So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?

[Echnaton]

Considering that promising a prize that doesn't exist must be some sort of fraud, can't we just sue Mr. Björkman?

Would keep the site in maintenance funds for decades.

Heiwa's challenge is most defiantly a fraud, in the sense that he will never set conditions so that could result in the money could be paid.  Since not only must the challenge be proven, but he is the judge of the proof and has demonstrated the willingness to ignore information contrary to his position.   We would have to have a contract with him and suffer some real loss to get a civil fraud judgement and I doubt any judge would say that an incredible claim on a web site so filled with nonsense constitutes a real contract.  Nor could the failure to get money one never expected to get be considered a loss. 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

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

I must say you're being very restrained when facing such rampant trolling.

[cos]

Ka9q, thanks for your excellent posts. Our guest Troll's repeated claim that no one has answered him are trying everyone's patience. Below (again) are the bits he is studiously ignoring. I've taken the time and I understand it perfectly well. Why Anders Björkman chooses to ignore the plain fact that he is wrong is a mystery but I suggest if he is wedded to his ignorance he now performs a HB flounce and go and talk his dross somewhere where such ignorance is prized.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

[Noldi400]

YT has gotten the same way lately. Well - it's always been bad, but it seems to be getting worse. People have been making such off-the-wall claims that you would have to undertake to edeucate them before you can refute them.

[gillianren]

I must say you're being very restrained when facing such rampant trolling.

You know, I'm not sure if I'm giving people the benefit of the doubt or not when I'm assuming they actually believe what they're saying.  In many cases, it means believing they're stupid instead of rude.  Is that actually better?

[frenat]

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

OK, the money is in the bank! Happy? I am!

No.  That is hardly proof.  But we all know by now that you have no proof because you have no money and no intent to ever award it.

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

People HAVE given you calculations and politely shown where yours are wrong.  You ignore the answers and continue to use the wrong stuff.  Further evidence you are not truthful.

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

Prove it.

I have asked NASA how the Apollo 1969 heat shield was designed, what material it used, how it was tested, lab reports, etc. SECRET! But it can be seen in US museums and it is easy to cut off a piece and test. It burns at 1200°C!

Prove it.

[raven]

Not that I am at all surprised,  but it is hardly a secret, Heiwa. I typed in apollo ablative into the NASA technical reports server search engine and found oodles upon oodles of the information you allege is secret.

[Heiwa]

... 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.

[Heiwa]

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.

[DataCable]

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.

[nomuse]

... you are referring to Apollo 13, yes?
It never entered lunar orbit. Rather, after the explosion, the LM descent stage made a burn to put the CSM/LM stack *back* into the free return trajectory, looping around the moon, that would return it back to Earth, a pretty minor change in velocity. The figures are easily available.

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

Gravity.


(Apollo 13 is a bit of an odd case...many of the Apollo missions were on a free-return trajectory, but due to the Fra Mauro target of the original mission, they needed to make a mid-course burn following the accident in order to return to that trajectory.  They also performed a burn immediately following the closest point of approach to the Moon, in order to achieve a flatter return path -- shaving another ten hours off the trip.)

[Heiwa]

I've seen the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station in orbit with my own eyes. If it's a lie, what did I see?

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

[nomuse]

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

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

The scope of your conspiracy is convenient.

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

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

As should be obvious to you by now if only that every single member of this forum knows DETAILS about Apollo that you had never heard of.  Even the most non-scientific at this forum still know of the ideal rocket equation.  It is the polar opposite of what you depict.

[DataCable]

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."

BTW, while your are wandering off on this guilt-by-association Gish Gallop, you are once again completely ignoring the re-statement of your miscalculations graciously quoted above from previously in this thread by cos.

[Heiwa]

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

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

The first is:

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

The second Challenge is:

The Heiwa Challenge 2 (September 2012)

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

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

---

Nobody has managed to copy/paste the relevant NASA/JPL data how to land on a planet. The MSL 7 minutes of terror landing is evidently a joke. So JPL failed the Heiwa Challenge 2.