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.
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.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".
Did he actually attempt the calculations?
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.
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.
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.)
Someone calling themselves 'Heiwa' has just joined the board. If it's him, perhaps he's come here to discuss his views.
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.
As a Moon travel safety consultant I do not want that to happen to you.
And pls do not call me a conspiracy theorist, if you you ever get that idea. I am a safety consultant.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You are a little off topic
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.
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.
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 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.
[illustration caption]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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
Eagle undocking and decent on the Moon: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).
(...)
How the undocking was done is not clear as LM and CSM had same speed and engines at opposite ends.
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!
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).
It is also possible as you use the third stage of the start rocket but not really recommended with people aboard!
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.
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!
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...
As a Moon travel safety consultant I do not want that to happen to you.
And pls do not call me a conspiracy theorist, if you you ever get that idea. I am a safety consultant.
I'd tell him to start with the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation
Every change in speed or direction during Moon travel requires energyFalse. 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.
Do not worry.What, me worry? I am simply amused/bemused by what I see on forums..
The MONEY is there for anyoneWell, 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.
As a Moon travel safety consultantI'm sorry .. what?
Probably so. And doubtful it is off topic.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.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.
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.
Well that's a relief, otherwise GPS, satellite communications, weather satellites etc. wouldn't work quite as well as they do.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...Yep, that is a problem; one that was figured out and mastered close to five decades ago.
...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.
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
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.
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.
is there a term for those peculiarly Navy tall tales?
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..."
Please explain how you got this 75.47 GJ result:QuoteTo 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.
Every change in speed or direction during Moon travel requires energyFalse. 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.
How did you get those numbers?
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.
The above is basic - now try to show the errors in my presentation.
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.
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.
I think Grashtel deserves the 1 million Euro.
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.
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, I use the correct, but simple, equations...
...and values obtained from NASA reports...
Pls show your equations...
No, my presentation is documented as references are given at start of presentation...
...all calculations are correct.
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?
Please explain how you got this 75.47 GJ result:QuoteTo 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.
Please explain how you got this 75.47 GJ result:QuoteTo 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.
Please explain how you got this 75.47 GJ result:QuoteTo 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?
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?
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.QuoteIf 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.
Please explain how you got this 75.47 GJ result:QuoteTo 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.
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.
Please explain how you got this 75.47 GJ result:QuoteTo 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.
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?
Please explain how you got this 75.47 GJ result:QuoteTo 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
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.
?? 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?
(http://i.imgur.com/sMOBc.jpg)
(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.
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.
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?
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)
If you think my calculations are wrong, just show it.
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?
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?QuoteHere 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?
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.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.
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?
Space travel is in three dimensions with hugely varying mass and changing gravitational fields. Neither of those apply to sailing.
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
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?
Space travel is similar to a voyage at sea
my concern is just the fuel used by Apollo 11
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?
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).
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.
But the ship doesn't move in three dimensions. It moves across the surface of the sea - two dimensions.
The problem is to change direction and velocity,
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.
And Walter did it?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pls, try to get the basics right.
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.
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.
Changes in motion velocities (i.e. accelerations in all 3-D directions) apply inertia forces on the ship.
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.
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.
FYI, ships normally use a rudder to move starboard and port. Actually forces acting on the rudder move the ship sideways or transversly.
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.
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.
Theforceacceleration 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:
Theforceacceleration 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 theforceacceleration 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.
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).
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.
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.
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):
It is very easy; Pls, try to get the basics right.Please take your own advice.
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.Exactly wrong!
But you need energy to produce the force.
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?
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.
(I mistyped force when I meant acceleration. I fixed my that post and I striked out my errors and fixed them in this post.)
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..
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.Getting trounced because you're using the wrong equations (because you haven't bothered to understand them) so you try to change the subject?
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?
(http://galaxywire.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/transfer-to-lunar-module-space-art.jpg)Monopoly money doesn't count.
Of course I am real! Like my €1 000 000:- at my bank.
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?
... the initial and final velocities are completely arbitrary numbers which change with the frame you choose to measure them in.
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.
Nobody here believes you have the money.
Your calculations have been shown to be wrong repeatedly.
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.It is not off topic and you have not proven they do nothing but produce propaganda. What you have proven is
You can produce a force forever with no energy at all when that force does not act through a distance.
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!
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.
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?
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:
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.So are you now conceding that you were in error?
But you need energy to produce the force.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
It seems nobody at Apollohoaxforum can explain how much energy/fuel Apollo 11 needed to enter into and out of orbit of Moon without atmosphereSo 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?
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.
Re-entry had been tested with Apollo 4 after a trip around the MoonAs 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.
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
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.
So your "calculations" are wrong, aren't they? So what else is new?
And what about Apollo 4 which went to the moon?
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??
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Do you know what the Tsiokovsky equation is?
Do you know what the Tsiokovsky equation is?
Yes! Has nothing to do with slowing down in space. 8)
Yes! Has nothing to do with slowing down in space. 8)
Do you know what the Tsiokovsky equation is?
Yes! Has nothing to do with slowing down in space. 8)
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.
According NASA Apollo 11 slowed down using its rocket engine to brake but ... fuel (kg) consumed for it is not provided.
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.
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?
I just assume the efficiency is the same for the Service Module rocket engine.
Do you know what the Tsiokovsky equation is?
Yes! Has nothing to do with slowing down in space. 8)
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?
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.
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
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.
So draw your own conclusions about those space vessels.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
But it can be seen in US museums and it is easy to cut off a piece and test. It burns at 1200°C!
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!
I have asked NASA how the Apollo 1969 heat shield was designed, what material it used, how it was tested, lab reports, etc. SECRET!
It burns at 1200°C!
The fuel consumption for EVERY use of EVERY engine on Apollo IS provided.
OK, the money is in the bank! Happy?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Where is the problem? Are you a NASA PhD?
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?
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.
Then use it and calculate the energy required to slow down in space.
This was done for you pages ago.QuoteJust 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.
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?You have already been provided links to all the material. I gave them to you myself.
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.
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.
Do you know what the Tsiokovsky equation is?
Yes! Has nothing to do with slowing down in space. 8)
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 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?
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.
Where did you get "P-22KS" and 97 400N?
From NASA - references in my presentation - link in post #1.
Show us your 1.63 MJ/kg calculation or source.
Where did you get "P-22KS" and 97 400N?
From NASA - references in my presentation.
Show us your 1.63 MJ/kg calculation or source.
See link in post #1.
Where did you get "P-22KS" and 97 400N?
From NASA - references in my presentation - link in post #1.
Show us your 1.63 MJ/kg calculation or source.
See link in post #1.
No. I will not wade through that claptrap again.
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.
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!
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.
Show us your 1.63 MJ/kg calculation or source.
See link in post #1.
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.
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.
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.
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.
we do not know the fuel consumed, which I find strange.
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.
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 :-*
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.
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.If I make a guess, you are referring to Apollo 13, yes?
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.
Where is the problem? Are you a NASA PhD?
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.
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!
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!
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
I can only conclude that you suffer either from brain damage or from an inability to understand plain English.
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.
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.
I must say you're being very restrained when facing such rampant trolling.
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.
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!
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.
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.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.
... 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.
You don't "query" those principles, you flat-out accuse people of lying.
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.
... 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
They got away with Apollo so they started the Shuttle hoax. [...] What a joke.Yes, your own unqualified incredulity makes very convincing evidence.
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."
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.
...
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.
...
The orbiter doesn't fly "backwards."
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?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.
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?
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.
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!
... 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.
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.
Evidently
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 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?
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.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.
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.
Can LunarOrbit lock this thread? This is going nowhere fast.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.... 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.
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.
...
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)?
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.... 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.
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)
I am getting sea sick. The landlubber thinks there is no up or down deviation at sea. :o ???
it could swing around the Moon using its gravity and then, at the right moment managed to change direction towards Earth (requiring more fuel),
That is, after all, exactly what you propose is the issue with the Apollo spacecraft when taken purely in terms of kinetic energy.
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
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 ???
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.
It explains a lot.
Re sea level - which one do you refer to? High tide? Low tide?
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.
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.
Re sea level - which one do you refer to? High tide? Low tide?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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/)?
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.
My husband is a wonderful man, and you can ask him yourself what he thinks of me.
My husband is a wonderful man, and you can ask him yourself what he thinks of me.
Consider the sentiment appreciated and reciprocated. :)
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?Well, no, at least one in the audience is amused by your proudly displayed ignorance. So please keep the clown show going!
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.
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.
So, bye, bye. You are not really fun.
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.
Evidently plenty NASA people lie about Apollo 11.It's only the hoaxies that lie.
The facade was demolished on page 1.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.
Can adults really be this immature?Yes, evidently they can.
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?
We're so awesome.
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.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.
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. :)
No, what I write is completely wrongFixed that for you.correctand convolutedeasy to understand. I understand I am nothing more than a troll and the money doesn't existyou are upset not having won my 1 million Euro, though. You are not alone.
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.
Hi Everyone
I have a suspicion. ;)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
I have a suspicion. ;)
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.
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.
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...
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!
Björkman has revised his page.
That's libel.
Legal action, anyone?
Improved.
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".
Improved.
Adding libellous comments is not an improvement.QuoteWhat 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.
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".
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.
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".
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
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?
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
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.
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.
You asked us to demonstrate that we were "more clever" than you. You admit we have now done so. Therefore you lose your wager.
Ah ha! I suspected your threat of leaving us might be an empty promise. You must be a glutton for punishment.
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?
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.
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?
BTW - what is wrong with my web page? Copy/paste what you do not understand.
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!
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.
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.
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?
I like energy balances.
You study A and B and the difference in energy between A and B. Simple.
Forget rockets.
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.
BTW - what is wrong with my web page? Copy/paste what you do not understand.
I like energy balances. You study A and B and the difference in energy between A and B. Simple.
Forget rockets.
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.
Yes, that schematic has been reproduced in a few places - including Wikipedia - but appears to be wrong in several respects.
QuoteYes, 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 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.
Is it a requirement of a CTer to have arrogance in direct proportion to accuracy?
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.
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.
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. …
(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
... 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.
The figures simply do not add up. No big deal. Maybe they disappeared in the exhaust?
Re rocket engine fuel consumption, i.e. how much energy MJ can 1 kg of rocket fuel produce,
a brake force 97 400 N provided by the P-22KS rocket engine.
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,
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. …
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.
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. ;)
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. :-[
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
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. ???
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.
It means that the three astrokrauts under Willy's command
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.
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?
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. :-[
The only thing we (not you) agree on is that your figures are wrong.
Pratt.
How dare you lecture us on manners while using a word like "asstronots"?
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?
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.
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, 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?
IMHO it sounds crazy and only assholes could claim having done it.
Do you think it really happened? Could it be done 1969? I offer anybody €1 M to explain how! Isn't it generous?
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'?
It is my satiric/ironic/irresponsible style when looking into hoaxes. Sounds funnier than assholes.
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?
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?
I am interested in space travel safety.
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?
copy/paste what you do not understand and we can discuss.
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?
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 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.
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. …
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.
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.
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. :-)
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.
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.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.)
Also, you really do need to grow up: stop lecturing everyone on politeness and stop using perjorative terms.
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.
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
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?
I remind you that topic is So, who wants to win 1 million Euro? :)
...
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.
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.
One example is the Space Shuttle.
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.
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.
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.
Were the three asstronots piloting manually with compass/chart pushing the brake button? ::)
Try to focus on topic and pls do not remind me how stupid or ignorant I am (not).
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have Flounce Number Two.
Taking all bets on how long before he is back :)
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.
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.
to win 1 million Euro you have to repeat it.
Navigation at sea is also complicated
Bye, bye!
but the ascent stage rocket was a fire once only type, correct?
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.
Bye, bye!
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.
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 remind you that topic is So, who wants to win 1 million Euro? :)
I offer anybody €1 M to explain how! Isn't it generous? :) ;)
It is my satiric/ironic/irresponsible style when looking into hoaxes. Sounds funnier than assholes.
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?
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?
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.
Thanks LO. Sorry if I bombarded you with reports but those comments in particular were too much.
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.
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.
Do not trust the incompetent rocket engineers and space pilots at this forum.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As I am offering the €1M awardNo, you're not, because you don't have it.
you have to listen to me and ... be polite.No, we don't, to either condition.
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.
It is quite complicated and I wonder how the NASA pilots did it.Very well, thank you very much.
...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.
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.
. . . I am 100% certain of that, and can hardly read.
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?
The APS was fired twice on this unmanned test flight, so evidently the APS was not a 'fire once only type'.
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.
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.
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.QuoteI 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.
I think KA9Q mentioned using high school physics and Calculus.Calculus was a senior year elective at my high school (New Trier East in the Chicago area a million years ago).
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?
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 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".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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.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 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.
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.
...
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?
...
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Pls return to topic So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
In order to win you have to understand basic space travel physics
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.
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 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.
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.
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...
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 ::) :-* :'(
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.
Heiwa apparently doesn't understand the concept of a "system".
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.
Same applies to fuel used during travel at sea? Compare a car running out of fuel, etc, etc.
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?
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).
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?
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.
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.
...liquid H2O
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.
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?
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.
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.
Pls return to topic So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
In order to win you have to understand basic space travel physics...
...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
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?
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 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.
The mass of exhaust, type of fuel, etc. have nothing to do with my basic energy calculations...
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. :'( :'(
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.
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.
Hey, Heiwa, do rocket engines work in vacuum? :PRocket engines work in this case in space ships like Apollo 11. Try to be on topic and avoid stupid questions.
Hey, Heiwa, do rocket engines work in vacuum? :PRocket engines work in this case in space ships like Apollo 11. Try to be on topic and avoid stupid questions.
Thanks for your intelligent comment. What are you trying to say?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?
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. ...Thanks for your comment. Try to be on topic. :) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'(
Why do you think that directly compares?
Try to be on topic and avoid stupid questions.
Damn, Jay - post 516 might just be the finest thing I've ever read here.
Hey, Heiwa, do rocket engines work in vacuum? :PRocket engines work in this case in space ships like Apollo 11. Try to be on topic and avoid stupid questions.
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. ...Thanks for your comment. Try to be on topic. :) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'(
Why do you think that directly compares?
Try to be on topic.
Thanks for your intelligent commet. What are you trying to say?
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.
Thanks for your comment. Try to be on topic.
:) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'(
Hey, Heiwa, do rocket engines work in vacuum? :PRocket engines work in this case in space ships like Apollo 11. Try to be on topic and avoid stupid questions.
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. :'( :'(
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.
Pls send me an e-mail when you allow the discussion to proceed.
Pls send me an e-mail when you allow the discussion to proceed.
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. ...Thanks for your comment. Try to be on topic.
Why do you think that directly compares?
Pls send me an e-mail when you allow the discussion to proceed.
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.
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?
He's got to be trolling. No-one can be that ridiculous. Surely.
Please?
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.
In order to win you have to understand basic space travel physics....
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,
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.
Hey, Heiwa, do rocket engines work in vacuum? :PRocket engines work in this case in space ships like Apollo 11. Try to be on topic and avoid stupid questions.
HeiwaMy personal theory is that they dropped a house on his mother.
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.
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...
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.
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
You're approaching more re-world conditions.
Just curious, did any of us here actually say we _wanted_ the alleged million??
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.
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.
N2O4 2.9375 mol x -19.56 kJ/mol = -57.46 kJI 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 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.
Just curious, did any of us here actually say we _wanted_ the alleged million??
Not that I recall.
Just curious, did any of us here actually say we _wanted_ the alleged million??
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
Thanks, I had forgotten that. So there are two good reasons to use MON as an oxidizer.QuoteThe 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).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 )
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. ;DSo, you don't believe that anything can be returned from orbit? This is not a rhetorical question, so please answer it.
So your clarifications are welcome so we can learn a little.
My calculations are very simple - kinetic energy B of space craft Before and kinetic energy A of space craft After maneuver.
The expelled reaction mass is also given,
probably the difference in space craft mass Before/After maneuver.
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
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
So your clarifications are welcome so we can learn a little.
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.
Hmmm... I think that specific phrasing is; it just seemed to fit. Wizard of Oz reference, o' course.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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.QuoteUranium-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.QuoteUranium-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?
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.
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.
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
I'm having a quick browse online.And somehow he manages to use the phrase "peer-reviewed" as a perjorative (when referring to papers published by others).
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.
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? :(
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.
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? :(
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.
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.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.QuoteUranium-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?
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? :(
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.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.QuoteUranium-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?
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.
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? :(
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
My calculations are very simple...
As shown in my presentation...
It seems nobody, incl. Willy at NASA...
...can explain what systems - manual and or automatic - were used to carry out maneuvers...
...therefore I conclude that the whole trip was a hoax...
So your clarifications are welcome so we can learn a little.
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.
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.
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!
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.)
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 wormsI agree. Can you move my (and others') comments about nuclear weapons, etc, to a separate thread?
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?
Can you move my (and others') comments about nuclear weapons, etc, to a separate thread?
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?
It easiest way to keep safe from the sea is to get as far away from it as possible.
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?
It easiest way to keep safe from the sea is to get as far away from it as possible.
Us or Heiwa?
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.
Actually I think (MMH is) the most toxic of all the hydrazine derivatives.
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.
...The mass of exhaust, type of fuel, etc. have nothing to do with my basic energy calculations that only involves force and distance/displacement.
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.
So your clarifications are welcome so we can learn a little.
Of course, you are light years off topic about the Heiwa €1M Challenges...
Heiwa Co is a European agency for Safety at Sea.
...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.
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.
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!
(I'm a tinkerer myself. Raised around engineers, but that isn't me.)
I've never been able to find a source that confirms whether or not MON was used...
"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.
(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?
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.
Reminds me of a line from Beetlejuice (more context here (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094721/quotes?qt=qt0337251)):Hmmm... I think that specific phrasing is; it just seemed to fit. Wizard of Oz reference, o' course.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.
Don't mind her. She's still upset, because somebody dropped a house on her sister.
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.
Isn't the whole point to a rocket engine basically throwing (reaction) mass away?
...or Ivan Ivanovitch chucking rocks...
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?
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!
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"
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?
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.
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?
?? 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.
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?
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