So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?

[ka9q]

Why do you ask so many questions? Evidently my calculations are not wrong unless you show it. Take out your red pen and correct my calculations and show where, how, when I am wrong and what is right. Just moaning about that they are wrong doesn't mean a thing. It isn't new!

As the expression goes, your calculations aren't even wrong.

I, and everyone else here, have been trying to show you that your basic assumptions are wrong even before you begin your calculations. Ever hear of GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out?

[Heiwa]

I see that you claim that the kinetic energy of the re-entering capsule would be enough to vaporise it.

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

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

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

[Heiwa]

Do you know what the Tsiokovsky equation is?

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

[Andromeda]

Do you know what the Tsiokovsky equation is?

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

BOLLOCKS.  That is exactly what it is for.

[JayUtah]

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

That is the most ignorant thing you have said so far.

[LunarOrbit]

Do you know what the Tsiokovsky equation is?

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

Okay then, why don't you tell us what the Tsiokovsky equation is?

[Jason Thompson]

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

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

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

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

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

After which it certainly did NOT have a mass of 43,000 kg, a fact that you have ignored and which, as has been pointed out to you, is incorporated into the tsiolkovsky rocket equation. That is the single most relevant piece of mathematics you have been provided with and you will not accept it, despite it being the very cornerstone of rocket propulsion. You will explain that.
 

If 1 kg rocket fuel produce 1.63 MJ energy, it seems you need 46 259 kg fuel for this maneouvre. Simple calculation, isn't it?

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

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

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

You ran out of credibility here a long time ago. You have an understanding of physics that you can get at about the age of 14 from school, but you fall into the standard conspiracy theorist trap of assuming that is all you need. There is a reason they don't get early school leavers to design spacecraft and mission. See if you can figure out what it is...

[Jason Thompson]

Do you know what the Tsiokovsky equation is?

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

And you're expecting us to take you seriously as a qualified engineer when you make howlers like that? You are either a troll or a moron. Which is it?

[gwiz]

No, the capsule + heat shield is like a meteorite but much weaker because the meteorite is solid and the capsule is a framed steel structure mostly full of air (like a seagoing ship). Atmospheric friction at 11 200 m/s speed first heats up the exposed surfaces that soon melts (and bye, bye) while also heating the inside and the passing outside air, while turbulence heats up the outside air.

If you now admit that the air is heated, why is there no mention of this on your website?  Where is your calculation of how much energy goes into heating the air?  Are you even aware that most of the heating of the air occurs at the bow shock, and that this shock spreads out to great distances from the re-entering object?

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

You are ignoring the single most important factor on one side of the energy balance sheet and you expect us to take you seriously?

[Heiwa]

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

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

 

[JayUtah]

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

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

Atmospheric friction at 11 200 m/s speed

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

while turbulence heats up the outside air.

No, turbulence does not cause aerodynamic heating.  You also made the classic layman's mistake of thinking that friction causes the bulk of the heating.  In fact, it is aerodynamic compression.
 

There is no way you can drop anything from space on Earth without it burning up, incl. heat shields and other nonsense.

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

So draw your own conclusions about those space vessels.

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

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

You are obviously a liar, a fraud, and likely a troll.

[Heiwa]

Do you know what the Tsiokovsky equation is?

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

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.

[Jason Thompson]

Heiwa, ka9q has done EXACTLY what you just requested. Go back and look for it.

[gillianren]

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.

[Andromeda]

Do you know what the Tsiokovsky equation is?

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

BOLLOCKS.  That is exactly what it is for.

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

K9aq already has, you refused to even acknowledge it.

Do not presume to lecture me on manners after your libellous statements and condescending attitude.