involved. With so many engineers from that era dead or retired, a lot of hard won practical wisdom has been lost.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Allan F on March 27, 2013, 06:05:01 PM
Maybe the cheapest would be to use known technology, the Saturn 5, as the basis. Many small incremental improvements in alloys, power generation, power consumption, computer control, automation, cameras, fluid dynamics, aerodynamics (to name a few) would allow quantum leaps in reliablity, and make it possible to land on the moon with much increased weight (=increased capabilities). Extended stay, greater crew comfort, new landing spots away from equator and many other things. And having the basic functioning hardware available, will shorten the development time and cost. Ben Johnson (Lockheed Skunk Works, while developing Oxcart) said, "The first 90% takes 10% of the time, the last 10% takes 90% of the time). Basically, soon it will be "good enough", but trying to achieve "perfect" is a waste of resources. Already having "good enough" leaves time and money to get a step closer to "perfect".
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on March 27, 2013, 06:29:00 PM
With manned space though, you need to be just about perfect. If a satellite or probe goes wrong, if a rocket explodes on the pad, it sucks and it's heartbreaking, but it's 'only' money and man-hours gone. No one is dead.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Allan F on March 27, 2013, 06:39:39 PM
Yes, you need perfect reliability on the not-blowing-up bit, but as Apollo 13 showed, perfect is not always available. Second stage had an engine failure, but they achieved their parking orbit anyway (later something else broke, I know). Apollo 12 had a lightning strike, which tilted all the electronics in the capsule, but the booster continued anyway, since it's guidance was separate and adequately shielded. Where I'm saying "perfect" is too much, is in weight, guidance, life support and other places, where human interaction can correct small errors. And where the mission has space and time to be corrected. Mid-course corrections using attitude thrusters were planned, but some weren't necessary.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Allan F on March 27, 2013, 06:54:56 PM
Just a small thing like interior lighting. On Apollo, the crew cabin were lighted by flourescent tubes. The instrument panels had hundreds of small lightbulbs. Replace all with diode lights, and you save a lot of weight and electrictiy consumption. Also diodes are more robust than other light sources, and don't break as often. Less electricity consumption could mean you could simplify the wiring, saving weight again. I don't know about fuel cell efficiency, but I suspect they're lighter and more reliable now, again saving weight. The guidance computers and gyros also lighter, less energy, more reliable, more flexible. All these gains could be translated into greater crew comfort, safety, endurance, capabilites.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on March 27, 2013, 07:00:45 PM
You couldn't just copy things for the cooling then, or you'd end up as cold as Apollo 13, or be wasting a lot of energy on heating.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Allan F on March 27, 2013, 07:11:49 PM
Cooling - again weight saved. And since there's all the sun in the world (!) on the way out there, just paint the capsule an appropriate color in some places. Sun energi is free.

Of course a lot of things should be reworked. It's a synergy after all. Everything has an impact on everything else.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Grashtel on March 27, 2013, 07:40:07 PM
Of course a lot of things should be reworked. It's a synergy after all. Everything has an impact on everything else.
And this is exactly why trying to rework an existing design like the Saturn V isn't likely to be practical, you are very likely to end up with snowballing design changes until you would have been better off starting out making a new design.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on March 27, 2013, 08:32:58 PM
Of course a lot of things should be reworked. It's a synergy after all. Everything has an impact on everything else.
And this is exactly why trying to rework an existing design like the Saturn V isn't likely to be practical, you are very likely to end up with snowballing design changes until you would have been better off starting out making a new design.
That was pretty much my basic point. Modern tech would mean a lot of changes. Which is one reason why the conspiracy theorists are so wrong when they ask 'Where are the blue-prints?'
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on March 27, 2013, 08:34:08 PM
With manned space though, you need to be just about perfect. If a satellite or probe goes wrong, if a rocket explodes on the pad, it sucks and it's heartbreaking, but it's 'only' money and man-hours gone. No one is dead.

There's a long distance between "just about" and "actually."  If you're waiting for perfect, you're never going to get anything done.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on March 27, 2013, 08:54:40 PM
With manned space though, you need to be just about perfect. If a satellite or probe goes wrong, if a rocket explodes on the pad, it sucks and it's heartbreaking, but it's 'only' money and man-hours gone. No one is dead.

There's a long distance between "just about" and "actually."  If you're waiting for perfect, you're never going to get anything done.
There's a passage about this in Murray and Cox's book "Apollo the Race to the Moon" where lead engineer Joe Shea keeps reminding staff that "the good is the enemy of the better"; smart engineers will always find some way to make their system better, but at some point you have to stop the tinkering and lock in the design.

In many ways Apollo spacecraft and Saturn boosters were expedient designs - all sorts of improvements could have been made, especially if the production lines had remained open - but the time limit imposed by Kennedy provided its own limit on how long the engineers could spend improving things.

ETA: It's interesting to compare Apollo to later unmanned missions. For Apollo, Kennedy imposed a fairly arbitrary time limit. But for missions like Voyager, New Horizons and various Mars missions, planetary alignments provide natural time limits. I remember, for example, that New Horizons came within a month of missing out on getting a gravity assist from Jupiter which would've slowed the voyage to Pluto considerably.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Donnie B. on March 27, 2013, 09:24:16 PM
I think you meant "The better is the enemy of the good", though.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Allan F on March 27, 2013, 09:38:56 PM
That was pretty much my basic point. Modern tech would mean a lot of changes. Which is one reason why the conspiracy theorists are so wrong when they ask 'Where are the blue-prints?'

National Archives on microfilm?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on March 27, 2013, 10:31:48 PM
I think you meant "The better is the enemy of the good", though.

Oops.

Yep, that one.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on March 27, 2013, 10:36:32 PM
I've heard both forms used to be honest.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on March 27, 2013, 11:20:29 PM
And Saturn V wasn't some ultimate ideal space vehicle. It was big, but the F-1 engines were rather low performance. And all the material choices were made based on what was available at the time, many of which may have to be substituted, the designers didn't have the benefit of modern computer modeling, etc.

Just comparing kerosene engines...

The Rocketdyne F-1 got a sea level specific impulse of 263 s (exhaust velocity 2580 m/s), and a thrust to weight ratio of something like 75.

The RD-170 used for the Energia used an advanced staged-combustion cycle and got 309 s (3030 m/s) at sea level with a thrust to weight of 82.

The just-qualified Merlin 1D uses the simpler gas generator cycle of the F-1, but gets 282 s (2730 m/s), higher than any other gas generator engine. It has a much higher thrust to weight ratio: 150. It's rather smaller, but they're working on larger engines.

Overall vehicle mass fraction shows similar improvements. And the Saturn V was all built to 1960s standards in terms of electronics and instrumentation, and none of it was designed for modern manufacturing techniques. Just getting the mechanical stuff converted over to modern CAD/CAM systems would be an enormous effort. You're really better off starting from scratch.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Allan F on March 27, 2013, 11:26:17 PM
If some superwealthy person, like an arab oil prince, decided that he wanted to have one of his sons go to the moon and do a little walk, how long would it take from he committed his money, until an actual manned launch could be tried?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on March 28, 2013, 12:01:36 AM
If some superwealthy person, like an arab oil prince, decided that he wanted to have one of his sons go to the moon and do a little walk, how long would it take from he committed his money, until an actual manned launch could be tried?
That's more or less the question I asked that started this sequence.
Title: Re: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on March 28, 2013, 12:24:16 AM
Just a small thing like interior lighting. On Apollo, the crew cabin were lighted by flourescent tubes. The instrument panels had hundreds of small lightbulbs. Replace all with diode lights, and you save a lot of weight and electrictiy consumption. Also diodes are more robust than other light sources, and don't break as often. Less electricity consumption could mean you could simplify the wiring, saving weight again. I don't know about fuel cell efficiency, but I suspect they're lighter and more reliable now, again saving weight. The guidance computers and gyros also lighter, less energy, more reliable, more flexible. All these gains could be translated into greater crew comfort, safety, endurance, capabilites.

Even simpler because much of the instrumentation would be instead displayed by digital screens instead of mechanical gauges which require their own plumbing and lights.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on March 28, 2013, 12:54:13 AM
If some superwealthy person, like an arab oil prince, decided that he wanted to have one of his sons go to the moon and do a little walk, how long would it take from he committed his money, until an actual manned launch could be tried?

I don't think you can say with any certainty.  Too many variables.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Allan F on March 28, 2013, 01:17:17 AM
If some superwealthy person, like an arab oil prince, decided that he wanted to have one of his sons go to the moon and do a little walk, how long would it take from he committed his money, until an actual manned launch could be tried?

I don't think you can say with any certainty.  Too many variables.

Closer to 10 than 5?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on March 28, 2013, 01:20:20 AM
If you want just a flyby, Space Adventures has been planning such for quite some time now.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on March 28, 2013, 03:34:57 AM
If some superwealthy person, like an arab oil prince, decided that he wanted to have one of his sons go to the moon and do a little walk, how long would it take from he committed his money, until an actual manned launch could be tried?

I don't think you can say with any certainty.  Too many variables.

True, but I think what we're wondering is how much of the bottleneck is research and engineering that is just going to take time, and how much is budgetary?

One major difference between the Apollo program and the projects being worked on now is that the Apollo was a single-goal mission, and everything was built with that end in mind. Hopefully future engineering will be more toward multi-use hardware.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Abaddon on March 28, 2013, 06:27:28 AM
Just a small thing like interior lighting. On Apollo, the crew cabin were lighted by flourescent tubes. The instrument panels had hundreds of small lightbulbs. Replace all with diode lights, and you save a lot of weight and electrictiy consumption. Also diodes are more robust than other light sources, and don't break as often. Less electricity consumption could mean you could simplify the wiring, saving weight again. I don't know about fuel cell efficiency, but I suspect they're lighter and more reliable now, again saving weight. The guidance computers and gyros also lighter, less energy, more reliable, more flexible. All these gains could be translated into greater crew comfort, safety, endurance, capabilites.
What you say is true, but LED's tend to be soldered in place. Much more difficult to replace, and generally not field serviceable, but traditional bulbs are. Put it this way, (speculation ensues), had A13 been built with modern technology, would they have been able to accomplish the return journey?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on March 28, 2013, 07:32:39 AM
had A13 been built with modern technology, would they have been able to accomplish the return journey?
Why not? For one thing, modern avionics would use far less power so the extreme constraints on battery power and cooling water that Apollo 13 experienced would be much less of a problem today. The computers and guidance system could still have been used to conduct the engine burns instead of having to do them by hand.

I've also questioned the Apollo practice of not using solar arrays. With them, they would not have been totally dependent on batteries, fuel cells and their complex reactant supply systems though of course they would still need an oxygen supply.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on March 28, 2013, 08:00:30 AM
Fuel Cells have the advantage of providing water for cooling and drinking as a byproduct, though NASA seems to have had the same idea about solar cells looking at Constellation.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on March 28, 2013, 08:21:45 AM
This is true. If you need water anyway, launching it as elemental hydrogen and oxygen lets you burn it to make energy as well. But the Apollo fuel cells produced considerably more water than was needed so the excess was dumped. So did the shuttle.

This argues that if you're going to carry fuel cells, they should probably be only part of your electrical supply. The rest can come from PV panels. This also gives you diversity in supply, something important for something as vital as electrical power.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: geo7863 on March 28, 2013, 10:06:39 AM
I have just read the first 16 pages of this thread... I now want to inject urine into my eyeballs to take the mental pain away!

JayUtah, Andomreda, Sus_Pilot, Ka9q.... et al...how do you manage to keep calm and reasonably polite when faced with such insanity (as in my understanding of the term 'insanity' obviously, and probably going against the spirit of this forum, in that I have no training in psychological disorders and diseases of the mind and cannot give any proof of my theory of this...mind you that's exactly how the CT's seem to operate so at least I am on their level in one respect!) you have my admiration one and all!

Gods teeth! to doubt Apollo is one thing but to doubt every single manned space mission, and believe that the CIA/NASA is controlling everything...and to back up your doubts by likening space travel to operating boats...madness pure madness!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Valis on March 28, 2013, 10:15:46 AM
What you say is true, but LED's tend to be soldered in place. Much more difficult to replace, and generally not field serviceable, but traditional bulbs are. Put it this way, (speculation ensues), had A13 been built with modern technology, would they have been able to accomplish the return journey?
Having some experience on LEDs (well, more in semiconductors generally), I'm not aware of any condition on Apollo 13 that would have caused them to fail. One of the main advantages of semiconductor-based electronics is a certain ruggedness compared to their earlier counterparts, see for example modern RAM design for integrated systems vs. Apollo's core-rope memory.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on March 28, 2013, 10:22:37 AM
One of the main advantages of semiconductor-based electronics is a certain ruggedness compared to their earlier counterparts, see for example modern RAM design for integrated systems vs. Apollo's core-rope memory.
Very true. I like to cite the example of the Air France 447 flight data recorders. They spent over two years submerged under 4,000 meters of sea water, yet when finally recovered their data was intact. Like most modern recorders they use semiconductor flash memories rather than the tape recorders of years past.

Considering how often people like to complain that "they don't make 'em like they used to", I think that's pretty impressive.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Not Myself on March 28, 2013, 10:31:58 AM
I have just read the first 16 pages of this thread... I now want to inject urine into my eyeballs to take the mental pain away!

I know how you feel . . .
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on March 28, 2013, 10:32:44 AM
JayUtah, Andomreda, Sus_Pilot, Ka9q.... et al...how do you manage to keep calm and reasonably polite when faced with such insanity
Several ways:

I like a good argument as much as anybody especially when I am absolutely sure I'm factually right. That brings a sort of quiet confidence.

I learn a great deal from researching answers to hoaxer questions. That's really the main reason I still do it. Too bad the hoaxers themselves never seem to learn anything, but that's not their goal. They use questions as weapons, not as tools to learn.

I know that others are watching who are much more receptive to facts and logical argument. So I know what I say can have an effect even though it's not always obvious. But sometimes it is hard to remember they're there. It's easy to succumb to temptation and just let some hoaxer have it. Sometimes it feels really good, but like all guilty pleasures it has a downside: the risk of lowering yourself to their level.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Not Myself on March 28, 2013, 12:10:59 PM
I like a good argument as much as anybody especially when I am absolutely sure I'm factually right. That brings a sort of quiet confidence.

I think probably a number of those on the other side feel exactly the same way, except for the "quiet" part.  There may be some difference in the extent to which the confidence is justified.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on March 28, 2013, 12:36:56 PM
had A13 been built with modern technology, would they have been able to accomplish the return journey?
Why not? For one thing, modern avionics would use far less power so the extreme constraints on battery power and cooling water that Apollo 13 experienced would be much less of a problem today. The computers and guidance system could still have been used to conduct the engine burns instead of having to do them by hand.

This brings up the question, if Apollo 13 had been built with modern electronics, the battery capacity of the LM might well have been reduced to the lower amount needed for the different design and could have been insufficient to support the minimal life support needed after the accident.  So perhaps the accident would have required the more risky option of a turnaround in space through a SM burn.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on March 28, 2013, 01:21:20 PM
If some superwealthy person, like an arab oil prince, decided that he wanted to have one of his sons go to the moon and do a little walk, how long would it take from he committed his money, until an actual manned launch could be tried?

Elon Musk went from nothing to an orbital launcher that could technically carry humans to LEO in about a decade, and a manned version capable of beyond-LEO operations is well on the way to flying (they're doing a pad abort test later this year, IIRC).


What you say is true, but LED's tend to be soldered in place. Much more difficult to replace, and generally not field serviceable, but traditional bulbs are.

Small indicator lamps are very often soldered in place, and LEDs can just as easily be removable, but almost never fail. They actually generally have pins better suited for sockets than the wires of small "rice bulb" lamps. For interfacing with the spacecraft, they might just use laptops, switching to a different laptop if one fails.

Put it this way, (speculation ensues), had A13 been built with modern technology, would they have been able to accomplish the return journey?

Why would it be less able to do so? A13 rebuilt with modern technology would have much higher reliability electronics with far more room for redundancy, far more sensors and localized control systems, etc. It's likely the tank stirrer would have detected the short and shut down.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Donnie B. on March 28, 2013, 01:47:57 PM
had A13 been built with modern technology, would they have been able to accomplish the return journey?
Why not? For one thing, modern avionics would use far less power so the extreme constraints on battery power and cooling water that Apollo 13 experienced would be much less of a problem today. The computers and guidance system could still have been used to conduct the engine burns instead of having to do them by hand.

This brings up the question, if Apollo 13 had been built with modern electronics, the battery capacity of the LM might well have been reduced to the lower amount needed for the different design and could have been insufficient to support the minimal life support needed after the accident.  So perhaps the accident would have required the more risky option of a turnaround in space through a SM burn.

I'm not sure that's any kind of problem.  The LM would still be designed to support two men for three days (or whatever it was for that mission), regardless of what the specific numbers were for the consumables (including power).  So it would most likely still be able to support three men for the same amount of time it was required to.

Of course, the specific scenario would be most unlikely to happen again just the same way, but that's really not relevant to your point -- except that since the margins were so small on A13, any difference could turn out to be critical.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Donnie B. on March 28, 2013, 02:00:40 PM
Regarding '60s vs current tech, there is one example where old was clearly superior (in one aspect).  I'm referring to computer memory.

Modern solid-state memory is susceptible to radiation damage, and the problem is getting worse as semiconductor geometries and power supply voltages continue to shrink and densities rise.  A cosmic ray hit can flip the state of a memory bit or (with high enough energy) completely destroy it.  With ever-smaller geometries, a single CR hit can damage more elements (though smaller chip areas reduce the odds of a hit somewhat).  Core memory was virtually immune to radiation damage.

This problem can be mitigated by using larger geometries (at the expense of some efficiency, size, and weight) and by implementing redundancy, error detection/correction, and remapping techniques (to disable damaged areas of memory).  Still, it's a very real issue that has to be addressed in all spacecraft designs.  I heard (some time back) that it was getting harder for designers to find rad-tolerant memories as more semiconductor fabs migrate to smaller-geometry processes.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on March 28, 2013, 02:02:46 PM
JayUtah, Andomreda, Sus_Pilot, Ka9q.... et al...how do you manage to keep calm and reasonably polite when faced with such insanity (as in my understanding of the term 'insanity' obviously, and probably going against the spirit of this forum, in that I have no training in psychological disorders and diseases of the mind and cannot give any proof of my theory of this...mind you that's exactly how the CT's seem to operate so at least I am on their level in one respect!) you have my admiration one and all!

First off, it isn't just against the spirit of the forum.  It's ignorant of the meaning of the word "insanity" (hint: it's a legal term) and rude to several people here who do have mental health problems.  It's also counterproductive.  You don't educate by insulting.

Second . . . well, I do think education is important.  And even if some people are never going to be educated, there are some who are.  There are people who lurk and are educated.  Heck, we are educated every time someone posts something we didn't previously know, right?  I know more than the average person about Apollo, and it's almost exclusively from reading threads like these.  I don't read the "Reality of Apollo" section--too many numbers--but I am still capable of answering some pretty obscure questions, when asked.  And in the Real World, I am asked.  My friends know that I am a resource, and it's because I've spent years battering my head against the wall of HB ignorance.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on March 28, 2013, 03:04:35 PM
Elon Musk went from nothing to an orbital launcher that could technically carry humans to LEO in about a decade...

Indeed, but not without help that the SpaceX fan club doesn't typically acknowledge -- hidden public funds, and a huge influx of "traditional" rocket engineer refugees from the mainstream companies, between Falcon 1 (crap) and Falcon 9 (awesome).

You've heard me criticize SpaceX a couple times in the past.  But that's largely in the past.  As I said back then, what matters is whether you can achieve and maintain operational footing.  SpaceX has, so they deserve the praise they're now getting.  They talked a big talk, and now they're walking the walk, and results are what matters.  Indeed they took a set of largely clean-sheet designs into production in a respectably short amount of time, so they've earned their spurs.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on March 28, 2013, 03:58:56 PM
Indeed, but not without help that the SpaceX fan club doesn't typically acknowledge -- hidden public funds, and a huge influx of "traditional" rocket engineer refugees from the mainstream companies, between Falcon 1 (crap) and Falcon 9 (awesome).

Falcon 1 wasn't that impressive as a launch vehicle, but it did reach orbit on the fourth try (after coming quite close on the second), and it did help with development of the Falcon 9. For one thing, it's rather good that they learned about the unexpectedly long high-altitude shutdown transient of the Merlin 1C on Falcon 1 Flight 3 instead of Falcon 9 Flight 1. It wasn't successful as a commercial launcher, but in my view it did what it needed to do.

And yes, SpaceX had the benefit of design work and a bunch of experienced engineers from outside, but presumably so would this ridiculously-rich "oil prince", so the comparison still seems reasonable.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on March 28, 2013, 04:18:41 PM
Falcon 1 wasn't that impressive as a launch vehicle, but it did reach orbit on the fourth try (after coming quite close on the second), and it did help with development of the Falcon 9.

And SpaceX did the right thing in learning as much as they could from the 1 and concentrating production development on the 9 with that knowledge in hand.

Quote
For one thing, it's rather good that they learned about the unexpectedly long high-altitude shutdown transient of the Merlin 1C on Falcon 1 Flight 3...

Indeed, and I still show that to people who get a steady diet of perfect staging videos, as well as Flt 2.  The conversation typically goes like:

Friend:  Why is the Saturn V dropping just that small ring?
Jay:  Because the Saturn V used dual-plane separation, first getting rid of the bulky first stage, then the interconnecting ring.
Friend:  Why do they need to do that?
Jay:  In case this happens.  [cue Falcon 1 nozzle-smash video]

The interstage is light enough that incidental contact with the J-2 nozzles would be survivable, as opposed to the energy from the whole spent S-1C.  Does anyone know if the Falcon 1 used a chi-freeze strategy at staging?  It's been a while since I read their report, but I do recall the stack was torquing around quite a bit to compensate for the wrongly parameterized flight loads.  Under the chi-freeze regime you can't stage until pitch and yaw rates are nulled.

Quote
And yes, SpaceX had the benefit of design work and a bunch of experienced engineers from outside, but presumably so would this ridiculously-rich "oil prince", so the comparison still seems reasonable.

Very apt, I just got sidetracked on backpedaling my previous criticism of SpaceX.  (Actually it was never so much SpaceX as some of its more irrational fans -- sort of a "Take that, Big Aerospace!" mentality.)  The rich oil prince would most likely contact an existing, established company or national space program.  That's just prudent -- no matter how much money you have to spend, you start with the people who are already closest to your goal.

On a related note, Boeing has drawings, renderings, and photographs of some of their airframes that have been fitted out and modified by "rich oil sheiks" and they make Air Force One look like a Jiffy Lube.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: smartcooky on March 28, 2013, 04:28:12 PM
JayUtah, Andomreda, Sus_Pilot, Ka9q.... et al...how do you manage to keep calm and reasonably polite when faced with such insanity (as in my understanding of the term 'insanity' obviously, and probably going against the spirit of this forum, in that I have no training in psychological disorders and diseases of the mind and cannot give any proof of my theory of this...mind you that's exactly how the CT's seem to operate so at least I am on their level in one respect!) you have my admiration one and all!

Avoid using clinical words such as "insane", "mentally deficient" etc, as it belittles and insults  those who genuinely suffer from these conditions clinically.

I prefer to refer to some of the more extreme HB's (such as Sibrel, Kaysing, White and that Aussie guy whose name escapes me at the moment) using general slang terms such as "nut-bar", "nut-job", "froot-loop" etc. My justification for this is that IMO, being clinically of sound mind is not a barrier to being just plain stupid or ignorant. 

Gods teeth! to doubt Apollo is one thing but to doubt every single manned space mission, and believe that the CIA/NASA is controlling everything...and to back up your doubts by likening space travel to operating boats...madness pure madness!

You ain't seen nothing yet....

"All rockets to space are fakes because rockets don't work in a vacuum  as they have no air for the exhaust to push against"

"All of science is fake, and all the scientists in the world are part of a massive conspiracy and cover up. The Laws of Physics don't really exist, they were just made up as part of the super-conspiracy"

"The Nazis had a space programme, and put a man into space in the early 1940's"

"The NASA moan hoax is itself a hoax to cover up the fact that the Chinese hoaxed it first. All the NASA footage is really stolen Chinese footage that has been dubbed and visually altered (American flags instead of Chinese Flags). The Chinese agree to keep quite about it all in exchange for the US pulling out of Vietnam.

"The NASA moan hoax is itself a hoax to cover up the fact that the Russians hoaxed it first. All the NASA footage is really stolen Russian footage that has been dubbed and visually altered (American flags instead of Russian Flags). The Russians agree to keep quite about it all in exchange for wheat export concessions."


There are many many more, and nut just to do with Space and Apollo

Google "Stundie" and have a browse through JREF's Stundie awards. You will be astonished at the weird stuff that people actually believe. Here's the January 2013 Winner to get you started

Quote
Can you, e.g. explain re-entry. You are aboard the famous International Space Station, ISS, that according NASA is orbiting Earth every 90 minutes at 400 000 m altitude (almost vacuum) at 7 200 m/s velocity and you want to go down to Earth. It means you have to go down 400 000 m and slow down from 7 200 m/s to 0 m/s speed. How to do it?

        Do you jump into a little capsule with a little rocket engine to slow you down? Yes, apparently you do that and the result is that you arrive at 120 000 m altitude but that the velocity then has increased to 9 000 m/s as some potential energy of the capsule has become kinetic energy = greater velocity. It is like diving from the 10 m board. It gets faster the closer you get to the water.

        At 120 000 m altitude there is a thin atmosphere with nitrogene and oxygene atoms that you collide with and ... MAGIC ... suddenly you slow down to 100 m/s (at say 5 000 m altitude) and deploy a parachute and land. In a desert in Kazakstan. Where nobody lives. In the middle of nowhere!

        Imagine that - you slow down from 9 000 m/s to 100 m/s just by colliding with atoms. But why don't you slow down to 0 m/s by colliding with atoms? Let me ask a stupid question or two? Why do you need a parachute at the end? What is wrong with colliding with atoms to the end?
 
We'll see you next month sometime...(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/98915197/Smilies/cheesy.gif)

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Allan F on March 28, 2013, 04:40:37 PM
I've been working my way through this tread (currently at page 16), and I must thank every (well, not EVERY) contributor - each page contains info, I've been ignorant of before. Some things I did know, up to a point, but having it spelled out for me is a relief. I can easily follow the math on fuel consumption, and understand where the 75 Gj claim came from, and why it is not even wrong.

Also, a thing I've been wondering about: The CSM's main engine. As I understand it, this engine was originally chosen to be the propulsion for a much larger and heavier craft, and when the LOR-mission was chosen, this engine wasn't replaced by a more appropriate engine system. Was the rationale behind it - "We have it and that's what we're using" or something else?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on March 28, 2013, 05:22:28 PM
You ain't seen nothing yet....

"All rockets to space are fakes because rockets don't work in a vacuum  as they have no air for the exhaust to push against"

"All of science is fake, and all the scientists in the world are part of a massive conspiracy and cover up. The Laws of Physics don't really exist, they were just made up as part of the super-conspiracy"

"The Nazis had a space programme, and put a man into space in the early 1940's"

"The NASA moan hoax is itself a hoax to cover up the fact that the Chinese hoaxed it first. All the NASA footage is really stolen Chinese footage that has been dubbed and visually altered (American flags instead of Chinese Flags). The Chinese agree to keep quite about it all in exchange for the US pulling out of Vietnam.

"The NASA moan hoax is itself a hoax to cover up the fact that the Russians hoaxed it first. All the NASA footage is really stolen Russian footage that has been dubbed and visually altered (American flags instead of Russian Flags). The Russians agree to keep quite about it all in exchange for wheat export concessions."


There are many many more, and nut just to do with Space and Apollo


Don't forget Moonman!  "The Lunar Ascent Stage went off like a rocket!"
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on March 28, 2013, 05:40:47 PM
Don't forget Moonman!  "The Lunar Ascent Stage went off like a rocket!"

That wasn't anywhere near the worst of it:

Quote from: Moon Man
How high above the surface of the moon does this alleged vacuum start..?

Is there a sonic boom when they allegedly entered the vacuum..? If not, why wasn't there..?
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?34711-I-Will-Prove-The-Moon-Landings-Were-Hoaxed&p=600377#post600377
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on March 28, 2013, 06:32:53 PM
Or as one of my favorite aphorisms goes:  "There's always more stupid."
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Not Myself on March 28, 2013, 08:42:58 PM
Don't forget Moonman!  "The Lunar Ascent Stage went off like a rocket!"

Well, he was right about that!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on March 29, 2013, 01:50:01 AM
The interstage to between the S-II and S-IVB separated with the S-II. Was the risk of hitting the single J-2 considered significantly less?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on March 29, 2013, 02:29:45 AM
I reread the whole Moon Man thread and was surprised at how little I posted in it.  I wonder what I was doing that whole time, since I mention a couple of times having a life instead.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on March 29, 2013, 05:56:59 AM
The interstage to between the S-II and S-IVB separated with the S-II. Was the risk of hitting the single J-2 considered significantly less?
It would seem so. This is what the Apollo 15 Flight Journal has to say about it:
Quote
Although part of the S-IVB in terms of construction, the conical aft interstage is left with the S-II at separation. Unlike the earlier staging, this is a single plane separation as the vehicle is essentially outside the effects of the atmosphere. Also, as there is only one engine, there is no possibility of an unbalanced thrust across a cluster of engines skewing the S-IVB's attitude.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Abaddon on March 29, 2013, 06:45:14 AM
If some superwealthy person, like an arab oil prince, decided that he wanted to have one of his sons go to the moon and do a little walk, how long would it take from he committed his money, until an actual manned launch could be tried?

Elon Musk went from nothing to an orbital launcher that could technically carry humans to LEO in about a decade, and a manned version capable of beyond-LEO operations is well on the way to flying (they're doing a pad abort test later this year, IIRC).


What you say is true, but LED's tend to be soldered in place. Much more difficult to replace, and generally not field serviceable, but traditional bulbs are.

Small indicator lamps are very often soldered in place, and LEDs can just as easily be removable, but almost never fail. They actually generally have pins better suited for sockets than the wires of small "rice bulb" lamps. For interfacing with the spacecraft, they might just use laptops, switching to a different laptop if one fails.

Put it this way, (speculation ensues), had A13 been built with modern technology, would they have been able to accomplish the return journey?

Why would it be less able to do so? A13 rebuilt with modern technology would have much higher reliability electronics with far more room for redundancy, far more sensors and localized control systems, etc. It's likely the tank stirrer would have detected the short and shut down.
Yep, the MTBF for LED's far exceeds traditional bulbs. I was more speculating that sometimes older technology might be the correct solution.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on March 29, 2013, 10:25:21 AM
JayUtah, Andomreda, Sus_Pilot, Ka9q.... et al...how do you manage to keep calm and reasonably polite when faced with such insanity (as in my understanding of the term 'insanity' obviously, and probably going against the spirit of this forum, in that I have no training in psychological disorders and diseases of the mind and cannot give any proof of my theory of this...mind you that's exactly how the CT's seem to operate so at least I am on their level in one respect!) you have my admiration one and all!

First off, it isn't just against the spirit of the forum.  It's ignorant of the meaning of the word "insanity" (hint: it's a legal term) and rude to several people here who do have mental health problems.  It's also counterproductive.  You don't educate by insulting.

Just out of a combination of curiosity, consideration, and maybe a touch of P.C., what descriptive terms would be inoffensive when referring to, well, the folks we encounter who espouse beliefs that are at odds with reality and who - generally - adamantly refuse to accept simple facts?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Valis on March 29, 2013, 10:30:36 AM
Just out of a combination of curiosity, consideration, and maybe a touch of P.C., what descriptive terms would be inoffensive when referring to, well, the folks we encounter who espouse beliefs that are at odds with reality and who - generally - adamantly refuse to accept simple facts?
Willfully ignorant?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on March 29, 2013, 10:37:22 AM
a huge influx of "traditional" rocket engineer refugees from the mainstream companies, between Falcon 1 (crap) and Falcon 9 (awesome).
I'm as surprised and pleased as anyone by the good record of the Falcon 9 given the abysmal record of the Falcon 1. I grimaced when I saw videos of engine nozzles getting whacked during staging and exponentially increasing (i.e., undamped) attitude oscillations. I began to wonder how much longer they'd survive given their apparent inability to get some pretty basic things right.

So I'd be interested in any comments you might have about the reasons for SpaceX's turnaround that are not privileged in some way...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on March 29, 2013, 11:07:34 AM
Just out of a combination of curiosity, consideration, and maybe a touch of P.C., what descriptive terms would be inoffensive when referring to, well, the folks we encounter who espouse beliefs that are at odds with reality and who - generally - adamantly refuse to accept simple facts?
Willfully ignorant?
Aye, that's my term as well, though, generally, I don't call conspiracy theorists anything, referring to them as conspiracy theorists if and when I refer to the broader group. Some find the term pejorative, but it's their own damn fault if it is. Its literal meaning is neutrally descriptive at worst.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Hal on March 29, 2013, 12:04:26 PM
a huge influx of "traditional" rocket engineer refugees from the mainstream companies, between Falcon 1 (crap) and Falcon 9 (awesome).
I'm as surprised and pleased as anyone by the good record of the Falcon 9 given the abysmal record of the Falcon 1. I grimaced when I saw videos of engine nozzles getting whacked during staging and exponentially increasing (i.e., undamped) attitude oscillations. I began to wonder how much longer they'd survive given their apparent inability to get some pretty basic things right.

So I'd be interested in any comments you might have about the reasons for SpaceX's turnaround that are not privileged in some way...

I found the on-board video from the third Falcon 1 flight, but it cuts out at staging.  Was the stage collision visible in any other views?  Link?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on March 29, 2013, 12:12:29 PM
I'm as surprised and pleased as anyone by the good record of the Falcon 9 given the abysmal record of the Falcon 1. I grimaced when I saw videos of engine nozzles getting whacked during staging and exponentially increasing (i.e., undamped) attitude oscillations. I began to wonder how much longer they'd survive given their apparent inability to get some pretty basic things right.

Failures in the first 3 attempts isn't good, but it's honestly not that bad, considering it was a completely new design. They all got off the ground and had in-flight failures. One of those was a staging problem caused by residual first stage thrust, one was a second stage control problem that may have been triggered by an impact during staging...things that are hard to test on the ground and have caused problems for other launch systems developed by more experienced companies. They had two good first-stage burns, two second stage ignitions, and one long second stage burn in those three flights. The second failure was good luck in a way...the control/slosh oscillation problem was the sort of sneaky issue that might not have cropped up until a more important flight.

The first was a bit odd...the engine caught fire and shut down 25 seconds into flight, crashing on a reef and dropping the payload through the roof of the machine shop. Not sure that's ever happened before.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on March 29, 2013, 12:36:44 PM
The interstage to between the S-II and S-IVB separated with the S-II. Was the risk of hitting the single J-2 considered significantly less?

Yes.  The S-II has a cluster of J-2s, meaning that some had to be mounted significantly outboard.  The clearance between the interstage wall and the J-2 nozzles was quite narrow.

The S-IVB had only one axial-mounted J-2, so the clearance was considerably greater.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on March 29, 2013, 12:41:46 PM
One of those was a staging problem caused by residual first stage thrust...

Because they had used the wrong model for projecting vacuum residuals from ambient-air residuals.

Quote
...one was a second stage control problem that may have been triggered by an impact during staging...

Root cause of impact at staging was control anomalies resulting from an incorrect flight software load.  Second stage stability would likely have been nominal had the staging not exhibited significant chi variance as a result of out-of-tolerance control inputs.

These are fairly elementary errors.  Yes, more experienced companies also make similar mistakes but not these mistakes anymore.  That's why I was so down on the Falcon 1.  Had the more experienced engineers been brought in earlier, the Falcon 1 might have also been a viable launch vehicle.  Keep in mind I come from having worked on the Delta III.  I know acutely what it's like to suffer through development pains.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on March 29, 2013, 12:45:27 PM
I found the on-board video from the third Falcon 1 flight, but it cuts out at staging.  Was the stage collision visible in any other views?  Link?

The recontact was visible in the live feed and in several third-party videos that floated around after the flight.  But I too have a hard time locating any now.  I wonder if SpaceX had them removed.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on March 29, 2013, 01:08:43 PM
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Hal on March 29, 2013, 01:12:41 PM
Thanks!  What an awful moment for the SpaceX folks watching live.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on March 29, 2013, 01:30:03 PM
Just out of a combination of curiosity, consideration, and maybe a touch of P.C., what descriptive terms would be inoffensive when referring to, well, the folks we encounter who espouse beliefs that are at odds with reality and who - generally - adamantly refuse to accept simple facts?
Willfully ignorant?
Aye, that's my term as well, though, generally, I don't call conspiracy theorists anything, referring to them as conspiracy theorists if and when I refer to the broader group. Some find the term pejorative, but it's their own damn fault if it is. Its literal meaning is neutrally descriptive at worst.

I use both "willfully ignorant" and "conspiracy theorist," as well as "conspiracist," where appropriate.  I have said many times, too, that I do not believe the behaviour of all the people we encounter fits neatly into a single psychological category.  Some show schizophrenic tendencies.  Some appear to be trolls.  Some just seem stupid.  Some have a hidden agenda--usually animosity against the US government.  There are a lot of factors, and sometimes, what seems like a serious problem is in fact someone with a need to provoke an emotional response in others who doesn't even believe what's being claimed.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on March 29, 2013, 03:44:54 PM
I am not sure about conspiracist. It sounds like someone who would be part of conspiracies themselves. While I have been assured it's etymologically sound, I am not so sure.
I got my own share of mental troubles, no way I am trying my hand at desktop psychology.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on March 29, 2013, 04:38:47 PM
No, "conspiracist" is not recently coined.  "Conspirator" would be someone actually involved.  "Conspiratorialist" enjoyed a brief run, but it's syllabically unwieldy.  I thought I was the one who coined it, more than ten years ago.  Since then I've run across several previous authors who used "conspiracist" in much the same way I do, as a synonym for "conspiracy theorist."  "Conspiracist" also allows "conspiracism," which I believe is an important word since it embodies so many of the behaviors, attitudes, and approaches we note to be common among conspiracy theorists.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on March 29, 2013, 04:45:33 PM
Fair enough, though I am not all together certain for the need for a such a synonym.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on March 29, 2013, 04:50:41 PM
For one thing, it eliminates "theory" from the name.  Theories have to meet specific criteria; most of what gets presented as "conspiracy theories" barely qualifies as a hypothesis.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Valis on March 29, 2013, 05:25:43 PM
For one thing, it eliminates "theory" from the name.  Theories have to meet specific criteria; most of what gets presented as "conspiracy theories" barely qualifies as a hypothesis.
That's true, but even theoretical physicists come up with hypotheses when they aren't advancing a current theories. After all, superstring theory for example is a vivid area of theoretical research, but actually it should be called supersting hypothesis, as there isn't a single experimental result to support it. So even in the "high scientific research", the terminology is muddled.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on March 29, 2013, 08:22:40 PM
Sure, but (as I understand it) the research on superstring theory is ongoing--and I'm pretty sure they didn't start with their conclusion, there.  Conspiracists start with "the official story is wrong" and work from there.  If the evidence goes against it, either the people presenting the evidence are wrong or else it's a governmental lie.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: geo7863 on March 30, 2013, 06:16:14 AM

First off, it isn't just against the spirit of the forum.  It's ignorant of the meaning of the word "insanity" (hint: it's a legal term) and rude to several people here who do have mental health problems.  It's also counterproductive.  You don't educate by insulting.

Second . . . well, I do think education is important.  And even if some people are never going to be educated, there are some who are.  There are people who lurk and are educated. 


Avoid using clinical words such as "insane", "mentally deficient" etc, as it belittles and insults  those who genuinely suffer from these conditions clinically.

I prefer to refer to some of the more extreme HB's (such as Sibrel, Kaysing, White and that Aussie guy whose name escapes me at the moment) using general slang terms such as "nut-bar", "nut-job", "froot-loop" etc. My justification for this is that IMO, being clinically of sound mind is not a barrier to being just plain stupid or ignorant. 



Both of you have picked up that I may be rude/insulting to those with genuine mental health problems.... that is not my intention, I havent been here long enough to identify persons who may have health issues, and to be perfectly frank unless you work in the health sector how do you know that they have mental health issues?...and at the same time I too have had my own mental health issues in the past, and as the old saying goes 'it takes a nutter to spot a nutter'... but I will try to desist especially if it does upset the more innocent 'nutters'!

However my original post obviously alludes to one individual, who in many many posts has written with lucidity and thought (even if his understanding of the subject matter is clearly wrong) and then he has suddenly posted absolute and utter barking drivel! The man is clearly, even to a layman, not without severe issues! So does one just ignore the 'howling at the moon' bits and try to re-educate him on the 'science and engineering' bits? why? what would be the point of that? (although obviously in doing so it does, as Gillianren points out, educate everyone else and not just the 'poster' that the response may be to and that is obviously a good thing....otherwise I for one would remain a lot dumber than I currently am)

Just out of a combination of curiosity, consideration, and maybe a touch of P.C., what descriptive terms would be inoffensive when referring to, well, the folks we encounter who espouse beliefs that are at odds with reality and who - generally - adamantly refuse to accept simple facts?
Willfully ignorant?

I have to disagree with that, some may be wilfully ignorant, some are clearly trolls and some, definitely have 'issues' that cannot be adressed by trying to counter their 'beleifs' with rational explanation! ..or as Smartcooky calls them.....nut-jobs!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: geo7863 on March 30, 2013, 07:21:46 AM


Google "Stundie" and have a browse through JREF's Stundie awards. You will be astonished at the weird stuff that people actually believe. Here's the January 2013 Winner to get you started

We'll see you next month sometime...(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/98915197/Smilies/cheesy.gif)

Oh dear me... I dont know whether to laugh or cry!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on March 30, 2013, 08:48:29 AM
...does one just ignore the 'howling at the moon' bits and try to re-educate him on the 'science and engineering' bits? why? what would be the point of that? (although obviously in doing so it does, as Gillianren points out, educate everyone else and not just the 'poster' that the response may be to and that is obviously a good thing....otherwise I for one would remain a lot dumber than I currently am)

I think you answer your own question here. But something else to remember is that written answers lose a lot of the nuance of face-to-face communication. Given that it's often necessary to put smileys and winkies into emails or forum posts to ensure people read something as a joke, I think it's very tricky to assess someone's state of mind solely from what they write. I therefore find it safer to assume a person is serious and sane when they're asking a question, regardless of how barking they may seem from their post (it's a bit like when it's safe for a man to ask a woman he's not related to if she's pregnant: not even if she's screaming her head off in the middle of labour). As a consequence of this I've been accused of needing a humour transplant when replying to someone's comment on a post by the Bad Astronomer on Slate...

So the way I try to operate (although I admit I don't always succeed) is for the answers I give to be as much for the benefit of those watching from the sidelines as for the person whose questions I'm answering. I've found it useful to go back to old threads and read what I wrote; if it makes me wince reading it now, then it's a style of response I attempt to avoid in the future. Plus, there's a sort of perverse amusement to be had if you retain your politely serious demeanour as the other person gradually ramps up the insults.

Something else to consider is that not everyone you discuss a topic with will be as bad as the worst cases. It's possible to have polite, even good-natured, discussions with people you strongly disagree with. You will yourself look erratic if your attitude changes noticeably between posts, depending on who you're addressing.

Finally I've come to the conclusion that I'm not interested in engaging in debates with people by email - it takes the same amount of work as posting on a forum but the audience is a lot smaller and a lot less likely to change its mind. I ask them to visit a forum and discuss the topic openly. If they're not interested in an open discussion, then it's usually because they're not interested in changing their mind. In that case engaging in any sort of discussion with them alone is a waste of time.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on March 30, 2013, 01:25:39 PM
Both of you have picked up that I may be rude/insulting to those with genuine mental health problems.... that is not my intention, I havent been here long enough to identify persons who may have health issues, and to be perfectly frank unless you work in the health sector how do you know that they have mental health issues?...and at the same time I too have had my own mental health issues in the past, and as the old saying goes 'it takes a nutter to spot a nutter'... but I will try to desist especially if it does upset the more innocent 'nutters'!

Here's your first piece of information as to how you can know.  You can be one of them.

Your second?  You can be told by one of them directly.  So be told directly.  I am bipolar.  This means that I take direct and personal offense when "nutter" is considered a synonym for "mentally ill person."  It isn't.  I joke that I'm "taking back crazy," largely because "sane" has a specific legal definition, and while I may be crazy, I'm not insane.  However, that doesn't mean I want to take the brunt of every insult everyone has for mentally ill people. 

Third, it does not take a mentally ill person to spot another, though I do acknowledge that we're awfully good at it.  What it takes is someone aware of a lot more than you're going to get on this board (except for being directly told).  You will not know if what's being presented online is the full extent of the person's personality, and it's shallow and simplistic to make a diagnosis of mental illness without knowing that, even if you couch it in language that is intended to make the whole thing a joke.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: geo7863 on March 30, 2013, 01:42:05 PM
Both of you have picked up that I may be rude/insulting to those with genuine mental health problems.... that is not my intention, I havent been here long enough to identify persons who may have health issues, and to be perfectly frank unless you work in the health sector how do you know that they have mental health issues?...and at the same time I too have had my own mental health issues in the past, and as the old saying goes 'it takes a nutter to spot a nutter'... but I will try to desist especially if it does upset the more innocent 'nutters'!

Here's your first piece of information as to how you can know.  You can be one of them.

Your second?  You can be told by one of them directly.  So be told directly.  I am bipolar.  This means that I take direct and personal offense when "nutter" is considered a synonym for "mentally ill person."  It isn't.  I joke that I'm "taking back crazy," largely because "sane" has a specific legal definition, and while I may be crazy, I'm not insane.  However, that doesn't mean I want to take the brunt of every insult everyone has for mentally ill people. 

Third, it does not take a mentally ill person to spot another, though I do acknowledge that we're awfully good at it.  What it takes is someone aware of a lot more than you're going to get on this board (except for being directly told).  You will not know if what's being presented online is the full extent of the person's personality, and it's shallow and simplistic to make a diagnosis of mental illness without knowing that, even if you couch it in language that is intended to make the whole thing a joke.

Ok sorry, my bad I will never mention it again!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on March 30, 2013, 09:21:07 PM
Still, it is my experience that there are people in the world who have (what are to me) some strange ways of thinking.  I've known people who believe firmly in the old paradigm of "barefoot and pregnant" as the proper state for women.  I remember talking to a fellow  (this one is really offensive; I apologize in advance) who had reconciled the question of creation vs evolution; his notion was that white people were created, while people of color were "descended from monkeys".

Back years ago, while working as a Paramedic, my partner and I went to a call where it turned out that a 60-ish year old man had died in his sleep, in bed.  As we and the M.E. examined the body we found that he was nude. My partner - a guy in his mid-20s - was incensed. His opinion was that "it ain't decent" for a grown man who lived alone to sleep nude.

My point is that there are a lot of people in this world who, even in the absence of any disorder found in the  DSM-IV, have some (to me) very odd ways of thinking. I don't think it always falls under the heading of "willful ignorance" - it doesn't seem to me to be a lack of knowledge so much as something in the reasoning process.  If not as "balmy", "bonkers", "flaky", or "a 'roo loose in the top paddock", how do we characterize them?



Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on March 30, 2013, 09:33:23 PM
Why should we, if they don't all fit the same category? 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Not Myself on March 30, 2013, 10:46:01 PM
I've known people who believe firmly in the old paradigm of "barefoot and pregnant" as the proper state for women.  I remember talking to a fellow  (this one is really offensive; I apologize in advance) who had reconciled the question of creation vs evolution; his notion was that white people were created, while people of color were "descended from monkeys".

I would put those in totally different categories.  The second one is a positive statement which can be addressed by evidence; the first one is a normative judgement which cannot (although I can't count the number of times I've heard people declare that things like "science" or "logic" or "reason" will prove that their normative judgements are correct).

Back years ago, while working as a Paramedic, my partner and I went to a call where it turned out that a 60-ish year old man had died in his sleep, in bed.  As we and the M.E. examined the body we found that he was nude. My partner - a guy in his mid-20s - was incensed. His opinion was that "it ain't decent" for a grown man who lived alone to sleep nude.

My point is that there are a lot of people in this world who, even in the absence of any disorder found in the  DSM-IV, have some (to me) very odd ways of thinking. I don't think it always falls under the heading of "willful ignorance" - it doesn't seem to me to be a lack of knowledge so much as something in the reasoning process.  If not as "balmy", "bonkers", "flaky", or "a 'roo loose in the top paddock", how do we characterize them?

In the last particular case cited, I would characterise the person as someone who has a different value/judgement/preference system than you do (and also different than I do).  If they don't attempt to impose this system on other people, it doesn't particularly bother me.  I don't see that anything like "knowledge" or "reason" plays the slightest role here.  Can you use knowledge and reason to prove that this viewpoint is incorrect?  I don't know how.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on March 31, 2013, 01:22:06 AM
I've known people who believe firmly in the old paradigm of "barefoot and pregnant" as the proper state for women.  I remember talking to a fellow  (this one is really offensive; I apologize in advance) who had reconciled the question of creation vs evolution; his notion was that white people were created, while people of color were "descended from monkeys".

I would put those in totally different categories.  The second one is a positive statement which can be addressed by evidence; the first one is a normative judgement which cannot (although I can't count the number of times I've heard people declare that things like "science" or "logic" or "reason" will prove that their normative judgements are correct).

The second one was something I heard from a classmate 'way back in high school, so maybe allowance can be made for a not-yet-matured brain.  I think that it was the incredible racism of the comment that floored me at the time; would having a low opinion of people of another race be considered a normative (I had to look that up) judgment?  Also, if I had made any attempt at evidence-based reasoning with him on this one, the only safe position at that time and place would be to argue that all humans were the product of Creation. I grew up (and still live) in the rural south, and to question divine creation or (horrors!!) to be an avowed atheist or agnostic, especially for a teenager, was to be a pariah.

Quote
Back years ago, while working as a Paramedic, my partner and I went to a call where it turned out that a 60-ish year old man had died in his sleep, in bed.  As we and the M.E. examined the body we found that he was nude. My partner - a guy in his mid-20s - was incensed. His opinion was that "it ain't decent" for a grown man who lived alone to sleep nude.

My point is that there are a lot of people in this world who, even in the absence of any disorder found in the  DSM-IV, have some (to me) very odd ways of thinking. I don't think it always falls under the heading of "willful ignorance" - it doesn't seem to me to be a lack of knowledge so much as something in the reasoning process.  If not as "balmy", "bonkers", "flaky", or "a 'roo loose in the top paddock", how do we characterize them?

In the last particular case cited, I would characterise the person as someone who has a different value/judgement/preference system than you do (and also different than I do). If they don't attempt to impose this system on other people, it doesn't particularly bother me.  I don't see that anything like "knowledge" or "reason" plays the slightest role here.  Can you use knowledge and reason to prove that this viewpoint is incorrect?  I don't know how.

I think the phrase bolded above is what worried me.  I was in my 20s myself at the time, and still learning about the real world, I guess. The idea of a guy my own age - and this guy was a weekend-beer-guzzling, bed-hopping, hell-raising sort - who was that judgmental about something so innocuous (I forgot to mention that it was a hot August and the house had no A/C except for a window unit in the living room, so it could have been a practical matter as much as a personal preference) as sleeping in the buff in your own home... well, it just struck me that he could easily go on to become one of those legislators who are perfectly willing  to extend the law into places it has no business going, such as the bedrooms of consenting adults.(1)

OK, it may well be that these weren't the best examples; they were just examples off the top of my head of some people that I consider to have odd world views. When dealing with Hoax Believers, maybe it does usually come down to willful ignorance. There's a guy on YouTube, for example, who puts out the most off-the-wall claims. For example, in this image:

(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt353/jarvisn/LMFoot_zpse050ddfc.jpg)

It's the joint at the junction of one of the LM's legs and the footpad.  He absolutely insists that the shadowed area on the ball at the end of the leg (arrow) is a void, and questions how the footpad could have stayed on with the "ball" so much smaller than the "socket".  Absolutely nothing that was said could budge him from this conviction.  ka9q and I have discussed the possibility that he has some kind of vision problem, since he also consistently misjudges perspective and has no sense at all of what shadows should look like.

This is Hunchbacked, of course - some may remember when he was on this board for a while as InquisitiveMind - and he still claims a degree in aeronautical engineering and believes that when orbiting the moon, the Apollo CSM/LM would have naturally maintained a horizontal orientation relative to the surface; I asked about that recently and he responded "Yes, it does, because of the action of centrifugal force. Take a stick, tie a rope to its middle and make it turn: Its orientation will be perpendicular to the rope when you make it turn. Of course, there is no rope tied to the CSM, but the centrifugal force acts like there was a virtual rope tied to its center of gravity.  This is physics, you may deny it, but this is physics."

Why should we, if they don't all fit the same category? 

I realize this is a hot-button issue for you and I understand, really I do - I've spent some time in the place where they lock the doors to keep the world out, not the patients in.

Maybe it's just me, but sometimes when dealing with these... persons... frustration causes me to temporarily lose my formal vocabulary skills and grope for more visceral, descriptive terminology.


(1) That one got convoluted, didn't it? Sorry.







Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on March 31, 2013, 01:46:39 AM
I realize this is a hot-button issue for you and I understand, really I do - I've spent some time in the place where they lock the doors to keep the world out, not the patients in.

Maybe it's just me, but sometimes when dealing with these... persons... frustration causes me to temporarily lose my formal vocabulary skills and grope for more visceral, descriptive terminology.

I can sympathize.  However, I do not think it is helpful to any discussion to pejoratively label either side in it.  If you can't be polite, who are you helping?  If you're reduced to insults, why should anyone think your argument is better than the other?  The HBs and so forth have their preferred terms--"shills," "sheeple," and so forth--and we know that, when they are reduced to using them, they've run out of anything sensible and logical to say.  Why, then, should we be held to a lesser standard?  If you're reduced to arguing the person, not the idea, maybe the better solution is to take a step back, not to be rude to a whole other group, one you hadn't intended to insult, in addition to the person you are trying to insult.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Not Myself on March 31, 2013, 03:22:48 AM
The second one was something I heard from a classmate 'way back in high school, so maybe allowance can be made for a not-yet-matured brain.  I think that it was the incredible racism of the comment that floored me at the time; would having a low opinion of people of another race be considered a normative (I had to look that up) judgment?

I would tend to separate the factual question from how we feel about it.  So to me, "were people of one race created more or less as they are today, while people of some other race evolved from monkeys?" is a question of fact; "are people who are descended from monkeys inferior to people who were created?" is not, unless we have some objective definition of what it means to be "inferior".  If the answer to the first question is "no", then the answer to the second question is strictly hypothetical.

But I'm with you on that one, that's the one that is objectively goofy.  The other one, about how women should be barefoot and pregnant - is this some deficiency of knowledge and reason?  I'm not so sure that it is.  I don't know whether this person was making any error of reasoning, or is lacking any knowledge (relevant for this particular) issue that others have.  If the starting point is, "I want to maximise the welfare of men, and don't really care about the welfare of women", then he might have arrived at a perfectly logical conclusion.

To this point, I often find HBers derided as illogical, and no doubt some, maybe most, maybe a huge majority are.  But they don't have to be - they just have to be anti-empirical.  "This is true, therefore evidence that it is false must be forged" is brutally logical :)


Also, if I had made any attempt at evidence-based reasoning with him on this one, the only safe position at that time and place would be to argue that all humans were the product of Creation. I grew up (and still live) in the rural south, and to question divine creation or (horrors!!) to be an avowed atheist or agnostic, especially for a teenager, was to be a pariah.

I assume you're talking about the US here, but if so, then I think I know what you mean.  You gotta do what you gotta do . . .

I think the phrase bolded above is what worried me.  I was in my 20s myself at the time, and still learning about the real world, I guess. The idea of a guy my own age - and this guy was a weekend-beer-guzzling, bed-hopping, hell-raising sort - who was that judgmental about something so innocuous (I forgot to mention that it was a hot August and the house had no A/C except for a window unit in the living room, so it could have been a practical matter as much as a personal preference) as sleeping in the buff in your own home... well, it just struck me that he could easily go on to become one of those legislators who are perfectly willing  to extend the law into places it has no business going, such as the bedrooms of consenting adults.(1)

Oh, that's entirely possible.  I don't know how long ago this was, maybe it has happened already :)  But the same deal - if I want to prove to this person that the law should not regulate happenings in the bedrooms of consenting adults, using scientific methods - I can't.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on March 31, 2013, 07:29:13 AM
I would put those in totally different categories.  The second one is a positive statement which can be addressed by evidence; the first one is a normative judgement which cannot (although I can't count the number of times I've heard people declare that things like "science" or "logic" or "reason" will prove that their normative judgements are correct).
In other words, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

This has become one of my favorite sayings. I can't find who originated it.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on March 31, 2013, 08:17:29 AM
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on March 31, 2013, 07:17:29 PM
I realize this is a hot-button issue for you and I understand, really I do - I've spent some time in the place where they lock the doors to keep the world out, not the patients in.

Maybe it's just me, but sometimes when dealing with these... persons... frustration causes me to temporarily lose my formal vocabulary skills and grope for more visceral, descriptive terminology.

I can sympathize.  However, I do not think it is helpful to any discussion to pejoratively label either side in it.  If you can't be polite, who are you helping?  If you're reduced to insults, why should anyone think your argument is better than the other?  The HBs and so forth have their preferred terms--"shills," "sheeple," and so forth--and we know that, when they are reduced to using them, they've run out of anything sensible and logical to say.  Why, then, should we be held to a lesser standard?  If you're reduced to arguing the person, not the idea, maybe the better solution is to take a step back, not to be rude to a whole other group, one you hadn't intended to insult, in addition to the person you are trying to insult.
I should probably clarify that in debating these... persons... I strive to ignore personalities and insults and stick to debating the facts. It's when I'm discussing certain HBs with other folks on this side of the line that I find myself groping for descriptive terms.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on March 31, 2013, 07:33:15 PM
Remember, though, that just because they aren't participating in this discussion, it doesn't mean that they aren't reading it.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on April 01, 2013, 12:09:38 AM
What about allegations of Dunning-Kruger?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on April 01, 2013, 12:15:13 AM
I'm hesitant about those.  I don't think they help the discussion, at least not as pervasively as I've seen them.  It is something that exists, and it is something that colours the conversation, but it's also an argument from authority in some ways.  "Trust me--I know what I'm talking about.  I'm an Expert."  And, yeah, a lot of the people here are experts, and I do think asking why someone who didn't pass high school physics (not a mandatory class everywhere) and hasn't done algebra in twenty years feels qualified to argue with professional engineers is legitimate.  And after all, Dunning-Kruger is a better explanation than mental illness in most cases, I think.  However, harping about it starts to feel smug after a while.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: smartcooky on April 01, 2013, 12:59:07 AM
What about allegations of Dunning-Kruger?

I would suggest that the description of the Dunning-Kruger effect as...

"....a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes"

... is the perfect description of Jarrah White and others like him.

In fact he's worse, because not only is he unable to recognise his mistakes, he cannot do so even when they are repeatedly pointed out to him.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on April 01, 2013, 07:47:06 AM
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
It's often attributed to him, but he doesn't seem to have originated it. It was used by James Schlesinger and Bernard Baruch before him.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on April 01, 2013, 07:49:43 AM
but it's also an argument from authority in some ways.  "Trust me--I know what I'm talking about.  I'm an Expert."
This can be an argument from authority, but experts often have and can cite empirical evidence that non-experts don't have -- and that gives them considerable weight that isn't just "authority".
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on April 01, 2013, 09:04:52 AM
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
It's often attributed to him, but he doesn't seem to have originated it. It was used by James Schlesinger and Bernard Baruch before him.

Interesting.  I'd always read that Moynihan was the source. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on April 01, 2013, 09:17:13 AM
What about allegations of Dunning-Kruger?
The problem with pointing out the DK effect is that in doing so one is inferring an unobservable psychological state of an individual from a very limited scope of interaction.  While we all have a thought about the psychological state of various HBs, we really don't know much about them.  Certainly not enough to make that kind of judgement to the exclusion of other possible reasons for their behaviors.  It can easily become a dismissal or a straightforward ad hominem. 

Anyone invoking DK runs the very real risk of exhibiting DK themselves, because asserting that another is exhibiting DK when one doesn't have enough knowledge to know one is wrong, is classic DK.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on April 01, 2013, 01:12:49 PM
but it's also an argument from authority in some ways.  "Trust me--I know what I'm talking about.  I'm an Expert."
This can be an argument from authority, but experts often have and can cite empirical evidence that non-experts don't have -- and that gives them considerable weight that isn't just "authority".


Yes, I grant that.  On the other hand, the majority of people here--myself included--don't post under their real names.  This means that we're really taking people's word for things.  (If anyone does want to look up my BA, I'm perfectly happy to give them the relevant information, but the joy of my own field is that it's mostly subjective anyway.)  I do believe that all of you have the credentials you claim, but I have no way of being sure in most cases.  That's why I think presenting the information is more important than citing expertise in most cases.  Expertise does become relevant; for example, anyone claiming all engineers agree with them needs to be made aware that various of the people here aren't going to go for it.  However, the information is the real issue.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on April 01, 2013, 01:15:49 PM
but it's also an argument from authority in some ways.  "Trust me--I know what I'm talking about.  I'm an Expert."
This can be an argument from authority, but experts often have and can cite empirical evidence that non-experts don't have -- and that gives them considerable weight that isn't just "authority".

Well, we need to bear in mind that Argument From Authority isn't automatically a fallacy. For example, when Jay makes a statement about why Falcon 1/3 failed at staging, that is an Appeal From (his own) Authority. However, Jay is a legitimate expert in astrodynamics, and if you checked around, the consensus of other legitimate experts in the field agree with his statement. This would therefore be a legitimate A.F.A.

OTOH, when hunchbacked states that a spacecraft orbiting a planet naturally keeps the same side toward the planet, like an airplane flying over the surface...  Well, even though he claims to be an Aeronautical Engineer, his many public statements make it doubtful that he could be considered a legitimate expert, and certainly there is no consensus among other experts that support the claim, so this would be a fallacious Appeal From Authority.

Like the man said in the movie Armageddon: "I know the presidents' chief scientific advisor, we were at MIT together. And, in a situation like this, you-you really don't wanna take the advice from a man who got a C minus in astrophysics."

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on April 01, 2013, 06:32:23 PM
Like the man said in the movie Armageddon: "I know the presidents' chief scientific advisor, we were at MIT together. And, in a situation like this, you-you really don't wanna take the advice from a man who got a C minus in astrophysics."
Or from Homer J. Simpson:
Quote
Oh, there's so much I don't know about astrophysics. I sure wish I'd read that book by that wheelchair guy.
In all seriousness, we all give weight to expert opinions. I know I do. But not blindly. I also test them. I'll read up on the topic, probe here and there and kick the tires so to speak, to see if at least some of what they say checks out with other sources or from my own knowledge and experience.


Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on April 01, 2013, 06:53:30 PM
An appeal to authority becomes fallacious when a proposition is not one of relevant expert judgment.  If it is an ordinary sensory observation, then the witness' expertise is irrelevant.  If it is an attempt to characterize, identify, or explain an observation outside the normal ken, expertise is relevant.  If the proposition is a deductive line of reasoning, then expertise is irrelevant.  If it is an inductive leap outside the normal ken, then expertise is relevant.

A non-expert may certainly make a lay inductive argument, but the inductive leap belongs to the hearer, not the speaker.

Quote
"Tom's car wasn't in the garage last night and he wasn't answering his phone.  I think he's having an affair."
"He could be, or perhaps he was working late and didn't want to be disturbed."

In contrast with

Quote
"I have a fever and a stuffy nose.  I must have the flu."
"No, I'm a qualified doctor and the results of my medical examination are consistent more with a sinus infection."

which is an expert induction.  The world doesn't stop us from drawing partially informed or inexpert judgments based on our observations.  But we cannot use them as evidence in formal argumentation.

Quote
"Noted physicist Stephen Hawking told me I have the flu, not strep throat."

is fallacious because the cited expert has no relevant expertise.

Quote
"Noted physicist Stephen Hawking once stated that if some Texans have loud voices and Tom is a Texan, then Tom must have a loud voice."

is also a fallacy because it expresses a deductive fallacy.  The expertise or eminence of Hawking is irrelevant to the inherent invalidity of the deduction.

Quote
"Noted physicist Stephen Hawking once stated that if some stars are destined to become black holes, then our sun will inevitably become one."

This is the same fallacy in different form, because it is improper deduction.  However, because the nature of the statement relates to Hawking's designated field of expertise, it is not easy to notice this type of fallacy or to get a proper rebuttal to stick.  A better phrased statement would be

Quote
"Noted physicist Stephen Hawking once stated he believed our sun would eventually become a black hole."

which is not a fallacious appeal to authority, although it does raise the other important problem with expertise -- the notion that experts may differ.  Earth's sun is not nearly massive enough to become a black hole, so while this fits the pattern of proper appeal to authority, the conclusion could still be contested by other experts.

Quote
"The police officer said he heard a loud noise."

is a non-authority statement.  Here the officer simply acts within the ken of the normal human being, and reports a sensory observation.

Quote
"The police officer heard a gunshot."

is not a fallacious appeal to authority because a police officer could possibly be expected to distinguish a gunshot from other loud reports -- although his expert judgment would not be above challenge.

Quote
"The police officer heard a blimp hitting a building."

is not fallacious per se but is largely non-credible because the expertise and experience of the officer would not be sufficient to judge the cause of the noise simply from hearing.

Quote
"The police officer saw what he believed to be an alien spacecraft."
"How did he know it was?"
"Because it didn't look like anything he'd seen before, and police officers are trained to be careful observers."

fails logically as well as empirically.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on April 02, 2013, 12:50:19 AM
He shur talks purty, don't he?

Seriously, nicely broken down. I was just giving a quick and dirty example to point out that Appeal From Authority is not automatically fallacious - it depends upon the authority and the statement.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on April 02, 2013, 11:19:19 AM
Oh, I'm aware of all that.  I still think, however, it's best to avoid appeals to authority--even legitimate authority--in favour of presentation of facts.  I also think we have to be aware that how legitimate anyone's authority is can be in dispute a lot more easily than the facts ought to be.  Then again, with some of the people I've dealt with, everything is in dispute.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on April 02, 2013, 11:36:19 AM
At least in law, the presentation of expert testimony is a presentation of the facts followed by an interpretation of the facts as needed by the testifying expert.  "I'm the expert and I say so," is a weak argument even when true.  A useful expert treatise is, as I said, a learned interpretation of facts.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on April 02, 2013, 12:48:14 PM
I don't think that's always what we get around here, though I imagine that's as much a product of frustration as anything.  Eventually, after fifty pages of the facts' getting disputed, all that's left is "I do this for a living!  What do you know?"
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on April 02, 2013, 01:48:09 PM
Well, for me at least, a great many things that we accept as "facts" are dependent upon someone else's authority.

Moon rocks, for example. I accept as fact that the materials so labeled are indeed samples taken from the lunar surface. I cannot make that statement from my own knowledge, however; I accept the personal testimony of the astronauts who collected them, and the collective expertise of the geologists who have examined them.

Hell, all of my rudimentary knowledge of astrodynamics and orbital mechanics is authority based. I accept the principles I've learned because the engineers - like Jay - who have verified them empirically vouch for them and they are consistent with the world as I have observed it.

IMHO, when you get right down to it, pretty much everything we laypersons know about the Apollo missions is what we are told by people who are putative experts in the appropriate fields.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on April 02, 2013, 02:04:19 PM
Mph.  That sort of thing is more a kind of distributed authority.  Searching for a term here.

When you have a single named geologist making a statement about an Apollo sample (or even several Apollo samples), there is opening for numerous questions; is she being mis-quoted?  Is she under the influence?  Is it April 1st?  Is she honest and well-skilled but made a specific mistake in this specific case?

The more general question would be, "Do her views concur with the general consensus among geologist?"  And for that, one has to know other geologists, or know the field in general.

But the argument, "Do geologists (as a class) believe these samples are from the Moon?" removes all of these.  Instead of checking to see if specific statements are in accord, you are asking if it is reasonable to believe a field contains sufficient internal checks and balances to keep itself honest.

I think of a gauge.  Assuming I didn't buy some sort of Chinese knock-off, what I have purchased includes the assumption that the company that built it calibrated it according to a standard, and that standard is maintained by an organization that thinks about such standards and works to make them accurate and useful.  Of course the one specific gauge I am holding might be out of trim.  If what I am measuring is critical, I need to measure the gauge against some other standard first.  But as a working assumption, if I pull a random one out of a random box, it is probably not telling me complete fiction about what I am trying to measure.  And the reason I can believe this has little to do with the antecedents of that specific tool, but the environment that causes precision gauges to come to exist.

So, "Jay, who claims to be an engineer, says..." is not strong.  "Jay, who claims to speak for engineers, claims other engineers agree," is not strong.  But, "Jay, who makes no claims, points out that engineers as a class would have raised holy hell," is a strong statement.



(And of course I can't leave it there.  I've run into a number of hoaxies and other conspiracy believers who don't accept the idea of a scientific or technical field.  To them, it is all individuals doing as little as possible, concerned only with keeping their jobs and keeping their heads down, and who do nothing but parrot whatever the official word is.  The idea of the constant policing and, yes, sniping that goes on in the sciences to keep them basically honest, the complexities of certification and classification and licensing and professional bodies that make a sort of equivalent in the technical fields, heck, the idea of the individual scientist or engineer as active and interested, is entirely foreign to them.  It doesn't appear to match their personal work experience, so they discard it.)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: geo7863 on April 02, 2013, 04:05:47 PM
Well, for me at least, a great many things that we accept as "facts" are dependent upon someone else's authority.

Moon rocks, for example. I accept as fact that the materials so labeled are indeed samples taken from the lunar surface. I cannot make that statement from my own knowledge, however; I accept the personal testimony of the astronauts who collected them, and the collective expertise of the geologists who have examined them.

Hell, all of my rudimentary knowledge of astrodynamics and orbital mechanics is authority based. I accept the principles I've learned because the engineers - like Jay - who have verified them empirically vouch for them and they are consistent with the world as I have observed it.

IMHO, when you get right down to it, pretty much everything we laypersons know about the Apollo missions is what we are told by people who are putative experts in the appropriate fields.

And that for me, as a layman, is how I see it. But what I dont get, talking Specifically about Anders Bjorkmann, who lets face it is the reason behind this thread, is how a trained 'Engineer' (I have read here that someone has verified that his MSc is genuine) can deny or question something that even I as a layman can see to be true/practicable.

e.g the principles of thrust (am I right here?) he questions how the command module can turn around in space and dock with the LM, or how the shuttle can make an approach in one attitude and then turn around to enter the atmosphere in another attitude. Surely as a Marine architect/Engineer he must have seen ships being 'nudged' around by tugboats..to me the principle is the same even if the mechanics aren't.

And as an Engineer he must have been fascinated by the Harrier jump jet (to some degree at least seeing as it was developed whilst he was a young man who was interested in an Engineering career), which uses 'puffer jets' to change directions of yaw and pitch (and to a degree roll I beleive) in the hovering state. You definitely dont need to be a rocket scientist to see how that can be utlised on a space craft...regardless of your main Engineering discipline.

Also for a Marine Engineer to state that a sea-going vessel moves in 3 dimensions; which obviously it does, but not  under its own power in all 3 dimensions, when he knows that the subject matter is a craft moving in 3 dimensions under its own power. What is he trying to prove? because it definitely isn't his expertise in Marine engineering let alone any expertise in aerospace engineering!

I can forgive people like Jarrah White, Bill Kaysing, Bart Sibrel and Marcus Allen....because they dont know any better....but a trained Engineer should know better regardless of his field of speciality!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on April 02, 2013, 09:09:02 PM
(And of course I can't leave it there.  I've run into a number of hoaxies and other conspiracy believers who don't accept the idea of a scientific or technical field.  To them, it is all individuals doing as little as possible, concerned only with keeping their jobs and keeping their heads down, and who do nothing but parrot whatever the official word is.  The idea of the constant policing and, yes, sniping that goes on in the sciences to keep them basically honest, the complexities of certification and classification and licensing and professional bodies that make a sort of equivalent in the technical fields, heck, the idea of the individual scientist or engineer as active and interested, is entirely foreign to them.  It doesn't appear to match their personal work experience, so they discard it.)
This. The usual form I see is "All those scientists and engineers are just parroting what they were told in school, by their instructors who are just parroting what THEY were told in school."

Hard to see how any new ideas ever come about, huh?

When I pointed out that the reason you see very few people among HBs who have an advanced degree is simply that by the time a person puts in the time and study to acquire an advanced degree, they know enough to recognize it as nonsense, one YouTuber responded:

CT2507:

haha... and there comes the education card! :))

i feel almost sorry for u. cause thats kinda like the last card for u guys isnt it. u trust so blindly that an education will give u all the certainty u will ever need that u are ready to put your heads on the block for it!... and go to sleep ..lol

u dont realise that sleep is built into all modern educations. the more specialized u are in one field, the more u a blind towards others.

i suggest u un-educate yourself and look with honesty.


Shur talks purty, don't he?


 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on April 02, 2013, 11:26:03 PM
...what I dont get, talking Specifically about Anders Bjorkmann, who lets face it is the reason behind this thread, is how a trained 'Engineer' (I have read here that someone has verified that his MSc is genuine) can deny or question something that even I as a layman can see to be true/practicable.

e.g the principles of thrust (am I right here?) he questions how the command module can turn around in space and dock with the LM, or how the shuttle can make an approach in one attitude and then turn around to enter the atmosphere in another attitude. Surely as a Marine architect/Engineer he must have seen ships being 'nudged' around by tugboats..to me the principle is the same even if the mechanics aren't.

And as an Engineer he must have been fascinated by the Harrier jump jet (to some degree at least seeing as it was developed whilst he was a young man who was interested in an Engineering career), which uses 'puffer jets' to change directions of yaw and pitch (and to a degree roll I beleive) in the hovering state. You definitely dont need to be a rocket scientist to see how that can be utlised on a space craft...regardless of your main Engineering discipline.

Also for a Marine Engineer to state that a sea-going vessel moves in 3 dimensions; which obviously it does, but not  under its own power in all 3 dimensions, when he knows that the subject matter is a craft moving in 3 dimensions under its own power. What is he trying to prove? because it definitely isn't his expertise in Marine engineering let alone any expertise in aerospace engineering!

I can forgive people like Jarrah White, Bill Kaysing, Bart Sibrel and Marcus Allen....because they dont know any better....but a trained Engineer should know better regardless of his field of speciality!

I see that Mr Bjorkman has again updated his space travel page...

Anyway, here's a quote which I think illustrates the point:
Quote
The CSM disconnected from the third stage and the Lunar Module, LM, stored there, rotated or flipped 180° and then connected to the top of the LM! Quite impressive! Imagine doing this at 11 200 m/s speed.

The italics above are mine, to highlight what I just don't get - what is so significant about conducting the maneuver at such a high speed relative to the Earth? What matters is the relative speed of the CSM and the S-IVB, and here we're talking about less than 1 metre per second. It's almost as though he's comparing it to a battleship pulling up alongside an aircraft carrier and the two ships being lashed together, while travelling at 30 knots.

It's not as though he imagines the spacecraft shuddering under the impact of interplanetary ether, or something like that. Earlier on the page he says:
Quote
Space ships operate in space that offers no resistance until you enter a planet's atmosphere. Only gravity forces of the Sun, planets and moons affect vehicles in space.

He also seems to understand that rocket engines fire for only limited periods of time. Shortly before the first quote above, he talks about the second burn of the S-IVB lasting for 349 seconds.

So, according to Mr Bjorkman, once the engine has stopped firing, the spacecraft is only being influenced by gravity. Yet suddenly Transposition and Docking is worthy of comment on the basis of the speed the stack is travelling away from the Earth.

Likewise, there are the throwaway comments of bizarre ignorance, like the one about the Launch Escape Tower:
Quote
Three minutes later the launch escape three motors system on top the CM was jettisoned ... one way or another. Why it was fitted in the first place is not clear.

Again, the italics are mine. I remember as a child wondering why the LET was jettisoned after the first stage was discarded, and I could never find any information about it. I knew why it was present, which was what made me wonder what made it subsequently unnecessary. But these days that information is fairly easy to find, and it makes sense in the context of weight restrictions and second stage thrust.

Drawing attention to your ignorance about something that's fairly easy to ascertain doesn't help your intended image as a competent engineer...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on April 03, 2013, 12:58:51 AM
At least he knows how TD&E was done now even if he remains incredulous.

We had to tell him about it.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on April 03, 2013, 03:24:51 AM
Who was it who expressed astonishment at the ability of the astronauts to clamber between the LM and CM through the latter's heat shield?  Was that a Sibrel special? 

Confusion about the orientation of the craft seems endemic among the hoaxies.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on April 03, 2013, 05:43:48 AM
Who was it who expressed astonishment at the ability of the astronauts to clamber between the LM and CM through the latter's heat shield?  Was that a Sibrel special?
It wasn't him. It was one of the regular HBs on (IIRC) the old BA or BAUT forum.

Quote
Confusion about the orientation of the craft seems endemic among the hoaxies.

Yes, and for no apparently good reason, either. Here's another example from Mr Bjorkman:
Quote
The SM engine was obstructed by the lunar module (LM) fitted below it at departure.

Well, yes, but so what? The second stage engines of the Saturn V were obstructed by the first stage. That's how staged rockets work.

And, speaking of the Saturn V...
Quote
...some people wonder if they ever existed ... or if they were just one empty mock up with some jet engines at bottom and trick film!

It'd have to be pretty spectacular trick film to trick the thousands of people who watched Saturn V launches live. And I doubt jet engines could produce the physical effects described.

Seriously, these are absurd displays of ignorance.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: BazBear on April 03, 2013, 07:35:00 AM
Who was it who expressed astonishment at the ability of the astronauts to clamber between the LM and CM through the latter's heat shield?  Was that a Sibrel special? 

Confusion about the orientation of the craft seems endemic among the hoaxies.
I agree with Peter B., I'm almost certain that wasn't a Sibrel claim.

The funny thing is if the USAF had ever got their Manned Orbiting Laboratory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Orbiting_Laboratory) operational, the astronauts actually would have entered the lab through a hatch that went through their modified Gemini B spacecraft's heat shield.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on April 03, 2013, 09:39:27 AM
The funny thing is if the USAF had ever got their Manned Orbiting Laboratory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Orbiting_Laboratory) operational, the astronauts actually would have entered the lab through a hatch that went through their modified Gemini B spacecraft's heat shield.
Strictly speaking, the entire Apollo CM was covered with a phenolic heatshield (although I'm not sure about the outside surface of the forward hatch). It was just considerably thicker on the bottom of the capsule that was designed to face forward during re-entry.

I have pointed this out several times in the context of discussions about radiation shielding and CT complaints about aluminum as shielding. Phenolic resin, like all plastics, contains a considerable amount of hydrogen that is especially effective at stopping energetic charged particles without generating a lot of high energy Bremsstralung x-ray photons.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on April 03, 2013, 10:29:22 AM
Anyway, here's a quote which I think illustrates the point:
Quote
The CSM disconnected from the third stage and the Lunar Module, LM, stored there, rotated or flipped 180° and then connected to the top of the LM! Quite impressive! Imagine doing this at 11 200 m/s speed.

The italics above are mine, to highlight what I just don't get - what is so significant about conducting the maneuver at such a high speed relative to the Earth? What matters is the relative speed of the CSM and the S-IVB, and here we're talking about less than 1 metre per second. It's almost as though he's comparing it to a battleship pulling up alongside an aircraft carrier and the two ships being lashed together, while travelling at 30 knots.

OMG I parked my truck this morning.  With an Earth rotational speed of ~1000 mph at the equator and my parking spot at ~30 degrees north, that means I was going east at ~866 MPH.  Good thing my parking spot faces north!  ;)   Lets not even get into the speed of the earth around the sun, parking at that speed must be impossible.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 03, 2013, 10:31:36 AM
Who was it who expressed astonishment at the ability of the astronauts to clamber between the LM and CM through the latter's heat shield?  Was that a Sibrel special? 

Confusion about the orientation of the craft seems endemic among the hoaxies.
I agree with Peter B., I'm almost certain that wasn't a Sibrel claim.

It sounds a lot like Sam Colby's notorious claim that the astronauts could not have moved from the CM to the SM because the heat shield was in the way. An accurate assessment, but not as suspicious as he, in his ignorance, makes it out to be....
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: geo7863 on April 03, 2013, 12:05:00 PM
Anyway, here's a quote which I think illustrates the point:
Quote
The CSM disconnected from the third stage and the Lunar Module, LM, stored there, rotated or flipped 180° and then connected to the top of the LM! Quite impressive! Imagine doing this at 11 200 m/s speed.

The italics above are mine, to highlight what I just don't get - what is so significant about conducting the maneuver at such a high speed relative to the Earth? What matters is the relative speed of the CSM and the S-IVB, and here we're talking about less than 1 metre per second. It's almost as though he's comparing it to a battleship pulling up alongside an aircraft carrier and the two ships being lashed together, while travelling at 30 knots.

OMG I parked my truck this morning.  With an Earth rotational speed of ~1000 mph at the equator and my parking spot at ~30 degrees north, that means I was going east at ~866 MPH.  Good thing my parking spot faces north!  ;)   Lets not even get into the speed of the earth around the sun, parking at that speed must be impossible.

So why does it take so long to drive from California to New York? surely all you need to do would be to release the handbrake and let the earths rotation do the rest......mind you driving back would be a real bugger of a journey! ;D
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on April 03, 2013, 01:18:02 PM
Just go the long way round.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2013, 01:45:21 PM
Who was it who expressed astonishment at the ability of the astronauts to clamber between the LM and CM through the latter's heat shield?  Was that a Sibrel special?

No, that was Sam Colby (NASAScam).  He has his own particular brand of ignorance and dishonesty.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on April 16, 2013, 08:25:19 AM
After the visit by Believer, I decided to have a look at what Anders "I can't stop changing my website" Björkman has been up to. By some coincidence, according to my archive, the last time I've saved a snapshot of his page was exactly a month ago.

Enumerating all the changes would be boring, so here's just the more amusing ones:

Apparently, now this forum is run by NASA and SpaceX! :D :D :D :D He also makes an issue about the number of posts in this thread, never mind that most of them were answers to his posts.
Quote
On March 30, 2013 the Apollo11hoaxster.net thread has &gt; 1410 posts (96 pages) about The Heiwa Challenge and none has managed to produce any evidence that space travel is even possible ... or safe. It seems ex-SpaceX clowns are trying to explain why their launch vehicles fizzled. So my money is still in the bank.
Yeah, right. ::) Even if it exists, it's a fraction of SpaceX's capital, who, by the way, do launch rockets and retrieve spacecraft from orbit. Jealous much, Björkman? :p And the domain is "apollohoax.net". Your repeated dishonesty and/or incompetence has been noted.

I also LOLed at this:
Quote
controlled by a robot or computer
The robot part has been added later. I wonder what he imagines to be the difference. :D

Speaking of additions, the page title has been changed to "Human space travel is not possible! and unsafe". :D As opposed to impossible and safe? :D

Also, Björkman has apparently developed some kind of anal fixation, as his newest word for "astronaut" is "asstrohole", replacing some of the existing slurs, and at least in one instance, the word "people" - yes, Björkman is the kind of guy who would notice that he's missed an opportunity to call someone names, and go back and "fix" it. And by "fixing" it I mean that he decided to drop the pretences and the middle syllable - the new sentence talks about "the three (crazy?) assholes aboard". There's also a "cdesign proponentsists"-style transitional form: in another place, Björkman calls Armstrong an "asstronuthole". ::)

I'm increasing tempted to finish every post of mine in this thread with a video of the Swedish Chef ("Björk! Björk! Björk!"), but doing it would be disrespectful. To the Chef. :(
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: smartcooky on April 16, 2013, 08:31:41 AM
I'm increasing tempted to finish every post of mine in this thread with a video of the Swedish Chef ("Björk! Björk! Björk!"), but doing it would be disrespectful. To the Chef. :(

Say after me..


"Pooot der rahber cheekin een der pot!!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on April 16, 2013, 09:29:00 AM
He's getting more unhinged.

He's starting to outdo nasascam.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: RAF on April 16, 2013, 10:06:10 AM
Looking at that page makes me sad...that someone could be so ignorant, and waste time and effort making that "joke" of a website.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Mag40 on April 16, 2013, 10:09:38 AM
Anders, you are reading this. You know less about space travel than most 10 year olds. Your inept understanding of the mechanisms involved has been explained to you in very simple words......the actual way it works has been explained to you also in very simple words.

You don't have the money, you are a complete fraud. How you cannot grasp simple fundamentals that apply to all the thousands of satellites, interplanetary probes and manned flights into space........is just baffling. You are just one in a very, very long line of internet blowhards who get their kicks entertaining gullible people with their ignorance.

Congratulations, you must be so proud.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on April 16, 2013, 07:29:28 PM
The only reason he thinks nobody has answered his challenge is because he refused to acknowledge/understand the answers.  It is nothing more than his own fault that he is ignorant.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on April 16, 2013, 10:16:20 PM
...How you cannot grasp simple fundamentals that apply to all the thousands of satellites, interplanetary probes and manned flights into space........is just baffling...
On the previous page I posted a comparison to a battleship pulling up alongside an aircraft carrier and being lashed to it while they were both travelling at 30 knots.

I now think that was an inaccurate comparison. I'm wondering if Mr Bjorkman is still applying a nautical model of propulsion and steering to spacecraft.

In other words, imagine you have a ship travelling along at 5 knots on a course of 90 degrees (that is, to the east). Now imagine you want the ship to maintain that course and speed, but travel stern first. What would you do? You'd order the ship to do a 180 degree turn, then put the engines in reverse. At the instant the ship completes the turn it's travelling at 5 knots on a course of 270 degrees (possibly slower thanks to the turn). It then slows down, stops, and then picks up speed in the reverse direction (course 90 degrees) until it's travelling at 5 knots again.

I think Mr Bjorkman is expecting that the CSM has to do something similar to undertake the Transposition and Docking maneuver.

Take the example above and now imagine you have two ships, one right behind the other, travelling at 5 knots on a course of 90 degrees. You now want the front ship to reverse its facing and instead travel stern first, such that it's facing the second ship bow to bow. What would you do now? The lead ship would have to increase speed and head off at an angle (say, a course of 60 degrees) until you were a few miles away. That would give you enough room and time to circle around until you were directly in front of the second ship, slow down, stop and then accelerate in reverse, while the second ship maintained its speed and heading. If the second ship couldn't alter its speed or heading, then all the adjustments would need to be made by the first ship while it was reversing, until it could take up station bow to bow with the second ship.

But in space, direction of facing and direction of travel are completely decoupled: changing the direction the spacecraft is facing has absolutely no effect on the direction it's travelling.

Hence the reason I like to use the example of the shopping trolley (as long as it has four unlocked wheels) as an analogy for the motion of a spacecraft. I can push the shopping trolley in such a way that it completes a 360 degree rotation while it maintains a fixed distance in front of me (much to the delight of my sons).
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Al Johnston on April 17, 2013, 04:05:55 AM
...How you cannot grasp simple fundamentals that apply to all the thousands of satellites, interplanetary probes and manned flights into space........is just baffling...
On the previous page I posted a comparison to a battleship pulling up alongside an aircraft carrier and being lashed to it while they were both travelling at 30 knots.

I now think that was an inaccurate comparison. I'm wondering if Mr Bjorkman is still applying a nautical model of propulsion and steering to spacecraft.

In other words, imagine you have a ship travelling along at 5 knots on a course of 90 degrees (that is, to the east). Now imagine you want the ship to maintain that course and speed, but travel stern first. What would you do? You'd order the ship to do a 180 degree turn, then put the engines in reverse. At the instant the ship completes the turn it's travelling at 5 knots on a course of 270 degrees (possibly slower thanks to the turn). It then slows down, stops, and then picks up speed in the reverse direction (course 90 degrees) until it's travelling at 5 knots again.

I think Mr Bjorkman is expecting that the CSM has to do something similar to undertake the Transposition and Docking maneuver.

Take the example above and now imagine you have two ships, one right behind the other, travelling at 5 knots on a course of 90 degrees. You now want the front ship to reverse its facing and instead travel stern first, such that it's facing the second ship bow to bow. What would you do now? The lead ship would have to increase speed and head off at an angle (say, a course of 60 degrees) until you were a few miles away. That would give you enough room and time to circle around until you were directly in front of the second ship, slow down, stop and then accelerate in reverse, while the second ship maintained its speed and heading. If the second ship couldn't alter its speed or heading, then all the adjustments would need to be made by the first ship while it was reversing, until it could take up station bow to bow with the second ship.

But in space, direction of facing and direction of travel are completely decoupled: changing the direction the spacecraft is facing has absolutely no effect on the direction it's travelling.

Hence the reason I like to use the example of the shopping trolley (as long as it has four unlocked wheels) as an analogy for the motion of a spacecraft. I can push the shopping trolley in such a way that it completes a 360 degree rotation while it maintains a fixed distance in front of me (much to the delight of my sons).

So that's what the Novgorod class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_battleship_Novgorod) were designed for ;D
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on April 18, 2013, 12:00:56 PM
Mr Bjorkman just attempted to post a comment on my website (see sig line). I marked it as spam and emailed him.

This is what he wanted to say:
Quote
Sea going ships operate in the interface water/air on planet Earth - generally only in two dimensions but with the risk of groundings in shallow water. Space ships operate in three dimensions off planet Earth and will hardly run aground but ... are very difficult to slow down. More at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm . Prove me wrong and earn €1M at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm .

This is what I said:
Quote
Dear Mr Bjorkman

I have received a message requesting that I approve your comment on my website.

I regret to inform you that I am going to treat the comment as spam.

I do not have the time or inclination to debate with you privately regarding our respective understandings of space travel. It is enough to say that the website you have commented on has nothing to do with my interests in space travel, and so comments on it relating to space travel are not appropriate. However, as you intended that the comment be visible to people visiting my website, I will post it on the Apollohoax forum so that it will be visible to people visiting the forum.

I would normally invite you to continue this discussion on the Apollohoax forum, but as you have been banned that obviously is not possible.

I wish you the best, and hope you continue to examine the historical record of space travel.

Kind regards

Peter B
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: RAF on April 18, 2013, 01:10:10 PM
Quote
It is enough to say that the website you have commented on has nothing to do with my interests in space travel, and so comments on it relating to space travel are not appropriate.

Wow...how odd is it that he posted to a completely unrelated website?

Glad he was banned from here, as one of my major pet peeves is/are people who misunderstand/ignore the burden of proof.

looks like he misses the attention he was getting here....to which I say, too bad. :)

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on April 18, 2013, 01:42:00 PM
He wasn't banned for failing to understand how to construct an argument, but for sock puppetry and calling people Nazis.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: twik on April 18, 2013, 01:59:28 PM
Why should a spacecraft be hard to slow down? Just apply a force in the opposite direction, and you're slowing.

I'm afraid Heiwa really does not get that it's difference for ships versus spacecraft. I'm sure he's convinced since there's no rudder or opportunity for drag from water to have an effect, a spacecraft is completely uncontrollable.
Title: Re: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on April 18, 2013, 02:20:50 PM
Why should a spacecraft be hard to slow down? Just apply a force in the opposite direction, and you're slowing.

I'm afraid Heiwa really does not get that it's difference for ships versus spacecraft. I'm sure he's convinced since there's no rudder or opportunity for drag from water to have an effect, a spacecraft is completely uncontrollable.

He doesn't get the idea that a spacecraft in a coast doesn't need to point in the direction of travel. Hence his incredulity at retrograde burns.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: RAF on April 18, 2013, 02:21:43 PM
He wasn't banned for failing to understand how to construct an argument...

I'm confused...where did I post that as the reason for his dismissal???
Title: Re: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on April 18, 2013, 02:30:58 PM
He wasn't banned for failing to understand how to construct an argument...

I'm confused...where did I post that as the reason for his dismissal???

Okay I guess you didn't say that but you did say you were glad of his banning for that reason so I initially read it differently.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: RAF on April 18, 2013, 02:51:59 PM
Upon re-reading my post, I just don't see how you became "confused" as to what I meant when I posted "glad he was banned, because I don't like posters who ignore the burden of proof."

....but I'm willing to accept your explanation, and will now drop the subject...:)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on April 18, 2013, 05:35:03 PM
Quote
The CSM disconnected from the third stage and the Lunar Module, LM, stored there, rotated or flipped 180° and then connected to the top of the LM! Quite impressive! Imagine doing this at 11 200 m/s speed.

One wonders what goes through his mind when he tries to pass another car on the highway. Or when he tries to put a spoon in his mouth. "My hand is traveling at 200 kilometers per seconds! I'll never make it!"


Quote
Quote
Three minutes later the launch escape three motors system on top the CM was jettisoned ... one way or another. Why it was fitted in the first place is not clear.

Damn those crafty bastards who name things for their function!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on April 18, 2013, 07:44:50 PM
Actually, I'm beginning to not want to trust him around boats, either.

Anyone who thinks a ship or boat goes in the direction the bow is pointed has NO business getting anywhere near a dock, quay, or within the buoys of a marina.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on April 19, 2013, 11:41:02 AM
Actually, I'm beginning to not want to trust him around boats, either.

Nor should you.  Bjorkman is not looked upon by ship-handlers either as anything but a buffoon.

Quote
Anyone who thinks a ship or boat goes in the direction the bow is pointed has NO business getting anywhere near a dock, quay, or within the buoys of a marina.
]

Agreed; my brother-in-law is a Navy quartermaster (Perry-class frigates) and has shown me some absolutely astounding feats of ship-handling using only rudders and engine commands.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on April 19, 2013, 12:37:47 PM
Twin screwed ships can run their engines in opposite directions and rotate around without moving forward or aft. It's called casting.

The old-timey aircraft carriers would chock and chain their aircraft along the flight deck edges, fore and aft, port and starboard, pointing outboard, and by revving their engines in various combinations could rotate and translate the carrier in the desired direction.

Jay, which Perry-class is your BIL on? I served on the Wadsworth AKA The Mighty Wad.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on April 19, 2013, 01:08:01 PM
USS Rentz (FFG-46) home-ported in San Diego.  We arranged with his captain to award him his ensign stripe as a surprise as part of the wedding ceremony.  Then we made the mistake of trying to out-drink Marines.

[ETA pic:  He's the one on the left.]
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on April 19, 2013, 01:11:51 PM
Twin screwed ships can run their engines in opposite directions and rotate around without moving forward or aft. It's called casting.

Yep, and when you add rudder hardovers at the right time, you can accomplish a great deal of maneuverability.  For someone presenting himself as a maritime engineer not to know and respect this is beyond incompetent and/or dishonest.

Quote
The old-timey aircraft carriers would chock and chain their aircraft along the flight deck edges, fore and aft, port and starboard, pointing outboard, and by revving their engines in various combinations could rotate and translate the carrier in the desired direction.

And this is still a desired skill even in the age of Azipods and bow thrusters.  I had a Navy coxswain show me some pretty nifty small-boat maneuvers, although I haven't practiced them in ages.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on April 19, 2013, 03:21:14 PM
Good points.  I was particularly amused by Rhine ferries -- where the facing of the boat is practically an arbitrary matter.  They'd spin around like a top mid-river, and powered in and out tangential to the dock; no parallel parking for these guys.

But even the tiny sailboats that were all I've ever operated personally...many years ago...will quite vigorously continue on their heading regardless of what you happen to be doing with the rudder, which way the boat is facing, or even what is happening with the sails.  It is quite sweaty work, let me tell you, getting yourself into a slip in a crowded marina -- around some very expensive boats -- when all you have is a sail and the rest is up to inertia.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on April 19, 2013, 06:08:07 PM
Yep, and when you add rudder hardovers at the right time, you can accomplish a great deal of maneuverability.  For someone presenting himself as a maritime engineer not to know and respect this is beyond incompetent and/or dishonest.

Would it be an exaggeration to say that the impressiveness of his "maritime engineer" claim is just about on a par with Hunchbacked/InquisitiveMind's claim of being an "aeronautical engineer"?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on April 19, 2013, 10:02:28 PM
Bjorkman has a legitimate education credential and a verifiable work history in the relevant field, up to a certain point.  I don't know that Hunchbacked has any of that.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on April 20, 2013, 12:45:58 PM
Bjorkman has a legitimate education credential and a verifiable work history in the relevant field, up to a certain point.  I don't know that Hunchbacked has any of that.

Back in 2011 he published what he claims to be his diploma from École Nationale Supérieure de Mécanique et d'Aérotechnique, as "d'Ingenieur, Option Avionique".

His name was redacted, but he sent a copy to Vincent, who knows his name, and Vincent verified that was the name on the diploma. (I know it too, but as he chooses to withhold it, I'll respect his decision) It could be fake, of course, but FWIW.


Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ineluki on April 22, 2013, 08:35:56 AM
Anyone who thinks a ship or boat goes in the direction the bow is pointed has NO business getting anywhere near a dock, quay, or within the buoys of a marina.

I would expect someone from Sweden to know that even Cars may move in a different direction...

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=car+drift+snow&qs=n&form=QBVR&pq=car+drift+snow&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=#x0y1236

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: twik on April 22, 2013, 10:34:06 AM
Oh, heck, I know from personal experience a car may end up moving in a completely opposite direction from the way the nose is pointing. And don't tell me Heiwa in Sweden has no experience with black ice!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: BazBear on April 22, 2013, 12:53:05 PM
Oh, heck, I know from personal experience a car may end up moving in a completely opposite direction from the way the nose is pointing. And don't tell me Heiwa in Sweden has no experience with black ice!
You would think that, but if his skill and knowledge of driving is anything like his apparent engineering knowledge, I have to wonder if he even has a driver's license.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Tedward on April 23, 2013, 02:25:22 AM
Without putting him in a car to find out, living in a country is no real proof of ability if humans in general is anything to go by.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on April 23, 2013, 11:23:38 AM
True.  It's amazing how many people around here don't seem to know how to drive in the rain, for example.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: nomuse on April 23, 2013, 02:14:39 PM
Tell me about it.  In the Bay Area, the first rains seem to call for, "Drive faster!  My car might get wet!"

Especially during the first few hours, when all that oil rises out of the pavement in a rainbow sheen, and cars slide through intersections like bumper cars at the Boardwalk.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daniel Dravot on April 23, 2013, 02:42:21 PM
Tell me about it.  In the Bay Area, the first rains seem to call for, "Drive faster!  My car might get wet!"

Especially during the first few hours, when all that oil rises out of the pavement in a rainbow sheen, and cars slide through intersections like bumper cars at the Boardwalk.

They wouldn't do too well around these parts, it rains all the time.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on April 23, 2013, 04:30:42 PM
Rains all the time here, too; that was my point.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daniel Dravot on April 23, 2013, 11:35:53 PM
Is your profile location out of date?  The first site that comes up in Google says your average annual rainfall is only 129 cm.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on April 24, 2013, 12:28:26 AM
Consider a couple of facts.

I grew up in a town with an average annual rainfall of twenty-two inches; my current hometown has over twice that--and is in a rain shadow.  Second, we don't get it all at once.  It probably drizzles three days out of five from September to March, and we get a few heavy falls every year to boot.  I don't know where you're living, but I live in a region known for rain.  That's all most people do seem to know about my region--rain, coffee, and Microsoft.
Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sus_pilot on April 24, 2013, 06:20:28 AM
Consider a couple of facts.

I grew up in a town with an average annual rainfall of twenty-two inches; my current hometown has over twice that--and is in a rain shadow.  Second, we don't get it all at once.  It probably drizzles three days out of five from September to March, and we get a few heavy falls every year to boot.  I don't know where you're living, but I live in a region known for rain.  That's all most people do seem to know about my region--rain, coffee, and Microsoft.

Build really nice airplanes up that way, too.  :-)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: geo7863 on April 24, 2013, 06:21:59 AM
Damn those crafty bastards who name things for their function!

Thanks for that I just 'spat' coffee out through my nose!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on April 24, 2013, 07:45:08 AM
Well it continues to throw me. I still have absolutely no idea what the Launch Escape System was actually used for.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on April 24, 2013, 08:02:13 AM
Consider a couple of facts.

I grew up in a town with an average annual rainfall of twenty-two inches; my current hometown has over twice that--and is in a rain shadow.  Second, we don't get it all at once.  It probably drizzles three days out of five from September to March, and we get a few heavy falls every year to boot.  I don't know where you're living, but I live in a region known for rain.  That's all most people do seem to know about my region--rain, coffee, and Microsoft.

Don't forget the giant slugs.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: cjameshuff on April 24, 2013, 09:20:36 AM
Don't forget the giant slugs.

And tree octopus (http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/)!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on April 24, 2013, 10:26:34 AM
Consider a couple of facts.

I grew up in a town with an average annual rainfall of twenty-two inches; my current hometown has over twice that--and is in a rain shadow.  Second, we don't get it all at once.  It probably drizzles three days out of five from September to March, and we get a few heavy falls every year to boot.  I don't know where you're living, but I live in a region known for rain.  That's all most people do seem to know about my region--rain, coffee, and Microsoft.

Also, some really nice portable cardiac monitor/defibrillators.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on April 24, 2013, 11:11:50 AM
Don't forget the giant slugs.

This weekend, I will probably see someone dressed up as one.  Yay, Procession of the Species!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 24, 2013, 11:26:44 AM
Well it continues to throw me. I still have absolutely no idea what the Launch Escape System was actually used for.

It was to make the rocket extra pointy to help get all that bulk through the air....

Of course, on all Apollo flights except the Little Joe II test flights designed specifically to test the LES, it wasn't actually used for anything, since situations that would require its use didn't arise.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on April 24, 2013, 11:45:50 AM
Well it continues to throw me. I still have absolutely no idea what the Launch Escape System was actually used for.

On the Up Goer Five (http://xkcd.com/1133/) it is the thing to help people escape really fast if there's a problem and everything is on fire so they decide not to go to space.  It works because there is stuff to burn to make the box with the people in is escape really fast. When the stuff burns there is a place on the bottom where the fire comes out to hep them escape and a thing to control which direction the escaping people go. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on April 24, 2013, 11:50:50 AM
Don't forget the giant slugs.

And tree octopus (http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/)!

The poor things are being hunted to extinction by the Sasquatch.  Something must be done. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on April 24, 2013, 12:07:03 PM
Hang on Jason, you mean to tell me the asstronuts didnt use the LES to leave the CSM and be flown in total secrecy to Area 51? The mind boggles. Why didnt Jarrah inform me of this??
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on April 24, 2013, 01:26:30 PM
The poor things are being hunted to extinction by the Sasquatch.  Something must be done. 

A local beer company is offering $1,000,000 for a capture of Sasquatch.  Of course, I believe they actually have a million dollars, unlike Heiwa's imaginary Euros.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on April 24, 2013, 02:11:26 PM
Well it continues to throw me. I still have absolutely no idea what the Launch Escape System was actually used for.

It was fastened into the CM docking probe apparatus and pulled the CM free in case the Saturn V exploded.  Consider it has to be powerful enough to outrun an exploding Saturn V.  That should give you an indication of the potential g-forces the crew would have experienced.

I've mentioned before that my friend Chris was working as an engineer on the Orion LES, and they were using the Apollo-Saturn LES as an example (since the company he works for was the original LES contractor).  He was working from full-scale original drawings of the LES from their archives.  Those who say the "plans for the Saturn V don't exist anymore" don't really realize what "the plans" consist of.  I'd be hard-pressed today to find a machine that could copy or digitize the drawings we were looking at.

Moon Machines has some footage of the (in)famous Little Joe test, where the rocket actually suffered an unexpected guidance failure and added some spice to the test.  It's probably YouTubable.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Hal on April 24, 2013, 02:44:26 PM
The designers of the Soviet LES for the N1 had to take some consolation from the fact that they successfully 'saved' the dummy capsules from the first two launch failures.  According to Wikipedia, the third N1 launch vehicle wasn't fitted with an LES, but the article isn't clear whether it was present for the fourth.  Since that last flight lasted almost 107s, would the LES have still been viable, anyway?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on April 24, 2013, 03:05:50 PM
Well it continues to throw me. I still have absolutely no idea what the Launch Escape System was actually used for.

It was fastened into the CM docking probe apparatus and pulled the CM free in case the Saturn V exploded.  Consider it has to be powerful enough to outrun an exploding Saturn V.  That should give you an indication of the potential g-forces the crew would have experienced.

I think I remember hearing Jim Lovell say during an interview that you really didn't want to use the LES because you would be pulling about 20 g for a few seconds.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: smartcooky on April 24, 2013, 03:36:34 PM
Well it continues to throw me. I still have absolutely no idea what the Launch Escape System was actually used for.

It was fastened into the CM docking probe apparatus and pulled the CM free in case the Saturn V exploded.  Consider it has to be powerful enough to outrun an exploding Saturn V.  That should give you an indication of the potential g-forces the crew would have experienced.

I think I remember hearing Jim Lovell say during an interview that you really didn't want to use the LES because you would be pulling about 20 g for a few seconds.

That is much the same level of "G" as a typical "zero-zero" rocket powered ejection seat.

The F-111 used to eject the whole cockpit/crew module with pilots still inside, but the "G" forces were much lower. I witnessed this personally in 1979 when a RAAF F-111 crashed on takeoff at Ohakea AFB.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Allan F on April 24, 2013, 04:02:08 PM


Moon Machines has some footage of the (in)famous Little Joe test, where the rocket actually suffered an unexpected guidance failure and added some spice to the test.  It's probably YouTubable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqeJzItldSQ
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Count Zero on April 24, 2013, 05:31:54 PM
On September 26, 1983 the LES on a Soyuz rocket saved the 2-man crew from a pad fire prior to launch:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_T-10-1



I've always been amused by the reaction of the military spectators at 0:38.  "Yeah, oh well..."
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: twik on April 24, 2013, 05:41:15 PM
Don't forget the giant slugs.

And tree octopus (http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/)!

The poor things are being hunted to extinction by the Sasquatch.  Something must be done.

OK, I'm on it! (goes off to kill all the Sasquatch)
Title: Re: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on April 24, 2013, 07:25:47 PM
Well it continues to throw me. I still have absolutely no idea what the Launch Escape System was actually used for.

It was fastened into the CM docking probe apparatus and pulled the CM free in case the Saturn V exploded.  Consider it has to be powerful enough to outrun an exploding Saturn V.  That should give you an indication of the potential g-forces the crew would have experienced.

I've mentioned before that my friend Chris was working as an engineer on the Orion LES, and they were using the Apollo-Saturn LES as an example (since the company he works for was the original LES contractor).  He was working from full-scale original drawings of the LES from their archives.  Those who say the "plans for the Saturn V don't exist anymore" don't really realize what "the plans" consist of.  I'd be hard-pressed today to find a machine that could copy or digitize the drawings we were looking at.

Moon Machines has some footage of the (in)famous Little Joe test, where the rocket actually suffered an unexpected guidance failure and added some spice to the test.  It's probably YouTubable.

Full-scale? Did all parts have this?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on April 24, 2013, 07:40:42 PM
Don't forget the giant slugs.

And tree octopus (http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/)!

The poor things are being hunted to extinction by the Sasquatch.  Something must be done.

OK, I'm on it! (goes off to kill all the Sasquatch)

Wait for me.  I've got my 12 gauge and .30-06 loaded.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on April 24, 2013, 08:06:32 PM
A quick question:

We know Apollo 17 landed at (appx)  20.2 N Latitude, 30.8 E Longitude.

The ALSEP antenna orientation page from the LMPs cuff checklist looks like this:

(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt353/jarvisn/a17_eva1_lmp20_zps3b44f82a.gif)

Does anyone know why they would have listed the numbers with the decimal shifted one place to the left?

BTW, this is pursuant to an ongoing battle with Hunchbacked ignorance.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Count Zero on April 24, 2013, 08:39:04 PM
In conspiretard-world, nobody ever makes misteaks.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on April 24, 2013, 08:55:53 PM
In conspiretard-world, nobody ever makes misteaks.
Except when they reveal the conspiracy, but would be incredibly stupid to make, like crosshairs being obstructed by composition errors, or forgetting to dig a crater under the "LEM", or add stars to the sky.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on April 24, 2013, 08:58:55 PM
Dont forget using wires set up off centre, 16mm faked to look like video, and coke bottles rolling across the set in all their illegible 320 line glory.

PS I had to chuckle: a few minutes after Jay described the LES/Little Joe tests, I was going through re-compiling all the Skylab footage I have on various DVDs. After the one section I was working on had finished rendering, I see the title pop up for the next film...Little Joe!!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Tanalia on April 24, 2013, 09:12:19 PM
A quick question:
...
Does anyone know why they would have listed the numbers with the decimal shifted one place to the left?
From the illustrations in the Apollo 16 ALSEP Manual (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/ALSEP_MT_06.pdf) (22MB PDF), pages 4-10 through 4-15, it looks like extra zero was left off the end of almost every angle scale, probably to improve clarity.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on April 24, 2013, 09:29:07 PM
In conspiretard-world, nobody ever makes misteaks.
If that was in answer to me, I tend to think there's more to it than that.  Could the elevation & azimuth scales have been marked to coincide with lat & long, to remove the need for one calculation?  And, just due to size, could the scales have been marked in single digits, like a 10x scale?

Besides, it's listed the same way in the Lunar Surface Procedures manual, in a different format but with the same numbers.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: BazBear on April 24, 2013, 10:39:15 PM
Well it continues to throw me. I still have absolutely no idea what the Launch Escape System was actually used for.

It was fastened into the CM docking probe apparatus and pulled the CM free in case the Saturn V exploded.  Consider it has to be powerful enough to outrun an exploding Saturn V.  That should give you an indication of the potential g-forces the crew would have experienced.

I've mentioned before that my friend Chris was working as an engineer on the Orion LES, and they were using the Apollo-Saturn LES as an example (since the company he works for was the original LES contractor).  He was working from full-scale original drawings of the LES from their archives.  Those who say the "plans for the Saturn V don't exist anymore" don't really realize what "the plans" consist of.  I'd be hard-pressed today to find a machine that could copy or digitize the drawings we were looking at.

Moon Machines has some footage of the (in)famous Little Joe test, where the rocket actually suffered an unexpected guidance failure and added some spice to the test.  It's probably YouTubable.
Sure enough . The Little Joe LES test footage starts at about 13:40.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on April 25, 2013, 07:19:35 AM
I've mentioned before that my friend Chris was working as an engineer on the Orion LES
I saw the video of the successful test of the complete Orion LES. It was impressive, but I had a strong sense of deja-vu. I kept thinking: damn, that's complicated...just look at all those parachutes...if just one snarls...there's got to be a simpler way...

But I felt the same when I first heard about the Curiosity "skycrane" landing system, and no matter how much I thought about it I couldn't come up with anything better. So maybe the same thing is true for the Orion LES.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on April 25, 2013, 07:29:22 AM
That is much the same level of "G" as a typical "zero-zero" rocket powered ejection seat.
What put those ejection seats in context for me was calculating that their main rocket is an "M"-class engine in the model/high power rocketry classification system. (Each letter indicates a doubling of total impulse from the class below it.) That's a total impulse between approximately 5,000-10,000 Newton-seconds, and using one requires a level "3" high power certification. This is the largest engine you can legally use in the State of California, though other states have higher limits.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on April 25, 2013, 01:14:44 PM
A quick question:
...
Does anyone know why they would have listed the numbers with the decimal shifted one place to the left?
From the illustrations in the Apollo 16 ALSEP Manual (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/ALSEP_MT_06.pdf) (22MB PDF), pages 4-10 through 4-15, it looks like extra zero was left off the end of almost every angle scale, probably to improve clarity.

Thank you for the link. That manual gives much more detail than the Apollo 17 manual I've been looking at.
Title: Re: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on April 25, 2013, 03:15:36 PM
Full-scale? Did all parts have this?

I would hope not, since a Saturn IC stage drawn to scale would consume an enormous amount of paper.  But yes in general, where full-scale drawings can be made of a part, they were often made up until the CAD era.  A J-size piece of drawing paper is 34 inches tall and as wide as you need it to be (within certain limits).  That's the largest standard size commonly used; you can use non-standard drawing sheets.  The drawings I saw were fastened to the wall -- and it was a long wall!  I have also seen full-size layout drawings of the CM and LM control panels.

During the 1940s it was common to hold the manufactured part up to the drawing to match the profile:  a sort of machinist sanity check.  This harks back to "loftsmen" in the shipbuilding industries who would lay out ship parts in full scale, etched in the wooden floors of the lofts above workshops.  You actually did confirm the part by laying it on the floor.  These loftsmen used long flexible splines tied into curves with ropes and nails in the floor.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daniel Dravot on April 25, 2013, 05:10:13 PM
It probably drizzles three days out of five from September to March, and we get a few heavy falls every year to boot.

We call that a drought.

Don't forget the giant slugs.

This weekend, I will probably see someone dressed up as one.  Yay, Procession of the Species!

??  We don't have anything like that.  I'll let someone else introduce it.
Title: Re: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Captain Swoop on April 26, 2013, 05:46:02 AM
Quote
This harks back to "loftsmen" in the shipbuilding industries who would lay out ship parts in full scale, etched in the wooden floors of the lofts above workshops.  You actually did confirm the part by laying it on the floor.  These loftsmen used long flexible splines tied into curves with ropes and nails in the floor.
At Chatham Dockyards on the Tahmes there are three Drydocks, two of them areee from the 18th Century and one was used to build HMS Victory. They have a vast wooden roof over each one built like an upturned ships hull. Their last building job was the Oberon Class Submarines in the 1950s and 60s. Next to the docks themselves is a 'laying out floor' It is still marked with the full size plate dimensions for the hulls, like a giant sewing pattern.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ipearse on April 26, 2013, 07:30:19 AM
Technically-speaking, Chatham Dockyard is not on the Thames, it's on the Medway, which empties into the Thames Estuary, but close enough.  :)  Yes, it is a fascinating place to visit, and the mould loft floor with all the patterns drawn out has to be seen to be believed.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gwiz on April 26, 2013, 09:08:49 AM
During the 1940s it was common to hold the manufactured part up to the drawing to match the profile:  a sort of machinist sanity check.  This harks back to "loftsmen" in the shipbuilding industries who would lay out ship parts in full scale, etched in the wooden floors of the lofts above workshops.  You actually did confirm the part by laying it on the floor.  These loftsmen used long flexible splines tied into curves with ropes and nails in the floor.
In the earlier part of my career we still had a loft department at Hawkers producing full-scale drawings on plastic film, which gave better stability than paper.  It helped that the Harrier wasn't that large an aircraft.  No nails in the floor, though, but spline weights, lead weighted with a clip to hold the spline down.  They later installed a Kongsberg computer-controlled drawing machine, big enough for full-scale drawings.  Before we got our own printers, we'd borrow it to draw graphs for reports, lots of them across the width of the film and cut them out as A3 or A4 size, then xerox on to paper.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on April 26, 2013, 01:30:27 PM
In the earlier part of my career we still had a loft department at Hawkers producing full-scale drawings on plastic film, which gave better stability than paper.

Yes, my last hand-drawing stuff was done on acetate or polyester drafting film.  Also, in my home studio I actually have the first drafting table I ever used professionally, in an engineering drafting "bull pen."  Although the drafting machine was removed and sold, I managed to win the bid for the table from the liquidation auction when the company was acquired.

At the other end of the spectrum, I recently acquired the 1909 original drawings for the Episcopal church in my neighborhood, patterned after English parish chapels.  The architect was a friend of my father's and spoke of his trips to England to study the parish churches.  His drawings are on drafting linen -- finely woven linen starched and then calendared.  There is a talent to using India ink in the old style ruling pens.  The annotations are in calligraphy.  They're presently at the University of Utah library undergoing stabilization and restoration.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Captain Swoop on April 27, 2013, 07:43:35 AM
I remember using Drafting Linen as a youngster. It makes fantastic sails for model ships these days.

I worked on a support contract 6 or 7 years ago that included Kvaerner Engineering on Teesside.
Their building had whole empty floors that used to be filled with drawing offices, all replaced by CAD systems.

I was in the last Technical and Engineering Drawing class our school ran. It used to be an 'O Level' course but disappeared more or less overnight.
Can you imagine an entire working career just drawing bolt heads and screw threads?
I had a couple of school friends who went in to drawing offices and that's what they did all day. I suppose as your career went on you get more important things to do.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on April 29, 2013, 12:24:02 PM
I remember using Drafting Linen as a youngster. It makes fantastic sails for model ships these days.

I should get my 30-inch model of USS Constitution out of the attic and try that.  I'm just amazed that I can hold 100-year-old drawings in my hand and they look as crisp and fresh as the day they were drawn.  In contrast to CAD, which lasts only as long as the next software revision.

Quote
Can you imagine an entire working career just drawing bolt heads and screw threads?

Yeah but some of those guys were proud of how fast they could crank that stuff out.

Quote
I had a couple of school friends who went in to drawing offices and that's what they did all day. I suppose as your career went on you get more important things to do.

That is true, and engineers don't draw in general.  However the belief during my education was that an engineer who can't draw isn't really worth much.  I quickly came to realize that.  CAD aside, the best engineers I've seen (and architects too, for that matter) were those who could freehand a passable drawing as they went.  I discovered later (and wrote a thesis on it) that the eye-mind-hand phenomenon is pretty real.  People whose product relies on high levels of spatial reasoning do better at their jobs when they can demonstrate basic competence at 2D drawing such as was classically taught to engineers and architects.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on April 29, 2013, 09:58:09 PM
In the earlier part of my career we still had a loft department at Hawkers producing full-scale drawings on plastic film, which gave better stability than paper.

Yes, my last hand-drawing stuff was done on acetate or polyester drafting film...
I did Technical Drawing at school from Year 8 to Year 10 back in the early 1980s. We did most of our work with pencils on paper, but in Year 10 we got to do some work with pens on some other sort of material which we could only use one side of. Would this have been acetate or polyester drafting film?

Incidentally, at the start of Year 8 I had to choose between doing TD and Latin. I wanted to do both but they were on the same stream, and it was very hard making a selection. On the upside, the skills I learned in TD are still with me: when I drew up plans for an extension for our house, the draftsman apparently didn't need to do much more than copy what I'd prepared.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on April 30, 2013, 12:46:48 AM
I discovered later (and wrote a thesis on it) that the eye-mind-hand phenomenon is pretty real.  People whose product relies on high levels of spatial reasoning do better at their jobs when they can demonstrate basic competence at 2D drawing such as was classically taught to engineers and architects.
I've never been all that good at freehand drawing of views of 3D physical objects, artificial or natural (e.g., people) probably because I hated art class and had exactly 1 semester of engineering graphics way back in high school.

But I can certainly draw electronic schematics, algorithm flow charts, memory layouts and many other abstract concepts, and I've done it almost every day for several decades. Would you still hire me as an EE and computer person rather than a MechE? :-)
Title: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Sus_pilot on April 30, 2013, 12:49:50 AM
I remember using Drafting Linen as a youngster. It makes fantastic sails for model ships these days.

I should get my 30-inch model of USS Constitution out of the attic and try that.  I'm just amazed that I can hold 100-year-old drawings in my hand and they look as crisp and fresh as the day they were drawn.  In contrast to CAD, which lasts only as long as the next software revision.

Quote
Can you imagine an entire working career just drawing bolt heads and screw threads?

Yeah but some of those guys were proud of how fast they could crank that stuff out.

Quote
I had a couple of school friends who went in to drawing offices and that's what they did all day. I suppose as your career went on you get more important things to do.

That is true, and engineers don't draw in general.  However the belief during my education was that an engineer who can't draw isn't really worth much.  I quickly came to realize that.  CAD aside, the best engineers I've seen (and architects too, for that matter) were those who could freehand a passable drawing as they went.  I discovered later (and wrote a thesis on it) that the eye-mind-hand phenomenon is pretty real.  People whose product relies on high levels of spatial reasoning do better at their jobs when they can demonstrate basic competence at 2D drawing such as was classically taught to engineers and architects.

I have to remember which Apollo history that told of this person, but wasn't there someone at Langley that was famous for turning out better free-hand drawings then a draftsman could render on the drawing board?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on April 30, 2013, 06:25:17 AM
I remember using Drafting Linen as a youngster. It makes fantastic sails for model ships these days.

I should get my 30-inch model of USS Constitution out of the attic and try that.  I'm just amazed that I can hold 100-year-old drawings in my hand and they look as crisp and fresh as the day they were drawn.  In contrast to CAD, which lasts only as long as the next software revision.

Quote
Can you imagine an entire working career just drawing bolt heads and screw threads?

Yeah but some of those guys were proud of how fast they could crank that stuff out.

Quote
I had a couple of school friends who went in to drawing offices and that's what they did all day. I suppose as your career went on you get more important things to do.

That is true, and engineers don't draw in general.  However the belief during my education was that an engineer who can't draw isn't really worth much.  I quickly came to realize that.  CAD aside, the best engineers I've seen (and architects too, for that matter) were those who could freehand a passable drawing as they went.  I discovered later (and wrote a thesis on it) that the eye-mind-hand phenomenon is pretty real.  People whose product relies on high levels of spatial reasoning do better at their jobs when they can demonstrate basic competence at 2D drawing such as was classically taught to engineers and architects.

I have to remember which Apollo history that told of this person, but wasn't there someone at Langley that was famous for turning out better free-hand drawings then a draftsman could render on the drawing board?
Sounds like Murray and Cox's description of Caldwell Johnson.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on April 30, 2013, 12:07:03 PM
I did Technical Drawing at school from Year 8 to Year 10 back in the early 1980s. We did most of our work with pencils on paper, but in Year 10 we got to do some work with pens on some other sort of material which we could only use one side of. Would this have been acetate or polyester drafting film?

Yes.  It's textured on one side to accept drawing media.

Quote
...the draftsman apparently didn't need to do much more than copy what I'd prepared.

That's impressive!  I still draw for relaxation.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gwiz on April 30, 2013, 04:18:55 PM
Incidentally, at the start of Year 8 I had to choose between doing TD and Latin. I wanted to do both but they were on the same stream, and it was very hard making a selection. On the upside, the skills I learned in TD are still with me: when I drew up plans for an extension for our house, the draftsman apparently didn't need to do much more than copy what I'd prepared.
My school didn't offer technical drawing, so I did it to O-Level standard at evening class.  Came in handy when, having got my college place to do engineering, they said it was conditional on my passing the Mechanical Drawing Qualifying Exam.  There was more technical drawing to come during the first year at college.

I'm inclined to agree with Jay that it's very useful for an engineer to have the skill.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on May 01, 2013, 08:38:43 AM
I have to remember which Apollo history that told of this person, but wasn't there someone at Langley that was famous for turning out better free-hand drawings then a draftsman could render on the drawing board?
Sounds like Murray and Cox's description of Caldwell Johnson.
Somewhere in my piles of papers - I hope I still have it - is a little freehand sketch of CC's he drew when we were working on an upgrade to a Shuttle middeck experiment.  It's a little masterpiece of design clarity.  I also have a framed lithograph of his original concept drawing of the Mercury capsule: practical design with a dash of Jules Verne.

I wish I could draw like that.  I was a pedestrian drafting student waaaay back in high school.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on May 26, 2013, 10:16:49 PM
The latest Conspiracy Skeptic Podcast is about Heiwa. (http://www.yrad.com/cs/#may23) It's only a ~50 minute podcast so they could only touch on about 1% of his legacy.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Allan F on May 26, 2013, 10:55:18 PM
Now you've done it. You made me read some of his website. I hope he is better at nautical stuff than all the other things he write about. 4 points out of 10 for the nice words he uses, 0 points out of 10 for the way they are put together. How can a man, claiming to be educated in any field recquring more than basic math, write such drivel?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: scooter on May 27, 2013, 12:28:22 AM
I womdered what/who this "heiwa" thing was...boy, what a shindig.
Gives a new definition to "incredible".
What a piece of work...I need to go through this thread...patience of saints...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on May 27, 2013, 07:00:03 PM
The latest Conspiracy Skeptic Podcast is about Heiwa. (http://www.yrad.com/cs/#may23) It's only a ~50 minute podcast so they could only touch on about 1% of his legacy.

Thank you for the link. I laughed myself silly on this one.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on May 28, 2013, 01:59:11 PM
I hope he is better at nautical stuff than all the other things he write about.

He is not.  If you think his performance here was dismal, wait until you see professional seafarers, ship masters, and sailors tear into him.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Allan F on May 28, 2013, 03:02:52 PM
I hope he is better at nautical stuff than all the other things he write about.

He is not.  If you think his performance here was dismal, wait until you see professional seafarers, ship masters, and sailors tear into him.

Is he really a professional in what he claims to be? I find it so hard to believe.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on May 29, 2013, 12:31:13 PM
Is he really a professional in what he claims to be? I find it so hard to believe.

He sort of was, up until about 15 years ago.  He does hold the degree he claims, and he has been professionally employed in the marine shipping industry.  On his c.v. the only engineering role listed is that of service in the Swedish Navy in 1970, which would have been his first job out of college.  From 1971 to 1999 he seems to have held jobs for marine insurance companies as an inspector of ship damage, though he does not seem to have been involved in ship building directly.  However, assessing damage done to large hulls does require engineering knowledge.

From 2000 onward his verifiable professional activity is limited to his self-employment company, which in turn seems to do little more than publish his conspiracy theories.  It is safe to say he has no creditable professional activity for the past 13 years.

And yes, it is difficult to believe that someone who displays such an egregious misunderstanding of the behavior of the physical world could ever have been any sort of engineer.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on May 29, 2013, 01:52:53 PM
And yes, it is difficult to believe that someone who displays such an egregious misunderstanding of the behavior of the physical world could ever have been any sort of engineer.

Speaking of which, I don't know whether you keep any kind of eye on him but Hunchbacked just put up a video over at YT entitled "Debunking Clavius Moon Base".

He talks about... well, nothing new; shadows, LM instability, Earthside tracking, visor reflections, etc.

One thing he does get right is that if the DPS failed during the approach phase the LM would crash (well, if it was below 60 meters alt or so).

Or, in his words:

This video shows that Clavius, in spite of his reputation, has many misconceptions, and a miscomprehension of Apollo technology. I show points that Clavius failed to see, and which fragilize his debunk of the moon hoax.

So how does it feel to be fragilized? Do you get fries with that?   :o ::) ::)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: qt on May 29, 2013, 01:59:57 PM
So how does it feel to be fragilized? Do you get fries with that?   :o ::) ::)

Is that what happens to the LM if the DPS fails?

After all these years, I'm still struggling with the finer points of English . . .
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on May 29, 2013, 03:13:35 PM
Speaking of which, I don't know whether you keep any kind of eye on him but Hunchbacked...

No, I don't follow him or YouTube hoax stuff in general.  That cesspool of ignorance makes me sad in my brain.  Hunchbacked had the opportunity to debate me here.  He screwed it up.  What he howls later from the shadows doesn't really interest me.

Quote
So how does it feel to be fragilized?

Itchy, and a little bit thirsty.

Quote
Do you get fries with that?   :o ::) ::)

Probably.  My staff howls with laughter when one of them runs across a new anti-Jay video but I haven't heard anything yet on this one.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on May 29, 2013, 03:20:21 PM
Is that what happens to the LM if the DPS fails?

Sure, why not.  Gotta love Hunchbacked's desperation.  "If a rocket engine fails in flight, the rocket falls down."  Yeah, that thought never occurred to me in my 25 years of aerospace engineering.  I'm glad he's around to tell me these things.  I'd be so fragilized without him.

Quote
After all these years, I'm still struggling with the finer points of English . . .

It's a perfectly cromulent word.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on May 29, 2013, 03:55:26 PM
Is that 60 meter abort limit correct? I would have thought they wouldn't have such an embiggened abort window.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on May 29, 2013, 05:20:32 PM
The window is based on the fastest nominal descent velocity.  The time required to safe the staging interface, jettison the descent stage, ignite the ascent stage, and have the APS achieve a positive vertical velocity translates to 60 meters of altitude even if some of that is mitigated by APS thrust in the final few meters.  If you're lower than 60 meters at a nominal descent rate, you'll hit bottom before all that has time to happen.

If your descent rate is slower, your window is higher.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on May 29, 2013, 05:26:19 PM
Do you happen to recall what the nominal descent rate was at that altitude?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on May 29, 2013, 05:48:08 PM
Do you happen to recall what the nominal descent rate was at that altitude?

I want to say around 5-10 m/s.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on May 29, 2013, 06:39:20 PM
Is that 60 meter abort limit correct? I would have thought they wouldn't have such an embiggened abort window.
It was called the 'deadman's zone', and the flight controllers were very aware of it during the final stages of a landing.

I seem to remember 100 feet, but as Jay said it depends strongly on their descent rate. In some abort scenarios the DPS would be used to get some upward vertical velocity to buy time for staging, but obviously that won't work if there's a sudden DPS failiure.

The risk is not just that of the ascent stage hitting the surface. Dropping a descent stage with hypergolic propellants could reasonably be expected to create a fireball, and you don't want the ascent stage too close to it.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on May 29, 2013, 06:45:00 PM
This video shows that Clavius, in spite of his reputation, has many misconceptions, and a miscomprehension of Apollo technology. I show points that Clavius failed to see, and which fragilize his debunk of the moon hoax.
Just as it says in the Wikipedia article about cranks, a universal attribute is an inability to recognize the compence of actual experts.

It also says many compare themselves with Galileo. Does Hunchbacked leave any of the checkboxes empty?
 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: qt on May 29, 2013, 09:53:49 PM
Is that 60 meter abort limit correct? I would have thought they wouldn't have such an embiggened abort window.

:(  First "fragilised", now "embiggened".  I am flummoxicated.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Allan F on May 29, 2013, 10:15:14 PM
That's a strange way to spell "limited".
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on May 29, 2013, 11:23:03 PM
:(  First "fragilised", now "embiggened".  I am flummoxicated.


I can't help with "fragilized," but here's the origin of "embiggen."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_the_Iconoclast
Title: Re: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on May 30, 2013, 01:06:49 AM
If your descent rate is slower, your window is higher.

Lower surely? Slower descent rate means you can be lower but still safely abort?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: qt on May 30, 2013, 02:35:28 AM
:(  First "fragilised", now "embiggened".  I am flummoxicated.


I can't help with "fragilized," but here's the origin of "embiggen."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_the_Iconoclast

I see.  I was not aware of the cromulence of "cromulent".  (Or is it cromulentarity?)  My most enthusiastic contrafibularities.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on May 30, 2013, 02:48:08 AM
:(  First "fragilised", now "embiggened".  I am flummoxicated.


I can't help with "fragilized," but here's the origin of "embiggen."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_the_Iconoclast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_the_Iconoclast)

I see.  I was not aware of the cromulence of "cromulent".  (Or is it cromulentarity?)  My most enthusiastic contrafibularities.

I'm anispeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused you such pericombobulation.


Title: Re: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on May 30, 2013, 02:53:26 AM
If your descent rate is slower, your window is higher.

Lower surely? Slower descent rate means you can be lower but still safely abort?
That's what I was thinking too.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on May 30, 2013, 03:03:24 AM
:(  First "fragilised", now "embiggened".  I am flummoxicated.


I can't help with "fragilized," but here's the origin of "embiggen."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_the_Iconoclast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_the_Iconoclast)

I see.  I was not aware of the cromulence of "cromulent".  (Or is it cromulentarity?)  My most enthusiastic contrafibularities.

I'm anispeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused you such pericombobulation.



Okay, who left the thesaurus lying around...?  :)

Having said that, people at the last place I worked came up with an impressive range of alternatives for the adjective of 'investigate': investigative (which I think is the correct word), but also investigational, investigatory and even investigationary.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on May 30, 2013, 03:38:59 AM
Not a thesaurus, Peter - Blackadder.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Mag40 on May 30, 2013, 04:46:50 AM
Not a thesaurus, Peter - Blackadder.



 ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on May 30, 2013, 11:12:11 AM
I see.  I was not aware of the cromulence of "cromulent".  (Or is it cromulentarity?)  My most enthusiastic contrafibularities.

I'm anispeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused you such pericombobulation.




I do actually argue for the cromulence of "cromulent."  It's a fake word, of course, and meant to sell a specific joke, but it serves a valuable function in the language so far as I'm concerned, and that's all it counts to make it a "real" word.  As for the others, well, my understanding is that Dr. Johnson was obnoxious in real life, and disconcerting his fictional counterpart is fine with me.
Title: Re: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on May 30, 2013, 11:27:39 AM
If your descent rate is slower, your window is higher.

Lower surely? Slower descent rate means you can be lower but still safely abort?

Er, yeah.  ;D
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on May 30, 2013, 11:36:16 AM
Not a thesaurus, Peter - Blackadder.
Ah, I see you had a cunning plan...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on May 30, 2013, 11:40:34 AM
Not a thesaurus, Peter - Blackadder.
Ah, I see you had a cunning plan...

Marching with ill-deserved confidence in the direction of this conversation!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on May 30, 2013, 11:42:19 AM
I do actually argue for the cromulence of "cromulent."  It's a fake word, of course, and meant to sell a specific joke, but it serves a valuable function in the language so far as I'm concerned, and that's all it counts to make it a "real" word.

I agree.  People who use the language make the language.  Lexicographers are just around to record what happens, not to prescribe usage.  Its antecedent "embiggen" pokes fun at the mechanism by which English contrives new words with prefixes and suffixes, often at the expense of a more suitable existing word.  As such it shares a bench with the baroque "antidisestablishmentarianism," also perfectly cromulent.  Start with a faux root, add an anglicized Latin adjective suffix, give it a context from which its meaning can be inferred, and you have the makings of a new adjective.  Since it has an agreed-upon meaning -- "ironically our counterintuitively valid" -- it thus fits a niche.  This is how the language grows, intentionally or otherwise.  It is as valid as any other word.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Allan F on May 30, 2013, 11:48:06 AM
Every time you write "embiggen" I get a Monty Python flashback.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on May 30, 2013, 12:28:05 PM
If your descent rate is slower, your window is higher.

Lower surely? Slower descent rate means you can be lower but still safely abort?
That's what I was thinking too.

But since I said it first, I get the T-shirt. :p
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on May 30, 2013, 01:05:44 PM
If your descent rate is slower, your window is higher.

Lower surely? Slower descent rate means you can be lower but still safely abort?
That's what I was thinking too.

But since I said it first, I get the T-shirt. :p

It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on May 30, 2013, 01:07:03 PM
I agree.  People who use the language make the language.  Lexicographers are just around to record what happens, not to prescribe usage.  Its antecedent "embiggen" pokes fun at the mechanism by which English contrives new words with prefixes and suffixes, often at the expense of a more suitable existing word.  As such it shares a bench with the baroque "antidisestablishmentarianism," also perfectly cromulent.  Start with a faux root, add an anglicized Latin adjective suffix, give it a context from which its meaning can be inferred, and you have the makings of a new adjective.  Since it has an agreed-upon meaning -- "ironically our counterintuitively valid" -- it thus fits a niche.  This is how the language grows, intentionally or otherwise.  It is as valid as any other word.

I confess that I'm a prescriptionist by nature.  However, I would posit that more Americans, at least, recognize "cromulent" than many other words of longer standing.  Heh--just as an example, a lot of people know that "antidisestablishmentarianism" is a word, but how many of them actually know what it means?  So leaving aside that we all understood in context what "cromulent" meant in its first appearance--Mrs. Krabapple's throwaway usage is probably the funniest part--enough people understand it out of context that even prescriptionists must accept its validity.  And there is enough difference between, for example, "cromulent" and "valid" that it serves its purpose as no other word can, and I'm always supportive of words that increase precision.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on May 30, 2013, 01:15:20 PM
I agree.  People who use the language make the language.  Lexicographers are just around to record what happens, not to prescribe usage.  Its antecedent "embiggen" pokes fun at the mechanism by which English contrives new words with prefixes and suffixes, often at the expense of a more suitable existing word.  As such it shares a bench with the baroque "antidisestablishmentarianism," also perfectly cromulent.  Start with a faux root, add an anglicized Latin adjective suffix, give it a context from which its meaning can be inferred, and you have the makings of a new adjective.  Since it has an agreed-upon meaning -- "ironically our counterintuitively valid" -- it thus fits a niche.  This is how the language grows, intentionally or otherwise.  It is as valid as any other word.

I confess that I'm a prescriptionist by nature.  However, I would posit that more Americans, at least, recognize "cromulent" than many other words of longer standing.  Heh--just as an example, a lot of people know that "antidisestablishmentarianism" is a word, but how many of them actually know what it means?  So leaving aside that we all understood in context what "cromulent" meant in its first appearance--Mrs. Krabapple's throwaway usage is probably the funniest part--enough people understand it out of context that even prescriptionists must accept its validity.  And there is enough difference between, for example, "cromulent" and "valid" that it serves its purpose as no other word can, and I'm always supportive of words that increase precision.

It was Miss Hoover, not Mrs Krabapple.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on May 30, 2013, 01:57:19 PM
I agree.  People who use the language make the language.  Lexicographers are just around to record what happens, not to prescribe usage.  Its antecedent "embiggen" pokes fun at the mechanism by which English contrives new words with prefixes and suffixes, often at the expense of a more suitable existing word.  As such it shares a bench with the baroque "antidisestablishmentarianism," also perfectly cromulent.  Start with a faux root, add an anglicized Latin adjective suffix, give it a context from which its meaning can be inferred, and you have the makings of a new adjective.  Since it has an agreed-upon meaning -- "ironically our counterintuitively valid" -- it thus fits a niche.  This is how the language grows, intentionally or otherwise.  It is as valid as any other word.

I confess that I'm a prescriptionist by nature.  However, I would posit that more Americans, at least, recognize "cromulent" than many other words of longer standing.  Heh--just as an example, a lot of people know that "antidisestablishmentarianism" is a word, but how many of them actually know what it means?  So leaving aside that we all understood in context what "cromulent" meant in its first appearance--Mrs. Krabapple's throwaway usage is probably the funniest part--enough people understand it out of context that even prescriptionists must accept its validity.  And there is enough difference between, for example, "cromulent" and "valid" that it serves its purpose as no other word can, and I'm always supportive of words that increase precision.

It was Miss Hoover, not Mrs Krabapple.

Yeah, really. Geez, everybody knows that.
Title: Re: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: BazBear on May 30, 2013, 03:04:58 PM
If your descent rate is slower, your window is higher.

Lower surely? Slower descent rate means you can be lower but still safely abort?

Er, yeah.  ;D
If it's any consolation Jay, I understood "higher" to mean "larger", and when Glom said "lower", I read it as "smaller", which had me scratching my head how he could think that...until it kicked in to my thick skull that he was understandably reading it as meaning altitude. ;D
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on May 30, 2013, 03:18:04 PM
It was Miss Hoover, not Mrs Krabapple.

How to tell that I didn't even read my own link, huh? 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on May 30, 2013, 04:08:22 PM
It was Miss Hoover, not Mrs Krabapple.

How to tell that I didn't even read my own link, huh?

More like I've given myself away as someone who watches far too much Simpsons.
Title: Re: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on May 30, 2013, 04:14:50 PM
If it's any consolation Jay, I understood "higher" to mean "larger", and when Glom said "lower", I read it as "smaller", which had me scratching my head how he could think that...until it kicked in to my thick skull that he was understandably reading it as meaning altitude. ;D

Oh it was a genuine "wrong way" error in Jay's brain.  What I was thinking was, "slower velocity means more lenient window."  And nine times out of ten, "more lenient" in engineering means "larger."  In this case, more lenient means lower minimum altitude for aborts.  Whoever wants to claim the T-shirt on that one should be entitled to it; I'm supposed to catch those mistakes myself.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on May 30, 2013, 05:04:31 PM
More like I've given myself away as someone who watches far too much Simpsons.

I tend to joke that most English majors graduate able to quote Keats and Milton, but I was mostly able to quote Homer.  On the other hand, Matt Groening is an alumnus of my alma mater, and the show was still good when I was a student, so it was practically a religion.  However, I haven't had cable in several years, we don't own any seasons on DVD, and it isn't available streaming from Netflix, so I'm a bit behind.  At least I knew that it was Mrs. Krabapple (whose name I both remember and spell correctly!) talking to Miss Hoover during the assembly?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on May 30, 2013, 05:23:32 PM
More like I've given myself away as someone who watches far too much Simpsons.

I tend to joke that most English majors graduate able to quote Keats and Milton, but I was mostly able to quote Homer.  On the other hand, Matt Groening is an alumnus of my alma mater, and the show was still good when I was a student, so it was practically a religion.  However, I haven't had cable in several years, we don't own any seasons on DVD, and it isn't available streaming from Netflix, so I'm a bit behind.  At least I knew that it was Mrs. Krabapple (whose name I both remember and spell correctly!) talking to Miss Hoover during the assembly?

Yes.

Quote
Mrs. Krabappel: Embiggens? I never heard that word before moving to Spingfield.
Miss Hoover: I don't know why, it's a perfectly cromulent word.

Several episodes a day are shown on satellite/cable TV channels here.  I watch too many!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on May 30, 2013, 06:59:46 PM
I tend to joke that most English majors graduate able to quote Keats and Milton, but I was mostly able to quote Homer.  On the other hand, Matt Groening is an alumnus of my alma mater, and the show was still good when I was a student, so it was practically a religion.  However, I haven't had cable in several years, we don't own any seasons on DVD, and it isn't available streaming from Netflix, so I'm a bit behind.
You haven't missed much. The writing took a big downward plunge around 2000 or so, and it went from by far the greatest show on TV to one that we don't even bother to watch anymore on a regular basis. Even great TV shows have their day.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on May 30, 2013, 07:29:48 PM
Yeah, but I haven't seen old episodes much in the last couple of years, either.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on May 30, 2013, 11:45:58 PM
Yeah, but I haven't seen old episodes much in the last couple of years, either.
That's what the Internet is for.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Count Zero on May 31, 2013, 12:14:25 PM
"The Internet?  Is that thing still around?"
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Laurel on May 31, 2013, 12:36:05 PM
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now."
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on September 21, 2013, 11:56:05 AM
I note there are 106 pages discussing my popular Challenge and nobody has managed to win. I wonder why.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on September 21, 2013, 01:34:41 PM
I note there are 106 pages discussing my popular Challenge and nobody has managed to win. I wonder why.

People have more than met the criteria of winning your "challenge". The only reason you haven't declared a winner is because you are unwilling to admit you are wrong.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Allan F on September 21, 2013, 01:56:45 PM
Or unable to understand it?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on September 21, 2013, 02:39:02 PM
I note there are 106 pages discussing my popular Challenge and nobody has managed to win. I wonder why.

Correction:  106 pages discussing exactly where and how you are wrong and laughing at you and your inability to admit you are wrong.  Of course nobody here believed your challenge was real in the first place.  YOU are a joke.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on September 21, 2013, 02:44:56 PM
I note there are 106 pages discussing my popular Challenge and nobody has managed to win. I wonder why.

Because you refuse to acknowledge people who answer you?  Several people have given you the calculations you asked for, you have completely ignored that.

Are you going to resort to insults on your website again?

What exactly do you want to gain from posting here?  I'm genuinely curious.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on September 21, 2013, 02:49:59 PM
I note there are 106 pages discussing my popular Challenge and nobody has managed to win. I wonder why.

Well I could rehash the same old stuff about you not having the money, not understanding the science, and setting yourself up as the arbiter who decides whether you've been proven wrong and therefore shifting the goalposts every single time you are, but I think it is best summed up by your comment on the Cosmoquest forum where you basically said anyone who said you were wrong was an idiot best ignored.

I'd like to think you might have actually taken some time to learn a few things about the subject in your absence, but I doubt it.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: smartcooky on September 21, 2013, 03:16:23 PM
I note there are 106 pages discussing my popular Challenge and nobody has managed to win. I wonder why.


Because your "challenge" is the conspiritard's equivalent of a Nigerian internet scam... looks too good to be true because it is!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: DataCable on September 21, 2013, 04:04:21 PM
I note Heiwa hasn't explained how steel can float on water, either.  I wonder why.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on September 21, 2013, 05:25:54 PM
Welcome back, Heiwa. Please answer the above.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on September 22, 2013, 11:14:49 AM
I note Heiwa hasn't explained how steel can float on water, either.  I wonder why.
I wonder if he's worked out why the Launch Escape System was fitted to the Saturn V rocket? Or how the CSM and LM were steered during the Lunar Orbit Insertion burn?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on September 22, 2013, 11:15:48 AM
I note there are 106 pages discussing my popular Challenge and nobody has managed to win. I wonder why.

Because you won't let anyone win.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on September 22, 2013, 04:22:24 PM
Several people have given you the calculations you asked for, you have completely ignored that.

My Challenge rules are at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm . Apart from calculations (?) you have to show with a real structure (any scale/size) + video of it how a small top part C of a structure can crush down, by dropping it on bottom part A of same structure that keeps part C up statically. C = 1/10A.
Thus - show first how bottom part A keeps top part C on top in place (it is simple).
Then remove top part C from bottom part A - elevate C 3.6 meters and drop it on A.
If C then crushes A you win €1 000 000:-.
That's the Challenge.
Actually my calculations at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm or http://heiwaco.tripod.com/emi2013.htm show that it is not possible.
Show me wrong and collect € 1 000 000:- .
 

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on September 22, 2013, 04:24:48 PM
Welcome back, Heiwa. Please answer the above.
Thanks - I actually respond to all serious emails sent to me at [email protected] . Try yourself!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on September 22, 2013, 04:27:16 PM

I'd like to think you might have actually taken some time to learn a few things about the subject in your absence, but I doubt it.
You are right. Because you are wrong.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on September 22, 2013, 05:06:40 PM
Actually, I won, but refused the prize on humanitarian grounds. What with me being a great guy and all.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on September 22, 2013, 05:09:45 PM
I don't suppose Heiwa would care to put the question before an impartial group of aerospace engineers and let them judge?

. . . No, I thought not.  That's because all the aerospace engineers in the world agree that Apollo happened as described by NASA, so of course they're in on a conspiracy!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Allan F on September 22, 2013, 05:52:36 PM
One isn't! Or so he says.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on September 23, 2013, 04:40:23 AM
I don't suppose Heiwa would care to put the question before an impartial group of aerospace engineers and let them judge?

. . . No, I thought not.  That's because all the aerospace engineers in the world agree that Apollo happened as described by NASA, so of course they're in on a conspiracy!

Plenty aerospace engineers and NASA experts have been encouraged by me to win my €1M Challenge by just copy/paste the 1960's energy/force/fuel/mass calculations how to get in and out of Moon orbit down to Moon and back to Earth with the Apollo space ship but it seems NASA lost those calculations.

Of course, in those days you had to punch holes in cards that you then fed into the computer's card reader and then you had to wait a day before the computer printed out 1 000's of pages of results of all sorts.  If one card was wrong all output would be wrong.

Imagine the Apollo asstronuts punching cards in space feeding the computer how to navigate 1969 in order not to crash on the Moon or speed off to Mars or into the Sun. It seems they also used a sextant to plot the position of the Sun to double check the data. GPS didn't exist then.

But it should be easy to do the calculations and make a simulation on a modern PC today and just to send me a copy of the voyage data ... and collect €1M.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on September 23, 2013, 07:43:15 AM
Several people did just that - they provided the calculations openly, both here and on other forums (and I believe you won a Stundie in the process of demonstrating your wilful ignorance).  You ignored them, just as you will no doubt ignore this.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on September 23, 2013, 07:52:15 AM
Plenty aerospace engineers and NASA experts have been encouraged by me to win my €1M Challenge by just copy/paste the 1960's energy/force/fuel/mass calculations how to get in and out of Moon orbit down to Moon and back to Earth with the Apollo space ship but it seems NASA lost those calculations.

No, they are published, but you insist they are incorrect and therefore refuse to acknowledge that your own understanding is the fault. This thread is filled with calculations and examples, and you ignored every single one.

Quote
Imagine the Apollo asstronuts punching cards in space feeding the computer how to navigate 1969 in order not to crash on the Moon or speed off to Mars or into the Sun.

That would indeed be absurd, but since that was never how the Apollo computer on the spacecraft worked it is somewhat beside the point.

Quote
It seems they also used a sextant to plot the position of the Sun to double check the data.

And is there some reason they shouldn't be using a navigational system that had been in constant and successful use for centuries?

Quote
But it should be easy to do the calculations and make a simulation on a modern PC today and just to send me a copy of the voyage data ... and collect €1M.

It's been done. You just refuse to pay out. We've been over this over and over again.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on September 23, 2013, 07:53:14 AM
Several people have given you the calculations you asked for, you have completely ignored that.

My Challenge rules are at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm . Apart from calculations (?) you have to show with a real structure (any scale/size) + video of it how a small top part C of a structure can crush down, by dropping it on bottom part A of same structure that keeps part C up statically. C = 1/10A.
Thus - show first how bottom part A keeps top part C on top in place (it is simple).
Then remove top part C from bottom part A - elevate C 3.6 meters and drop it on A.
If C then crushes A you win €1 000 000:-.
That's the Challenge.
Actually my calculations at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm or http://heiwaco.tripod.com/emi2013.htm show that it is not possible.
Show me wrong and collect € 1 000 000:- .

What has the WTC collapse (which, again, you have refused to accept corrections on in other places) have to do with space flight?  Have you given up on it because you know you are wrong?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on September 23, 2013, 07:55:39 AM
Welcome back, Heiwa. Please answer the above.
Thanks - I actually respond to all serious emails sent to me at [email protected] . Try yourself!

Given how abusive you have been, why the heck would anyone give you their email address?!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on September 23, 2013, 08:10:53 AM
Several people have given you the calculations you asked for, you have completely ignored that.

My Challenge rules are at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm . Apart from calculations (?) you have to show with a real structure (any scale/size) + video of it how a small top part C of a structure can crush down, by dropping it on bottom part A of same structure that keeps part C up statically. C = 1/10A.
Thus - show first how bottom part A keeps top part C on top in place (it is simple).
Then remove top part C from bottom part A - elevate C 3.6 meters and drop it on A.
If C then crushes A you win €1 000 000:-.
That's the Challenge.
Actually my calculations at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm or http://heiwaco.tripod.com/emi2013.htm show that it is not possible.
Show me wrong and collect € 1 000 000:- .

What has the WTC collapse (which, again, you have refused to accept corrections on in other places) have to do with space flight?  Have you given up on it because you know you are wrong?

Oh that was what that was about? Looks like Heiwa has gone proper deep end and signed up to the weekly newsletter of the Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on September 23, 2013, 08:16:00 AM
There's a newsletter?!  Can I get that as part of my subscription to Shill Monthly, or is it separate?   ;D
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on September 23, 2013, 08:39:23 AM
I don't suppose Heiwa would care to put the question before an impartial group of aerospace engineers and let them judge?

. . . No, I thought not.  That's because all the aerospace engineers in the world agree that Apollo happened as described by NASA, so of course they're in on a conspiracy!

Plenty aerospace engineers and NASA experts have been encouraged by me to win my €1M Challenge by just copy/paste the 1960's energy/force/fuel/mass calculations how to get in and out of Moon orbit down to Moon and back to Earth with the Apollo space ship but it seems NASA lost those calculations.

Of course, in those days you had to punch holes in cards that you then fed into the computer's card reader and then you had to wait a day before the computer printed out 1 000's of pages of results of all sorts.  If one card was wrong all output would be wrong.

Imagine the Apollo asstronuts punching cards in space feeding the computer how to navigate 1969 in order not to crash on the Moon or speed off to Mars or into the Sun. It seems they also used a sextant to plot the position of the Sun to double check the data. GPS didn't exist then.

But it should be easy to do the calculations and make a simulation on a modern PC today and just to send me a copy of the voyage data ... and collect €1M.

Many people here showed you the calculations.  It is a LIE that the calculations were lost.  YOU didn't accept them because YOU don't understand them.  YOU are likely lying about having the money anyway  (although nobody ever believed you did).  The only problem here lies with YOU.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: raven on September 23, 2013, 10:38:09 AM
Welcome back, Heiwa. Please answer the above.
Thanks - I actually respond to all serious emails sent to me at [email protected] . Try yourself!
You are here, you can respond here as well.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on September 23, 2013, 11:06:45 AM
Blah blah blah

Okay, let's leave aside that you have never proven to anyone's satisfaction that the money exists.  You've said "trust me; it's there," but no one trusts you.  Nor have you given us any reason to.

Why should you be the judge?  What knowledge do you have that makes you better as a judge than an impartial group of aerospace engineers?  Than one aerospace engineer, and you've spoken to several here.  You are not an aerospace engineer, but you're going to say you know better than they do?  Nonsense.  You haven't demonstrated competence in the field, much less superiority.  By saying that you will judge whether people are right or wrong, you are actually being remarkably arrogant.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on September 23, 2013, 01:05:39 PM
Several people did just that - they provided the calculations openly, both here and on other forums (and I believe you won a Stundie in the process of demonstrating your wilful ignorance).  You ignored them, just as you will no doubt ignore this.

They did? Where? When? How? They never sent it to me for verification and pay out. Sorry, you are not telling the truth.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on September 23, 2013, 01:09:48 PM
Welcome back, Heiwa. Please answer the above.
Thanks - I actually respond to all serious emails sent to me at [email protected] . Try yourself!

Given how abusive you have been, why the heck would anyone give you their email address?!

In order to win my Challenge - see post #1 on page #1 - you have to send the answer to me and provide a style name/address so I can send the money. The Challenge is evidently still open. But people just moan and groan and are obnoxious on the Internet about it. 

 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Mag40 on September 23, 2013, 01:15:40 PM
I really have no idea how this guy got unbanned, but if it is the same one posting on cluesforum that the Boston marathon bombing was a faked psyop, there really is no hope of getting anything meaningful from him.

What kind of idiot makes a claim like this below -
http://cluesforum2.info/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1602&sid=a0602e9912c18f5e8f5d9afa0ac61ec9&start=420#p2383414

Shame on you!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Heiwa on September 23, 2013, 01:33:13 PM
I really have no idea how this guy got unbanned, but if it is the same one posting on cluesforum that the Boston marathon bombing was a faked psyop, there really is no hope of getting anything meaningful from him.

What kind of idiot makes a claim like this below -
http://cluesforum2.info/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1602&sid=a0602e9912c18f5e8f5d9afa0ac61ec9&start=420#p2383414

Shame on you!

Why do you get so upset and OT? I am just a nice guy living in southern France offering my advice and opinions free.

Anyway, a lot of news/history published by US media (print/TV/whatever) since say 1945 is just Hollywood crap, which I summerize on my heiwaco web site.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: twik on September 23, 2013, 02:36:00 PM
Heiwa's challenge reminds me of an old story about a psychotic patient who believed he was dead, and the new psychiatrist who decided to cure him of his delusions by logic.

He asked the patient, "Do dead people bleed?" and the patient responded, "No, of course, everyone knows dead people do not bleed, because their blood no longer circulates."

So, the psychiatrist took out a scalpel, and made a small incision on the patient's arm. Blood immediately started welling out.

"There!" said the psychiatrist triumphantly. "You're bleeding, and this proves you're alive!"

"No," the patient responded dolefully, "it just proves that dead people do bleed, after all."

The moral is, if someone is determined to cling to a certain conclusion, no amount of logic or sound scientific argument will persuade them. So, Heiwa's claim that "no one has succeeded in proving the case," is pointless, because there is no proof he will accept.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on September 23, 2013, 02:51:15 PM
Heiwa's challenge reminds me of an old story about a psychotic patient who believed he was dead, and the new psychiatrist who decided to cure him of his delusions by logic.

He asked the patient, "Do dead people bleed?" and the patient responded, "No, of course, everyone knows dead people do not bleed, because their blood no longer circulates."

So, the psychiatrist took out a scalpel, and made a small incision on the patient's arm. Blood immediately started welling out.

"There!" said the psychiatrist triumphantly. "You're bleeding, and this proves you're alive!"

"No," the patient responded dolefully, "it just proves that dead people do bleed, after all."

The moral is, if someone is determined to cling to a certain conclusion, no amount of logic or sound scientific argument will persuade them. So, Heiwa's claim that "no one has succeeded in proving the case," is pointless, because there is no proof he will accept.

Yes.

The sad part is, it seems he will never see that.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: smartcooky on September 23, 2013, 02:59:05 PM
I really have no idea how this guy got unbanned, but if it is the same one posting on cluesforum that the Boston marathon bombing was a faked psyop, there really is no hope of getting anything meaningful from him.

What kind of idiot makes a claim like this below -
http://cluesforum2.info/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1602&sid=a0602e9912c18f5e8f5d9afa0ac61ec9&start=420#p2383414

Shame on you!
What a disgrace.
Some people are so twisted that they don't deserve to live!

PS: Isn't there a law against publicly showing clear photos of victims of a crime without their express permission?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on September 23, 2013, 07:07:23 PM
Several people did just that - they provided the calculations openly, both here and on other forums (and I believe you won a Stundie in the process of demonstrating your wilful ignorance).  You ignored them, just as you will no doubt ignore this.

They did? Where? When? How? They never sent it to me for verification and pay out. Sorry, you are not telling the truth.
the only person not telling the truth here is YOU.  YOU have been provided the answer on this forum multiple times.  YOU have refused to admit YOUR errors. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on September 23, 2013, 07:17:47 PM
Several people did just that - they provided the calculations openly, both here and on other forums (and I believe you won a Stundie in the process of demonstrating your wilful ignorance).  You ignored them, just as you will no doubt ignore this.

They did? Where? When? How? They never sent it to me for verification and pay out. Sorry, you are not telling the truth.

How dare you.

It has been presented here, in this thread and in the one on CosmoQuest many times as you requested.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on September 23, 2013, 07:20:12 PM
Several people did just that - they provided the calculations openly, both here and on other forums (and I believe you won a Stundie in the process of demonstrating your wilful ignorance).  You ignored them, just as you will no doubt ignore this.

They did? Where? When? How? They never sent it to me for verification and pay out. Sorry, you are not telling the truth.

How dare you.

It has been presented here, in this thread and in the one on CosmoQuest many times as you requested.

How dare you.
He doesn't care.  He is obviously no stranger to lying.  Just check out his page where he slanders the posters here  and makes the fallacious claim that the forum and posters here work for NASA.  Or the claim that he understands the problem in the first place.  We all know that one is a lie.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on September 23, 2013, 07:26:15 PM
I'm not going to list all the posts that give the calculations requested, it's late at night and just isn't worth the time and effort.

I do, however, reject your projection of your own dishonesty onto me, Heiwa.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: smartcooky on September 23, 2013, 09:31:13 PM
He doesn't care.  He is obviously no stranger to lying.  Just check out his page where he slanders the posters here  and makes the fallacious claim that the forum and posters here work for NASA.  Or the claim that he understands the problem in the first place.  We all know that one is a lie.

OK, where's my pay-cheque then. If I am a paid shill for NASA, then I want my shilling fee !!


PS: Is this idiot anything to do with that other idiot who claims that dropping something like a six million pound* block of concrete on one of The WTC Towers from a height of two miles would not have damaged them. 

* for reference, that is the weight of 15 fully laden, fully fuelled Boeing 767's!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on September 23, 2013, 09:56:58 PM
You know, there was a teacher in France who recently committed suicide partly in a protest against the ever increasing stupidity he encountered in the country. His dismay lead him to believe there was nothing worth living for - at least according to his suicide note.

http://www.thelocal.fr/20130903/teacher-slams-french-education-in-suicide-note

Very, very troubling.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Luckmeister on September 23, 2013, 10:34:58 PM
You know, there was a teacher in France who recently committed suicide partly in a protest against the ever increasing stupidity he encountered in the country.

Well that was a stupid thing to do!....Oh, wait.....hmmm.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: LunarOrbit on September 23, 2013, 10:38:08 PM
I really have no idea how this guy got unbanned

To be honest, I'm not sure why he was unbanned either. Apparently I set his ban to expire, although I didn't mention that when I announced his banishment (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=109.msg14944#msg14944) back in April. But fortunately this is a mistake I can rectify.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on September 23, 2013, 10:47:11 PM
I really have no idea how this guy got unbanned

To be honest, I'm not sure why he was unbanned either. Apparently I set his ban to expire, although I didn't mention that when I announced his banishment (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=109.msg14944#msg14944) back in April. But fortunately this is a mistake I can rectify.

Simple mistake.  Could happen to anybody.  How sad is it though that when his ban expired he was back here?  Has he been checking back to see if we've changed our minds on the fact that he's a liar that won't acknowledge his many errors?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on September 23, 2013, 11:45:56 PM
Several people have given you the calculations you asked for, you have completely ignored that.

My Challenge rules are at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm . Apart from calculations (?) you have to show with a real structure (any scale/size) + video of it how a small top part C of a structure can crush down, by dropping it on bottom part A of same structure that keeps part C up statically. C = 1/10A.
Thus - show first how bottom part A keeps top part C on top in place (it is simple).
Then remove top part C from bottom part A - elevate C 3.6 meters and drop it on A.
If C then crushes A you win €1 000 000:-.
That's the Challenge.
Actually my calculations at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm or http://heiwaco.tripod.com/emi2013.htm show that it is not possible.
Show me wrong and collect € 1 000 000:- .

What has the WTC collapse (which, again, you have refused to accept corrections on in other places) have to do with space flight?  Have you given up on it because you know you are wrong?

I'm not even going toward that topic, but isn't it a fascinating characteristic of the various CT types that they constantly insist that something thousands of people witnessed in person is faked up video/photos?  I'm honestly amazed that I've never heard of any of them claiming the video of the Apollo launches was faked.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Allan F on September 24, 2013, 01:35:35 AM
Actually, there's a story about that too. The F1-engines were supposedly jet engines, and the whole liftoff was just jet exhaust, used to lift the vehicle off the pad, so the rocket could be dumped in the Atlantic ocean. That's the idea, anyway.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: qt on September 24, 2013, 03:25:06 AM
OK, where's my pay-cheque then. If I am a paid shill for NASA, then I want my shilling fee !!

A shilling?  I would have thought it would pay more than that!

PS: Is this idiot anything to do with that other idiot who claims that dropping something like a six million pound* block of concrete on one of The WTC Towers from a height of two miles would not have damaged them. 

I think I would like to be a good distance away when that hypothesis is tested.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on September 24, 2013, 03:32:36 AM
PS: Is this idiot anything to do with that other idiot who claims that dropping something like a six million pound* block of concrete on one of The WTC Towers from a height of two miles would not have damaged them. 

* for reference, that is the weight of 15 fully laden, fully fuelled Boeing 767's!

Yes, same guy.

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on September 24, 2013, 07:44:48 AM
Why do you get so upset and OT? I am just a nice guy living in southern France offering my advice and opinions free.
You're charging much more than they're worth.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: smartcooky on September 24, 2013, 08:20:58 AM
Yes, same guy.

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world

"Björkman believes his house would survive an asteroid impact."

I think a cursory examination of the terrain 43 miles east of Flagstaff AZ might change his mind!!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ineluki on September 24, 2013, 08:25:44 AM
How sad is it though that when his ban expired he was back here? 

Another of the, unfortunately far too common, oddnesses of Hoaxers (and other conspiracy proponents), and one of the reasons why I think most of them are reduced to trolling.

Regardless of the actual claims, any honest and normal person should sooner or later (and Heiwa & Co have long overstayed that "later")  realize their opinions just are not shared by the overwhelming majority of a forum and just abandon the issue.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: karrde on September 24, 2013, 09:41:19 AM
Anyone knows how to report to french authorities someone that obviously needs to be put in mental hospital??
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on September 24, 2013, 09:54:54 AM
I'm not sure that he does, and I'd be very reluctant to base any such decision on his online persona. We don't know that he is not simply a troll with nothing better to do. If he genuinely believes the things he is saying then I would agree he is not a well man, but there is no evidence he is risking harm to himself or others (his claims to be a safety consultant are clearly false, as his 'company' webpage is nothing of the sort and no official body recognises him as such), therefore no need to section him.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: JayUtah on September 24, 2013, 12:46:39 PM
They did? Where? When? How?

Right here.  And you know full well, because you repeatedly changed your claims to accommodate them.  You forget that there are people checking your pages on a daily basis to see what changes you make.

You are wrong.
You know you are wrong.
You tacitly admit that you are wrong by changing your claims.

In the United States, that's grounds for criminal fraud charges.  You are lucky no one takes you seriously.

Quote
They never sent it to me for verification and pay out. Sorry, you are not telling the truth.

Pot, meet kettle.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: DataCable on September 24, 2013, 06:16:05 PM
"Björkman believes his house would survive an asteroid impact."

I think a cursory examination of the terrain 43 miles east of Flagstaff AZ might change his mind!!
I'm now picturing a house (of the "small backwoods shack" variety) levitating in the center of that crater at ground level, with Björkman poking his head out the door and holding up a sign that reads "Good thing I never studied physics."
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on September 24, 2013, 07:25:58 PM
I think a cursory examination of the terrain 43 miles east of Flagstaff AZ might change his mind!!
Have you ever been there? I recommend it. It looks even bigger when you're standing at the rim.

IIRC, I computed an energy release comparable to the first thermonuclear explosion, the 10.4 MT Ivy Mike shot in 1952. Meteor crater is not as wide as Mike's crater (1.2 vs 1.9 km) but deeper (170 m vs 50 m) and that's probably due to the very different terrain. Also, Mike deposited its energy right on the surface while the object that created Meteor Crater released it under the surface.

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: frenat on September 24, 2013, 07:50:51 PM
Anyone knows how to report to french authorities someone that obviously needs to be put in mental hospital??

I'm not sure he's mentally ill.  I wouldn't quickly make that accusation based on a few posts online.  I do think he is paranoid, arrogant, and an ignoramous.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on September 24, 2013, 10:01:23 PM
Anyone knows how to report to french authorities someone that obviously needs to be put in mental hospital??

I'm not sure he's mentally ill.  I wouldn't quickly make that accusation based on a few posts online.  I do think he is paranoid, arrogant, and an ignoramous.

Agreed. Having opinions in an area in which he is totally ignorant, and being too arrogant/stubborn to admit he's wrong does now equate to mental illness.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ka9q on September 25, 2013, 08:03:39 AM
Agreed. Having opinions in an area in which he is totally ignorant, and being too arrogant/stubborn to admit he's wrong does now equate to mental illness.
(I assume you meant "not".)

Yeah, I agree. Otherwise much of the world would be considered mentally ill.

There is an intriguing phenomenon called "folie a deux", though sometimes "deux" can be a very large number.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: ineluki on September 25, 2013, 09:22:20 AM
If he genuinely believes the things he is saying then I would agree he is not a well man, but there is no evidence he is risking harm to himself or others (his claims to be a safety consultant are clearly false, as his 'company' webpage is nothing of the sort and no official body recognises him as such), therefore no need to section him.

I'm willing to leave the decision to the proper authorities who can examine him personally, but just because no one is using his "professional" services doesn't mean he is harmless. Just the idea that he is his usual realitydenying self, while driving a car makes me glad he is not near me...

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on September 25, 2013, 11:31:29 AM
Agreed. Having opinions in an area in which he is totally ignorant, and being too arrogant/stubborn to admit he's wrong does now equate to mental illness.
(I assume you meant "not".)

Yeah, I agree. Otherwise much of the world would be considered mentally ill.

There is an intriguing phenomenon called "folie a deux", though sometimes "deux" can be a very large number.


I've actually seen it at work.  My sister and the kid down the block would get in far more trouble together than apart, to the point that I, when we were kids, referred to them as bad influences on one another.  It wasn't to the point of mental illness, of course, though they did almost set our neighbour's backyard on fire once playing with matches in tall, dry grass.

If he genuinely believes the things he is saying then I would agree he is not a well man, but there is no evidence he is risking harm to himself or others (his claims to be a safety consultant are clearly false, as his 'company' webpage is nothing of the sort and no official body recognises him as such), therefore no need to section him.

I'm willing to leave the decision to the proper authorities who can examine him personally, but just because no one is using his "professional" services doesn't mean he is harmless. Just the idea that he is his usual realitydenying self, while driving a car makes me glad he is not near me...

But you have no idea if his reality-denying extends to the operation of a car, and it almost certainly doesn't.  After all, most people in the industrialized world grow up with enough cars around them that their operation is pretty intuitive.  Cars are a part of our natural environment, and everyone knows how they work.  Most of his greatest errors have come from things that aren't intuitive.  Besides, if we're going to eliminate all the bad drivers from the roads, it isn't just going after the mentally ill.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on September 25, 2013, 10:35:36 PM
Agreed. Having opinions in an area in which he is totally ignorant, and being too arrogant/stubborn to admit he's wrong does now equate to mental illness.
(I assume you meant "not".)
I did indeed.
Quote

There is an intriguing phenomenon called "folie a deux", though sometimes "deux" can be a very large number.

Sort of like human hetrodyning, or maybe just a positive feedback loop.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on October 08, 2013, 07:23:09 AM
I'm not sure he's mentally ill.  I wouldn't quickly make that accusation based on a few posts online.  I do think he is paranoid, arrogant, and an ignoramous.

Agreed. And also a troll who's only interest seems to be laughable attempts to stimulate traffic on his ludicrous site.

Similar to Smartcooky I am also, apparently, a NASA employee. I wonder when I'll get told to go home from work...... ::)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on October 08, 2013, 01:37:55 PM
I love that he linked to this thread from his website.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on October 08, 2013, 09:35:39 PM
Similar to Smartcooky I am also, apparently, a NASA employee. I wonder when I'll get told to go home from work...... ::)
Yep, me too.  Either that or one of ka9q's sock puppets - it varies day-to day.

Maybe we ought to stop commenting on his posts during the current idiocy, just to feed his delusion.  ;D  Unless, of course, pointing the mistakes of ignoramuses (ignorami?) is considered an essential service.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on October 09, 2013, 08:49:49 AM
He's trying to use the Tsiolkovski formula...

Didm't he say that equation had nothing to do with it?!  :P
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: smartcooky on October 09, 2013, 02:12:26 PM
I think a cursory examination of the terrain 43 miles east of Flagstaff AZ might change his mind!!
Have you ever been there? I recommend it. It looks even bigger when you're standing at the rim.

Yes I have, back in 1987.

In the respect you mention, its like the Grand Canyon; you know it big because you can see it looks big in pictures and on TV.
But when you're actually standing there looking down or across to the other side.... wow, just wow!!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: smartcooky on October 09, 2013, 02:14:29 PM
Yep, me too.  Either that or one of ka9q's sock puppets - it varies day-to day.

Maybe we ought to stop commenting on his posts during the current idiocy, just to feed his delusion....

What? And give up the bonus payments from NASA?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on October 09, 2013, 04:14:36 PM
97% of NASA employees are on furlough.  I doubt they have the budget for bonus payments right now.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: sts60 on October 09, 2013, 05:00:54 PM
* Sigh * Contractors, too.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on October 10, 2013, 06:57:52 AM
But the disinfo office is self-funding because it gets its money from....aaaagg.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on October 10, 2013, 07:43:37 AM
It looks like the last time I've done a diff/saved a copy was in April (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg15025#msg15025). Does anyone want me to do a new one? The page has probably accumulated a lot of changes.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Jason Thompson on October 10, 2013, 07:47:28 AM
He's trying to use the Tsiolkovski formula...

Didm't he say that equation had nothing to do with it?!  :P

Yeah, but don't worry, he's linked to this thread so anyone can find out how he dismissed as irrelevant the equation he is now trying to use... :D
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on October 14, 2013, 06:55:37 PM
97% of NASA employees are on furlough.  I doubt they have the budget for bonus payments right now.

British guy here. I've been giving out disinfo for free? Damnit.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Trebor on October 15, 2013, 04:15:35 PM
British guy here. I've been giving out disinfo for free? Damnit.

Yea, where's mine?.. I have some serious back-pay owed here :|
/snark
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Valis on October 16, 2013, 06:41:27 AM
It looks like the last time I've done a diff/saved a copy was in April (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg15025#msg15025). Does anyone want me to do a new one? The page has probably accumulated a lot of changes.
A bit late reply, but yes, please.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on October 16, 2013, 12:38:06 PM
British guy here. I've been giving out disinfo for free? Damnit.

Yea, where's mine?.. I have some serious back-pay owed here :|
/snark
They've shut down our open bar policy here.  But the bar owner is keeping a tab open for the regulars in the hope he will keep our business and maybe even get back pay.  The restrictions have put  a crimp on recruiting though.  Who would want to work so hard to keep this hidden for just money.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: darren r on October 18, 2013, 10:48:41 AM
British guy here. I've been giving out disinfo for free? Damnit.

The British Rocket Group signs our cheques. Contact Professor Bernard Quatermass. He'll sort you out.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Andromeda on October 18, 2013, 12:13:48 PM
British guy here. I've been giving out disinfo for free? Damnit.

The British Rocket Group signs our cheques. Contact Professor Bernard Quatermass. He'll sort you out.

Honestly guys, all this stuff is in the Disinfo Monthly newsletter...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Al Johnston on October 18, 2013, 04:03:41 PM
British guy here. I've been giving out disinfo for free? Damnit.

The British Rocket Group signs our cheques. Contact Professor Bernard Quatermass. He'll sort you out.

Honestly guys, all this stuff is in the Disinfo Monthly newsletter...

I tried to send them my new address, but they didn't believe me...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Echnaton on October 18, 2013, 04:35:27 PM
With the Congress sort of sorting things out, the disinfo happy hour is officially back on tonight.  But silly me promised my daughters I'd take them to see Aida at the opera.  So it looks like I'll be sober and have to explain away Radamès part in the Nubian conspiracy instead.  Vigilance, always vigilance. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on October 19, 2013, 12:38:39 AM
[thumps desk]

CONSTANT VIGILANCE!
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on November 03, 2013, 03:16:46 PM
So, I went and had another look... I don't know if my tolerance for self-righteous broken English has become lower or it's something else, but I'd rather gouge my eyes out rather than put it in a diff tool (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_comparison) and track all the changes one more time. So the rest is just a result of EyeBalls v.1.0.

Anyway, the URL is as usual:
http://www.members.tripod.com/heiwaco/moontravel.htm

Since the last time I looked at it (in April?) he has added more graphics from various sources, including Apollo reports. The first image on the page, besides his smug mug, is a painting by Alan Bean, described in its caption as "Animation of LM ascent module Eagle lift-off".  Do I need to point out that it's not an animation? ::) Björkman, dictionaries are not that expensive, and some are available for free, on the Internet...

The picture is mentioned in the introductory text (that has grown a lot since I last saw it):
Quote
Most people believe US astronauts visited the Moon 1969-1972.

People believe it because they were manipulated to believe it by TV, false films, photos, reports and testimonies.

Like this fake photo below right:

Apollo 11 taking off from the Moon!

100% fake!

It is easy to manipulate people.
*facepalm* No, dipshit, it's a painting, not a "fake photo". It's clearly presented as a painting on the artist's website, and it's easily distinguishable from a photography.

Another funny new feature are the big red boxes with warnings like the following:
Quote
(16 October 2013 or even before all below nasa links/photos were not working due to some shutdown in USA, i.e. NASA cannot pay $ 4 /month to the ISP to keep them running! It is serious if you cannot pay $ 4/month! It seems I am right about NASA! It is just propaganda).
Quote
(16 October 2013 or even before all below nasa links/photos were not working due to some shutdown in USA, i.e. NASA cannot pay $ 4/month to the ISP to keep them running! It is serious if you cannot pay $ 4/month! It seems I am right about NASA! It is just propaganda that has gone bankrupt).
So, we can add "US politics", "government agency operation" and "web hosting" to the ever growing list of subjects about which Björkman is (wilfully?) ignorant.

Another big red box in the same style provides us with this gem:
Quote
Actually all the 534+ astronuts or kosmocrauts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_travelers_by_name) of many countries claiming having been travelling in space between 1960 and 2013 are simple liars paid to keep up the hoax. We are living in a world of liars.
Was it me or someone else who asked him about that page in this thread? :D

This was in the previous version, too, but never fails to make me laugh:
Quote
[describes retroreflectors] Imagine that! A whole or half silica cube with a diameter that bounces light!
And the page is full of things like this. Every time I see one I must resist the temptation to use a certain meme inspired by Pulp Fiction.

Also, apparently meteorites don't exist:
Quote
Actually anything entering Earth atmosphere at ~11 000 m/s immediately burns up and becomes gas, smoke ... nothing but atoms unless the forces acting on the object breaks it into small pieces ... that burn up.
This time, it's the immortal words of Bugs Bunny that come up... I'm sure Earth's atomizing magic shield would be a great comfort to the dinosaurs, Björkman. :P

In a discussion of launch vehicles, including the Ariane 5, under a picture of the Shuttle (boosters, tank and orbiter):
Quote
Above photo shows a small 78 tons NASA Shuttle with x tons payload (or is it a 5 tons empty mock-up?) being sent into space to reach the ISS by a very big 3 750+ tons NASA launch vehicle full of fuel. The 78+ tons Shuttle is connected to the 3 750+ tons launch vehicle via one little bolt that is removed when the Shuttle and launch vehicle separate.
Shouldn't the NASA launch vehicle be a little bigger than the little NASA Shuttle?
Anyway - never believe what you see on a photo type above. It is a FAKE!
No, you ignorant, pompous crank, the External Tank is not a launch vehicle, and the rest reveals a lot of ignorance about space terminology and the Shuttle stack. Which would be normal for a layman, but most lay people don't presume they can debunk human spaceflight...

I have probably missed other goodies, as I just skimmed the page. As I pointed out above, I don't have the time and the inclination for a full diff. Oh, and the good news: that piece of libel against Glom has disappeared at some point. Me and Zakalwe still get shout-outs, though. Hi, Björkman!

P.S. By the way, do you know one of the reasons why his website looks as if it was made in 1998? 8) Because it's made with an application last released in 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claris_Home_Page)! :D :D :D
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on November 03, 2013, 03:32:59 PM
Me and Zakalwe still get shout-outs, though. Hi, Björkman!

Aw shucks..that gets me right (thumps closed fist against chest) here.

P.S. By the way, do you know one of the reasons why his website looks as if it was made in 1998? 8) Because it's made with an application last released in 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claris_Home_Page)! :D :D :D
I thought it was because it was made by a moron??

We should arrange introductions between Bjorkman and Weisbecker...they'd get on famously!  :o :o :o

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on November 05, 2013, 11:57:06 PM
...Also, apparently meteorites don't exist:
Quote
Actually anything entering Earth atmosphere at ~11 000 m/s immediately burns up and becomes gas, smoke ... nothing but atoms unless the forces acting on the object breaks it into small pieces ... that burn up.
This time, it's the immortal words of Bugs Bunny that come up... I'm sure Earth's atomizing magic shield would be a great comfort to the dinosaurs, Björkman. :P
So...the Chelyabinsk meteor was a hoax too?

Or was it actually an American missile? Oh, hang on, those things re-enter the Earth's atmosphere at many klicks a second too...
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Daggerstab on November 06, 2013, 05:50:43 AM
So...the Chelyabinsk meteor was a hoax too?

Or was it actually an American missile? Oh, hang on, those things re-enter the Earth's atmosphere at many klicks a second too...

No.

His argument is that everything that enters the Earth's atmosphere at orbital velocity burns up just like meteors, therefore nothing can be returned from orbit. So presumably, the Chelyabinsk bolide was real, but Soyuz re-entry capsules are a hoax.

The passage quoted by me is a hyperbolic form of that argument - everything that enters the atmosphere is reduced to atoms. Hence my comment about meteorites and the impactor that wiped out the dinosaurs. (For the literal-minded readers, the last part was an oversimplification.)
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Peter B on February 24, 2014, 09:53:10 AM
It seems Mr Bjorkman has upped the ante since the last update on his site: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm

- A photo of the Chang-E 3 mission control room is "funny": "Imagine that watching a funny square TV screen in a bulky box makes you control a Moon landing. The photographer in the middle of the photo must have been impressed." A square TV screen is funny?

- Regarding a mission to map a billion stars in the Milky Way and the Local Group: "Do not ask me what the Local Group is." I suppose admitting your ignorance is a good thing, but surely a visit to Wikipedia would provide a big clue.

- Because parachutist Felix Baumgartner exceeded the speed of sound on his jump, the atmosphere is too thin to slow an Apollo spacecraft.

- He still doesn't know why the Saturn V had a launch escape system.

- Then there's the general ignorance: "You would expect that you could vary the 5 tons thrust to slow down or stop the descent...but there is no indication that you could do it." "There was no window in the LM." "The rubber tyres [on the lunar rover] didn't melt." "...a plasma trail, whatever it is, can maybe not be seen - what is it?" "...how can a sonic boom or two claps (?) from a shuttle propagate from space to ground?"

- Swedish astronaut Christer Fuglesang is "...just a bad actor. And a very stupid engineer." Well, I suppose the opprobium is spread evenly.

- SpaceX "...has done the same, impossible, thing starting October 28, 2012, when the Dragon capsule dropped into the Pacific just outside Los Angeles. Its PICA-X heat shield is private property, i.e. no details are available. I evidently assume the SpaceX Dragon was dropped into the Pacific from a plane having taken off from a nearby airport ... Hollywood style ... and never visited the ISS." The fact that they're doing what the USA, USSR/Russia and China have done isn't perhaps a suggestion that it's real?

Which raises the obvious question (well, it's obvious to me): Why would all these countries and companies want to hide from us the impossibility of space travel? Other things are recognised as impossible (like, say, travel to the stars). What's the point of maintaining the idea that, out of all the currently impossible things, manned spaceflight is possible?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: twik on February 24, 2014, 10:36:46 AM
It seems Mr Bjorkman has upped the ante since the last update on his site: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm

- A photo of the Chang-E 3 mission control room is "funny": "Imagine that watching a funny square TV screen in a bulky box makes you control a Moon landing. The photographer in the middle of the photo must have been impressed." A square TV screen is funny?

It's "funny" because of course we all know that high technology means that they should have been watching on a 60-inch wide screen tv, as available from Best Buy. Just like Solon kept asking why astronauts in the ISS weren't taking pictures with consumer digital cameras. The idea that high tech may involve proprietary equipment that wasn't built for consumer appeal doesn't really occur to them.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on February 24, 2014, 12:04:35 PM
It seems Mr Bjorkman has upped the ante since the last update on his site: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm

- A photo of the Chang-E 3 mission control room is "funny": "Imagine that watching a funny square TV screen in a bulky box makes you control a Moon landing. The photographer in the middle of the photo must have been impressed." A square TV screen is funny?

- Regarding a mission to map a billion stars in the Milky Way and the Local Group: "Do not ask me what the Local Group is." I suppose admitting your ignorance is a good thing, but surely a visit to Wikipedia would provide a big clue.

- Because parachutist Felix Baumgartner exceeded the speed of sound on his jump, the atmosphere is too thin to slow an Apollo spacecraft.

- He still doesn't know why the Saturn V had a launch escape system.

- Then there's the general ignorance: "You would expect that you could vary the 5 tons thrust to slow down or stop the descent...but there is no indication that you could do it." "There was no window in the LM." "The rubber tyres [on the lunar rover] didn't melt." "...a plasma trail, whatever it is, can maybe not be seen - what is it?" "...how can a sonic boom or two claps (?) from a shuttle propagate from space to ground?"

- Swedish astronaut Christer Fuglesang is "...just a bad actor. And a very stupid engineer." Well, I suppose the opprobium is spread evenly.

- SpaceX "...has done the same, impossible, thing starting October 28, 2012, when the Dragon capsule dropped into the Pacific just outside Los Angeles. Its PICA-X heat shield is private property, i.e. no details are available. I evidently assume the SpaceX Dragon was dropped into the Pacific from a plane having taken off from a nearby airport ... Hollywood style ... and never visited the ISS." The fact that they're doing what the USA, USSR/Russia and China have done isn't perhaps a suggestion that it's real?

Which raises the obvious question (well, it's obvious to me): Why would all these countries and companies want to hide from us the impossibility of space travel? Other things are recognised as impossible (like, say, travel to the stars). What's the point of maintaining the idea that, out of all the currently impossible things, manned spaceflight is possible?

The rabbit hole just gets deeper and deeper.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: gillianren on February 24, 2014, 12:50:29 PM
If I were one of his followers, I'd be starting to get embarrassed about it now.  It's one thing when he sounds like he knows what he's talking about.  It's another when he so frequently admits that he doesn't.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on February 24, 2014, 01:23:17 PM
If I were one of his followers, I'd be starting to get embarrassed about it now.  It's one thing when he sounds like he knows what he's talking about.  It's another when he so frequently admits that he doesn't.

It seems like whenever he doesn't know something, he assumes it's because it is a plot hole rather than just because he doesn't know.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Noldi400 on February 26, 2014, 08:07:36 AM
I especially like this paragraph:

Anders Björkman:
Quote
NASA and Dr. David R. Williams of the NASA Solar System Exploration Data Services Office or Solar System Exploration Division Services Offce (sic), are not willing to tell neither how much fuel was actually needed and carried by the Apollo 11 Service and Lunar modules and times used to fire the various rockets to produce the kinetic energy required to get into orbit around Moon with the Lunar Module, visit the Moon and then get out of orbit around Moon direction Earth and to brake upon arrival Earth again, nor how and where to store it during the trip! Info is available in very confusing reports, but if it can be trusted is not certain.

So...  they won't give you the information, but it's available in reports, which you (surprise!) find confusing. And you don't think the information can be trusted anyway, I'm guessing because it conflicts with your calculations - the flaws of which have been spelled out in this thread repeatedly and in detail.

OK. Got it.   :o





Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on February 26, 2014, 02:49:01 PM
You can show him the reports with exactly those details and he'll still deny they exist. He's a few sails short of a galleon.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: smartcooky on February 26, 2014, 03:24:38 PM
I especially like this paragraph:

Anders Björkman:
Quote
NASA and Dr. David R. Williams of the NASA Solar System Exploration Data Services Office or Solar System Exploration Division Services Offce (sic), are not willing to tell neither how much fuel was actually needed and carried by the Apollo 11 Service and Lunar modules and times used to fire the various rockets to produce the kinetic energy required to get into orbit around Moon with the Lunar Module, visit the Moon and then get out of orbit around Moon direction Earth and to brake upon arrival Earth again, nor how and where to store it during the trip! Info is available in very confusing reports, but if it can be trusted is not certain.



Brake?

Did the Apollo capsule actually fire some kind of braking thruster?  I have always thought they returned with the main engine on the SM pointing back towards the moon (making subtle course corrections using the RCS as needed on the return flight) then just before arrival, they dumped the SM and translated the CM to face heat shield first and hit the Earth's atmosphere at the specified angle so as not to burn up or skip off, and allowed aerodynamic drag do the braking for them?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 26, 2014, 04:01:17 PM



Brake?

Did the Apollo capsule actually fire some kind of braking thruster?  I have always thought they returned with the main engine on the SM pointing back towards the moon (making subtle course corrections using the RCS as needed on the return flight) then just before arrival, they dumped the SM and translated the CM to face heat shield first and hit the Earth's atmosphere at the specified angle so as not to burn up or skip off, and allowed aerodynamic drag do the braking for them?

Bjorkman doesn't believe in aerodynamic braking though. So I expect he thinks that they had a big anchor that they just threw out to slow the CM down.....
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Chew on February 26, 2014, 04:52:20 PM
He won a Stundie for his explanation of aerodynamic drag.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=254471
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: dwight on February 27, 2014, 04:50:41 PM



Brake?

Did the Apollo capsule actually fire some kind of braking thruster?  I have always thought they returned with the main engine on the SM pointing back towards the moon (making subtle course corrections using the RCS as needed on the return flight) then just before arrival, they dumped the SM and translated the CM to face heat shield first and hit the Earth's atmosphere at the specified angle so as not to burn up or skip off, and allowed aerodynamic drag do the braking for them?

Bjorkman doesn't believe in aerodynamic braking though. So I expect he thinks that they had a big anchor that they just threw out to slow the CM down.....

Wait a minute. Are you suggesting there was _no_ anchor?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 28, 2014, 02:54:07 AM
Wait a minute. Are you suggesting there was _no_ anchor?

If you say that there was then you must be a gubernmint/NASA shill....
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Britmax on January 24, 2020, 04:07:04 PM

So in Earth orbit the CSM was disconnected from the last stage of the Saturn rocket, rotated 180° and then connected to the Lunar Module?

Yes.


Quote
And Walter did it?

Walter Cronkite was an American broadcast journalist for CBS News.  He described how the maneuver was completed to the American public on TV.  Why are you obsessed with him?!



Quote
And then the CSM with the Lunar Module on top of the CM was sent off to the Moon.

Yes.



Quote
Why not?

Does that mean you accept you were wrong?

Shall I tell him that a man called James Burke did it in the UK, and wait for his head to explode?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Nowhere Man on January 25, 2020, 10:51:19 AM
Thread necromancy alert, 6 years, just about.  Andromeda hasn't been here in months, and Heiwa has been banned.

Fred

Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Philthy on January 25, 2020, 03:08:35 PM
Thread necromancy alert, 6 years, just about.  Andromeda hasn't been here in months, and Heiwa has been banned.

Fred

Anders has found a new home, he's just as arrogant and ignorant as always.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=3.0

Phil
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: AtomicDog on January 25, 2020, 03:22:54 PM
Thread necromancy alert, 6 years, just about.  Andromeda hasn't been here in months, and Heiwa has been banned.

Fred

Anders has found a new home, he's just as arrogant and ignorant as always.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=3.0

Phil

[Stepped in, took a look around, and backed away slowly]
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: NthBrick on January 25, 2020, 06:44:22 PM
Thread necromancy alert, 6 years, just about.  Andromeda hasn't been here in months, and Heiwa has been banned.

Fred

Anders has found a new home, he's just as arrogant and ignorant as always.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=3.0

Phil
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/39/39b6a201d8808d5a9ce084e1bb3bc4fa6b0bfecaefc8d941b37dc23fb4e10b88.jpg)

Man, some people just don't know when to lay off. His thread there has something like three times as many pages as this one, and I think TFES has a higher post/page ratio than here.

Edit: Yeah, they do 30 posts per page versus the 15 here. So, obviously, the thread is 6 times longer and still growing.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Abaddon on January 28, 2020, 01:49:59 AM
Thread necromancy alert, 6 years, just about.  Andromeda hasn't been here in months, and Heiwa has been banned.

Fred

Anders has found a new home, he's just as arrogant and ignorant as always.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=3.0

Phil
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/39/39b6a201d8808d5a9ce084e1bb3bc4fa6b0bfecaefc8d941b37dc23fb4e10b88.jpg)

Man, some people just don't know when to lay off. His thread there has something like three times as many pages as this one, and I think TFES has a higher post/page ratio than here.

Edit: Yeah, they do 30 posts per page versus the 15 here. So, obviously, the thread is 6 times longer and still growing.
One must realise that Heiwa is fast running out of venues that will allow his wild claims. Thus he must necessarily seek further reaches of the fringe to even have a chance of posting anything. Do not forget, he was banned by Simon Shack. That takes some effort.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: bknight on January 28, 2020, 09:07:30 AM
One must realise that Heiwa is fast running out of venues that will allow his wild claims. Thus he must necessarily seek further reaches of the fringe to even have a chance of posting anything. Do not forget, he was banned by Simon Shack. That takes some effort.

Simon Shack as in....?
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Abaddon on January 28, 2020, 09:36:12 AM
One must realise that Heiwa is fast running out of venues that will allow his wild claims. Thus he must necessarily seek further reaches of the fringe to even have a chance of posting anything. Do not forget, he was banned by Simon Shack. That takes some effort.

Simon Shack as in....?
Owner/operator of this kettle of crazy...

cluesforum[dot]info

Link intentionally broken. Be warned. It will make your eyes bleed.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Ranb on January 28, 2020, 12:40:55 PM
Anyone who claims rockets work in a vacuum or that radiation/nuclear power is real risks a ban at Clues Forum.  Last year Simon Shack started promoting his own theory of how the Solar System works. 
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Abaddon on January 28, 2020, 02:21:30 PM
Anyone who claims rockets work in a vacuum or that radiation/nuclear power is real risks a ban at Clues Forum.  Last year Simon Shack started promoting his own theory of how the Solar System works. 
Bwahahaha. That was a "Wait,what?" moment.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: bknight on January 28, 2020, 03:54:48 PM
One must realise that Heiwa is fast running out of venues that will allow his wild claims. Thus he must necessarily seek further reaches of the fringe to even have a chance of posting anything. Do not forget, he was banned by Simon Shack. That takes some effort.

Simon Shack as in....?
Owner/operator of this kettle of crazy...

cluesforum[dot]info

Link intentionally broken. Be warned. It will make your eyes bleed.

Never been there, thanks.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: AtomicDog on January 28, 2020, 04:41:47 PM
One must realise that Heiwa is fast running out of venues that will allow his wild claims. Thus he must necessarily seek further reaches of the fringe to even have a chance of posting anything. Do not forget, he was banned by Simon Shack. That takes some effort.

Simon Shack as in....?
Owner/operator of this kettle of crazy...

cluesforum[dot]info

Link intentionally broken. Be warned. It will make your eyes bleed.

Never been there, thanks.

The guy ranting on the bus that you don't want to make eye contact with? That's Cluesforum.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Abaddon on January 28, 2020, 07:19:12 PM
One must realise that Heiwa is fast running out of venues that will allow his wild claims. Thus he must necessarily seek further reaches of the fringe to even have a chance of posting anything. Do not forget, he was banned by Simon Shack. That takes some effort.

Simon Shack as in....?
Owner/operator of this kettle of crazy...

cluesforum[dot]info

Link intentionally broken. Be warned. It will make your eyes bleed.

Never been there, thanks.
Not a member there either. Why? Are dissenting voices banned? No. Because dissenting voices never even get that far. The sign-up procedure requires an interview with Simon, and one must agree with him.

It is really out there. It competes with the Icke forum on the scale of flat out nuts.

The thing that cracks me up is that Heiwa was banned for being too rational. Wow.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Abaddon on January 28, 2020, 07:28:32 PM
One must realise that Heiwa is fast running out of venues that will allow his wild claims. Thus he must necessarily seek further reaches of the fringe to even have a chance of posting anything. Do not forget, he was banned by Simon Shack. That takes some effort.

Simon Shack as in....?
Owner/operator of this kettle of crazy...

cluesforum[dot]info

Link intentionally broken. Be warned. It will make your eyes bleed.

Never been there, thanks.

The guy ranting on the bus that you don't want to make eye contact with? That's Cluesforum.
I recall a two seat chopper had a failure and crashed into some random pub in England. Tragic event with casualties, but not many. They then proceeded to claim that all of the news pics were faked because.....something. The powers that be wanted it to be so. To what end is left unexplained. I have not been for some time, but whenever I dip in, the utter fruit loopiness is guaranteed for a larf.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: NthBrick on January 29, 2020, 04:27:46 PM
One must realise that Heiwa is fast running out of venues that will allow his wild claims. Thus he must necessarily seek further reaches of the fringe to even have a chance of posting anything. Do not forget, he was banned by Simon Shack. That takes some effort.

Simon Shack as in....?
Owner/operator of this kettle of crazy...

cluesforum[dot]info

Link intentionally broken. Be warned. It will make your eyes bleed.

Never been there, thanks.
Not a member there either. Why? Are dissenting voices banned? No. Because dissenting voices never even get that far. The sign-up procedure requires an interview with Simon, and one must agree with him.

It is really out there. It competes with the Icke forum on the scale of flat out nuts.

The thing that cracks me up is that Heiwa was banned for being too rational. Wow.
You really can't make this stuff up. Reminds me of two things, the first being a flat earther on Reddit who, despite being absolutely insane when it came to the FE stuff, was able to very cogently describe why they thought Star Wars: The Last Jedi sucked. The other was some infighting between flat earthers, when a guy who is well known for making absurd claims was actually the voice of reason against another FE'er who was spouting a lot of racist talking points.

It's like there's always somebody more disconnected from reality.
Title: Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
Post by: Glom on January 29, 2020, 07:18:34 PM
One must realise that Heiwa is fast running out of venues that will allow his wild claims. Thus he must necessarily seek further reaches of the fringe to even have a chance of posting anything. Do not forget, he was banned by Simon Shack. That takes some effort.

Simon Shack as in....?
Owner/operator of this kettle of crazy...

cluesforum[dot]info

Link intentionally broken. Be warned. It will make your eyes bleed.

Never been there, thanks.

The guy ranting on the bus that you don't want to make eye contact with? That's Cluesforum.
I recall a two seat chopper had a failure and crashed into some random pub in England. Tragic event with casualties, but not many. They then proceeded to claim that all of the news pics were faked because.....something. The powers that be wanted it to be so. To what end is left unexplained. I have not been for some time, but whenever I dip in, the utter fruit loopiness is guaranteed for a larf.
Are you thinking of the crash in Glasgow in 2013? I ask because best not say it was in England.