So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?

[Andromeda]

Formatting - I'd get rid of "2(1/2)" in your expression above Equ.2.  I'd just cancel the "1/2" on each side of the expression above that, just to make it even clearer.

(Sorry, I don't know how to use LaTex on this forum!)

[LunarOrbit]

Let me after about 785 posts remind you about topic

You narrowly avoided a ban. That sounded an awful lot like you were trying to moderate the discussion again.

i.e. my Challenge about safety of space travel and associated fuel consumption. You have to demonstrate how to travel to the Moon and back to win the prize (€1M). It is not easy.

I suspect it was not easy to teach you how to tie your shoes.

It has been repeatedly demonstrated how Apollo went to the Moon and back. And quite frankly, I'm getting tired of seeing you waste people's time by ignoring their explanations. I don't see much point in keeping you around if you are going to keep repeating the same errors despite our best efforts to educate you.

I have no doubt that you actually believe you are correct, but you are not. Your arrogance does not allow you to admit you are wrong, so I can only foresee this discussion going in circles forever.

So what does everyone think? Is it time for me to ban Heiwa if he doesn't start showing some willingness to learn? Or are you happy to keep using Heiwa's ignorance for your own self education?

Say that your space ship has mass 32 676 kg excluding fuel and that you must slow down from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s velocity to insert into Moon orbit. Your space ship has a P-22 KS rocket engine with 97 400 N thrust (at full blast). How much fuel do you require to carry out the braking maneuver?

The method of determining the answer to that question was given to you many pages ago. You can say we are wrong all you want, but you are alone. You won't find a single expert who will agree with you.

I have a feeling you need >80 000 kg.

This is a matter of science. You don't determine the answer to questions by feelings or intuition. A structural engineer who says "I have a feeling that this foundation will support the building above it" is likely going to get people killed. You are not an engineer. If you are offering your services as one then I hope someone stops you before someone gets hurt.

In order to proceed with the discussion, I suggest you try to clarify above basic questions of fuel consumption.

Another attempt to steer the discussion. I guess you're lucky that there was enough in your post that I wanted to respond to, otherwise you'd have been banned for a week. Don't expect to get away with it again.

But, again, the basic questions of fuel consumption have been answered many times by several people. You are ignoring their answers. Why?
 

Pls do not suggest that I do not know anything about space travel, astrophysics, that I am broke, a criminal that cannot carry out my work, etc, etc, because it is clear from link in post #1 what I am doing for a living.

You don't know anything about space travel or physics. You probably aren't broke, but I'm certain you don't have 1 million Euro to give away. Promoting a prize that you have no intention of ever awarding is fraud and makes you a criminal in my opinion. I doubt the courts will waste their time going after you though. If anything gets you into trouble it will be your ineptitude as an engineer. I recommend that you retire now and live out the rest of your life on that 1 million Euro.

My biz is safety at sea. And I am quite good.

You keep telling yourself that. You're delusional if you actually believe it though because its clear to the rest of use that you don't know what you're talking about.

[grmcdorman]

Formatting - I'd get rid of "2(1/2)" in your expression above Equ.2.  I'd just cancel the "1/2" on each side of the expression above that, just to make it even clearer.

(Sorry, I don't know how to use LaTex on this forum!)

Thanks. I'd agree, but I want to keep the equation as close to the original as possible. You'll note that in the last derivation, I do multiply through the 2.

You can find a thread in Tech Support on LaTex, with some examples there. You can also hit Quote on my post to see the raw LaTex (unfortunately the Preview has issues; I've just posted in Tech Support on that).

[gwiz]

Did Apollo 11 push a cushion or shockwave of air in front of it while trying to keep the trim angle right while flying up/down in the atmosphere? And only this cushion of air heats up and turns into ionized gas/plasma.
Have this strange phenomenom been tested in a laboratory or air tunnel test installation? Pls provide some evidence. I have a feeling you are just making it up SF style.

Any blunt object at supersonic speed will have a shockwave and a region of hot high-pressure air in front of it.  If the speed is high enough the air will be heated sufficiently to turn to plasma. 

Just consult any textbook on aerodynamics.

[Jason Thompson]

Let me after about 785 posts remind you about topic,

For heaven's sake, which bit of the plain English of 'do not try to moderate the discussion and tell people to stay on topic' have you not understood? You are an incredibly tiresome individual.

You have to demonstrate how to travel to the Moon and back to win the prize (€1M).

Actually your original challenge was to show where you were wrong. That has been done, several times, and you have silently corrected your website, thereby accepting without public acknowledgement that your prize has been won. Since you cannot bring yourself to admit you were wrong about anything you simply change the conditions of your challenge.

Say that your space ship has mass 32 676 kg excluding fuel and that you must slow down from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s velocity to insert into Moon orbit. Your space ship has a P-22 KS rocket engine with 97 400 N thrust (at full blast). How much fuel do you require to carry out the braking maneuver?

Since you cannot possibly calculate the fuel requirements without knowing the mass of spaceship plus fuel in the first place, you cannot answer the question the way you think it should be.

And AGAIN, will you please explain why you maintain your insistence on referring to the P 22K S engine when there is NO other source on Apollo that gives the SPS that designation?

I have a feeling you need >80 000 kg.

Your feelings are irrelevant. No qualified engineer ever bases his conclusions on feelings.

In order to proceed with the discussion, I suggest you try to clarify above basic questions of fuel consumption.

Again, stop trying to dictate where this discussion can go.
 

Pls do not suggest that I do not know anything about space travel, astrophysics,

No-one is suggesting any such thing. They are stating it outright. You have DEMOMNSTRATED you know nothing about space travel and astrophysics. You want to prove you know something, find someone who agrees with you. Just one qualified in a relevant field. Go on. I challenge you. We already have provided the backing up of our statements in the form of reams of documents, various professionals, even the founders of the whole science of travelling in space. Where is your support?

that I am broke,

Don't put words in our mouths. No-one claims you are broke. Not having a million euros doesn't make you broke. However, it is abundantly clear that you do NOT have that money. You have consistently refused to prove it. Why should we take your word?

it is clear from link in post #1 what I am doing for a living. My biz is safety at sea. And I am quite good.

Your website is junk. It is not the website of a serious business provider. Every single page has garbage about conpsiracies and other things about which you are evidently ignorant. If you are so good, please provide the evidence of your past achievements. Surely you must have large numbers of satisfied customers?

[Heiwa]

... I therefore suspect that Heiwa believes the spacecraft had to gradually change attitude during the burn to keep the engine pointed in the direction of travel.

Well, it didn't. The spacecraft was aimed in a particular direction for the burn, and remained pointed in that direction for the duration of the burn.

In post #786 the question was about how much fuel was used (to produce a force) in order to just slow down a space ship to get into Moon orbit or to the speed up the space ship to get out of Moon orbit. Nobody seems to know the answer as no replies have turned up.

Another question is evidently in what direction this force is applied during the speed change maneuver. And for how long.

To get into Moon orbit you must, apart from slowing down, change course from a straight one into an elliptical/circular one around the Moon and Moon gravity will assist. Peter B suggests that during a 6 (or eight) minutes burn (30 kg/s fuel burnt) applying 97 400 N force in one particular direction suffices.

It is a complicated maneuver in 3-D. The inertia force of the space ship is applied in one direction, Moon gravity pulls in another direction (I assume the trajectorey is already curved due to Moon gravity) and then you apply a third force - the brake force - in a third, particular direction while losing 10 800 kg mass in the SM ... that you keep steady all the time? If the brake force is not in the direction of travel, it will evidently also change the direction.

There is then quite a number of factors to keep an eye on. Just how to keep the space ship stable in one - the right - direction during 6 minutes braking/turning, while you loose 10 800 kg mass (30 kg/s) is complicated. Imagine if the space ship tips over and goes away in the wrong direction ... and you have no fuel left or means to correct it.

So I am happy, Peter B, that you have pointed out that the brake force cannot be applied in the direction of travel but in another particular direction where it is held steady when the space ship changes direction and looses mass and slows down. You are a genious.

Now tell me how much fuel you need to slow down!  

[Jason Thompson]

Did Apollo 11 push a cushion or shockwave of air in front of it while trying to keep the trim angle right while flying up/down in the atmosphere?

Yes, as does any other object travelling at sufficient speed through the air.

And only this cushion of air heats up and turns into ionized gas/plasma.

No, that cushion of compressed air is the main source of heat. The heat shield then stops that heat from penetrating the spacecraft by charring and burning away, carrying the heat away from the spacecraft. It is a well-known physical principle that compressing a gas causes it to heat up.

Have this strange phenomenom been tested in a laboratory or air tunnel test installation?

It is only a strange phenomenon to you, and of course it has been tested.

Pls provide some evidence.

What would be the point? You will simply maintain it does not exist anyway. You went for page after page after page on this thread saying no-one knew what mass of fuel was burned, despite being pointed to the very information you needed on one of your own linked references. You've insisted you asked NASA what the heat shield was made from and were not given the information, which you again descfribed as secret. Do you now retract that claim too, having been given the exact information you said did not exist?

More to the point, why ahven't YOU done the research into this phenomoenon you claim is made up? Why can't YOU find the information? It really isn't hard to find.

I have a feeling you are just making it up SF style.

Of course you do, because you need to keep that nice cosy feeling for your own ego, otherwise you would have to admit yet again that you were wrong about something. Your self image must be really fragile, judging by the lengths you go to to protect it and avoid admitting mistakes at every turn.

[Zakalwe]

So what does everyone think? Is it time for me to ban Heiwa if he doesn't start showing some willingness to learn? Or are you happy to keep using Heiwa's ignorance for your own self education?

FWIW I have learned loads in this thread. My vote is to let himself punch himself out (as long as he keeps the smarmy comments under control).

[LunarOrbit]

Your website is junk. It is not the website of a serious business provider. Every single page has garbage about conpsiracies and other things about which you are evidently ignorant.

It's a pretty good advertisement for his competitors though.

[Jason Thompson]

Keep him around. The more he writes this junk online, the more he proves himself incapable of sensible debate, the more he shows himself for the imbecile he really is, the more his so-called business risks losing customers. I don't know anyone who would employ a consultant who behaves the way he does. If he wants to keep undermining himself in public let him.

[Echnaton]

Let me after about 785 posts remind you about topic, i.e. my Challenge about safety of space travel and associated fuel consumption. You have to demonstrate how to travel to the Moon and back to win the prize (€1M). It is not easy.

You are using your "challenge" as a way to shift the burden of proof away from yourself and onto others.  No one here cares about winning your challenge nor are we trying to. It is only a gimmick.  The fact of Apollo does not hinge on anyone winning your challenge.  Simply, if you think Apollo was a hoax, then the burden of proof remains with you and that burden cannot be skirted by your gimmick. 

[Andromeda]

I didn't want to do this.

Heiwa

The European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) is a European Union agency charged with reducing the risk of maritime accidents, marine pollution from ships and the loss of human lives at sea by helping to enforce the pertinent EU legislation.

I wrote to EMSA a few days ago.  Not only did they say Heiwa Co was not in any way connected with them, or European maritime safety, but they had never even heard of Heiwa Co.

You are acting fraudulently, yet you froth and foam with rage while launching accusation at others.  Do you see why we are having problems?

[Zakalwe]

Have this strange phenomenom been tested in a laboratory or air tunnel test installation? Pls provide some evidence. I have a feeling you are just making it up SF style.

Appeal to incredulity.

Its not strange to anyone that has done a modicum of research. Heating as part of hypersonic re-entry was being studied back in the 1950s as part of the research into ICBM re-entry. Harry Julian Allen in 1951, in research at Ames Research Centre, did the calculations and came up with the concept of using a "blunt-body" shape to creat a compressive "bow-wave" to create a boundary layer between the hot compressed gas of the atmosphere and the structure of the ICBM.  Allen and Eggers classified report into blunt-bodies and hypersonic heating effects was published in 1953.

[Andromeda]

Your website is junk. It is not the website of a serious business provider. Every single page has garbage about conpsiracies and other things about which you are evidently ignorant. If you are so good, please provide the evidence of your past achievements. Surely you must have large numbers of satisfied customers?

The only references to Heiwa Co I can find online are about his conspiracy theories.  There are no professional reviews etc that I can find.  I strongly suspect Heiwa has not actually done any engineering work in his life (thankfully).

[Noldi400]

What was the Arthur C. Clarke short story about a race involving solar yachts?  I just re-read it a week ago, but I don't have that collection handy right now...

The Wind From The Sun? I don't remember the author right this second; it was in the collection The Science Fictional Olympics ed. by Issac Asimov.