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 C