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
can slow down from 11 200 m/s to 100 m/s (re-entry) by friction/turbulence without burning up.
Sorry, you have to do much better to earn topic!
Yes. The faster you can throw mass, the better you are.
At 120 000 m altitude there is a thin atmosphere with nitrogene and oxygene atoms that you collide with and ... MAGIC
... suddenlyNot "suddenly". And the literature has reams and reams of research into atmospheric braking; in fact, there are file cabinets full of it - decades of work - in my office, in this case pertaining to the atmospheric reentry of isotope heat sources.
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?Terminal velocity, as any reasonably-educated high-school student should know, happens when aerodynamic drag balances gravitational acceleration. Again, let's drop the silly pretense that you are an engineer when you display such ignorance.
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?For the same reason a skydiver needs a parachute. And, if you choose a glider-type approach, you don't need a parachute at all - the Shuttle only added a drag chute on rollout as an extra safety measure, and had landed just fine without one. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.
When you dive from a 10 m board you do not need a parachute.When you dive from a 1000 m platform you do. Let alone from 105 m.
One non-chemical engine with a lot of promise is the nuclear thermal rocket, because reactors can produce a lot of power in a very small volume and produce thrusts comparable to chemical rockets. One was actually developed and tested in the early 1960s...Well, as it turned out it was merrily using the reactor core as additional reaction mass. But that's another story.
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?
One non-chemical engine with a lot of promise is the nuclear thermal rocket, because reactors can produce a lot of power in a very small volume and produce thrusts comparable to chemical rockets. One was actually developed and tested in the early 1960s but was then cancelled. None have ever been flown, but it is probably an enabling technology for interplanetary human space flight.
Can you, e.g. explain re-entry. You are aboard the famous International Space Station, ISS, that according NASA is orbiting Earth every 90 minutes at 400 000 m altitude (almost vacuum) at 7 200 m/s velocity and you want to go down to Earth. It means you have to go down 400 000 m and slow down from 7 200 m/s to 0 m/s speed. How to do it?
Do you jump into a little capsule with a little rocket engine to slow you down? Yes, apparently you do that and the result is that you arrive at 120 000 m altitude but that the velocity then has increased to 9 000 m/s as some potential energy of the capsule has become kinetic energy = greater velocity. It is like diving from the 10 m board. It gets faster the closer you get to the water.
QuoteLet me ask a stupid question or two?
I haven't stopped you from doing so before, so why start now?
Are the speeds used for lunar spacecraft susceptible to relativistic effects? I know that for GPS satellites to work properly you need to take that into accountRelativistic effects are present at any speed. It's just that at low speeds they're usually too small to notice, and are swamped by various errors.
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.
So atmospheric drag will work with parachutes but it won't work with anything else?It works with cats:
Actually, since Heiwa claims to have all this nautical engineering know-how, maybe he would care to explain why a ship with a constant propulsive force doesn't "slow down to 0 m/s by colliding with atoms?"
Evidently if the ship is in a sea current you have to consider that the sea current may modify the ship's speed.
Actually, since Heiwa claims to have all this nautical engineering know-how, maybe he would care to explain why a ship with a constant propulsive force doesn't "slow down to 0 m/s by colliding with atoms?"
A sea going ship, engine of which via the propeller applies a force F to the ship, proceeds at constant speed, say x knots, while the environment (water/air/friction/collisions with atoms) applies a force -F to the ship = there is balance.
If you ran out of fuel and the engine applies force F=0 to the ship, the ship slows down until the speed is 0 knots, when all forces acting on the ship including atom colliding with it add upp to 0.
Evidently if the ship is in a sea current you have to consider that the sea current may modify the ship's speed.
Are the speeds used for lunar spacecraft susceptible to relativistic effects?It really depends on the spacecraft and the mission as to whether the effects are noticeable. For Apollo, probably not; there were enough other sources of error, such as the incompletely modeled lunar gravity field, to swamp out the effects of relativity.
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!
Hint 1: Fuel != kinetic energy.
<snipped for space>
When you dive from a 10 m board you do not need a parachute.
Where did that energy go? It was dumped!
This discussion is getting sillier and sillier.
Sorry, you have to do much better to earn topic!
A sea going ship, engine of which via the propeller applies a force F to the ship, proceeds at constant speed, say x knots, while the environment (water/air/friction/collisions with atoms) applies a force -F to the ship = there is balance.
(The spaceship velocities used here are absolute to the planets or Moon in question. The planets evidently rotate around themselves and orbit around the Sun at other velocities. Space travel experts suggest that I should add the velocity of the Earth/Moon orbiting the Sun plus the velocity of the Sun orbiting the Universe to the velocities given here but as I do not know the latter I just use the velocities given by NASA ... to calculate the kinetic energies involved. Just to get a feel of the situation ... as zero velocity or kinetic energy does not exist in space)
It thus took about 73 hours or 262 800 seconds to travel the distance 384 000 000 meters. Average velocity during Moon trip was only 1 460 m/s. If start velocity to get away from Earth was 11 200 m/s and arrival velocity was 2 400 m/s with a minimum velocity at about 9/10th of the distance travelled due to Earth gravity, you really wonder how space ship velocity varied during the trip to the Moon.
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. Space travel experts suggest that you cannot calculate the kinetic energy in space as the 'space' is moving at another velocity to be added or subtracted to the ones given but as the latter speed is not known to them, I keep it simple as indicated. It seems we agree that fuel/energy, in this case 10 898 kg, was used to change the velocity of the space craft that became 10 898 kg lighter.
QuoteIt thus took about 73 hours or 262 800 seconds to travel the distance 384 000 000 meters. Average velocity during Moon trip was only 1 460 m/s. If start velocity to get away from Earth was 11 200 m/s and arrival velocity was 2 400 m/s with a minimum velocity at about 9/10th of the distance travelled due to Earth gravity, you really wonder how space ship velocity varied during the trip to the Moon.
(The spaceship velocities used here are absolute to the planets or Moon in question.
Space travel experts suggest that I should add the velocity of the Earth/Moon orbiting the Sun plus the velocity of the Sun orbiting the Universe to the velocities given here
Space travel experts suggest that you cannot calculate the kinetic energy in space as the 'space' is moving at another velocity to be added or subtracted to the ones given
Something cannot be absolute to anything. They are relative to something. In the case of the Apollo spacecraft the speeds described are relative to the Earth.I think the LOI velocities we've been discussing are relative to the moon.
It takes a very delusional mind to think that when faced with something you don't understand, it's the whole world that's wrong and not just your understanding.
I think maybe you have the wrong picture in your head when reading this phrase. The sextant used by the Apollo spacecraft wasn't the ages-old traditional style seaman's sextant:OK Heiwa, you want to do a simple energy difference calculation? Fine. Forget burning the fuel. Just imagine that the spacecraft dumps all that fuel overboard in a non-propulsive way. Its mass decreases, it's velocity remains unchanged. Its kinetic energy therefore has decreased. Where did that energy go? How did the kinetic energy of the spacecraft change? The answer to that might help you with the answer to your original issue.
Where did that energy go? It was dumped! What are you trying to say? This discussion is getting sillier and sillier. Like the post about space navigation by sextant and compass and charts at high g (like in a WWII bomber) while swinging into Moon orbit or that weak structures like tin boxes can slow down from 11 200 m/s to 100 m/s (re-entry) by friction/turbulence without burning up. Sorry, you have to do much better to earn topic!
And those that do spend time on ALSJ and other sites use that time in looking for the tiny inconsistencies that are part of any human endeavor and trying to make them out to somehow support their own pet theories.It takes a very delusional mind to think that when faced with something you don't understand, it's the whole world that's wrong and not just your understanding.
But that is the mindset of a lot of hoax believers, isn't it? They selectively filter what they see and hear. They have the time to watch countless YouTube videos but yet won't spend an afternoon on the Lunar Surface Journal or the NASA Technical Documents Server.
For sure, some HB have never been shown the places to get information. Once they have they realise just what a magnificent achievement that the Apollo program was. Vincent McConnell is an example...he came here (IIRC) as a HB.
The ones that I really don't get are the ones like Heiwa. They have been presented with information and yet refuse to acknowledge it. They are wilfully ignorant, and personally I find that the lowest form of intellectual cowardice there is. I think that they have invested so much of their energies into believing the hoax that to climb down off their hobby horse would be impossible for them. So they keep ploughing their own furrow and ultimately keep well away from places like this (hence why I think that Heiwa's behaviour will get more extreme resulting in a ban, or he will flounce...its happened loads of times before).
Björkman has changed his page again. In green are the new additions.Quote(The spaceship velocities used here are absolute to the planets or Moon in question. The planets evidently rotate around themselves and orbit around the Sun at other velocities. Space travel experts suggest that I should add the velocity of the Earth/Moon orbiting the Sun plus the velocity of the Sun orbiting the Universe to the velocities given here but as I do not know the latter I just use the velocities given by NASA ... to calculate the kinetic energies involved. Just to get a feel of the situation ... as zero velocity or kinetic energy does not exist in space)
As far as I can remember, nobody here suggested such a thing. Heiwa, if this was written about the discussion here, point out the post where this suggestion was made, otherwise I'll just assume that you are lying.
Heiwa, answer me this: those 10 898 kg of mass had kinetic energy before the burn, as you include them in the mass of the spacecraft. What do you think happened with that kinetic energy when the fuel was spent?
The spaceship velocities used here are absolute to the planets or Moon in question. The planets evidently rotate around themselves and orbit around the Sun at other velocities. Space travel experts suggest that I should add the velocity of the Earth/Moon orbiting the Sun plus the velocity of the Sun orbiting the Universe to the velocities given here but as I do not know the latter I just use the velocities given by NASA ... to calculate the kinetic energies involved. Just to get a feel of the situation. It seems Moon travel is pretty easy as the Moon orbits the Earth almost circularily. If you depart from Earth orbit at exactly the right time to arrive at the Moon a few days later, you can visually see the Moon ahead of you a little to the side or up/down all the time and if you navigate correctly you will after 90% of the trip feel the Moon gravity attracting you and your space ship and your concern is then not to crash on the Moon but to get into orbit around the Moon at the right altitude/velocity. Of course the Sun radiation will heat up your space ship to 150°C during the trip, so increase the aircon inside not to get fried or boiled inside. If you miss the Moon, there is no way back because you cannot possibly turn around in space due to lack of fuel.
Armstrong stepped into the 150° C hot lunar surface dust at 02:56:15 UT on 21 July stating, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind". Somebody took a photo of the boot trace in the dust later. His boots didn't melt in the hot Moon dust. Aldrin followed 19 minutes later. The astronauts deployed the flag and instruments, took photographs, and collected very hot - 150° C - lunar rock and soil and dust. The astronauts traversed a total distance of about 250 meters. The visit ended at 5:11:13 UT when the astronauts returned to the LM and closed the hatch. Inside the LM it was now150° C hot. If the asstronuts filled the LM with cool air and get out of their space suits for a nap are not clear ... except that they slept for 10 hours. Then it was time to go back to the CSM!
And we can safely add "spacecraft temperature control" to the list of things Björkman is ignorant about. Hey, Heiwa, what do you think was the purpose of all that shiny foil on the lander?Yeah, Heat Transfer and the second law of thermodynamics seems to be a concept most HBs have trouble grasping.
Björkman has changed his page yet again. He's continuing to dig himself deeper with the determination of a "shock brigade" miner.
QuoteIt seems Moon travel is pretty easy as the Moon orbits the Earth almost circularily. If you depart from Earth orbit at exactly the right time to arrive at the Moon a few days later, you can visually see the Moon ahead of you a little to the side or up/down all the time and if you navigate correctly you will after 90% of the trip feel the Moon gravity attracting you and your space ship and your concern is then not to crash on the Moon but to get into orbit around the Moon at the right altitude/velocity. Of course the Sun radiation will heat up your space ship to 150°C during the trip, so increase the aircon inside not to get fried or boiled inside. If you miss the Moon, there is no way back because you cannot possibly turn around in space due to lack of fuel.[/color]
Pretty sure he's referring to cjameshuff's post #266 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8183#msg8183) but, as usual, completely missing the point that you don't need to take any of those velocities into account, any more than you do for a man walking on a plane or for calculating a change in velocity.Quite. He completely misses the point about what we're really telling him, which is essentially that you can't do an energy balance if you miss out part of the system.
Björkman has changed his page yet again. He's continuing to dig himself deeper with the determination of a "shock brigade" miner. Most of the changes are minor, again, only the larger ones:
If you depart from Earth orbit at exactly the right time to arrive at the Moon a few days later, you can visually see the Moon ahead of you a little to the side or up/down all the time
Of course the Sun radiation will heat up your space ship to 150°C during the trip, so increase the aircon inside not to get fried or boiled inside.
If you miss the Moon, there is no way back because you cannot possibly turn around in space due to lack of fuel.[/color]
Somebody took a photo of the boot trace in the dust later.
His boots didn't melt in the hot Moon dust.
Inside the LM it was now150° C hot.
And we can safely add "spacecraft temperature control" to the list of things Björkman is ignorant about. Hey, Heiwa, what do you think was the purpose of all that shiny foil on the lander?
It would evidently have been much better to use a little bigger parachute that decelerates the spaceship a little faster, so that absolute velocity had been say only 20 m/s in lieu of 80 m/s at 1 600 m altitude, so that, with final deceleration, say 0.125 m/s², you land at 0 speed 160 seconds later ... with the parachute. Or something like it. No need for rockets (!) that just complicate things. A well designed parachute should have done the job alone! But, sorry - the show must go on! Rockets add to the drama - that never took place.
Pretty sure he's referring to cjameshuff's post #266 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8183#msg8183) but, as usual, completely missing the point that you don't need to take any of those velocities into account, any more than you do for a man walking on a plane or for calculating a change in velocity.
It thus took about 73 hours or 262 800 seconds to travel the distance 384 000 000 meters. Average velocity during Moon trip was only 1 460 m/s. If start velocity to get away from Earth was 11 200 m/s and arrival velocity was 2 400 m/s with a minimum velocity at about 9/10th of the distance travelled due to Earth gravity, you really wonder how space ship velocity varied during the trip to the Moon.
Time Distance Distance Velocity Velocity
to Earth to Moon Earth relative Moon relative
(hhh:mm:ss) (km) (km) (m/s) (m/s)
000:00:00 (1) 6,563 388,677 10,943 11,629
004:00:00 63,723 322,544 3,292 2,871
008:00:00 102,344 289,876 2,474 2,050
012:00:00 133,629 264,655 2,074 1,680
016:00:00 160,632 243,133 1,817 1,466
020:00:00 184,660 223,822 1,630 1,328
024:00:00 206,427 205,947 1,485 1,235
028:00:00 226,380 189,041 1,367 1,170
032:00:00 244,825 172,804 1,267 1,126
036:00:00 261,980 157,024 1,181 1,095
040:00:00 278,012 141,553 1,106 1,075
044:00:00 293,052 126,276 1,039 1,063
048:00:00 307,207 111,104 979 1,057
052:00:00 320,567 95,963 925 1,057
056:00:00 333,214 80,788 876 1,062
060:00:00 345,227 65,506 832 1,073
064:00:00 356,694 50,026 794 1,093
068:00:00 367,738 34,191 764 1,134
072:00:00 378,602 17,635 760 1,248
075:32:51 (2) 387,587 3,184 998 2,021
076:00:00 387,045 4,086 933 1,845
080:00:00 376,208 21,483 752 1,207
084:00:00 365,388 37,818 766 1,122
088:00:00 354,309 53,551 798 1,087
092:00:00 342,772 68,975 838 1,069
096:00:00 330,668 84,222 883 1,060
100:00:00 317,911 99,379 933 1,056
104:00:00 304,423 114,513 989 1,057
108:00:00 290,123 129,691 1,050 1,064
112:00:00 274,916 144,989 1,118 1,078
116:00:00 258,691 160,499 1,196 1,100
120:00:00 241,313 176,340 1,284 1,132
124:00:00 222,605 192,672 1,387 1,180
128:00:00 202,334 209,717 1,510 1,249
132:00:00 180,173 227,802 1,662 1,349
136:00:00 155,635 247,436 1,859 1,498
140:00:00 127,923 269,484 2,136 1,734
144:00:00 95,528 295,676 2,583 2,154
148:00:00 54,631 330,780 3,594 3,183
151:10:03 (3) 6,500 387,407 10,998 11,595
(1) Translunar Injection
(2) Pericynthion
(3) Entry Interface
A sea going ship, engine of which via the propeller applies a force F to the ship, proceeds at constant speed, say x knots, while the environment (water/air/friction/collisions with atoms) applies a force -F to the ship = there is balance.Exactly. So why would you expect a spacecraft, subject to a nearly constant gravitational force, to stop falling? Because that is exactly what you proposed in your reply #663 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8775#msg8775).
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?You actually proposed that a falling object would stop falling due to air friction. That is one reason people are asking whether you are serious or simply trolling.
If you ran out of fuel and the engine applies force F=0 to the ship, the ship slows down until the speed is 0 knots, when all forces acting on the ship including atom colliding with it add upp to 0.Fine. But in case you hadn't noticed, a falling object does not run out of gravity.
Heiwa, answer me this: those 10 898 kg of mass had kinetic energy before the burn, as you include them in the mass of the spacecraft. What do you think happened with that kinetic energy when the fuel was spent?
The Apollo 11 had, according Willy of NASA...
I have to add that the asstrnuts...
The Apollo 11 had, according Willy of NASA, total mass incl. fuel of 43 574 kg (or 96 062 lb) and speed 2 400 m/s when 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.
Who cares?
The energy of the fuel burnt in the rocket engine evidently created the 97 400 N force to reduce the speed.
The spaceship + fuel 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 applying the force was 88.64 GJ.
That energy thus became part of the space environment outside the space craft and could not be recuperated.
So he still thinks you need to be able to see where you are going to get there properly? Physics doesn't apply if you can't see where you are going?
The question every civilian has asked me when I tell them I navigated submarines for the US Navy was, "How do you know where you're going when you're underwater?"Submarines have been fitted with GPS ever since they were invented in the 17th century.
The Apollo 11 had, according Willy of NASA...
The spaceship + fuel 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 applying the force was 88.64 GJ.
That energy thus became part of the space environment outside the space craft and could not be recuperated.
Who cares?
You should. That's the point.
You are not an engineer. You are a liar and a fraud.
Just another demonstration of how fundamentally his basic mindset differs from that of an actual engineer...
So atmospheric drag will work with parachutes but it won't work with anything else?
The spaceship + fuel 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 applying the force was 88.64 GJ.
The post you made after the one I quoted above was not allowed because in addition to calling George Low "Willy" you also told someone they were being off topic and insulted their intelligence. When are you going to realize that you're wasting your time writing posts that you know I won't allow?
But that's a loss of kinetic energy.
The plot thickens when you realize that France has some of the most stringent laws in the world regarding the practice of engineering. Criminal penalties apply to the practice of engineering without a degree or license, and to the malpractice of engineering even by licensed practitioners. I wonder if the Beausoleil magistrates are aware of what is happening on their doorstep.
The post you made after the one I quoted above was not allowed because in addition to calling George Low "Willy" you also told someone they were being off topic and insulted their intelligence. When are you going to realize that you're wasting your time writing posts that you know I won't allow?
It was Glom post #700 I replied to. Glom suggets "It takes a very delusional mind to think that when faced with something you don't understand, it's the whole world that's wrong and not just your understanding."
I simply didn't agree. The whole world is not wrong. Only Apollo 11 is SF. So why delete my reply?
And the purpose of my serious Challenge - topic here (not started by me) - is not deceive but encourage creative thinking by offering money, e.g. 1. show how the little (weak) top part C of a structure crushes the bigger, stronger bottom part A of same structure (A carries C statically) by gravity due to a failure in interface C/A or
2. show how any manned space ship manages to visit Moon (or Mars) and get back to Earth in one piece incl. fuel used.
many people also saw 1969 Apollo 11 take off from Earth, some blury B&W footage of people on the Moon and splash down in the Pacific five days later live on TV ... but what happened in between the three events?
Those are my two Challenges. No big deal. Plenty of people suggesting I am broke, etc, etc. I am happy to say I am not and live comfortably in southern France with a grand view of the Med. I recommend posters to focus on topic and not divert from it.
I simply didn't agree. The whole world is not wrong. Only Apollo 11 is SF. So why delete my reply?
This thread is now 44 pages long with nearly 700 posts in it. During it's course you have repeatedly been shown to have fundamental errors in your understanding and knowledge. You have been given copious examples that demonstrate, sometimes in painful detail, where you have been in error. The post above shows just how thin your understanding is, or alternatively how desperate you appear to be to be wilfully ignorant and a troll.
Do you you accept this?
Do you acknowledge where your understanding has been incorrect and can you state that you have corrected your thinking?
Instead of throwing up another spurious example of your lack of understanding, can you address these issues? Doing so would go a long to showing that you are not deliberately being obtuse and trolling for reaction, but that you are able to learn new things and correct errors in your understanding.
I simply didn't agree. The whole world is not wrong. Only Apollo 11 is SF. So why delete my reply?
Have you still not understand that it is IMPOSSIBLE to win my Challenges.
But that's a loss of kinetic energy.
No, it is a change in kinetic energy of the space ship before/after a force was applied on it (to reduce the velocity). No kinetic energy was lost. It was transformed into heat.
You know "It takes a very delusional mind to think that when faced with something you don't understand, it's the whole world that's wrong and not just your understanding."
Where did that energy go? It was dumped!
What are you trying to say?
This discussion is getting sillier and sillier.
Like the post about space navigation by sextant and compass and charts at high g (like in a WWII bomber) while swinging into Moon orbit...
or that weak structures like tin boxes...
can slow down from 11 200 m/s to 100 m/s (re-entry)...
by friction/turbulence without burning up.
Sorry, you have to do much better to earn topic!
I simply didn't agree. The whole world is not wrong.
Only Apollo 11 is SF.
So why delete my reply?
encourage creative thinking by offering money,
Plenty of people suggesting I am broke, etc, etc. I am happy to say I am not and live comfortably in southern France with a grand view of the Med.
Have you still not understand that it is IMPOSSIBLE to win my Challenges. Physical principles do not allow it.
No, it is a change in kinetic energy of the space ship before/after a force was applied on it (to reduce the velocity).
No kinetic energy was lost. It was transformed into heat.
Does anyone else feel like we are part of some bizarre and unethical high school psych experiment?
Aha, you are now an expert of French law?
Are you suggesting I am breaking the law?
I think you are just upset not beating my Challenge.
Have you still not understand that it is IMPOSSIBLE to win my Challenges.
Physical principles do not allow it.
Can it be that Heiwa doesn't understand mass-energy conservation?
I simply didn't agree. The whole world is not wrong.
Only Apollo 11 is SF.
So why delete my reply?
...is not deceive but encourage creative thinking by offering money...
...show how any manned space ship manages to visit Moon (or Mars) while overpowering gravity forces and finally getting back to Earth in one piece incl. fuel used.
Plenty of people suggesting I am broke, etc, etc. I am happy to say I am not and live comfortably in southern France with a grand view of the Med.
I recommend posters to focus on topic and not divert from it.
Heiwa:
Linear momentum (p) is directly proportional to kinetic energy, being p=mv
And there in lies the difference between Heiwa and the rest of us clowns.Heiwa:
Linear momentum (p) is directly proportional to kinetic energy, being p=mv
Not quite - it's a square relationship as KE = p2/2m
Your point about the Rocket Equation still stands, though.
Read it and weep -
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4280640&postcount=130
Weight (kg) or load (kg) = mass (kg). Yes, I am an engineer. What are you?
The whole world is not wrong.Correct. The whole world is not wrong. The aerospace engineering community, and the planetary scientists, and the astronomers using spaceborne instruments, and the operators and insurers of communications satellites, and freshman physics students who can correctly formulate an energy balance, are not wrong.
Only Apollo 11 is SF.Is this an admission that you accept the reality of the other Apollo missions (and Mercury and Gemini and Soyuz and Shenzhou and Skylab and Salyut and Mir and ISS and Cygnus and Genesis and etc.)? Or that you were simply unaware of the other missions' existence? Or that you are simply unable to keep track of your claims? Or that you are simply trolling?
And the purpose of my serious Challenge - topic here (not started by me) - is not deceive but encourage creative thinking by offering money,You do not have the money you claim to offer; that is an outright fabrication. You are of course able to rebut this by providing evidence for the existence of your mythical million Euros. But you don't have it, so you can't and won't.
2. show how any manned space ship manages to visit Moon (or Mars) while overpowering gravity forces and finally getting back to Earth in one piece incl. fuel used.Already shown, with voluminous references supplied - the existence of which you were ignorant, and the provision of which you have pretended never happened. Your "challenge" is not serious; it is a sham no different than the $10,000 or $1,000,000 "challenges" routinely offered by crackpots across the Web.
...many people also saw 1969 Apollo 11 take off from Earth, some blury B&W footage of people on the Moon and splash down in the Pacific five days later live on TV ... but what happened in between the three events?Days of operations, telemetry, still and motion imagery, sample collection, tracking and telemetry - The same as happened on the other Apollo missions, eight of which went to the Moon and five of which landed on it. All extensively documented in thousands of engineering reports and scientific papers, much of which is freely available and in fact nowadays easily found with a casual Web search. The fact that you are ignorant of it is no excuse, and your appeal to ignorance reflects only on your ignorance.
Then how?Asked and answered.
Those are my two Challenges. No big deal.Correct. The one is off-topic for this subforum, the other is simply empty bluster.
Plenty of people suggesting I am broke,Deliberate misrepresentation. No one has suggested you are broke. We are simply pointing out that you don't have a million Euros to offer for your "challenge", and that said "challenge" is therefore phony.
I recommend posters to focus on topic and not divert from it.Not only is it on topic, as has been repeatedly explained to you, but you are the only one attempting to divert from it by throwing out strawmen such as the "broke" claim. Don't think for a minute that you are fooling anyone by such tactics. You are not the first conspiracist to try laying down such smokescreens.
many people also saw 1969 Apollo 11 take off from Earth, some blury B&W footage of people on the Moon and splash down in the Pacific five days later live on TV ... but what happened in between the three events?
How can someone claiming to know all the minute details of Apollo 11 ask such a clanger of a question?
Maybe he manages engineers.
Link (http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070706184121/cartoons/images/1/1e/Phb.png)
Read it and weep -
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world
carers
I so empathize with Achilles right now.
I so empathize with Achilles right now.
Indeed, however I identify more with Michael Palin in "The Argument Clinic."
Well, yes. I phrased it badly, forgetting that you engineers are SO DAMN LITERAL! [SNICKER] (My daughter has her M.Sc. in Engineering Physics - I should know better.)Heiwa:
Linear momentum (p) is directly proportional to kinetic energy, being p=mv
Not quite - it's a square relationship as KE = p2/2m
Your point about the Rocket Equation still stands, though.
Mag40:
Read it and weep -
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4280640&postcount=130
Weight (kg) or load (kg) = mass (kg). Yes, I am an engineer. What are you?
The plot thickens when you realize that France has some of the most stringent laws in the world regarding the practice of engineering. Criminal penalties apply to the practice of engineering without a degree or license, and to the malpractice of engineering even by licensed practitioners. I wonder if the Beausoleil magistrates are aware of what is happening on their doorstep.
Aha, you are now an expert of French law? Are you suggesting I am breaking the law? That is serious! Off topic, of course. Anyway, the Tribunals d'Instance and de Grande Instance are located at Nice but you can always alert our local police municipale or nationale here at Beausoleil, if you are concerned. I think you are just upset not beating my Challenge. Yes, it is hard not to solve my Challenges.
Have you still not understand that it is IMPOSSIBLE to win my Challenges. Physical principles do not allow it.
it's a square relationship as KE = p2/2mAnd that's the "dismal equation" of rocketry, expressed more clearly than I did.
The Apollo SPS engine, which is an AJ10-137 engine with 91,000 lb thrust91 kN thrust, actually.
And those same solar photons carry momentum in the form of radiation pressure, and it's possible to make use of them as reaction "mass" with a solar sail. Although I don't think a true solar sail has yet been successfully flown, the phenomenon of radiation pressure is very real and visible in the operation of many spacecraft, usually as a wanted or unwanted source of torque on a spacecraft body.
MESSENGER used solar sailing to adjust its trajectory for flybys, using its solar panels as sails.
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...
Does that mean they have to worry about unintended course changes just because light from the Sun just happened to be hitting the solar panels?
Does that mean they have to worry about unintended course changes just because light from the Sun just happened to be hitting the solar panels?Yes, all spacecraft do. And it's not just when sunlight hits the solar panels but when it hits any part of the spacecraft.
Do you deny the existence of aerodynamic drag?
Heiwa:
Can you tell us why you are so wedded to your attempt to draw conclusions from the kinetic energy of a spacecraft? The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, which is derived from the linear momentum of a rocket when acted upon by outside forces, will give you an answer that accounts for the energy changes.
IMO
the Apollo 11 command module, when velocity was say 6 000 m/s will rotate the module and kill the people inside. The module was not stable ... like a Ford Edsel.
But I fear the module will burn up already at 7 000 m/s speed in the atmosphere.
Heiwa:
Can you tell us why you are so wedded to your attempt to draw conclusions from the kinetic energy of a spacecraft? The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, which is derived from the linear momentum of a rocket when acted upon by outside forces, will give you an answer that accounts for the energy changes.
I am only interested in the kinetic energy of the space ship itself before/after burning fuel. Masses/velocities are known. The difference is the kinetic energy of the fuel burnt that produce the force that change the velocity of the space ship. The Tsiolkovsky formula is not required for that - why use it? And it seems that too little fuel was available to produce the velocity changes of Apollo 11 and that the numbers produced by NASA do not add up as shown in my simple presentation.
I am only interested in the kinetic energy of the space ship itself before/after burning fuel.Your interests are too narrow. Consider broadening them.
Masses/velocities are known.Indeed they are. So why did you say they weren't?
The difference is the kinetic energy of the fuel burnt that produce the force that change the velocity of the space ship.Wrong, as we've been telling you, and as any textbook on the subject will confirm.
The Tsiolkovsky formula is not required for that - why use it?It most definitely is required, as you'd know if you weren't so incredibly ignorant and unable to learn.
And it seems that too little fuel was available to produce the velocity changes of Apollo 11 and that the numbers produced by NASA do not add up as shown in my simple presentation.And it seems you're simply wrong.
IMO the drag and lift forces acting on, e.g. the Apollo 11 command module, when velocity was say 6 000 m/s will rotate the module and kill the people inside. The module was not stable ... like a Ford Edsel.Your opinion is worthless because it is not informed by any facts.
But I fear the module will burn up already at 7 000 m/s speed in the atmosphere.You're a little out of date. Fear not, it landed safely over 43 years ago. You can even see it in the Air & Space Museum in Washington DC. You can inspect for yourself the remnants of the ablative heat shield that kept it from burning up.
But I fear the module will burn up already at 7 000 m/s speed in the atmosphere.
Ablative heatshields. This has been explained to you already.
IMO the drag and lift forces acting on, e.g. the Apollo 11 command module, when velocity was say 6 000 m/s will rotate the module and kill the people inside. The module was not stable ... like a Ford Edsel.
But I fear the module will burn up already at 7 000 m/s speed in the atmosphere.
What actually happens is that the re-entering body pushes a cushion/shockwave of air, which heats due to compression, turning into ionized gas/plasma. The majority of the energy of re-entry is spent heating atmospheric air. The purpose of the heat shield is to prevent this superheated envelope from destroying the spacecraft.
There are a number of professional engineers in this thread, some of whom actually work in aerospace. Please explain why any of us should pay any attention to your opinion, when you have repeatedly demonstrated ignorance of even the most basic aspects of space flight and an inability to grasp even the most fundamental principles involved.Do you deny the existence of aerodynamic drag?No, evidently not, pls refer to my presentation - link in post #1. IMO
the drag and lift forces acting on, e.g. the Apollo 11 command module, when velocity was say 6 000 m/s will rotate the module and kill the people inside. The module was not stable ...Wrong. Inanimate Carbon Rod (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg8977#msg8977) has already provided a detailed reference - the existence of which you were ignorant - refuting this silly claim:
like a Ford Edsel.The Edsel, whatever its faults, was stable. Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about - to the point that you provided an example that contradicts your own claim!
But I fear the module will burn up already at 7 000 m/s speed in the atmosphere.You are wrong, and you don't get any less wrong by repeating your ignorant opinion, and I and others have already explained how ablative shielding works - and that it has been standard engineering practice for more than half a century.
Only Apollo 11 is SF.Is this an admission that you accept the reality of the other Apollo missions (and Mercury and Gemini and Soyuz and Shenzhou and Skylab and Salyut and Mir and ISS and Cygnus and Genesis and etc.)? Or that you were simply unaware of the other missions' existence? Or that you are simply unable to keep track of your claims? Or that you are simply trolling?
In order to do a correct braking - reducing speed - 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 curved braking trajectory. It means that the three space pilots flew backwards, when suddenly braking to insert into Moon orbit. The trajectory was evidently not straight as you curved into Moon orbit.(bolds are my emphasis)
mi | Initial mass |
vi | Initial velocity |
mf | Final mass |
vf | Final velocity |
e | Energy (J) available from fuel combustion |
[jstex]\frac{1}{2}m_i v_i^2 - \frac{1}{2}m_f v_f^2 = e[/jstex] | Equ. 1 |
[jstex]\frac{1}{2}m_f v_f^2 = \frac{1}{2}m_i v_i^2 - e[/jstex] | |
[jstex]v_f^2 = \frac{2 ( 1/2 m_i v_i^2 - e ) }{m_f}[/jstex] | |
[jstex]v_f = \sqrt{ \frac{m_i v_i^2 - 2e}{m_f} }[/jstex] | Equ.2 |
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.
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?
I have a feeling you need >80 000 kg.
In order to proceed with the discussion, I suggest you try to clarify above basic questions of fuel consumption.
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.
My biz is safety at sea. And I am quite good.
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.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.
(Sorry, I don't know how to use LaTex on this forum!)
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.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.
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.
Let me after about 785 posts remind you about topic,
You have to demonstrate how to travel to the Moon and back to win the prize (€1M).
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?
I have a feeling you need >80 000 kg.
In order to proceed with the discussion, I suggest you try to clarify above basic questions of fuel consumption.
Pls do not suggest that I do not know anything about space travel, astrophysics,
that I am broke,
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.
... 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
It has been repeatedly demonstrated how Apollo went to the Moon and back.
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?
Can you really show by engineering calculations that you can slow down a 43.5 ton space ship from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s speed in space by burning 10.8 ton fuel at 30 kg/s producing a 97 400 N force?
Or that a 5.6 ton module of thin plates/stiffeners arriving into Earth's atmosphere at 11 200 m/s speed is slowed down by friction turbulence to 100 m/s speed during 18 minutes without heating up the inside at all? A few centimeters away the air is glowing hot, the heat shield is at 1600°C and inside - 20°C!
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?
I'm finding it difficult to believe that someone who has a M.Sc in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering (achieved at Chalmers University in Sweden) would act in this way and be so ignorant of fairly basic physics and mathematics.
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/cv.htm
Is it possible to see if he was an alumnus in 1969?
And why would it take 4 years?
I checked the numbers and 10,800 Kg looks on the money.... 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! :)
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.
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?
If you suggest, e.g. 10 898 kg, you must support your answer with proper calculations to win the prize (€1M). I have a feeling you need >80 000 kg.
And why would it take 4 years?
Engineering degrees generally take 4 years or more in Europe.
And why would it take 4 years?
Engineering degrees generally take 4 years or more in Europe.
Chalmers website says their MSc programmes are currently 2 years long?
Expending that fuel gives a delta v of 1018 m/s, so also on the money. Where's my million?
It has been repeatedly demonstrated how Apollo went to the Moon and back.
Yes, it has in several reports that I use as reference - see link in post #1. I evidently do not believe these reports and therefore we have this friendly discussion. Let's keep it that way.
See, e.g. my post #786. Can you really show by engineering calculations that you can slow down a 43.5 ton space ship from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s speed in space by burning 10.8 ton fuel at 30 kg/s producing a 97 400 N force?
43769.5 - 32676 = 11093.5 ; subtract the mass of the spacecraft and voila!Looks right to me for the specific numbers provided. Note that they're not the actual figures for the Apollo 11 mission.
; we get the amount of mass expended.
And there's your answer, arrived at using the figures you provided and some ninth grade math.
Some of you professional number-crunchers want to check my work, please?
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.
Expending that fuel gives a delta v of 1018 m/s, so also on the money. Where's my million?
It has been repeatedly demonstrated how Apollo went to the Moon and back.
Yes, it has in several reports that I use as reference - see link in post #1. I evidently do not believe these reports and therefore we have this friendly discussion. Let's keep it that way.
See, e.g. my post #786. Can you really show by engineering calculations that you can slow down a 43.5 ton space ship from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s speed in space by burning 10.8 ton fuel at 30 kg/s producing a 97 400 N force?
It's all good. Three way split on the million?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.
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?
If you suggest, e.g. 10 898 kg, you must support your answer with proper calculations to win the prize (€1M). I have a feeling you need >80 000 kg.
OK, let's work through that. This will be simple math as - once again - I'm not an engineer and my math skills aren't that deep. Despite your comments, Tsiolkovsky gives us all we need.
BTW, without a time frame thrust is pretty much irrelevant - since we're talking about Apollo, I'm going to assume aP22KAJ10-137 rocket engine with an exhaust velocity of 3079 m/s.
So. The Rocket Equation:
Delta-V = EV * ln(m0/m1)
Where m0 = Total mass before the burn
m1 = mass after the burn
ln = natural logarithm
EV = exhaust velocity
So, let's plug in the figures and solve for the difference between m1 and m0, which will be the fuel used to produce the desired change in velocity.
Delta-V = 2400 - 1500 = 900 m/s change in velocity.
900 m/s = 3079 m/s * ln(m0/32676) ; divide both sides by 3079 (units cancel out)
0.2923 = ln(m0/32676) ; take the inverse ln of each side
1.3395 = m0/32676 ; multiply both sides by 32676
43769.5 = m0 ; which gives us the mass before the burn...
43769.5 - 32676 = 11093.5 ; subtract the mass of the spacecraft and voila!
; we get the amount of mass expended.
And there's your answer, arrived at using the figures you provided and some ninth grade math.
Some of you professional number-crunchers want to check my work, please?
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.
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.
Yes, it has in several reports that I use as reference - see link in post #1. I evidently do not believe these reports and therefore we have this friendly discussion. Let's keep it that way.That you "evidently do not believe those reports" is your problem, not ours. You have to show good cause for not "believing" them. That does not include "I don't want to believe them simply because I'd have to concede that I'm wrong".
See, e.g. my post #786. Can you really show by engineering calculations that you can slow down a 43.5 ton space ship from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s speed in space by burning 10.8 ton fuel at 30 kg/s producing a 97 400 N force?Yes, as several people have already shown.
Yes, but the numbers are close enough to give a good approximation:43769.5 - 32676 = 11093.5 ; subtract the mass of the spacecraft and voila!Looks right to me for the specific numbers provided. Note that they're not the actual figures for the Apollo 11 mission.
; we get the amount of mass expended.
And there's your answer, arrived at using the figures you provided and some ninth grade math.
Some of you professional number-crunchers want to check my work, please?
Please wire me my share of the prize money.
Yes, it has in several reports that I use as reference - see link in post #1. I evidently do not believe these reports and therefore we have this friendly discussion. Let's keep it that way.
See, e.g. my post #786. Can you really show by engineering calculations that you can slow down a 43.5 ton space ship from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s speed in space by burning 10.8 ton fuel at 30 kg/s producing a 97 400 N force?
Or that a 5.6 ton module of thin plates/stiffeners arriving into Earth's atmosphere at 11 200 m/s speed is slowed down by friction turbulence to 100 m/s speed during 18 minutes without heating up the inside at all? A few centimeters away the air is glowing hot, the heat shield is at 1600°C and inside - 20°C!
I know. I used his figures deliberately so he couldn't call shenannigans.43769.5 - 32676 = 11093.5 ; subtract the mass of the spacecraft and voila!Looks right to me for the specific numbers provided. Note that they're not the actual figures for the Apollo 11 mission.
; we get the amount of mass expended.
And there's your answer, arrived at using the figures you provided and some ninth grade math.
Some of you professional number-crunchers want to check my work, please?
Please wire me my share of the prize money.Sure thing. I'll let you know when "the check's in the mail". ;)
When the engine was buring, keeping the ship stable was the job of the RCS system, those little rocket nozzles you were shown right near the beginning of this thread.And the gimbals on the SPS nozzle. During a burn they could control attitude in pitch and yaw (but not roll) but I believe they were actually used only to ensure that the SPS thrust vector acted through the center of mass of the entire spacecraft. That minimized the work that the RCS pitch and yaw jets had to do. (Jay can probably check me on this.)
The inertial guidance system had a continuous eye on the spacecraft attitide measured against the gyroscopically stabilised guidance platform contained the the spacecraft. If the spacecraft started to turn in one direction it would fire the relevant thrusters to comensate and keep the ship pointed the same way. That was a tried and tested technology by the time of Apollo. The astronauts didn't need to do anything except point their craft the right way and fire the engine. The computer did the rest, for the most part.Correct. The computer did start and stop the engine but the astronauts, being astronauts, watched over it like hawks. They had their finger on the manual stop button just in case the computer didn't stop at the right time. They may have pushed the button a few times but I don't think it was ever actually necessary.
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.Yes, as did alll the other manned Apollo missions, and a couple of unmanned ones, and many other spacecraft as well. That's what people have been trying to tell you, except that if you had been paying attention, you would also know that as a blunt lifting body, the Apollo CM is both actively steered and aerodynamically stable. Real engineers - not pretend ones like you - have known this all along.
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.I can only conclude that you are deliberately lying, as this has been shown to you already:
And the gimbals on the SPS nozzle.
The Wind from the Sun and Sunjammer are the same story, about racing solar-sail yachts, by Arthur C. Clarke.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.
I wonder if Heiwa thinks aircraft have to aim downwards to land, if gravity is only 'assisting' during the landing phase as it changes from level flight to a curve downwards to land...It would certainly make for some interesting landings in heiwa world.
What actually happens is that the re-entering body pushes a cushion/shockwave of air, which heats due to compression, turning into ionized gas/plasma. The majority of the energy of re-entry is spent heating atmospheric air. The purpose of the heat shield is to prevent this superheated envelope from destroying the spacecraft.
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.
That's a problem for heiwa. If re-entry cannot be accomplished then there are no nuclear weapons.
What actually happens is that the re-entering body pushes a cushion/shockwave of air, which heats due to compression, turning into ionized gas/plasma. The majority of the energy of re-entry is spent heating atmospheric air. The purpose of the heat shield is to prevent this superheated envelope from destroying the spacecraft.
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.
I believe so. Then it was tested by launching dummy warheads in the late 50's. Eisenhower conducted a speech from the Oval Office with a test article that had been successfully launched and returned sitting next to him.
Let me after about 785 posts remind you about topic, i.e. my Challenge about safety of space travel and associated fuel consumption...You did your calculation wrong; you don't understand how to do it right.
You have to demonstrate how to travel to the Moon and back to win the prize (€1M)...There is no prize; you do not have the money to offer. You are lying and your "prize" is fraudulent.
Pls do not suggest that I do not know anything about space travel, astrophysics,I do not suggest it; I state it as a fact. You can't even identify the SPS engine correctly; you had no idea how any of the vehicles might turn themselves; you were completely unaware of the existence of heat shielding on Apollo and the Shuttle (and by extension everything else); you thought the Shuttle reentered backwards; you are unable to formulate a simple energy balance; you do not grasp the concept of terminal velocity. That's just a short sampler or your ignorance and incompetence.
that I am broke,Straw man. No one has suggested you are broke. Please don't think we don't notice when you try to lay down such a smokescreen.
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.I haven't looked at anything to do with you and "safety at sea" because I don't care. However, you manifestly cannot carry out any work related to space flight; you don't know anything about it and you don't grasp even the most elementary principles.
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.
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?
If you suggest, e.g. 10 898 kg, you must support your answer with proper calculations to win the prize (€1M). I have a feeling you need >80 000 kg.
Say that your space ship has mass 12 153 kg excluding fuel and that you must speed up from 1 500 to 2 400 m/s velocity to get out of Moon orbit to carry out a so called trans-Earth injection. Your space ship still 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 acceleration maneuver?
If you suggest, e.g. 4 676 kg, you must support your answer with proper calculations to win the prize (€1M). I have a feeling you need > 20 000 kg.
In order to proceed with the discussion, I suggest you try to clarify above basic questions of fuel consumption.
That's a problem for heiwa. If re-entry cannot be accomplished then there are no nuclear weapons.
Let's not go down that OT road. If heiwa wants to discuss it let him start a new thread.That's a problem for heiwa. If re-entry cannot be accomplished then there are no nuclear weapons.
Not a problem for Heiwa at all, since he already does not believe there are nuclear weapons anyway, whether they need re-entry or not.
Yeah....
Let's not go down that OT road. If heiwa wants to discuss it let him start a new thread.That's a problem for heiwa. If re-entry cannot be accomplished then there are no nuclear weapons.
Not a problem for Heiwa at all, since he already does not believe there are nuclear weapons anyway, whether they need re-entry or not.
Yeah....
That said, no matter which way you follow the equations, you end up at about 10,800 Kilos feul used. Does heiwa have any further leg to stand on?
Putting a layman's hat on, The first one looks like it should be the way to go. After all, that's what we know spaceships really should look like.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.
Geez. This blunt body wind tunnel photograph is in every book about the history of space exploration:
(http://i.imgur.com/uPvHN.png)
The only way you could not have seen it is if you had never opened a book about space exploration.
That said, no matter which way you follow the equations, you end up at about 10,800 Kilos feul used. Does heiwa have any further leg to stand on?
@Heiwa: several here have qualified for the prize. I suggest that you split it up, giving Bob B. the largest share for his excellence and clarity of explanation in his last post.
That said, no matter which way you follow the equations, you end up at about 10,800 Kilos feul used. Does heiwa have any further leg to stand on?
Heiwa hasn't had any legs to stand on for some considerable time. he just refuses to acknowledge the fact. He seems to be rather like a cartoon character that will continue blithely walking on thin air simply because he hasn't realised he walked off a cliff some while back. I wouldn't like to be around when he looks down and realises where he actually is and what must inevitably happen...
BTW everyone - I joined up because of this thread. I work in building structures, and I don't like things moving. So seeing the maths play out has been quite enlightening.
BTW everyone - I joined up because of this thread. I work in building structures, and I don't like things moving. So seeing the maths play out has been quite enlightening.
PLEASE don't tell me you're planning to hire Heiwa/Anders as a consultant! ;)
Maybe in a Bloody Stupid Johnson fashion. If he says do it, don't. ;DBTW everyone - I joined up because of this thread. I work in building structures, and I don't like things moving. So seeing the maths play out has been quite enlightening.
PLEASE don't tell me you're planning to hire Heiwa/Anders as a consultant! ;)
lol I got that one in just in the nick of time. ;)By Jove, you did, a matter of mere seconds! :o
BTW everyone - I joined up because of this thread. I work in building structures, and I don't like things moving. So seeing the maths play out has been quite enlightening.
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.
Geez. This blunt body wind tunnel photograph is in every book about the history of space exploration:
(http://i.imgur.com/uPvHN.png)
The only way you could not have seen it is if you had never opened a book about space exploration.
PLEASE don't tell me you're planning to hire Heiwa/Anders as a consultant! ;)
To get into Moon orbit you must, apart from slowing down, change course from a straight one into an elliptical/circular one around the MoonStraight? Straight? You think the trip from the earth to the moon was straight? There is no "straight" in space travel, at least not inside anything as gravitationally lumpy as a solar system. Hey Bob, you still have that animation of a translunar flight you compiled from orbital data?
... 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! :)
But I have a question. Isn't the answer to "how much fuel would it take?" "it depends on what kind of fuel"?Indirectly, yes. The kind of fuel is incorporated into the effective exhaust velocity, Ve, which is equal to the specific impulse, Isp, times the acceleration of earth gravity. (The reason for this strange use of earth gravity even by a rocket operating in deep space has to do with pitfalls in the English system of units, don't get me started).
Isn't the answer to "how much fuel would it take?" "it depends on what kind of fuel"? And isn't the kind of fuel one of the things he's gotten wrong?
Hey Bob, you still have that animation of a translunar flight you compiled from orbital data?
Bob, this makes me wonder. Can you make a thrust-free (or nearly thrust-free) "cycler" orbit that would continually fly around the moon, then fly close to earth (without re-entering) and then back to the moon?
Saying that over and over doesn't make it true.... 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.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.
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.
Another question is evidently in what direction this force is applied during the speed change maneuver. And for how long.That's true.
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.The business of keeping a rocket stable had been worked out by the Germans with their V-2 rockets back during World War Two. It was hardly a mystery to either the Americans or the Soviets. I can think of at least three methods which can be used to keep a spacecraft pointed in a desired direction while its rocket engine is firing. Two of the three can also be used when its rocket engine isn't firing.
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.Ouch, the sarcasm.
Now tell me how much fuel you need to slow down! :)I refer you again to Noldi400's post #819.
I don't know; I've never considered the problem before. If the moon's orbit were circular, I'd say it might be possible.Mars' orbit is also highly elliptical. It's also somewhat out of the ecliptic.
2. Retro-rockets. On the Apollo Command and Service Module, those cross-shaped rocket engines on the Service Module (which others have already pointed out to you) could be used to change the direction the spacecraft was pointing.You mean reaction control systems (RCS). They could be used as retrorockets if the required delta-V was small enough, though when the CSM came back from earth orbit the retro burn was usually performed with the SPS.
3. Gyroscopes. These are used on the Hubble Space Telescope so it can change the direction it faces without needing to use rocket engines.There are two kinds: momentum wheels and control moment gyros. The first vary their speed to change the stored angular momentum, and the second operate at constant speed but are turned around by other motors to redirect that angular momentum vector relative to the spacecraft.
Sorry, yes, that's what I meant.2. Retro-rockets. On the Apollo Command and Service Module, those cross-shaped rocket engines on the Service Module (which others have already pointed out to you) could be used to change the direction the spacecraft was pointing.You mean reaction control systems (RCS). They could be used as retrorockets if the required delta-V was small enough, though when the CSM came back from earth orbit the retro burn was usually performed with the SPS.
Oops, okay, I didn't know about the CMGs, only the momentum wheels, which is what I understand Hubble has.Quote3. Gyroscopes. These are used on the Hubble Space Telescope so it can change the direction it faces without needing to use rocket engines.There are two kinds: momentum wheels and control moment gyros. The first vary their speed to change the stored angular momentum, and the second operate at constant speed but are turned around by other motors to redirect that angular momentum vector relative to the spacecraft.
Oops, okay, I didn't know about the CMGs, only the momentum wheels, which is what I understand Hubble has.Control moment gyros are generally used on large spacecraft because they're more energy-efficient than momentum wheels, but (and I'm not sure) Hubble uses momentum wheels because they provide finer pointing control at the expense of speed and energy efficiency.
Apollo 11 with three asstronuts aboard launched from Cape Kennedy on July 16, 13.32.00 G.m.t, 1969 fitted on top of a hugh, 100 + meter tall three stages rocket or fire works looking like something right. Three minutes later the launch escape three motors system on top the CM was jettisoned ... one way or another. Why it was fitted in the first place is not clear.*jaw drops* Why am I still surprised, after the RCS debacle... Heiwa, was it that hard to look up "launch abort system" on Wikipedia?
Just prior to powered descent the LM crew managed the following important manual check on intertial platform drift at 1 500 m/s speed:
"Just prior to powered descent, the angle between the line of sight to the sun and a selected axis of the inertial platform was compared with the onboard computer prediction of that angle and this provided a check on inertial platform drift."[1-4.10.2]
Imagine that - manually checking the computer calculations!
"Collecting the bulk sample required more time than anticipated because the modular equipment stowage assembly table was in deep shadow, and collecting samples in that ares was far less desirable than taking those in the sunlight. It was also desirable to take samples as far from the exhaust plume and propellant contamination as possible."[1-4.12.4]
or ... another version:
"Approximately 20 selected, but unphotographed, grab samples (about 6 kilograms ) were collected in the final minutes of the extravehicular activity. These specimens were collected out to a distance of 0 to 15 meters in the area south of the lunar module and near the east rim of the large double crater. ... During bulk sampling, rock fragments were collected primarily on the northeast rim of the large double crater southwest of the lunar module".[1-11.1.5]</p>
Strangely enough the asstronuts didn't measure the temperature of the samples. Maybe it was too hot?
No gravity experiments were carried out, e.g. to drop a piece of rock from the LM platform down to ground, distance 3.61 meters, and film it. The drop would take exactly 2 seconds (compared with 0.86 seconds on Earth). But why drop it? Throw it upwards instead. It will really go far!
Control moment gyros are generally used on large spacecraft because they're more energy-efficient than momentum wheels, but (and I'm not sure) Hubble uses momentum wheels because they provide finer pointing control at the expense of speed and energy efficiency.
I'm not sure there's a big difference in energy efficiency, but CMGs are more complex.No question, CMGs are more complex but they're also much more energy efficient. Creating torque with a momentum wheel requires applying (or taking) power to/from the wheel, while creating it with a CMG requires only forcing a constant-speed wheel to precess. That takes little power. The difference can be several orders of magnitude.
They checked the result of the computer's calculations against reality. They didn't have to re-do the calculations.The purpose wasn't to check the computer or its calculations. As it says, the purpose was to check for drift of the inertial reference platform. This was practically an obsession during every Apollo mission, particularly before major burns as platform drift would cause the computer to point the burn in an equally wrong direction.
I wonder will he (Heiwa) come back on here after he has had his a*se resoundably handed to him in quite such a manner.
No question, CMGs are more complex but they're also much more energy efficient. Creating torque with a momentum wheel requires applying (or taking) power to/from the wheel, while creating it with a CMG requires only forcing a constant-speed wheel to precess. That takes little power. The difference can be several orders of magnitude.
He doesn't know what the LES is?
I don't know; I've never considered the problem before. If the moon's orbit were circular, I'd say it might be possible.Mars' orbit is also highly elliptical. It's also somewhat out of the ecliptic.
The Aldrin cyclers have periods equal to integer multiples of the synodic period of Earth and Mars (about 2 years). He proposes two separate cyclers, one with a quick Earth-Mars transfer and another with a quick Mars-Earth transfer.
Three minutes later the launch escape three motors system on top the CM was jettisoned ... one way or another. Why it was fitted in the first place is not clear.
I never realized that the function of a launch escape system was so cryptic.Giving him the benefit of the doubt that he certainly doesn't deserve, perhaps he wonders why it's discarded after only 3 minutes when the launch continues for some time?
I never realized that the function of a launch escape system was so cryptic.Giving him the benefit of the doubt that he certainly doesn't deserve, perhaps he wonders why it's discarded after only 3 minutes when the launch continues for some time?
We know the reason, of course, is that the LES is needed only on the pad and during atmospheric flight when aerodynamic forces are extreme. Things can go to hell in a handbasket very, very quickly. So quickly that there may be no time for the commander to turn the celebrated abort handle. There's an automatic abort system called the Emergency Detection System (EDS).
Once they're out of the atmosphere, things become relatively laid back. Acceleration is much lower, and there's time to initiate an abort manually, if necessary, and it can be conducted with the existing propulsion systems in the CSM.
Indeed. What do we call an order of magnitude beyond not even wrong?
By the way, it occurred to me, based on his comments about stability during burns, that he may have the pencil-on-a-finger conception of rocket thrust - something that was proved wrong well before the German V2s, even.
Indeed. What do we call an order of magnitude beyond not even wrong?
By the way, it occurred to me, based on his comments about stability during burns, that he may have the pencil-on-a-finger conception of rocket thrust - something that was proved wrong well before the German V2s, even.
QuoteThree minutes later the launch escape three motors system on top the CM was jettisoned ... one way or another. Why it was fitted in the first place is not clear.
I never realized that the function of a launch escape system was so cryptic.
Björkman has changed his page again...Actually, one wonders why the words "launch escape motors [sic] system" didn't provide some sort of clue. Heiwa styles himself as this engineering genius, but not only are his research skills virtually nonexistent, he is unusually clue-resistant to even the most obvious information - as in when the words are actually staring him in the face.Quote from: HeiwaThree minutes later the launch escape three motors system on top the CM was jettisoned ... one way or another. Why it was fitted in the first place is not clear.*jaw drops* Why am I still surprised, after the RCS debacle... Heiwa, was it that hard to look up "launch abort system" on Wikipedia?
It is not easy.
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).
If you suggest, e.g. 10 898 kg, you must support your answer with proper calculations to win the prize (€1M).
I have a feeling you need >80 000 kg.
In order to proceed with the discussion, I suggest you try to clarify above basic questions of fuel consumption.
Pls do not suggest that I do not know anything about space travel...
that I am broke...
...because 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.
I wonder will he (Heiwa) come back on here after he has had his a*se resoundably handed to him in quite such a manner.
Yes indeed.Indeed. What do we call an order of magnitude beyond not even wrong?
By the way, it occurred to me, based on his comments about stability during burns, that he may have the pencil-on-a-finger conception of rocket thrust - something that was proved wrong well before the German V2s, even.
Are you referring to the pendulum rocket fallacy? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_rocket_fallacy)
I wonder will he (Heiwa) come back on here after he has had his a*se resoundably handed to him in quite such a manner.
"It's only a flesh wound."
Never underestimate the ability of someone who simply refuses to see reality.
Maybe this has been glaringly obvious to everyone else, but yaknow, it really just dawned on me...Not quite. He's misapplying kinetic energy (by redefining the boundaries of the system) and hence getting a nonsensical result. Specifically, he claims that the equation [jstex]\frac{1}{2}m_i v_i^2 - \frac{1}{2}m_f v_f^2 = e[/jstex]is true, where e is the enthalpy of combustion for the fuel and mi is the mass of the spacecraft before the burn including fuel, and mf is the mass of the spacecraft after the burn excluding expended fuel. Of course this won't conserve KE, and of course he gets nonsense results.
Heiwa's whole claim with regards to the LOI burn is that - with no experimental data, real world experience, or even a computer model to point to - he FEELS THAT you can't get that much change of velocity with that amount of fuel. That's just personal incredulity.
"It's only a flesh wound."
Never underestimate the ability of someone who simply refuses to see reality.
"It's only a flesh wound."
Never underestimate the ability of someone who simply refuses to see reality.
And not just on Apollo matters. "If you don't follow these rules, your posts won't go through" seems simple enough, but it seems his sheer arrogance makes him incapable of dealing with a world that doesn't bend to his whims. He didn't just flounce off again...he kept trying without altering the behaviors that led to his posts not even being allowed through. I sort of wonder if he's still trying to post despite being temporarily banned.
I sort of wonder if he's still trying to post despite being temporarily banned.
You, and I and most everyone else in this forum know his results are nonsense, and we know why - he didn't do the KE calculation correctly.Maybe this has been glaringly obvious to everyone else, but yaknow, it really just dawned on me...Not quite. He's misapplying kinetic energy (by redefining the boundaries of the system) and hence getting a nonsensical result. Specifically, he claims that the equation [jstex]\frac{1}{2}m_i v_i^2 - \frac{1}{2}m_f v_f^2 = e[/jstex]is true, where e is the enthalpy of combustion for the fuel and mi is the mass of the spacecraft before the burn including fuel, and mf is the mass of the spacecraft after the burn excluding expended fuel. Of course this won't conserve KE, and of course he gets nonsense results.
Heiwa's whole claim with regards to the LOI burn is that - with no experimental data, real world experience, or even a computer model to point to - he FEELS THAT you can't get that much change of velocity with that amount of fuel. That's just personal incredulity.
I would expect that about at least 8 times (!) more fuel/energy had to be used to slow down the heavy - 32.7 ton - space ship.My point is, from where did he get that expectation? Typically, when someone gets an answer to a calculation that seems wrong, they go back over their calculations to see where they made a mistake, or they check the answer by using a different calculation method, or they get someone else to check their figures.
All this makes me even more confident that he isn't a troll. I mean, that behaviour doesn't even really bother anyone. It's an obvious and complete failure to understand.I agree. He really believes in conspiracies and tries his best to convince himself and others it is something objective that can show them to be true.
Another thing which intrigued me was his rejection of the reality of the Space Shuttle. I mean, here was a program which consisted of 135 manned flights over a period of 30 years, including two which ended in fatal accidents. What conceivable reason would NASA have to fake 135 missions over a period of 30 years when they could simply say there's no way to return a spacecraft safely to the Earth?I remember seeing that for the first time decades ago and thinking "How cool is that?" (pun intended)
(And yes, if you include all preceding and concurrent non-Shuttle manned missions, the numbers get even larger and the logic even less tenable.)
I remember seeing many times footage of someone pulling a Shuttle thermal protection system tile out of an oven, and then picking it up with bare hands. It's not like they made any secret of their means of protecting the Shuttle during re-entry.
But the 'for de-orbit burn they were pointed backwards so how did it turn around before re-entry?' line was priceless.
Thanks LO. Watching that actually gave me a little shiver of fear for the people picking up the tiles. Also, seeing the glow on the large tile when the smaller one is picked up...amazing technology.
Not the one I was thinking of but the very same principle.
Watching that actually gave me a little shiver of fear for the people picking up the tiles.
...amazing technology.
The highest temperature I deal with is 220 degrees, cooking pizzas in the oven. Obviously no problems putting my hands in the air there, but I'm very careful to not touch anything.
But, according to Heiwa, no use for protecting the Shuttle.
And anyway, he couldn't work out how they stuck them on...
And we have some pressure-sensitive adhesives that will literally tear your skin if you accidentally put your finger on them.I've been looking for something like that for quite some time to solve a problem that would otherwise cost ~$500 for a professional to solve by replacing a long gasket. But the fumble finger factor is a concern.
It makes me think of the glass floor in the CN Tower... I know they say it's strong enough to support 4 elephants (or something like that), but I still have a mini heart attack when some kid jumps up and down on it beside me.
I realize that this work was being done years after Apollo, but how - to reference a claim you seem to hear a lot - can a person with enough intelligence to scratch when they itch think it would be that difficult to design boots that would stand up to a hot lunar surface?Not the one I was thinking of but the very same principle.
Love the shaky hand going to pick it up, LOL.
Bet I would be pretty cautious too. It flies in the face of intuition.
Obviously for liability purposes these products are used by or sold to the general public, but they exist in the inventory of materials we can bring to bear.
I realize that this work was being done years after Apollo, but how - to reference a claim you seem to hear a lot - can a person with enough intelligence to scratch when they itch think it would be that difficult to design boots that would stand up to a hot lunar surface?What the heck does he thinks firefighters wear? Open-toes sandals? My turnout boots would have no problem with such temperatures - and the Apollo crews left before the surface got that hot.
It makes me think of the glass floor in the CN Tower... I know they say it's strong enough to support 4 elephants (or something like that), but I still have a mini heart attack when some kid jumps up and down on it beside me.
"Fourteen large hippos". I'm not sure how they quantify "large" though!
http://www.cntower.ca/en-CA/Plan-Your-Visit/Attractions/Glass-Floor.html
I've always wondered what would have happened if the Shuttle had been operational in time to visit Skylab? Not much of a change, I know, but still a wonderment worthwhile asking.
Nor did mine, back when I used them. Although they weren't expected to stand up to hours of exposure. But it's almost as if HBs have this mindset that the engineers who spent literally years working on these problems either never thought of them, or didn't know how to solve them.I realize that this work was being done years after Apollo, but how - to reference a claim you seem to hear a lot - can a person with enough intelligence to scratch when they itch think it would be that difficult to design boots that would stand up to a hot lunar surface?What the heck does he thinks firefighters wear? Open-toes sandals? My turnout boots would have no problem with such temperatures - and the Apollo crews left before the surface got that hot.
It makes me think of the glass floor in the CN Tower... I know they say it's strong enough to support 4 elephants (or something like that), but I still have a mini heart attack when some kid jumps up and down on it beside me.
"Fourteen large hippos". I'm not sure how they quantify "large" though!
http://www.cntower.ca/en-CA/Plan-Your-Visit/Attractions/Glass-Floor.html
I'll pass. Canadians aren't known for making sturdy glass structures: snopes.com: Window Test Death (http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/window.asp)
From the description, I would say it wasn't the glass that gave way but whatever was used to bind it to the frame.
The allegations was the Canadians can't make glass structures. I would say binding glasses panes to supports falls under the remit of making glass structures so the criticism stands on that basis.
So, how 'bout that local sports team?
Interesting reading (http://www.astronautix.com/articles/skyyfate.htm) that discusses advantages & disadvantages (mostly compatibility issues).Interesting indeed! Thank you for sharing.
It makes me think of the glass floor in the CN Tower... I know they say it's strong enough to support 4 elephants (or something like that)...
While I was looking for that other video I also found another one from the late 1970s that shows people practicing the application of the tiles on an old DC-3.
I suspect Heiwa is going be unimpressed by our going off-topic when he gets back.
14 large hippos, which makes me wonder how they got the hippos up there in the elevator.
14 large hippos, which makes me wonder how they got the hippos up there in the elevator.
It's a big elevator :)
14 large hippos, which makes me wonder how they got the hippos up there in the elevator.
It's a big elevator :)
14 large hippos, which makes me wonder how they got the hippos up there in the elevator.
It's a big elevator :)
That's a good thing because I pity the guy who would've had to herd them up the steps.
If you think I am crazy I recommend that you emmigrate to Mars and make a fortune there. The space ship is ready (http://www.space.com/18596-mars-colony-spacex-elon-musk.html)! But can you really trust the space travel agent Elon Musk selling the tickets? Elon is performing SpaceX re-entries [link to the SpaceX section in the article] today. But is anybody really up there in the ISS being re-entered? The ISS is 99% NASA that created the Apollo 11 hoax paid for by US tax payers. I have a feeling the show is just going on. Prove me wrong! (http://www.members.tripod.com/heiwaco/chall.htm)
Total fuel used by the LM for descent and ascent was 10 237 kg according [1] (http://"http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11MIssionReport_1971015566.pdf"). How it was possible as the LM could only carry 8 777 kg fuel remains a mystery.
The LM was jettisoned into lunar orbit at 00:01:01 UT on 22 July and remained in lunar orbit, where it should still be today as there is no friction stopping it. According some sources there was still fuel aboard the LM, when it was dumped. Very confusing. And indication that it was a hoax.
I would expect that about at least 8 times (!) more fuel/energy had to be used to slow down the heavy - 32.7 ton - space ship. And to carry it + the extra fuel to the Moon you needed a three or four times bigger rocket to get off from Earth in the first place. Which USA didn't have 1969. So NASA decided to just make it up! I am certain.
It means in my opinion that you need 5-6 times more fuel than suggested by NASA to brake into Moon orbit (events # 5-6) and to get out of Moon orbit (events # 14-15) and and there is no place to carry it and makes the whole space ship weight mass much greater at departure, say around 100 000 kg, that requires more fuel, etc, etc. If the Apollo space ship including fuel must weigh say 100 000 kg at departure, the Saturn three stages rocket is much too small to eject it into space.
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:- (http://"http://www.members.tripod.com/heiwaco/chall.htm"). Only fools believe human space travel is possible at all ... and there are many such persons, incl. PhDs of all kind and rocket scientists all paid for by the military, etc, etc. But the hoax show must go on. The ISS and the Shuttle for example! Read on:
That reminds me of a great scene from the old Hill Street Blues series when Renko and his partner encountered a steer rustled from the stockyards that someone snuck into an inner-city walk-up apartment on the fourth floor: "You got a problem, officer! Cows got up genes! They ain't got no down genes!"
The title element of the page* has been changed from "Is space travel possible?" to "Space travel is not possible!". :D
The assertions that the "official version" is inconsistent about the LM's propellant load and its capacity have been quietly removed...
...but he's still doubling down on the "not enough fuel for the CSM" assertion:
He has also intensified the digs against his opponents.
That reminds me of a great scene from the old Hill Street Blues series when Renko and his partner encountered a steer rustled from the stockyards that someone snuck into an inner-city walk-up apartment on the fourth floor: "You got a problem, officer! Cows got up genes! They ain't got no down genes!"
Graham suggests I remind everyone of the scene in Terry Pratchett's Jingo with the donkey at the top of the minaret.
He beat me to it! :)
Think of Han Solo on the Family Guy being told what a parsec really is, and you'll get an approximation of the HB response to your suggestion.Link or it didn't happen, ROFL.
Think of Han Solo on the Family Guy being told what a parsec really is, and you'll get an approximation of the HB response to your suggestion.Link or it didn't happen, ROFL.
Think of Han Solo on the Family Guy being told what a parsec really is, and you'll get an approximation of the HB response to your suggestion.Link or it didn't happen, ROFL.
http://video.adultswim.com/family-guy/meet-han-solo.html
And to add, I'm just rolling out and vacuuming the red carpet for the hopeful return tomorrow of his emminence.
Think of Han Solo on the Family Guy being told what a parsec really is, and you'll get an approximation of the HB response to your suggestion.So Han did shoot first!
Above (fake) photo is of US Air Force captain Mark Kelly floating in space of the ISS (or in an airplane against a green screen!) just prior to return to Earth in the last Shuttle. It is very simple to return to Earth from the ISS! Jump into the Shuttle, speed away from the ISS and then step on the brakes all the way down. But easier to trick film it at Hollywood. Then remember to kiss your wife Gaby Giffords on her head on arrival; the head that was hit by a bullet earlier. How to play guitar in the ISS swimmingpool = ! (http://"[/url)
If someone is wondering where Heiwa went after being banned and where he's getting his arguments explaining away the ISS...
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=59&start=1065#p2379753
Given some of the things posted in that thread, I think he fits perfectly there.
So the ISS is a fake as well? ::) ::)or the images that have been taken during scheduled spacewalks where you can see the astronaut outside the ISS?
How the hell does he explain that bright thing that shoots across the sky then? And the thousands of amateur astronomers (myself included) that have seen it through our own telescopes? Or people like Thierry Legault (http://legault.perso.sfr.fr/satellites.html) who is an expert at imaging the ISS?
http://legault.perso.sfr.fr/iss_100424.html
Truly, some people are dumber than rocks.
or the images that have been taken during scheduled spacewalks where you can see the astronaut outside the ISS?Cool! Do you have any links to images like that?
http://atramateria.com/spacewalking-astronaut-seen-from-the-ground/or the images that have been taken during scheduled spacewalks where you can see the astronaut outside the ISS?Cool! Do you have any links to images like that?
If someone is wondering where Heiwa went after being banned and where he's getting his arguments explaining away the ISS...Oh, reading that made my head hurt.
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=59&start=1065#p2379753
Given some of the things posted in that thread, I think he fits perfectly there.
If someone is wondering where Heiwa went after being banned and where he's getting his arguments explaining away the ISS...Oh, reading that made my head hurt.
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=59&start=1065#p2379753
Given some of the things posted in that thread, I think he fits perfectly there.
Plus I noticed Heiwa has been a member there for a few years. Well, I hope he's happy there.
Reminds me of Jack White only not as competent.I didn't know that competence could go negative. Oh well, learn something every day!
Reminds me of Jack White only not as competent.I didn't know that competence could go negative. Oh well, learn something every day!
The way Apollo 11 was headed as it passed the Moon, the lunar gravity would have pulled it right round and sent it off on a heading back to Earth. This was the free return trajectory designed into the early missions as a safety factor. If the astronauts did nothing at this point they would still come home safely.
... the LES is needed only on the pad and during atmospheric flight when aerodynamic forces are extreme. Things can go to hell in a handbasket very, very quickly. So quickly that there may be no time for the commander to turn the celebrated abort handle. There's an automatic abort system called the Emergency Detection System (EDS).
Once they're out of the atmosphere, things become relatively laid back. Acceleration is much lower, and there's time to initiate an abort manually, if necessary, and it can be conducted with the existing propulsion systems in the CSM.
I note from Heiwa's website that he was born in 1946. I wonder what his thoughts were at the time the Apollo missions were happening.Yes, it is correct that I was born 1946 and thus 23 years old when the Apollo 11 hoax took place. I had just graduated from Chalmers University of Technology with an M.Sc degree in naval architecture and marine engineering. Great stuff. To me it was obvious then that the Apollo 11 space ship was 100% unspaceworthy. And now 43 years later I have put a web page together about it. Better late than never.
So the ISS is a fake as well? ::) ::)
How the hell does he explain that bright thing that shoots across the sky then? And the thousands of amateur astronomers (myself included) that have seen it through our own telescopes? Or people like Thierry Legault (http://legault.perso.sfr.fr/satellites.html) who is an expert at imaging the ISS?
http://legault.perso.sfr.fr/iss_100424.html
Truly, some people are dumber than rocks.
I'm sure he is. He appears to have his own cheering section that is just as clueless as he is. Reminds me of Jack White only not as competent.
If someone is wondering where Heiwa went after being banned and where he's getting his arguments explaining away the ISS...Oh, reading that made my head hurt.
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=59&start=1065#p2379753
Given some of the things posted in that thread, I think he fits perfectly there.
Plus I noticed Heiwa has been a member there for a few years. Well, I hope he's happy there.
I'm sure he is. He appears to have his own cheering section that is just as clueless as he is. Reminds me of Jack White only not as competent.
Less than an hour ago? Do you think he knows he can post again?I can't wait. ::)
Less than an hour ago? Do you think he knows he can post again?I can't wait. ::)
Who wants to bet his first post will be to tell us all off for going off topic and to 'remind' us what this thread is 'really' about?
Less than an hour ago? Do you think he knows he can post again?And again less than an hour ago (as of 1550 Eastern time, or
That would not surprise me in the slightest. :PI can't wait. ::)
Who wants to bet his first post will be to tell us all off for going off topic and to 'remind' us what this thread is 'really' about?
I've got a bet on with Jason that Heiwa will claim that there was "something wrong with the forum" for the past week because he doesn't understand that he was banned any more than he understood that he isn't the moderator.
The LOI burn was designed to reduce the spacecraft's speed relative to the Moon.The way Apollo 11 was headed as it passed the Moon, the lunar gravity would have pulled it right round and sent it off on a heading back to Earth. This was the free return trajectory designed into the early missions as a safety factor. If the astronauts did nothing at this point they would still come home safely.
Hm, according NASA the Apollo 11 fired its rocket engine to get into permanent Moon orbit at 1500 m/s and at suitable altitude. I assume you agree that purpose of firing the rocket engine was to slow down? Pls advise.
It seems ~10 tons of fuel was used for this maneuver. Do you agree? Pls advise.Yes, about that, according to the Apollo Flight Journal: http://history.nasa.gov/ap11fj/11day4-loi1.htm
According you, had Apollo 11 not fired its rocket, it would still go into Moon orbit and, after half an orbit, Apollo 11 would escape Moon orbit again and return to Earth - free return trajectory. Are you certain? Pls advise.It wouldn't enter and leave orbit. It would swing around the Moon, its trajectory bent by the Moon's gravity.
Has any meteor arriving close to Earth ever got into Earth orbit and then ... WHOOPS - escaped again out of orbit - a free return? Small meteors burn up, big meteors crash. Pls explain about free meteor return!Right, you've completely missed the point. Meteors passing close to the Earth very quickly don't enter orbit and then leave. They just whip by, their paths bent by the Earth's gravity. The amount of bending depends on how fast the meteor is going and how close it passes to the Earth. Exactly the same with Apollo 11 (and 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17) and the Moon.
In my opinion you could never escape from Moon gravity/orbit unless you applied a new force to your space ship, e.g. by using your rocket engine.That's correct - if you actually enter orbit in the first place. In the case of Apollo, that was the Trans-Earth Injection burn. But if you don't slow down in the first place, you don't enter lunar orbit.
Moon gravity may change your course, pull you into orbit or pull you so you crash. Probability for a 180° course change is 0.Can you show us your calculations for that.
In order to win my Challenge - see post #1 - I feel you have to understand these basic questions.In order to win your Challenge we need to know the money exists. Please provide proof.
Why? Do you know what the word 'abort' means? Just to confirm, it means 'end the mission early', because something has gone wrong. In the case of an abort during launch there's no need for the CM to dock with the LM.... the LES is needed only on the pad and during atmospheric flight when aerodynamic forces are extreme. Things can go to hell in a handbasket very, very quickly. So quickly that there may be no time for the commander to turn the celebrated abort handle. There's an automatic abort system called the Emergency Detection System (EDS).Well, before you can even use the SM rocket engine you have to do the famous 180° flip and connect the CM to the LM.
Once they're out of the atmosphere, things become relatively laid back. Acceleration is much lower, and there's time to initiate an abort manually, if necessary, and it can be conducted with the existing propulsion systems in the CSM.
But first you have to get away the LES on top of the CM.Dear Lord, you have no clue, do you.
How are you getting along with topic? My €1M Challenge! See link #1.How are you getting along with the proof of the existence of your one million euros?
I'm sure it was great stuff. I know virtually nothing about naval architecture or marine engineering, so I'll happily bow to your knowledge in that field.I note from Heiwa's website that he was born in 1946. I wonder what his thoughts were at the time the Apollo missions were happening.Yes, it is correct that I was born 1946 and thus 23 years old when the Apollo 11 hoax took place. I had just graduated from Chalmers University of Technology with an M.Sc degree in naval architecture and marine engineering. Great stuff.
To me it was obvious then that the Apollo 11 space ship was 100% unspaceworthy.Why? On the basis of your naval architecture and marine engineering? Did your course include any units involving Kepler's or Newton's maths regarding orbits?
And now 43 years later I have put a web page together about it. Better late than never.I'm 45. So I was two at the time of Apollo 11. I remember nothing of Apollo or Skylab. The first space mission I have a vague memory of was Apollo-Soyuz.
How old are you?
Here's a link to a page with orbital data for the ISS. Use it to point a telescope. If you can't do that, then talk to your local astronomical society. I'm sure they'll be happy to help: http://www.heavens-above.com/orbit.aspx?satid=25544&lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=UCTSo the ISS is a fake as well? ::) ::)
How the hell does he explain that bright thing that shoots across the sky then? And the thousands of amateur astronomers (myself included) that have seen it through our own telescopes? Or people like Thierry Legault (http://legault.perso.sfr.fr/satellites.html) who is an expert at imaging the ISS?
http://legault.perso.sfr.fr/iss_100424.html
Truly, some people are dumber than rocks.
Yes, the ISS is fake. NASA informs me regularly when the ISS passes above my roof terrace at dusk 5-7 pm (sun below west horizon) in 3-4 minutes and, I agree, something, a light dot, is passing at the given times. I have seen it many times. But the 100 m across ISS is a 400 000 m altitude and cannot be seen by naked eye. I have tried with binocular w/o success. Telescope? Doubt it. Object moves too quickly.
Photos of it being the ISS published are fake. We have wondered what it can be. Some unmanned superdrone at 50 000 m altitude?Why? Why would every nation and company which has retrieved spacecraft from space be in on this conspiracy of silence? Why wouldn't the Americans and Soviets have said back in the 1950s that it was impossible to retrieve objects from space? Why the need to maintain the conspiracy all these years?
The ISS is fake because you cannot get down from it alive.Despite the number of times people have explained to you that the heat of re-entry is not dumped into the spacecraft?
Try to win my Challenge - see post #1.Try to prove to us you have a million euros to give away.
I agree some people are pretty dumb. I have worked in the heavy industry for 45 years and for that you have to be clever. What about you?And perhaps you are quite clever in marine matters. But you certainly aren't showing that with space matters.
Maybe I saw this thing being tested in the sky - http://news.cnet.com/8301-10797_3-57563829-235/space-station-to-test-$17-million-inflatable-room/Why that and not the ISS?
So the ISS is a fake as well? ::) ::)
How the hell does he explain that bright thing that shoots across the sky then? And the thousands of amateur astronomers (myself included) that have seen it through our own telescopes? Or people like Thierry Legault (http://legault.perso.sfr.fr/satellites.html) who is an expert at imaging the ISS?
http://legault.perso.sfr.fr/iss_100424.html
Truly, some people are dumber than rocks.
Yes, the ISS is fake. NASA informs me regularly when the ISS passes above my roof terrace at dusk 5-7 pm (sun below west horizon) in 3-4 minutes and, I agree, something, a light dot, is passing at the given times. I have seen it many times. But the 100 m across ISS is a 400 000 m altitude and cannot be seen by naked eye. I have tried with binocular w/o success. Telescope? Doubt it. Object moves too quickly. Photos of it being the ISS published are fake. We have wondered what it can be. Some unmanned superdrone at 50 000 m altitude?
The ISS is fake because you cannot get down from it alive. Try to win my Challenge - see post #1.
I agree some people are pretty dumb. I have worked in the heavy industry for 45 years and for that you have to be clever. What about you?
Maybe I saw this thing being tested in the sky - http://news.cnet.com/8301-10797_3-57563829-235/space-station-to-test-$17-million-inflatable-room/
Hm, according NASA the Apollo 11 fired its rocket engine to get into permanent Moon orbit at 1500 m/s and at suitable altitude.
I assume you agree that purpose of firing the rocket engine was to slow down? Pls advise.
It seems ~10 tons of fuel was used for this maneuver. Do you agree? Pls advise.
According you, had Apollo 11 not fired its rocket, it would still go into Moon orbit
and, after half an orbit, Apollo 11 would escape Moon orbit again and return to Earth - free return trajectory.
In my opinion you could never escape from Moon gravity/orbit unless you applied a new force to your space ship, e.g. by using your rocket engine.
Moon gravity may change your course, pull you into orbit or pull you so you crash. Probability for a 180° course change is 0.
In order to win my Challenge - see post #1 - I feel you have to understand these basic questions.
But the 100 m across ISS is a 400 000 m altitude and cannot be seen by naked eye.
BobQuote...Moon gravity may change your course, pull you into orbit or pull you so you crash. Probability for a 180° course change is 0.
The spacecraft is traveling faster than lunar escape velocity, but not Earth escape velocity, that is, it is in Earth orbit. The Moon simply provides a perturbing force that deflects the spacecraft’s trajectory. After the spacecraft swings by the Moon, Earth gravity again becomes the dominant force and the spacecraft is once again moving in a geocentric elliptical orbit. The Moon deflects the trajectory enough that the geocentric flight path angle is changed from positive to negative, so the spacecraft is on an inbound trajectory after its lunar encounter.
Earlier I posted the following graphic of a free retrun trajectory (click on image to enlarge):
(http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/pics/freereturn.gif) (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/pics/freereturn.gif)
Note that the above is the trajectory as viewed from a stationary Earth perspective...
But the 100 m across ISS is a 400 000 m altitude and cannot be seen by naked eye.
Nonsense. Satellites much smaller than the ISS are easily seen any clear dark evening. I've seen a hundred on them.
Bob
Would it be possible to extend the graphic at the bottom, please. I'm interested to see where the Moon is at TLI, to see the difference between where the Moon is and the direction the spacecraft is headed. Like a cricket fielder or baseball outfielder running across the field to catch a ball travelling at 90 degrees to their path, the spacecraft heads to where the Moon will be, not where it is.
But to give Anders some slack, I think he's talking about resolving an image.
Strangely, though, this would-be engineer doesn't bother to attempt to calculate the angular size of the ISS on a best-case visible pass...
Telescope? Doubt it. Object moves too quickly. Photos of it being the ISS published are fake.Did you even notice the mention of Thierry Legault's videos of the ISS as cited in the text you quoted? If so, did you bother to look at them, or to understand how he did it?
Has any meteor arriving close to Earth ever got into Earth orbit and then ... WHOOPS - escaped again out of orbit - a free return?First of all, a "meteor" is the fiery object in the act of plunging through the earth's atmosphere. Before it hits the atmosphere it's called a "meteoroid", and if it survives to hit the ground it becomes a "meteorite".
I'm sure that trying to comprehend Voyager 2's "Grand Tour" would give him a migraine.I'm sure that trying to comprehend anything would give him a migraine. But that seems too unlikely a prospect to worry about.
But the 100 m across ISS is a 400 000 m altitude and cannot be seen by naked eye. I have tried with binocular w/o success.
Telescope? Doubt it. Object moves too quickly. Photos of it being the ISS published are fake.
The ISS is fake because you cannot get down from it alive. Try to win my Challenge - see post #1.
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
I agree some people are pretty dumb. I have worked in the heavy industry for 45 years and for that you have to be clever. What about you?You have been asked multiple time to show some credentials or testimonies to back these claims up. As yet, you have not. Personally, I take these claims with as much seriousness as I take your other outlandish claims.
Try to win my Challenge - see post #1.Again, you have been asked many times to show that you have the money available and the criteria for measuring and claiming. As yet (what a shock) you have provided none of this. As such, your "Challenge" appears as groundless as all your other claims.
Maybe I saw this thing being tested in the sky - http://news.cnet.com/8301-10797_3-57563829-235/space-station-to-test-$17-million-inflatable-room/
I assume you agree that purpose of firing the rocket engine was to slow down? Pls advise.
It seems ~10 tons of fuel was used for this maneuver. Do you agree? Pls advise.
According you, had Apollo 11 not fired its rocket, it would still go into Moon orbit and, after half an orbit, Apollo 11 would escape Moon orbit again and return to Earth - free return trajectory. Are you certain? Pls advise.
Has any meteor arriving close to Earth ever got into Earth orbit and then ... WHOOPS - escaped again out of orbit - a free return?
Small meteors burn up, big meteors crash. Pls explain about free meteor return!
In my opinion
you could never escape from Moon gravity/orbit unless you applied a new force to your space ship, e.g. by using your rocket engine.
Moon gravity may change your course, pull you into orbit or pull you so you crash. Probability for a 180° course change is 0.
In order to win my Challenge - see post #1 - I feel you have to understand these basic questions.
Well, before you can even use the SM rocket engine you have to do the famous 180° flip and connect the CM to the LM.
But first you have to get away the LES on top of the CM.
Yes, it is correct that I was born 1946 and thus 23 years old when the Apollo 11 hoax took place. I had just graduated from Chalmers University of Technology with an M.Sc degree in naval architecture and marine engineering. Great stuff. To me it was obvious then that the Apollo 11 space ship was 100% unspaceworthy.
Yes, the ISS is fake. NASA informs me regularly when the ISS passes above my roof terrace at dusk 5-7 pm (sun below west horizon) in 3-4 minutes and, I agree, something, a light dot, is passing at the given times. I have seen it many times. But the 100 m across ISS is a 400 000 m altitude and cannot be seen by naked eye.
Photos of it being the ISS published are fake.
The ISS is fake because you cannot get down from it alive.
I have worked in the heavy industry for 45 years and for that you have to be clever.
Small meteors burn up, big meteors crash.
Interesting that Heiwa accepts that large meteors can get through the atmosphere, since if you consistently apply his reasoning, this is just as impossible...doubling the mass of the meteor doubles the kinetic energy, so there's always enough energy involved to destroy the meteor, no matter how big.
Moon gravity may change your course, pull you into orbit or pull you so you crash.You are contradicting yourself. Earlier, you said
Every change in speed or direction during Moon travel requires energy...So you contradicted your initial statement. But it gets better.
... it is evidently possible to shoot up satellites of all kind from Earth in all directions, e.g. orbiting Earth.Of course, in between "crash" and "miss all together" is "orbit" - in fact, an infinite variety of orbits. This is a necessary result of your claim, because a complete "miss" means the vehicle has greater than escape speed for the target body and passes by it, never to return - and a "crash" means that the vehicle has less than escape speed, and is therefore gravitationally bound to it. Since you accept that satellites can orbit the Earth, you implicitly admit the existence of such a set of solutions - you can't avoid it.
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...
Yes, the ISS is fake. NASA informs me regularly when the ISS passes above my roof terrace at dusk 5-7 pm (sun below west horizon) in 3-4 minutes and, I agree, something, a light dot, is passing at the given times. I have seen it many times. But the 100 m across ISS is a 400 000 m altitude and cannot be seen by naked eye. I have tried with binocular w/o success. Telescope? Doubt it. Object moves too quickly.
Photos of it being the ISS published are fake.
We have wondered what it can be. Some unmanned superdrone at 50 000 m altitude?
The ISS is fake because you cannot get down from it alive.
Try to win my Challenge - see post #1.
I agree some people are pretty dumb. I have worked in the heavy industry for 45 years and for that you have to be clever.
What about you?
Maybe I saw this thing being tested in the sky - http://news.cnet.com/8301-10797_3-57563829-235/space-station-to-test-$17-million-inflatable-room/
Please don't post personal information (like home addresses) about another person in the forum. I know it's on Heiwa's website, but it's not the kind of thing that should be shared here. - LunarOrbit
Note that the above is the trajectory as viewed from a stationary Earth perspective. If we view it from a stationary Moon perspective we can see that the trajectory is NOT deflected 180 degrees by the Moon. Below is a lunar-centric view of a free return trajectory (click on image to enlarge). The blue disk at the top is Earth’s position a TEI and the blue disk at the bottom is Earth’s position at entry interface. The Moon is the gray disk at the origin of the axes. The trajectory in the vicinity of the Moon is hyperbolic.
So of course it doesn't move "too quickly" for amateur telescopes.
I actually work in the field in which you are blundering about making silly mistakes, and have been for over twenty years, and will be for a long time to come. I actually work on the things you claim are impossible, or of the existence of which you are entirely ignorant.
Your claims about aerospace are at least that ridiculous.
Thank you for this diagram - I had always wondered about that apparent 180o turn. My math is weak but I didn't see how that was a possible para- or hyperbolic trajectory.
So of course it doesn't move "too quickly" for amateur telescopes.
Sheesh I have a catalogue here in my office for a tracking sextant from Photosonics that will slew an 800-lb. telescope at 60 degrees per second. That's enough to cause serious injury to you if you're in its way.
Telescope? Doubt it. Object moves too quickly. Photos of it being the ISS published are fake.
If you care to follow his detailed video then you too could try this for yourself (I bet YOU €1M that you will not try this). Or are you trying to tell me that he is lying? Your assumption that it can't be done is pretty amazing as it means that you are saying that my experience is incorrect. That is a pretty staggering claim to make.....
According you, had Apollo 11 not fired its rocket, it would still go into Moon orbit and, after half an orbit, Apollo 11 would escape Moon orbit again and return to Earth - free return trajectory. Are you certain? Pls advise.
Has any meteor arriving close to Earth ever got into Earth orbit and then ... WHOOPS - escaped again out of orbit - a free return? Small meteors burn up, big meteors crash. Pls explain about free meteor return!
In my opinion you could never escape from Moon gravity/orbit unless you applied a new force to your space ship, e.g. by using your rocket engine. Moon gravity may change your course, pull you into orbit or pull you so you crash. Probability for a 180° course change is 0.
In order to win my Challenge - see post #1 - I feel you have to understand these basic questions.
Thank you for this diagram - I had always wondered about that apparent 180o turn. My math is weak but I didn't see how that was a possible para- or hyperbolic trajectory.
I had the same trouble. I didn't doubt it was possible, but was having trouble visualizing exactly what was happening during the lunar encounter. To help me understand, I created a three-body simulation and worked with it until I got a free-return trajectory. It is from this simulation that I was able to produce the diagrams that I've posted in this thread. After seeing the animation and the lunar-centric view, it became apparent what was really happening. From the Moon's perspective, the encounter looks much different than the figure-8 trajectory generally depicted in diagrams. If you think of the Moon as moving toward the 12:00 position on a clock, the spacecraft approaches from about the 11:00 position, swings around the 3:00 position, and then departs in the 7:00 direction.
Please accept my apologies. I did think before posting it and decided to go ahead. I had assumed that the fact that Heiwa had posted the information on his own web-page that it was an acceptable risk as it was clearly in the public domain.
I clearly got that bit wrong, and I apologise to Lunar Orbit and to Heiwa.
.
Do you ever think before you post? At all?
The evidence Heiwa needs to see how the Apollo trajectories work are all in those photographs. No equations necessary, just joined up thinking.
Diagrams are not the only way of seeing the route to the moon.
One of the interesting things that came up when I was looking at my satellite image comparisons was in using Stellarium to look at where the terminator line should be at the time an Apollo photograph was taken, or to use that Stellarium view of Earth from the moon to work out a time for a photograph.
The further away the Apollo missions were from the moon, the least like the Stellarium view of Earth the photographs are in terms of the shape of the lit portion of the surface, and this gradually changes over translunar coast until there is an exact match.
The explanation is, of course, simple. In the early part of the mission, they are not on the moon, they are pointing towards where the moon will eventually be when they get there, and quite obviously this gives a different view of the Earth in space. The fact that this view of Earth changes gradually to become the same as the Stellarium depiction is yet another clue to the fact that are in space following a trajectory that will put them on a lunar intercept.
You can see the same effect in reverse with pictures of Earth on the way home, and also by comparing the view of the moon from Earth with photographs of the receding moon taken during trans-earth coast. These views start by showing areas not visible from Earth (after the far side TEI burn) and with a lunar phase obviously different to the terrestrial view. The closer they get to Earth, the more like the view from Earth the lunar photographs are.
The evidence Heiwa needs to see how the Apollo trajectories work are all in those photographs. No equations necessary, just joined up thinking.
[offtopic] Speaking of Stellarium, if you need insight in its workings, I can be of some help - I am one of the current developers, though I haven't been active recently for a number of reasons. [/offtopic]
Who is in?
He's decided to try CosmoQuest now. (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/140583-Can-someone-help-me-with-a-bit-of-rocket-science?p=2099517#post2099517) Trying to be sneaky about his intentions by not mentioning Apollo. How long do you suppose that'll last?
Until heiwa returns again, I thought I'd offer some counselling sessions for those of us here who are devestated by the fact that we didn't win the 1 million euros. I think our best method would be groups therapy whereby our fears and dissapointment are laid out and we develop coping mechanisms to help deal with our collective feelings of loss.
Who is in?
If you care to follow his detailed video then you too could try this for yourself (I bet YOU €1M that you will not try this)
I'm Dwight and I'm a recovering didn't-win-heiwa's-million-euros-holic. I've been devestated about that for a few weeks now, but thanks to watching the restored Apollo 11 video continually for 3 weeks straight I deal with my sadness one day at a time.
How much do you want to bet his next post there will involve him telling people they're off topic? ;)
He's decided to try CosmoQuest now. (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/140583-Can-someone-help-me-with-a-bit-of-rocket-science?p=2099517#post2099517) Trying to be sneaky about his intentions by not mentioning Apollo. How long do you suppose that'll last?
How much do you want to bet his next post there will involve him telling people they're off topic? ;)
Anyone fancy a million Euros?
(This will only make sense to anyone who has seen The Fast Show, but trust me it's funny. :) )
After ten days of inactivity, Björkman has made some changes to his page. I won't bother presenting them, though. I think I'll wait until the changes accumulate. Does anyone care?
Anyone fancy a million Euros?
(This will only make sense to anyone who has seen The Fast Show, but trust me it's funny. :) )
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Isn't it kind of dangerous keeping the Internet in Europe? That's where Heiwa lives... what if he gets too close?
and it's still funny when it does
Anyone fancy a million Euros?
(This will only make sense to anyone who has seen The Fast Show, but trust me it's funny. :) )
One minute long and just hilarious.
Which is surprising as everyone knows Canadian electrons are very funny.
and it's still funny when it does
???? Perhaps it isn't as funny over the American Interntet.
Sorry, the equation does not consider rocket fuel consumption,
This is better than a soap opera.Talk about damned by faint praise.
My favorite shows are both from BBC, Doctor who and Top Gear. Talk about shambles, have you ever seen the American Top Gear.
There is just something in a lot of British physical humor that doesn't work for me. I've always preferred the Argument Clinic to the Ministry of Silly Walks.
Over either of those I'd prefer to win a million euro from a challenge on the Internet. Steven Hawking just won $3.0 million for discovering black hole radiation, (http://www.fundamentalphysicsprize.org/news/news3) or something like that. Why can't we get a few bills for debunking Heiwa?
My favorite shows are both from BBC, Doctor who and Top Gear. Talk about shambles, have you ever seen the American Top Gear.You should watch The Goodies. British made, from the 1970s, but it was played repeatedly on Australian TV in the 1980s (much more than in the UK). Lots of physical humour and funny one-liners, but many of the shows actually covered serious topics of the time ("Apart Height" for one).
There is just something in a lot of British physical humor that doesn't work for me. I've always preferred the Argument Clinic to the Ministry of Silly Walks.
My favorite shows are both from BBC, Doctor who and Top Gear. Talk about shambles, have you ever seen the American Top Gear.
There is just something in a lot of British physical humor that doesn't work for me. I've always preferred the Argument Clinic to the Ministry of Silly Walks.
Over either of those I'd prefer to win a million euro from a challenge on the Internet. Steven Hawking just won $3.0 million for discovering black hole radiation, (http://www.fundamentalphysicsprize.org/news/news3) or something like that. Why can't we get a few bills for debunking Heiwa?
Telescope? Doubt it. Object moves too quickly. Photos of it being the ISS published are fake.
And now you've given me the terrifying image of an American version of Doctor Who.
My favorite shows are both from BBC, Doctor who and Top Gear. Talk about shambles, have you ever seen the American Top Gear.
There is just something in a lot of British physical humor that doesn't work for me. I've always preferred the Argument Clinic to the Ministry of Silly Walks.
Over either of those I'd prefer to win a million euro from a challenge on the Internet. Steven Hawking just won $3.0 million for discovering black hole radiation, (http://www.fundamentalphysicsprize.org/news/news3) or something like that. Why can't we get a few bills for debunking Heiwa?
And now you've given me the terrifying image of an American version of Doctor Who.
The Movie was bad enough (well, actually, wasn't so bad, and Paul McGann made an even better Doctor in his later work with Big Finish. But a series? I shudder.)
I basically redid Bob's calculations from a couple of posts earlier. Thought it would be better to effectively spam the threads with the calculations he says don't exist.
And now you've given me the terrifying image of an American version of Doctor Who.
Björkman has changed his page yet again, and the accumulated changes this time are more substantial. I am too tired to provide a diff, though. For now I'll just say that he has discovered blockquote tags and the LRV (which must have been heated to 150°C, too. :D). I think this makes the first mention of the "other" missions on the page, but I may be wrong.Wait a second, doesn't this mean that we are in essence, in control of his web pages?
Wait a second, doesn't this mean that we are in essence, in control of his web pages?
Only a sick mind would feed him faulty information just to see him post it to his website, and make a bigger fool of him than he is now...Yeah, I am feeling a little sick. What shall I do?
Oh, wait..."I" just thought of that. :D
1084 posts so far and nobody has claimed my €1 M - see post #1.
Of course it is very difficult but maybe somebody has learnt something? Bye, bye!
1084 posts so far and nobody has claimed my €1 M - see post #1.
Of course it is very difficult
but maybe somebody has learnt something?
How long do you suppose that'll last?
1084 posts so far and nobody has claimed my €1 M - see post #1.You are lying; you do not have a million Euros to offer. Your claim is therefore not only null and void, but also fraudulent.
Of course it is very difficultNo. It's trivially easy to point out the numerous errors in your claims. Since you said on your web site:
but maybe somebody has learnt something?I've learned that you have no idea what you are talking about. I've also learned that in addition to being utterly incompetent in anything related to space flight, you're also transparently dishonest.
Bye, bye!This is now the third time you've flounced off. You can't even tell the truth about leaving a forum.
The cluesforum is as depressing as.......practically anything else I have read. This is my first time on the forum and I couldn't get past a few pages without wanting to wash my eyeballs in lye. It would be less painful than continuing to read. Clueless forum would be a better name. Heiwa can have his fun over there with his analytically challenged allies. But I suspect they will get tired of his persistent begging to be the center of attention as well.
1084 posts so far and nobody has claimed my €1 M - see post #1.
Of course it is very difficult but maybe somebody has learnt something? Bye, bye!
Now DakDak, he could do a flounce!
Now DakDak, he could do a flounce!
I still occasionally think about that flounce and smile.
In Oliver Sachs' brilliant book The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat
Dealing with him is like a real-life Pythonesque Argument Sketch.
I haven't read it, but Stephen Pinker describes it in How the Mind Works. Though it is rather sad, it is also rather fascinating due to the insights it gives in, well, how the mind works, or at least the brain.In Oliver Sachs' brilliant book The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat
I keep being told to read that, I'll stick it on my wishlist.
I keep being told to read that, I'll stick it on my wishlist.
Dealing with him is like a real-life Pythonesque Argument Sketch.
No it isn't ;D
Dealing with him is like a real-life Pythonesque Argument Sketch.
No it isn't ;D
Sorry, is this the 5-minute argument, or the full half-hour?
Björkman has updated his page again. Choice quote from the new material: "It is not easy to pilot a space ship as training in Earth is ... not available."Really? Hahahahaha! That's hilarious. Five different training methods used for Apollo piloting come immediately to mind, and there are quite a few more I'm forgetting about at the moment.
Björkman has updated his page again. Choice quote from the new material: "It is not easy to pilot a space ship as training in Earth is ... not available." :D There's another howler, but I'll provide a fuller coverage once I get back to an OS with a reasonable diff utility.Because he has so much personal experience! [/sarcasmoff]
Once again, Heiwa has no idea whatsoever what he's talking about.
(ermagherd!)
I - like totally - read that with a Moon Unit voice (Luna unità voce?)
And because the lunar environment was alien - but comprehensibly so...
...navigation training in planetariums (I refuse to say "planetaria"), etc., etc.
You know, I've been accused of being a bad film critic because it's so hard for me to turn my brain off. (My review of the most recent King Kong had a diatribe on predator/prey ratios.) However, I think this means I can never be anything but a niche reviewer; I think there are plenty of people who appreciate that kind of thinking. "This thing in the movie is wrong, and you probably won't be able to stop thinking about it" is actually valuable information I've been given from friends as to why I shouldn't see a movie that they really liked.
I get the same way about zombie movies, and often horror movies in general, where the whole premise tends to be based on people acting as stupid as possible.You know, I've been accused of being a bad film critic because it's so hard for me to turn my brain off. (My review of the most recent King Kong had a diatribe on predator/prey ratios.) However, I think this means I can never be anything but a niche reviewer; I think there are plenty of people who appreciate that kind of thinking. "This thing in the movie is wrong, and you probably won't be able to stop thinking about it" is actually valuable information I've been given from friends as to why I shouldn't see a movie that they really liked.
You sound like me watching Scandal. I should never have read all those Harlan Ellison's Watching columns.
You know, I've been accused of being a bad film critic because it's so hard for me to turn my brain off. (My review of the most recent King Kong had a diatribe on predator/prey ratios.) However, I think this means I can never be anything but a niche reviewer; I think there are plenty of people who appreciate that kind of thinking. "This thing in the movie is wrong, and you probably won't be able to stop thinking about it" is actually valuable information I've been given from friends as to why I shouldn't see a movie that they really liked.
You know, I've been accused of being a bad film critic because it's so hard for me to turn my brain off. (My review of the most recent King Kong had a diatribe on predator/prey ratios.) However, I think this means I can never be anything but a niche reviewer; I think there are plenty of people who appreciate that kind of thinking. "This thing in the movie is wrong, and you probably won't be able to stop thinking about it" is actually valuable information I've been given from friends as to why I shouldn't see a movie that they really liked.Mrs Echnaton makes these kind of distinctions in the middle of movies and I move a few seats away so I can enjoy the film. She and I have different ideas of artistic judgement of movies separate from other media or even other movies.
My review of the most recent King Kong had a diatribe on predator/prey ratios.
Have to say again how much I love Jay's essays, and I would totally pony up for a book full of them.
And I'd love to hear some details on the Dreamliner but I imagine he's NDA'd out the APU about that.
It is akin to the artist's eye. As a lighting and sound designer for live theater, I spend a lot of my out-of-the-theater time going, "What was that? What made it sound like that?"
OT, but I have a feeling I would LOVE your critiques. Is there a link you can share?
...I've been aware of that whole "not turning off" aspect of being an engineer. I hung out around a lot of science geeks when I was younger, and they were constantly running napkin-sketches of random questions that occurred to them as they were walking around. Of course, they were as likely to calculate the Endor Holocaust as to estimate the Ke of a passing fire engine.I'm noticing the same thing as a parent. Our second son, who's two-and-a-half, is constantly asking "Wot dat?" about all sorts of things, whether a roll of wrapping paper or a bird flying past the window. It's also nice to be able to talk to our older son, who's five (and starting Big School in a week), about things in the world around us. This includes, I'm happy to say, accepting that the Moon is sometimes visible in the sky during the day. (It also includes, which makes us a bit nervous, anatomically correct bodily processes and names; thus he accurately describes the process by which his little sister was born, which is bound to make a few adults blanch.)
It is akin to the artist's eye. As a lighting and sound designer for live theater, I spend a lot of my out-of-the-theater time going, "What was that? What made it sound like that?" Of course, as an artist, in parallel with looking to see how the sound reflected off a nearby surface, estimating the effects of the wall covering and the size of the standing wave etc., etc., I am also asking, "What did the sound remind me of? What was its effect on me emotionally?"...
And indeed I don't know what's wrong with the batteries and electrical system.The NTSB gave a set of talks to the media yesterday, and put a bunch more photos and presentations up on their web site.
Our second son, who's two-and-a-half, is constantly asking "Wot dat?" about all sorts of things, whether a roll of wrapping paper or a bird flying past the window.He will probably become an engineer or scientist some day. My dad can regale you with stories of how I never stopped asking questions about everything as a kid. I was so young at the time that I don't even remember most of his examples. He also relates how angry he got at an uncle who once asked if I ever shut up.
I'm glad you were able to find another analogue for that. I fear what I wrote above sounds elitist. It's not; it's just the way engineers see the world. And when you say that artists see the world different, I can relate. I've seen photographers, lighting directors, and set designers become very attuned to the behavior of light in the mundane, ordinary world. This is how they know how to create certain effects in the artificial world of the studio and theater. We become attuned to the world through the way we focus on it, and that gives us different perspectives at different levels of abstraction.
I'm glad you were able to find another analogue for that. I fear what I wrote above sounds elitist. It's not; it's just the way engineers see the world. And when you say that artists see the world different, I can relate. I've seen photographers, lighting directors, and set designers become very attuned to the behavior of light in the mundane, ordinary world. This is how they know how to create certain effects in the artificial world of the studio and theater. We become attuned to the world through the way we focus on it, and that gives us different perspectives at different levels of abstraction.
I can hand you another one. After all those years as a practicing Paramedic, it's all but impossible for me to look at someone without making an automatic assessment - stance, breathing rate, skin color (as in pale/flushed/ashen, not melanin content), general appearance, etc. I think maybe the inability to 'turn it off' is a sign that one has thoroughly absorbed that discipline, as opposed, say, to simply learning some useful information that can be referred to at need.
I'll be very surprised if that made any sense at all.
...I've been aware of that whole "not turning off" aspect of being an engineer. I hung out around a lot of science geeks when I was younger, and they were constantly running napkin-sketches of random questions that occurred to them as they were walking around. Of course, they were as likely to calculate the Endor Holocaust as to estimate the Ke of a passing fire engine.I'm noticing the same thing as a parent. Our second son, who's two-and-a-half, is constantly asking "Wot dat?" about all sorts of things, whether a roll of wrapping paper or a bird flying past the window. It's also nice to be able to talk to our older son, who's five (and starting Big School in a week), about things in the world around us. This includes, I'm happy to say, accepting that the Moon is sometimes visible in the sky during the day. (It also includes, which makes us a bit nervous, anatomically correct bodily processes and names; thus he accurately describes the process by which his little sister was born, which is bound to make a few adults blanch.)
It is akin to the artist's eye. As a lighting and sound designer for live theater, I spend a lot of my out-of-the-theater time going, "What was that? What made it sound like that?" Of course, as an artist, in parallel with looking to see how the sound reflected off a nearby surface, estimating the effects of the wall covering and the size of the standing wave etc., etc., I am also asking, "What did the sound remind me of? What was its effect on me emotionally?"...
It is akin to the artist's eye. As a lighting and sound designer for live theater, I spend a lot of my out-of-the-theater time going, "What was that? What made it sound like that?" Of course, as an artist, in parallel with looking to see how the sound reflected off a nearby surface, estimating the effects of the wall covering and the size of the standing wave etc., etc., I am also asking, "What did the sound remind me of? What was its effect on me emotionally?"
I don't normally (in fact, I almost never...!) post Youtube links, but there is a great, great jazz standard that describes this: "Dat dere" --
Our second son, who's two-and-a-half, is constantly asking "Wot dat?" about all sorts of things, whether a roll of wrapping paper or a bird flying past the window.He will probably become an engineer or scientist some day. My dad can regale you with stories of how I never stopped asking questions about everything as a kid. I was so young at the time that I don't even remember most of his examples. He also relates how angry he got at an uncle who once asked if I ever shut up.
Every Nobel winning scientist I've ever seen interviewed says much the same thing: how fortunate they feel to have retained his/her natural childhood curiosity into adulthood and to actually get paid for indulging it.
Instead we are teaching them to remember stuff for long enough to pass that test/exam...I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, we don't do enough to attract the best people to the profession, and we don't let them teach in the right way.
Reason is that too much fuel was required that could be carried and the pilot maneuvers were impossible to carry out ... and that everything was just a hoax 1969. That people believed. It was easy to fool people 1969. Since the 1940's the public had been told that Flying Saucers, UFOs, were regularly visiting Earth and that the USA could easily do space flying too.
They're the thing we're not supposed to end sentences with.
Instead we are teaching them to remember stuff for long enough to pass that test/exam...I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, we don't do enough to attract the best people to the profession, and we don't let them teach in the right way.
I'm a big believer in open-book testing as a far more realistic test of students' problem solving skills. People in the real world certainly don't memorize all the facts they'll ever need, so why expect that of students? (Believe me, good open-book tests are not easy. The hardest tests I've ever taken were open-book.)
Unfortunately, each open-book test can only be used once, so they're much more work for the teachers. That's why we have so many closed-book tests that are more about the students' ability to memorize and regurgitate facts than in actually applying them to problems.
A good education teaches not facts so much as methods -- especially how to use your references and design tools to solve problems that no one has solved before, with no answers to memorize or look up in the back of a book.
A little return to the alleged topic of the thread. :)
As I can't find time for a proper diff of Björkman's latest changes, here's the other howler. Please swallow any liquids you may have in your mouth...QuoteReason is that too much fuel was required that could be carried and the pilot maneuvers were impossible to carry out ... and that everything was just a hoax 1969. That people believed. It was easy to fool people 1969. Since the 1940's the public had been told that Flying Saucers, UFOs, were regularly visiting Earth and that the USA could easily do space flying too.
??? ??? ??? ???
(And yes, he still doesn't know how to use prepositions...)
As I reported earlier, he was briefly on a UK based astronomy forum. He was banned after about 30 minutes. It appears that his MO is to watch for new hits on his site and them to spam where the hit came from, if possible. One of the members over there raised an interesting suggestion.....the website's only purpose is as a revenue generator ( http://sourcemetro.com/heiwaco.tripod.com reports it as generating $700 per day).
Interesting idea...which would certainly through another angle on Bjorkman's pig-headedness...he is not interested in learning...in fact the more outrageous his BS the better as it generates more hits on his site.
One of the members over there raised an interesting suggestion.....the website's only purpose is as a revenue generator ( http://sourcemetro.com/heiwaco.tripod.com reports it as generating $700 per day).
One of the members over there raised an interesting suggestion.....the website's only purpose is as a revenue generator ( http://sourcemetro.com/heiwaco.tripod.com reports it as generating $700 per day).
One of the members over there raised an interesting suggestion.....the website's only purpose is as a revenue generator ( http://sourcemetro.com/heiwaco.tripod.com reports it as generating $700 per day).
That Source Metro site says I'm making $959 daily from my other site (TheSpaceRace.com) when in fact I haven't made that much money from it in the 11 years that it has been online.
So I think that is maybe its potential income based on the traffic it gets. I doubt he's actually making any money from it. It's more likely that Tripod.com is making money from it because I think they force ads on the sites they host for free.
I love that list too.They're the thing we're not supposed to end sentences with.
(http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o35/smartcooky99/my%20smileys/41.gif)(http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o35/smartcooky99/my%20smileys/41.gif)(http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o35/smartcooky99/my%20smileys/41.gif)
Very good indeed!
I have a whole list of those, such as...
► Splitting infinitives is something to never do.
► By writing carefully, dangling participles can be avoided.
► Avoid using incorrect verbs that have snuck into the language.
► A verb have to agree with its subject.
► Last but not least, avoid clichés like the plague.
I have a whole list of those, such as...
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/In_Event_of_Moon_Disaster (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/In_Event_of_Moon_Disaster)
Michael Collins read a few lines of this speech in In The Shadow Of The Moon.
There's an exception to every rule....except this one.
I remember a story about what may have been the record number of sentence ending prepositions...
Scenario: A father is going upstairs to read his little girl a bedtime story. He picks up what he thinks is one of her favorite books and heads up to her bedroom. Seeing the book, she winkles her little nose in disapproval and asks...
"What did you bring the book I didn't want to be read to out of up for?"
::)
I love that list too.They're the thing we're not supposed to end sentences with.
(http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o35/smartcooky99/my%20smileys/41.gif)(http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o35/smartcooky99/my%20smileys/41.gif)(http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o35/smartcooky99/my%20smileys/41.gif)
Very good indeed!
I have a whole list of those, such as...
► Splitting infinitives is something to never do.
► By writing carefully, dangling participles can be avoided.
► Avoid using incorrect verbs that have snuck into the language.
► A verb have to agree with its subject.
► Last but not least, avoid clichés like the plague.
"No sentence fragments."
"Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used."
First of all, why are dissenting views moderated (his and mine)? That's outright censorship. Truth does not suffer investigation. Furthermore it's decidedly Orwellian to use the word "truther" as a derogatory term (I see it a lot.) What's wrong with seeking the truth? And I'm a guy who was kicked off one conspiracy forum for being too liberal and proposing the ISS was real!!!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.
"This is the kind of tedious nonsense up with which I will not put." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercorrection#Preposition_at_the_end_of_a_clause) -- Allegedly Winston Churchill, but very likely not.If you come up with a clever phrase, and want it to last forever, attribute it to a famous dead person.
Fred
First of all, why are dissenting views moderated (his and mine)? That's outright censorship.
Furthermore it's decidedly Orwellian to use the word "truther" as a derogatory term (I see it a lot.) What's wrong with seeking the truth?
And I'm a guy who was kicked off one conspiracy forum for being too liberal and proposing the ISS was real!!!
Regarding the million Euro offer, how can someone put up a million Euros when their "company website" is on Tripod?
First of all, why are dissenting views moderated (his and mine)? That's outright censorship.
Furthermore it's decidedly Orwellian to use the word "truther" as a derogatory term (I see it a lot.) What's wrong with seeking the truth?
And I'm a guy who was kicked off one conspiracy forum for being too liberal and proposing the ISS was real!!!
And I'm a guy who was kicked off one conspiracy forum for being too liberal and proposing the ISS was real!!!
you are not moderated because your views are dissenting. you are moderated because you didn't follow the rules. Show you can follow them and you'll likely get off moderation.First of all, why are dissenting views moderated (his and mine)? That's outright censorship. Truth does not suffer investigation. Furthermore it's decidedly Orwellian to use the word "truther" as a derogatory term (I see it a lot.) What's wrong with seeking the truth? And I'm a guy who was kicked off one conspiracy forum for being too liberal and proposing the ISS was real!!!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.
Regarding the million Euro offer, how can someone put up a million Euros when their "company website" is on Tripod?
And I'm a guy who was kicked off one conspiracy forum for being too liberal and proposing the ISS was real!!!
What's wrong with seeking the truth?
And I'm a guy who was kicked off one conspiracy forum for being too liberal and proposing the ISS was real!
First of all, why are dissenting views moderated (his and mine)? That's outright censorship. Truth does not suffer investigation. Furthermore it's decidedly Orwellian to use the word "truther" as a derogatory term (I see it a lot.) What's wrong with seeking the truth? And I'm a guy who was kicked off one conspiracy forum for being too liberal and proposing the ISS was real!!!
But if you go to church and pee in the holy water, they kick you out.
Just like there's nothing wrong with going to church. But if you go to church and pee in the holy water, they kick you out. They kick you out for peeing in the holy water, not because of "religious differences" or any such ideological nonsense.
So where is our beloved Heiwa? I think his suspension is up now, isnt it??
So where is our beloved Heiwa? I think his suspension is up now, isnt it??
He's over at CosmoQuest, ignoring answers to the questions he's asked.
Reason is that too much fuel was required that could be carried and the pilot maneuvers were impossible to carry out ... and that everything was just a hoax 1969. That people believed. It was easy to fool people 1969. Since the 1940's the public had been told that Flying Saucers, UFOs, were regularly visiting Earth and that the USA could easily do space flying too. No rocket engineers would disagre. They are generally military where everything is secret. But (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBbiZEvRur8)...
So how is it possible that NASA fakes their activities? The person to ask is Terrence W. Wilcutt (http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/wilcutt_bio.html), NASA's Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance. Terrence heads the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) that assures the safety and enhances the success of all NASA activities through the development, implementation, and oversight of Agencywide safety, reliability, maintainability, and quality assurance (SRM&QA) policies and procedures.
[photo of Wilcutt]
"Wilcutt joined NASA in 1990 as an astronaut candidate and was accepted into the corps in 1991. He logged more than 1,007 hours in space as the pilot on two shuttle missions, STS-68 in 1994 and STS-79 in 1996, and commander of two others, STS-89 in 1998 and STS-106 in 2000. His technical assignments as an astronaut included work on space shuttle main engine and external tank issues; supporting shuttle launches and landings as a member of the astronaut support personnel team at NASAs Kennedy Space Center in Florida; and technical issues for the Astronaut Office Operations Development Branch at Johnson."
It would appear Terrence W. Wilcutt is part of the NASA hoax. Imaging having been 1 007 hrs in space and done four Shuttle re-entries, flying backwards from the Mir station (twice) and ISS (once) like Mark Kelly that I describe below.
[5] SATURN V LAUNCH VEHICLE FLIGHT EVALUATION REPORT-AS-.506 APOLLO 11 MISSION (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900066485_1990066485.pdf) (not signed by anybody and probably written by some free-lance science fiction writer 1969)
Apollo 11 with three asstronuts aboard launched from Cape Kennedy on July 16, 09.32 local time, 1969 fitted on top of a hugh, 100 + meter tall three stages, Saturn V (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900066485_1990066485.pdf), rocket or fire works launch vehicle looking like something right. The original drawings and records how it all worked are lost! (http://amyshirateitel.com/2011/04/03/the-lost-art-of-the-saturn-v/) Three minutes later the launch escape three motors system on top the CM was jettisoned ... one way or another. Why it was fitted in the first place is not clear.
Three stages launch vehicle Saturn V with Apollo 11 Command, Service and Lunar landing modules on top. Note the amount of fuel and thrust of the rockets that were required to first put the Apollo 11 modules in orbit around Earth and then to send them off to the Moon. The last use of a Saturn 5 rocket was the 14 May 1973 launch of Skylab. All drawings what they looked like and records how they worked were then conveniently lost and some people wonder if they ever existed ... or if they were just one empty mock up with some jet engines at bottom and trick film! Then came another strange launch vehicle - the Shuttle - that could not land on Earth after visiting space!
(blinks) The Shuttle could not land on Earth? :o What sort of shuttle would that be, exactly?
Oh, and the proposition that the Saturns were "mockups with jet engines at the bottom and trick film" is laughable. Their launches were public events attended by many people who were direct witnesses of the events from the launch to until the rocket went too high to be visible.
(blinks) The Shuttle could not land on Earth? :o What sort of shuttle would that be, exactly?
The link is to a Bart Sibrel interview with Kaysing... Can't watch it right now, so I'm not sure why it's "but".
If you try to contact Terrence, you will probably not get through. It would appear Terrence W. Wilcutt is part of the NASA hoax ... and does not exist. Imaging having been 1 007 hrs in space and done four Shuttle re-entries, flying backwards from the Mir station (twice) and ISS (once) like Mark Kelly that I describe below. It is not possible.
[snip] And if you get hold of Terrence, pls tell me!
If you think I am crazy, I recommend that you emmigrate to planet Mars with Terrence and make a fortune there.
The latest revision of the article claims that Terrence Wilcutt doesn't exist. No kidding:QuoteIf you try to contact Terrence, you will probably not get through. It would appear Terrence W. Wilcutt is part of the NASA hoax ... and does not exist. Imaging having been 1 007 hrs in space and done four Shuttle re-entries, flying backwards from the Mir station (twice) and ISS (once) like Mark Kelly that I describe below. It is not possible.
:o Wait, what? Some lines below:Quote[snip] And if you get hold of Terrence, pls tell me!
If you think I am crazy, I recommend that you emmigrate to planet Mars with Terrence and make a fortune there.
I am really tempted to try to find out what prompted the new obsession.
I'm convinced that he has suffered some sort of mental or emotional trauma in his life. I cannot square that someone that has an engineering degree (its been checked) from a good university can be so ignorant of basic maths and would act in this way.Something to do with the sinking of the MS Estonia, perhaps? His area of expertise, his part of the world, and he doesn't accept the findings of the official inquiry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Estonia
Oh, certainly true. However, the record on minor head trauma is fascinating. Personality changes are the least of it sometimes.
Photo of Service Module and Command Module, CSM, taken by somebody sitting on the Lunar Module, LM, fitted on top of Commande Module after release of LM and flipping CSM 180° and reconnection of LM to CSM!
Imagine that - manually checking the computer calculations! How to steer an LM with only one big rocket engine is described here (http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/21a_Lunar-Module-descent-stage-impossible-ENGL.html)! It looks as if it is impossible.
But they allegedly left an experiment on the lunar surface to prove that they had been there, which (2004) continues to work as well as it did the day it got there, 1969. The Apollo 11 lunar laser ranging reflector (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=605) consists of 100 fused silica half cubes, called corner cubes, mounted in a 46-centimeter (18-inch) square aluminum panel. Each corner cube is 3.8 centimeters (1.5 inches) in diameter. Corner cubes reflect a beam of light directly back toward its point of origin. Anyone can send a laser signal to it on the Moon and the signal will bounce back - ergo - the cosmokrauts were on the Moon. However, in 1969 they forgot to tell anybody about it. Imagine that! A whole or half silica cube with a diameter that bounces light!
Dear God, please keep me away from any boats he's had anything to do with.
You wonder what he has on the back of his car or pushbike.QuoteImagine that! A whole or half silica cube with a diameter that bounces light!
He has added a picture (AS09-20-3064 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gumdrop_Meets_Spider_-_GPN-2000-001100.jpg))
And far from forgetting to tell anyone, photographs of them were published in popular magazines and newspapers a few days after they returned.
Dear God, please keep me away from any boats he's had anything to do with.
And far from forgetting to tell anyone, photographs of them were published in popular magazines and newspapers a few days after they returned.
Indeed, including in the December 1969 National Geographic, of which I own a pristine copy (with the phonorecord "Sounds from Space" still intact).
...However, in 1969 they forgot to tell anybody about it...Aside from, you know, writing it up in the press kit (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11_PressKit.pdf)?
Can you, e.g. explain re-entry. You are aboard the famous International Space Station, ISS, that according NASA is orbiting Earth every 90 minutes at 400 000 m altitude (almost vacuum) at 7 200 m/s velocity and you want to go down to Earth. It means you have to go down 400 000 m and slow down from 7 200 m/s to 0 m/s speed. How to do it?
Do you jump into a little capsule with a little rocket engine to slow you down? Yes, apparently you do that and the result is that you arrive at 120 000 m altitude but that the velocity then has increased to 9 000 m/s as some potential energy of the capsule has become kinetic energy = greater velocity. It is like diving from the 10 m board. It gets faster the closer you get to the water.
At 120 000 m altitude there is a thin atmosphere with nitrogene and oxygene atoms that you collide with and ... MAGIC ... suddenly you slow down to 100 m/s (at say 5 000 m altitude) and deploy a parachute and land. In a desert in Kazakstan. Where nobody lives. In the middle of nowhere!
Imagine that - you slow down from 9 000 m/s to 100 m/s just by colliding with atoms. But why don't you slow down to 0 m/s by colliding with atoms? Let me ask a stupid question or two? Why do you need a parachute at the end? What is wrong with colliding with atoms to the end?
Can you, e.g. explain re-entry. You are aboard the famous International Space Station, ISS, that according NASA is orbiting Earth every 90 minutes at 400 000 m altitude (almost vacuum) at 7 200 m/s velocity and you want to go down to Earth. It means you have to go down 400 000 m and slow down from 7 200 m/s to 0 m/s speed. How to do it?
Do you jump into a little capsule with a little rocket engine to slow you down? Yes, apparently you do that and the result is that you arrive at 120 000 m altitude but that the velocity then has increased to 9 000 m/s as some potential energy of the capsule has become kinetic energy = greater velocity. It is like diving from the 10 m board. It gets faster the closer you get to the water.
At 120 000 m altitude there is a thin atmosphere with nitrogene and oxygene atoms that you collide with and ... MAGIC ... suddenly you slow down to 100 m/s (at say 5 000 m altitude) and deploy a parachute and land. In a desert in Kazakstan. Where nobody lives. In the middle of nowhere!
Imagine that - you slow down from 9 000 m/s to 100 m/s just by colliding with atoms. But why don't you slow down to 0 m/s by colliding with atoms? Let me ask a stupid question or two? Why do you need a parachute at the end? What is wrong with colliding with atoms to the end?
This was nominated for a Stundie and it is the clear leader in the voting. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=253203)
What is it about hoax believers that gives them the clear edge in the Stundies?
Hammer and feather shows another proof moon mission was a fake, because no feather can bare environment of a 250F as is on moon under sun light. Heat up your oven to even 200F, place a feather in it and mesure its duration before melt down or ignition, i suppose it should be below 10sec. p.s I dont mention rubber bottom shoes all appolonists warred
Another damn good question is why the **** did their voices not sound high pitch because of gravity? Ever huff helium? It makes your voice high pitch because it weighs less. Wouldn't that mean oxygen on the moon would weigh less therefor making their voices higher pitched?
No. 5. What an awesome kitchen this guy has with his own vacuum oven......wait what recipe calls for that?QuoteHammer and feather shows another proof moon mission was a fake, because no feather can bare environment of a 250F as is on moon under sun light. Heat up your oven to even 200F, place a feather in it and mesure its duration before melt down or ignition, i suppose it should be below 10sec. p.s I dont mention rubber bottom shoes all appolonists warred
Did anyone suggest that they test their theory by jumping off the nearest cliff or high-rise building?
Oh if only I could be bothered to respond to him and point out two things:While it's good to do the experiment (flawed as it may be) yourself, the result is not surprising, as keratins usually have melting points above 150 °C. Check the temps available for hair curling irons; I've not seen my wife's hair melt or ignite when she's used temperatures way past 200 °F.
1: That is such a simple experiment that he could do it himself, so one wonders why he doesn't.
2: If he did, he'd note the same result I did when I did exactly what he proposed some years ago (and described on the old board in a relevant thread). Specifically, the result of baking two feathers in an oven at 200 degrees Fahrenheit was....
... absolutely nothing happened to them.
A fact I also pointed out on the old board. Feathers are anhydrous keratin scaffolds. They can't even dehydrate at 200 degrees!
I also find it odd that he would think feathers should spontaneously combust in seconds at temperatures significantly lower than those used to cook most foods....
Saunas often have temperatures in the 200° F range.
And in a humid environment where condensation delivers heat to cooler surfaces faster than conduction alone would.
Possibly counter-intuitive*; I could imagine an HB claiming "the water cools you down, duh".
What an awesome kitchen this guy has with his own vacuum oven......wait what recipe calls for that?The way some people seem to think heat transfer occurs instantly in a vacuum, I've often tinkered with the idea of suggesting that one patent and manufacture such a device. Think of it, cooking a 20lb turkey, in no time flat!
... 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!
I also find it odd that he would think feathers should spontaneously combust in seconds at temperatures significantly lower than those used to cook most foods....
And let's not forget that neither a pot of boiling water nor a hot oven is remotely analogous to the thermal conditions on the Moon.Another case of "not even wrong". Putting a feather into a 200o oven has nothing to do with lunar surface conditions. But he's even wrong about what will happen to the feather in the oven! So not only is his experiment totally meaningless, he assumed the wrong result.
The stupid, it (almost) burns!
That too. Seriously, the whole thing was flabbergastingly insane.
Another case of "not even wrong". Putting a feather into a 200o oven has nothing to do with lunar surface conditions. But he's even wrong about what will happen to the feather in the oven! So not only is his experiment totally meaningless, he assumed the wrong result.
I especially like it when they end one of those baffingly insane, not-even-wrong claims with:
"It's physics!"
Cartoon physics, perhaps.
I just had a look at some of the DA14 threads on GLP. I am stunned not only at the wilful ignorance but at the appalling abuse. I feel a bit sick :(Aww, now you made me go look at the stupid.
On GLP there are currently a bunch of folk who refuse to understand that the mass of an asteroid (specifically 2012 DA14) is irrelevant to its orbit.
I just had a look at some of the DA14 threads on GLP. I am stunned not only at the wilful ignorance but at the appalling abuse. I feel a bit sick :(
I would say that most of them never even had the one class.I especially like it when they end one of those baffingly insane, not-even-wrong claims with:
"It's physics!"
Cartoon physics, perhaps.
Indeed. When I hear arguments along the lines of, "The official story violates the laws of physics," what I hear in my head is, "I'm giving you my socially- and politically-motivated emotional response to a load of intuition someone else spoon-fed me, but in order to make it sound less like made-up nonsense I'm going to make vague allusion to a required class I barely squeaked through in high school and haven't used in the intervening 15 years."
There are two pages of DA14 threads over there. Have one at random. NASA dunnit http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2139821/pg1 (http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2139821/pg1)I just had a look at some of the DA14 threads on GLP. I am stunned not only at the wilful ignorance but at the appalling abuse. I feel a bit sick :(Linky? Please don't make me search GLP for it.
I would say that most of them never even had the one class.
There are two pages of DA14 threads over there. Have one at random. NASA dunnit http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2139821/pg1 (http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2139821/pg1)I just had a look at some of the DA14 threads on GLP. I am stunned not only at the wilful ignorance but at the appalling abuse. I feel a bit sick :(Linky? Please don't make me search GLP for it.
On GLP there are currently a bunch of folk who refuse to understand that the mass of an asteroid (specifically 2012 DA14) is irrelevant to its orbit.
[devil's advocate]So if the moon was much more massive than it is in reality, say, it was the same physical size that it is now, but had the mass of Jupiter, it would trundle along happily in it's current orbit around the Earth; 29.53 days at at distance of 384,000 km? Really?[/devil's advocate]
On GLP there are currently a bunch of folk who refuse to understand that the mass of an asteroid (specifically 2012 DA14) is irrelevant to its orbit.
[devil's advocate]So if the moon was much more massive than it is in reality, say, it was the same physical size that it is now, but had the mass of Jupiter, it would trundle along happily in it's current orbit around the Earth; 29.53 days at at distance of 384,000 km? Really?[/devil's advocate]
I have always though that the combined mass of both objects defined the orbit. It is just that in most cases the mass of a space craft or asteroid is an insignificant component to the combined mass. Is that not correct?
There are two pages of DA14 threads over there. Have one at random. NASA dunnit http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2139821/pg1 (http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2139821/pg1)I just had a look at some of the DA14 threads on GLP. I am stunned not only at the wilful ignorance but at the appalling abuse. I feel a bit sick :(Linky? Please don't make me search GLP for it.
I have always though that the combined mass of both objects defined the orbit. It is just that in most cases the mass of a space craft or asteroid is an insignificant component to the combined mass. Is that not correct?
That's correct. The period is 2*pi*sqrt(a^3/(G*(M1 + M2))). When M1 is many times M2, you can simplify M1 + M2 to M1 with little loss of accuracy. And a 1 trillion tonne object is still 70 million times smaller than the moon...the loss of accuracy from this simplification is likely to be less than the precision of your computations.
Of course the mass of the asteroid could be significant should it encounter some other solar system object, right? e.g., an asteroid with the mass of a small car will suffer greater orbital perturbation than one half the mass of the moon were either of them to pass close to Jupiter on their way to the Sun?
That's correct. The period is 2*pi*sqrt(a^3/(G*(M1 + M2))). When M1 is many times M2, you can simplify M1 + M2 to M1 with little loss of accuracy.
I wonder if Anders Bjorkman would accept the word of fellow Swede Christer Fuglesang that it's possible to safely return to the Earth from the ISS?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christer_Fuglesang
I wonder if Anders Bjorkman would accept the word of fellow Swede Christer Fuglesang that it's possible to safely return to the Earth from the ISS?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christer_Fuglesang
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark, and go with no, he wouldn't.
I wonder if Anders Bjorkman would accept the word of fellow Swede Christer Fuglesang that it's possible to safely return to the Earth from the ISS?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christer_Fuglesang
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark, and go with no, he wouldn't.
:)
Yep, but at least they can argue in Swedish and leave us alone...
It is always nice to compare old and new space vehicles carrying out maneuvers and the fuel consumed. And the conclusions is clear! NASA fakes it. 44 years ago 1969 and today 2013. Only the French Ariane 5 is real!
Above NASA photo (http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/573233main_image_2014_946-710.jpg) shows the space shuttle Atlantis, appearing like a bean sprout against clouds and city lights, on its way home braking through the atmosphere, as outlined above and below. It was allegedly taken by the Expedition 28 crew of the International Space Station. Airglow over Earth can be seen in the background. The photo does not look real in my view, i.e. it is another fake.
My guess? He doesn't think they did.If he even knows about them.
This evidently upsets many Apollo11hoaxsters! (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.315) Apollo11hoaxster.net is an Internet forum run by NASA trying to make the impression that space travel works, etc. It goes, tragically, like this:
Another clown is Daggerstab. She thinks you can take long exposure photos when travelling at 7 500 m/s speed around Earth.
Above NASA "long exposure" photo (http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/573233main_image_2014_946-710.jpg (http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/573233main_image_2014_946-710.jpg)) shows the space shuttle Atlantis, appearing like a bean sprout against clouds and city lights, on its way home braking through the atmosphere, as outlined above and below. It was allegedly long exposured taken by the Expedition 28 crew of the International Space Station. Airglow over Earth can be seen in the background if you have sharp eyes. I can just see clouds. The photo does not look real in my view, i.e. it is another NASA fake.
One of my ex NASA PR-agents Daggerstab (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.1260) wonders "Ever heard of "long exposure", Björkman?" He is another stupid NASA SF writer trying to make ends meet in Arizona! Try to make a long exposure of Earth below photo from a space vehicle at 7 500 m/s speed? Thanks for the PR!
QuoteAnother clown is Daggerstab. She thinks you can take long exposure photos when travelling at 7 500 m/s speed around Earth.QuoteOne of my ex NASA PR-agents Daggerstab (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.1260) wonders "Ever heard of "long exposure", Björkman?" He is another stupid NASA SF writer trying to make ends meet in Arizona!
Gender confused much, there, Anders?
Bwahahahahahahaha!!!
After Glom, I am the second one honoured with a mention on Björkman's website! 8) Apparently, linking to him yesterday rankled him. :D
In other words, he's changed his page again - among other things, he tries to wrestle with the mass of the SIV-B (he gets an approximate number from Wikipedia that doesn't agree with the one in the Apollo 11 report, with predictable results). He's also added more attacks against NASA and his critics. The section where he complains about Glom has several interesting additions, starting with the introduction (new inserts are in green, as usually):QuoteThis evidently upsets many Apollo11hoaxsters! (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.315) Apollo11hoaxster.net is an Internet forum run by NASA trying to make the impression that space travel works, etc. It goes, tragically, like this:
Run by NASA, huh? ::) Something must have made a mark! :D
The only modification to the paragraph describing Glom is the removal of "probably" from "has probably worked for NASA all his life". :D After that is the newly added paragraph about moi:QuoteAnother clown is Daggerstab. She thinks you can take long exposure photos when travelling at 7 500 m/s speed around Earth.
Nope, not clown. An assassin. Nil Mortifi Sine Lucre! :D
My username is a link leading to the picture I commented on in my last post. Its caption has evolved somewhat since the last time:QuoteAbove NASA "long exposure" photo (http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/573233main_image_2014_946-710.jpg (http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/573233main_image_2014_946-710.jpg)) shows the space shuttle Atlantis, appearing like a bean sprout against clouds and city lights, on its way home braking through the atmosphere, as outlined above and below. It was allegedly long exposured taken by the Expedition 28 crew of the International Space Station. Airglow over Earth can be seen in the background if you have sharp eyes. I can just see clouds. The photo does not look real in my view, i.e. it is another NASA fake.
One of my ex NASA PR-agents Daggerstab (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.1260) wonders "Ever heard of "long exposure", Björkman?" He is another stupid NASA SF writer trying to make ends meet in Arizona! Try to make a long exposure of Earth below photo from a space vehicle at 7 500 m/s speed? Thanks for the PR!
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Björkman, I find it curious that of all things written in my last post, you took issue only with the "long exposure" jab. Does this mean that you agree with everything else? And no word about my challenge? To repeat it: Why don't you contact the scientists and engineers that designed and built the Ariane 5 and ask them if Apollo/Saturn was real?
And what exactly is the problem with making a long exposure photo in low Earth orbit? I found a copy of the photo in a place that conserves EXIF metadata - http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-135/html/iss028e018218.html According to my EXIF reader, the exposure time was 1 second, which counts as "long" in my book. :) And spotting airglow in that picture doesn't require sharp eyes. (By the way, several sentences in the caption are plagiarized from the original NASA description, and it seems that this is not an exception.)
And also, Arizona? What are you smoking, Björkman? :D :D :D
If he wants to argue with someone in his native language (and about his age too), he could of course also talk to Sven Grahn: http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/
If he wants to argue with someone in his native language (and about his age too), he could of course also talk to Sven Grahn: http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/
If he wants to argue with someone in his native language (and about his age too), he could of course also talk to Sven Grahn: http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/
Ha, ha.... Ha, ha, ha
Manny Pacquiao v Pee Wee Herman would be fairer fight. How about he debate with Dolph Lundgren, someone who is more in his intellectual level.
After graduating from high school with straight As, he spent some time in the United States in the late 1970s on various academic scholarships, studying chemistry at Washington State University and Clemson University.
[...]
In 1982, Lundgren graduated with a master's degree in chemical engineering from the University of Sydney, finishing with the highest results in his class. During his time in Sydney, he earned a living as a bouncer in a nightclub at the infamous King's Cross. He was awarded a Fulbright Scholarship to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1983. However, while preparing for the move to Boston, he was spotted in the nightclub he worked at in Sydney and was hired by Grace Jones as a bodyguard.[17] He fell in love with Jones and their relationship developed dramatically, moving with her to New York City.Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolph_Lundgren#Education)
Dude. Dolph Lundgren is very, very smart.
http://www.cracked.com/article_15753_8-celebrities-you-didnt-know-were-geeks.html
Apparently one reason he did Junior was because he got to be a scientist and that was one career he had wanted to get into before he got into body-building.
Dude. Dolph Lundgren is very, very smart.
I know, I was meaning more his "typecast" persona than him personally.
Of course, we shouldn't judge actors by the roles they play; I'm sure Arnie is smart too!
Hmmm. Now there s a thought!!
Dude. Dolph Lundgren is very, very smart.
Dude. Dolph Lundgren is very, very smart.
It's a trap...
Just imagine Lundgren, being 17 years younger than Buzz Aldrin (at the time of his confrontation with BS), weighing more and having a Martial Arts background doing his version of "Aldrin vs Sibrel". I'd almost pay money to see it...
QuoteAnother clown is Daggerstab. She thinks you can take long exposure photos when travelling at 7,500 m/s speed around Earth.
Nope, not clown. An assassin. Nil Mortifi Sine Lucre! :D
My username is a link leading to the picture I commented on in my last post. Its caption has evolved somewhat since the last time:QuoteAbove NASA "long exposure" photo (http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/573233main_image_2014_946-710.jpg (http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/573233main_image_2014_946-710.jpg)) shows the space shuttle Atlantis, appearing like a bean sprout against clouds and city lights, on its way home braking through the atmosphere, as outlined above and below. It was allegedly long exposured taken by the Expedition 28 crew of the International Space Station. Airglow over Earth can be seen in the background if you have sharp eyes. I can just see clouds. The photo does not look real in my view, i.e. it is another NASA fake.
One of my ex NASA PR-agents Daggerstab (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.1260) wonders "Ever heard of "long exposure", Björkman?" He is another stupid NASA SF writer trying to make ends meet in Arizona! Try to make a long exposure of Earth below photo from a space vehicle at 7 500 m/s speed? Thanks for the PR!
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Björkman, I find it curious that of all things written in my last post, you took issue only with the "long exposure" jab.
Does this mean that you agree with everything else? And no word about my challenge? To repeat it: Why don't you contact the scientists and engineers that designed and built the Ariane 5 and ask them if Apollo/Saturn was real?
And what exactly is the problem with making a long exposure photo in low Earth orbit? I found a copy of the photo in a place that conserves EXIF metadata - http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-135/html/iss028e018218.html According to my EXIF reader, the exposure time was 1 second, which counts as "long" in my book. :)
Wonder what he'd make of the notion of the Hubble deep field. Hours of exposure from orbit....
Yes, the ISS is fake. NASA informs me regularly when the ISS passes above my roof terrace at dusk 5-7 pm (sun below west horizon) in 3-4 minutes and, I agree, something, a light dot, is passing at the given times. I have seen it many times. But the 100 m across ISS is a 400 000 m altitude and cannot be seen by naked eye. I have tried with binocular w/o success. Telescope? Doubt it. Object moves too quickly. Photos of it being the ISS published are fake.
I would like him to explain to me how I took this image of M31.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/Gadfium/DSO%20Imaging/th_f91074a2.jpg) (http://smg.beta.photobucket.com/user/Gadfium/media/DSO%20Imaging/f91074a2.jpg.html)
6 hours total exposure, 6 minute individual sub-exposures.
I must have faked it too.....
He [Bjorkman] really is a special class of idiot, isn't he?
Apparently one reason he did Junior was because he got to be a scientist and that was one career he had wanted to get into before he got into body-building.I've been known to lift a weight or two. Kinda surprises some people.
I've been known to lift a weight or two. Kinda surprises some people.
I keep telling people, the hardest part of the "everyone is ignorant of something" explanation is finding new and different things of which Jay is ignorant. There just aren't all that many of them.
Well, let's see... 4-8-8-4 looks like Whyte code for a locomotive, and the only one of that size I know is the Big Boy. Assuming I'm right, I wouldn't know which of the several things about that locomotive is the one you're thinking of.
Well, let's see... 4-8-8-4 looks like Whyte code for a locomotive, and the only one of that size I know is the Big Boy. Assuming I'm right, I wouldn't know which of the several things about that locomotive is the one you're thinking of.
(My grandfather was a fireman on the D&RG back in the day. He got me many, many cab rides.)
ETA: Naturally, to be fair, I wrote the above without any external reference or Googling.
I would like him to explain to me how I took this image of M31.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/Gadfium/DSO%20Imaging/th_f91074a2.jpg) (http://smg.beta.photobucket.com/user/Gadfium/media/DSO%20Imaging/f91074a2.jpg.html)
6 hours total exposure, 6 minute individual sub-exposures.
I must have faked it too.....
He [Bjorkman] really is a special class of idiot, isn't he?
Pretty impressive - especially when you consider how fast we're travelling :D
Not to mention how fast M31 is travelling!! M1 and M31 are closing in on each other at a speed fast enough to travel from Earth to the Moon in about 58 minutes!!!
Hell, an aerospace engineer that knows that much is already a Renaissance man!
OK -without Googling: Simple or compound (or Mallet)?
Apparently, linking to him yesterday rankled him. :D
Why don't you contact the scientists and engineers that designed and built the Ariane 5 and ask them if Apollo/Saturn was real?
According to my EXIF reader, the exposure time was 1 second, which counts as "long" in my book. :)
Zakalwe is the next forum member to make his hate list.
He really is a weapons-grade bell-end, isn't he?According to https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world...
Björkman has been nominated for the JREF forum "Stundie," an award for the looniest conspiracist statement of the month, far more times than anyone, and has been voted the "winner" several times. His avoidance of mountains of facts and expertise, his complete ignorance of the most basic engineering concepts, and his insistence that special laws of physics apply in his world, are perhaps surpassed only by the inimitable Judy "Star Wars Beams" Wood.
He really is a weapons-grade bell-end, isn't he?According to https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world...QuoteBjörkman has been nominated for the JREF forum "Stundie," an award for the looniest conspiracist statement of the month, far more times than anyone, and has been voted the "winner" several times. His avoidance of mountains of facts and expertise, his complete ignorance of the most basic engineering concepts, and his insistence that special laws of physics apply in his world, are perhaps surpassed only by the inimitable Judy "Star Wars Beams" Wood.
There follows a link to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4503873&postcount=1942 which I note was posted in 2009.
Hell, an aerospace engineer that knows that much is already a Renaissance man!
Thanks, I do have many interests so that's been how people who know me personally tend to refer to me.QuoteOK -without Googling: Simple or compound (or Mallet)?
The Big Boy? Mallet -- but if memory serves, not a traditional Mallet. Definitely articulated in one way or another, though. And I think you are supposed to be able to tell which kind from the Whyte notation.
Here's a couple of my personal photographs, cab rides on both:
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s71/clavius_examples/gcrr_2-8-2.jpg
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s71/clavius_examples/dsng_2-8-1.jpg
(The URL on the second one is a typo, not a misclassification)
I'd like the hear Heiwa explaining this video, seeing as how the ISS is fake and all...It's all shot underwater! And it's not really Williams but an imposter wearing a mask!
From that he calculates that the Shuttle would need 3 750 tons of fuel to reach LEO.He's a little off. The launch weight of the shuttle was roughly 2,040 tonnes, which broke down as follows:
Says Cameron chose to film underwater scenes, well, underwater, because the movements just don't look right if you have actors in air trying to fake it.Ah ha! So it was Cameron who took over for Kubrick in the faking-things-for-NASA department!
I seem to remember reading somewhere that a lot of engineers were opposed to the use of Solid Fuel boosters; they (understandably, I think) weren't comfortable with the idea of strapping a couple of skyrockets to a manned vehicle. i.e., (as you know, Bob) once the SRBs are lit, there's no shutdown until they burn out. IIRC, it seems there was a pretty strong 'lobby' for LRBs, which are more controllable but were rejected, probably because of expense.
Engergia (used to launch the Soviet shuttle Buran) used liquid fuel for its strap on boosters, which later formed the basis for the Zenit launch vehicle.
Several current launch systems use liquid boosters, including the Soyuz and several of the Long March rockets.
Oh, I know. I thought it would be worthwhile mentioning something that was explicitly meant to be comparable to the Shuttle.Engergia (used to launch the Soviet shuttle Buran) used liquid fuel for its strap on boosters, which later formed the basis for the Zenit launch vehicle.
Several current launch systems use liquid boosters, including the Soyuz and several of the Long March rockets.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that a lot of engineers were opposed to the use of Solid Fuel boosters; they (understandably, I think) weren't comfortable with the idea of strapping a couple of skyrockets to a manned vehicle. i.e., (as you know, Bob) once the SRBs are lit, there's no shutdown until they burn out. IIRC, it seems there was a pretty strong 'lobby' for LRBs, which are more controllable but were rejected, probably because of expense.My creaky memory is that LRBs were originally planned for the Shuttle, but the cost of developing them would've been a lot higher than the cost of developing SRBs. However, the running costs of the LRBs would've been a lot lower than for the SRBs. Unfortunately for NASA, the time when they didn't have the money was when they were developing the beasts.
Can anyone shed some light on my creaky old memory?:
My creaky memory is that LRBs were originally planned for the Shuttle, but the cost of developing them would've been a lot higher than the cost of developing SRBs. However, the running costs of the LRBs would've been a lot lower than for the SRBs. Unfortunately for NASA, the time when they didn't have the money was when they were developing the beasts.
Succinctly, that's exactly the confusion I was trying to express. "Compounding" a steam engine (i.e., using steam over and over again until its pressure is thoroughly exhausted) is a common device in large steam engines, and every engineer learns those techniques. They're more appropriate to large ship engines -- e.g., the "triple expansion" designs, but I was aware the principle had been used in steam locomotives. I just wasn't exactly sure to what extent.
That the Big Boy was articulated goes without saying. You can't wrap something that long around a curved track without it. I knew for a fact of the articulation, but I was unsure whether the Mallet design required both the articulation and the compounding. Hence my guess as "Mallet" (for the articulation) but not the traditional kind (because I wasn't sure about the compounding).
Of course a lot of things should be reworked. It's a synergy after all. Everything has an impact on everything else.And this is exactly why trying to rework an existing design like the Saturn V isn't likely to be practical, you are very likely to end up with snowballing design changes until you would have been better off starting out making a new design.
That was pretty much my basic point. Modern tech would mean a lot of changes. Which is one reason why the conspiracy theorists are so wrong when they ask 'Where are the blue-prints?'Of course a lot of things should be reworked. It's a synergy after all. Everything has an impact on everything else.And this is exactly why trying to rework an existing design like the Saturn V isn't likely to be practical, you are very likely to end up with snowballing design changes until you would have been better off starting out making a new design.
With manned space though, you need to be just about perfect. If a satellite or probe goes wrong, if a rocket explodes on the pad, it sucks and it's heartbreaking, but it's 'only' money and man-hours gone. No one is dead.
There's a passage about this in Murray and Cox's book "Apollo the Race to the Moon" where lead engineer Joe Shea keeps reminding staff that "the good is the enemy of the better"; smart engineers will always find some way to make their system better, but at some point you have to stop the tinkering and lock in the design.With manned space though, you need to be just about perfect. If a satellite or probe goes wrong, if a rocket explodes on the pad, it sucks and it's heartbreaking, but it's 'only' money and man-hours gone. No one is dead.
There's a long distance between "just about" and "actually." If you're waiting for perfect, you're never going to get anything done.
That was pretty much my basic point. Modern tech would mean a lot of changes. Which is one reason why the conspiracy theorists are so wrong when they ask 'Where are the blue-prints?'
I think you meant "The better is the enemy of the good", though.
If some superwealthy person, like an arab oil prince, decided that he wanted to have one of his sons go to the moon and do a little walk, how long would it take from he committed his money, until an actual manned launch could be tried?That's more or less the question I asked that started this sequence.
Just a small thing like interior lighting. On Apollo, the crew cabin were lighted by flourescent tubes. The instrument panels had hundreds of small lightbulbs. Replace all with diode lights, and you save a lot of weight and electrictiy consumption. Also diodes are more robust than other light sources, and don't break as often. Less electricity consumption could mean you could simplify the wiring, saving weight again. I don't know about fuel cell efficiency, but I suspect they're lighter and more reliable now, again saving weight. The guidance computers and gyros also lighter, less energy, more reliable, more flexible. All these gains could be translated into greater crew comfort, safety, endurance, capabilites.
If some superwealthy person, like an arab oil prince, decided that he wanted to have one of his sons go to the moon and do a little walk, how long would it take from he committed his money, until an actual manned launch could be tried?
If some superwealthy person, like an arab oil prince, decided that he wanted to have one of his sons go to the moon and do a little walk, how long would it take from he committed his money, until an actual manned launch could be tried?
I don't think you can say with any certainty. Too many variables.
If some superwealthy person, like an arab oil prince, decided that he wanted to have one of his sons go to the moon and do a little walk, how long would it take from he committed his money, until an actual manned launch could be tried?
I don't think you can say with any certainty. Too many variables.
Just a small thing like interior lighting. On Apollo, the crew cabin were lighted by flourescent tubes. The instrument panels had hundreds of small lightbulbs. Replace all with diode lights, and you save a lot of weight and electrictiy consumption. Also diodes are more robust than other light sources, and don't break as often. Less electricity consumption could mean you could simplify the wiring, saving weight again. I don't know about fuel cell efficiency, but I suspect they're lighter and more reliable now, again saving weight. The guidance computers and gyros also lighter, less energy, more reliable, more flexible. All these gains could be translated into greater crew comfort, safety, endurance, capabilites.What you say is true, but LED's tend to be soldered in place. Much more difficult to replace, and generally not field serviceable, but traditional bulbs are. Put it this way, (speculation ensues), had A13 been built with modern technology, would they have been able to accomplish the return journey?
had A13 been built with modern technology, would they have been able to accomplish the return journey?Why not? For one thing, modern avionics would use far less power so the extreme constraints on battery power and cooling water that Apollo 13 experienced would be much less of a problem today. The computers and guidance system could still have been used to conduct the engine burns instead of having to do them by hand.
What you say is true, but LED's tend to be soldered in place. Much more difficult to replace, and generally not field serviceable, but traditional bulbs are. Put it this way, (speculation ensues), had A13 been built with modern technology, would they have been able to accomplish the return journey?Having some experience on LEDs (well, more in semiconductors generally), I'm not aware of any condition on Apollo 13 that would have caused them to fail. One of the main advantages of semiconductor-based electronics is a certain ruggedness compared to their earlier counterparts, see for example modern RAM design for integrated systems vs. Apollo's core-rope memory.
One of the main advantages of semiconductor-based electronics is a certain ruggedness compared to their earlier counterparts, see for example modern RAM design for integrated systems vs. Apollo's core-rope memory.Very true. I like to cite the example of the Air France 447 flight data recorders. They spent over two years submerged under 4,000 meters of sea water, yet when finally recovered their data was intact. Like most modern recorders they use semiconductor flash memories rather than the tape recorders of years past.
I have just read the first 16 pages of this thread... I now want to inject urine into my eyeballs to take the mental pain away!
JayUtah, Andomreda, Sus_Pilot, Ka9q.... et al...how do you manage to keep calm and reasonably polite when faced with such insanitySeveral ways:
I like a good argument as much as anybody especially when I am absolutely sure I'm factually right. That brings a sort of quiet confidence.
had A13 been built with modern technology, would they have been able to accomplish the return journey?Why not? For one thing, modern avionics would use far less power so the extreme constraints on battery power and cooling water that Apollo 13 experienced would be much less of a problem today. The computers and guidance system could still have been used to conduct the engine burns instead of having to do them by hand.
If some superwealthy person, like an arab oil prince, decided that he wanted to have one of his sons go to the moon and do a little walk, how long would it take from he committed his money, until an actual manned launch could be tried?
What you say is true, but LED's tend to be soldered in place. Much more difficult to replace, and generally not field serviceable, but traditional bulbs are.
Put it this way, (speculation ensues), had A13 been built with modern technology, would they have been able to accomplish the return journey?
had A13 been built with modern technology, would they have been able to accomplish the return journey?Why not? For one thing, modern avionics would use far less power so the extreme constraints on battery power and cooling water that Apollo 13 experienced would be much less of a problem today. The computers and guidance system could still have been used to conduct the engine burns instead of having to do them by hand.
This brings up the question, if Apollo 13 had been built with modern electronics, the battery capacity of the LM might well have been reduced to the lower amount needed for the different design and could have been insufficient to support the minimal life support needed after the accident. So perhaps the accident would have required the more risky option of a turnaround in space through a SM burn.
JayUtah, Andomreda, Sus_Pilot, Ka9q.... et al...how do you manage to keep calm and reasonably polite when faced with such insanity (as in my understanding of the term 'insanity' obviously, and probably going against the spirit of this forum, in that I have no training in psychological disorders and diseases of the mind and cannot give any proof of my theory of this...mind you that's exactly how the CT's seem to operate so at least I am on their level in one respect!) you have my admiration one and all!
Elon Musk went from nothing to an orbital launcher that could technically carry humans to LEO in about a decade...
Indeed, but not without help that the SpaceX fan club doesn't typically acknowledge -- hidden public funds, and a huge influx of "traditional" rocket engineer refugees from the mainstream companies, between Falcon 1 (crap) and Falcon 9 (awesome).
Falcon 1 wasn't that impressive as a launch vehicle, but it did reach orbit on the fourth try (after coming quite close on the second), and it did help with development of the Falcon 9.
For one thing, it's rather good that they learned about the unexpectedly long high-altitude shutdown transient of the Merlin 1C on Falcon 1 Flight 3...
And yes, SpaceX had the benefit of design work and a bunch of experienced engineers from outside, but presumably so would this ridiculously-rich "oil prince", so the comparison still seems reasonable.
JayUtah, Andomreda, Sus_Pilot, Ka9q.... et al...how do you manage to keep calm and reasonably polite when faced with such insanity (as in my understanding of the term 'insanity' obviously, and probably going against the spirit of this forum, in that I have no training in psychological disorders and diseases of the mind and cannot give any proof of my theory of this...mind you that's exactly how the CT's seem to operate so at least I am on their level in one respect!) you have my admiration one and all!
Gods teeth! to doubt Apollo is one thing but to doubt every single manned space mission, and believe that the CIA/NASA is controlling everything...and to back up your doubts by likening space travel to operating boats...madness pure madness!
Can you, e.g. explain re-entry. You are aboard the famous International Space Station, ISS, that according NASA is orbiting Earth every 90 minutes at 400 000 m altitude (almost vacuum) at 7 200 m/s velocity and you want to go down to Earth. It means you have to go down 400 000 m and slow down from 7 200 m/s to 0 m/s speed. How to do it?
Do you jump into a little capsule with a little rocket engine to slow you down? Yes, apparently you do that and the result is that you arrive at 120 000 m altitude but that the velocity then has increased to 9 000 m/s as some potential energy of the capsule has become kinetic energy = greater velocity. It is like diving from the 10 m board. It gets faster the closer you get to the water.
At 120 000 m altitude there is a thin atmosphere with nitrogene and oxygene atoms that you collide with and ... MAGIC ... suddenly you slow down to 100 m/s (at say 5 000 m altitude) and deploy a parachute and land. In a desert in Kazakstan. Where nobody lives. In the middle of nowhere!
Imagine that - you slow down from 9 000 m/s to 100 m/s just by colliding with atoms. But why don't you slow down to 0 m/s by colliding with atoms? Let me ask a stupid question or two? Why do you need a parachute at the end? What is wrong with colliding with atoms to the end?
You ain't seen nothing yet....
"All rockets to space are fakes because rockets don't work in a vacuum as they have no air for the exhaust to push against"
"All of science is fake, and all the scientists in the world are part of a massive conspiracy and cover up. The Laws of Physics don't really exist, they were just made up as part of the super-conspiracy"
"The Nazis had a space programme, and put a man into space in the early 1940's"
"The NASA moan hoax is itself a hoax to cover up the fact that the Chinese hoaxed it first. All the NASA footage is really stolen Chinese footage that has been dubbed and visually altered (American flags instead of Chinese Flags). The Chinese agree to keep quite about it all in exchange for the US pulling out of Vietnam.
"The NASA moan hoax is itself a hoax to cover up the fact that the Russians hoaxed it first. All the NASA footage is really stolen Russian footage that has been dubbed and visually altered (American flags instead of Russian Flags). The Russians agree to keep quite about it all in exchange for wheat export concessions."
There are many many more, and nut just to do with Space and Apollo
Don't forget Moonman! "The Lunar Ascent Stage went off like a rocket!"
How high above the surface of the moon does this alleged vacuum start..?http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?34711-I-Will-Prove-The-Moon-Landings-Were-Hoaxed&p=600377#post600377
Is there a sonic boom when they allegedly entered the vacuum..? If not, why wasn't there..?
Don't forget Moonman! "The Lunar Ascent Stage went off like a rocket!"
The interstage to between the S-II and S-IVB separated with the S-II. Was the risk of hitting the single J-2 considered significantly less?It would seem so. This is what the Apollo 15 Flight Journal has to say about it:
Although part of the S-IVB in terms of construction, the conical aft interstage is left with the S-II at separation. Unlike the earlier staging, this is a single plane separation as the vehicle is essentially outside the effects of the atmosphere. Also, as there is only one engine, there is no possibility of an unbalanced thrust across a cluster of engines skewing the S-IVB's attitude.
Yep, the MTBF for LED's far exceeds traditional bulbs. I was more speculating that sometimes older technology might be the correct solution.If some superwealthy person, like an arab oil prince, decided that he wanted to have one of his sons go to the moon and do a little walk, how long would it take from he committed his money, until an actual manned launch could be tried?
Elon Musk went from nothing to an orbital launcher that could technically carry humans to LEO in about a decade, and a manned version capable of beyond-LEO operations is well on the way to flying (they're doing a pad abort test later this year, IIRC).What you say is true, but LED's tend to be soldered in place. Much more difficult to replace, and generally not field serviceable, but traditional bulbs are.
Small indicator lamps are very often soldered in place, and LEDs can just as easily be removable, but almost never fail. They actually generally have pins better suited for sockets than the wires of small "rice bulb" lamps. For interfacing with the spacecraft, they might just use laptops, switching to a different laptop if one fails.Put it this way, (speculation ensues), had A13 been built with modern technology, would they have been able to accomplish the return journey?
Why would it be less able to do so? A13 rebuilt with modern technology would have much higher reliability electronics with far more room for redundancy, far more sensors and localized control systems, etc. It's likely the tank stirrer would have detected the short and shut down.
JayUtah, Andomreda, Sus_Pilot, Ka9q.... et al...how do you manage to keep calm and reasonably polite when faced with such insanity (as in my understanding of the term 'insanity' obviously, and probably going against the spirit of this forum, in that I have no training in psychological disorders and diseases of the mind and cannot give any proof of my theory of this...mind you that's exactly how the CT's seem to operate so at least I am on their level in one respect!) you have my admiration one and all!
First off, it isn't just against the spirit of the forum. It's ignorant of the meaning of the word "insanity" (hint: it's a legal term) and rude to several people here who do have mental health problems. It's also counterproductive. You don't educate by insulting.
Just out of a combination of curiosity, consideration, and maybe a touch of P.C., what descriptive terms would be inoffensive when referring to, well, the folks we encounter who espouse beliefs that are at odds with reality and who - generally - adamantly refuse to accept simple facts?Willfully ignorant?
a huge influx of "traditional" rocket engineer refugees from the mainstream companies, between Falcon 1 (crap) and Falcon 9 (awesome).I'm as surprised and pleased as anyone by the good record of the Falcon 9 given the abysmal record of the Falcon 1. I grimaced when I saw videos of engine nozzles getting whacked during staging and exponentially increasing (i.e., undamped) attitude oscillations. I began to wonder how much longer they'd survive given their apparent inability to get some pretty basic things right.
Aye, that's my term as well, though, generally, I don't call conspiracy theorists anything, referring to them as conspiracy theorists if and when I refer to the broader group. Some find the term pejorative, but it's their own damn fault if it is. Its literal meaning is neutrally descriptive at worst.Just out of a combination of curiosity, consideration, and maybe a touch of P.C., what descriptive terms would be inoffensive when referring to, well, the folks we encounter who espouse beliefs that are at odds with reality and who - generally - adamantly refuse to accept simple facts?Willfully ignorant?
a huge influx of "traditional" rocket engineer refugees from the mainstream companies, between Falcon 1 (crap) and Falcon 9 (awesome).I'm as surprised and pleased as anyone by the good record of the Falcon 9 given the abysmal record of the Falcon 1. I grimaced when I saw videos of engine nozzles getting whacked during staging and exponentially increasing (i.e., undamped) attitude oscillations. I began to wonder how much longer they'd survive given their apparent inability to get some pretty basic things right.
So I'd be interested in any comments you might have about the reasons for SpaceX's turnaround that are not privileged in some way...
I'm as surprised and pleased as anyone by the good record of the Falcon 9 given the abysmal record of the Falcon 1. I grimaced when I saw videos of engine nozzles getting whacked during staging and exponentially increasing (i.e., undamped) attitude oscillations. I began to wonder how much longer they'd survive given their apparent inability to get some pretty basic things right.
The interstage to between the S-II and S-IVB separated with the S-II. Was the risk of hitting the single J-2 considered significantly less?
One of those was a staging problem caused by residual first stage thrust...
...one was a second stage control problem that may have been triggered by an impact during staging...
I found the on-board video from the third Falcon 1 flight, but it cuts out at staging. Was the stage collision visible in any other views? Link?
Aye, that's my term as well, though, generally, I don't call conspiracy theorists anything, referring to them as conspiracy theorists if and when I refer to the broader group. Some find the term pejorative, but it's their own damn fault if it is. Its literal meaning is neutrally descriptive at worst.Just out of a combination of curiosity, consideration, and maybe a touch of P.C., what descriptive terms would be inoffensive when referring to, well, the folks we encounter who espouse beliefs that are at odds with reality and who - generally - adamantly refuse to accept simple facts?Willfully ignorant?
For one thing, it eliminates "theory" from the name. Theories have to meet specific criteria; most of what gets presented as "conspiracy theories" barely qualifies as a hypothesis.That's true, but even theoretical physicists come up with hypotheses when they aren't advancing a current theories. After all, superstring theory for example is a vivid area of theoretical research, but actually it should be called supersting hypothesis, as there isn't a single experimental result to support it. So even in the "high scientific research", the terminology is muddled.
First off, it isn't just against the spirit of the forum. It's ignorant of the meaning of the word "insanity" (hint: it's a legal term) and rude to several people here who do have mental health problems. It's also counterproductive. You don't educate by insulting.
Second . . . well, I do think education is important. And even if some people are never going to be educated, there are some who are. There are people who lurk and are educated.
Avoid using clinical words such as "insane", "mentally deficient" etc, as it belittles and insults those who genuinely suffer from these conditions clinically.
I prefer to refer to some of the more extreme HB's (such as Sibrel, Kaysing, White and that Aussie guy whose name escapes me at the moment) using general slang terms such as "nut-bar", "nut-job", "froot-loop" etc. My justification for this is that IMO, being clinically of sound mind is not a barrier to being just plain stupid or ignorant.
Just out of a combination of curiosity, consideration, and maybe a touch of P.C., what descriptive terms would be inoffensive when referring to, well, the folks we encounter who espouse beliefs that are at odds with reality and who - generally - adamantly refuse to accept simple facts?Willfully ignorant?
Google "Stundie" and have a browse through JREF's Stundie awards. You will be astonished at the weird stuff that people actually believe. Here's the January 2013 Winner to get you started
We'll see you next month sometime...(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/98915197/Smilies/cheesy.gif)
...does one just ignore the 'howling at the moon' bits and try to re-educate him on the 'science and engineering' bits? why? what would be the point of that? (although obviously in doing so it does, as Gillianren points out, educate everyone else and not just the 'poster' that the response may be to and that is obviously a good thing....otherwise I for one would remain a lot dumber than I currently am)
Both of you have picked up that I may be rude/insulting to those with genuine mental health problems.... that is not my intention, I havent been here long enough to identify persons who may have health issues, and to be perfectly frank unless you work in the health sector how do you know that they have mental health issues?...and at the same time I too have had my own mental health issues in the past, and as the old saying goes 'it takes a nutter to spot a nutter'... but I will try to desist especially if it does upset the more innocent 'nutters'!
Both of you have picked up that I may be rude/insulting to those with genuine mental health problems.... that is not my intention, I havent been here long enough to identify persons who may have health issues, and to be perfectly frank unless you work in the health sector how do you know that they have mental health issues?...and at the same time I too have had my own mental health issues in the past, and as the old saying goes 'it takes a nutter to spot a nutter'... but I will try to desist especially if it does upset the more innocent 'nutters'!
Here's your first piece of information as to how you can know. You can be one of them.
Your second? You can be told by one of them directly. So be told directly. I am bipolar. This means that I take direct and personal offense when "nutter" is considered a synonym for "mentally ill person." It isn't. I joke that I'm "taking back crazy," largely because "sane" has a specific legal definition, and while I may be crazy, I'm not insane. However, that doesn't mean I want to take the brunt of every insult everyone has for mentally ill people.
Third, it does not take a mentally ill person to spot another, though I do acknowledge that we're awfully good at it. What it takes is someone aware of a lot more than you're going to get on this board (except for being directly told). You will not know if what's being presented online is the full extent of the person's personality, and it's shallow and simplistic to make a diagnosis of mental illness without knowing that, even if you couch it in language that is intended to make the whole thing a joke.
I've known people who believe firmly in the old paradigm of "barefoot and pregnant" as the proper state for women. I remember talking to a fellow (this one is really offensive; I apologize in advance) who had reconciled the question of creation vs evolution; his notion was that white people were created, while people of color were "descended from monkeys".
Back years ago, while working as a Paramedic, my partner and I went to a call where it turned out that a 60-ish year old man had died in his sleep, in bed. As we and the M.E. examined the body we found that he was nude. My partner - a guy in his mid-20s - was incensed. His opinion was that "it ain't decent" for a grown man who lived alone to sleep nude.
My point is that there are a lot of people in this world who, even in the absence of any disorder found in the DSM-IV, have some (to me) very odd ways of thinking. I don't think it always falls under the heading of "willful ignorance" - it doesn't seem to me to be a lack of knowledge so much as something in the reasoning process. If not as "balmy", "bonkers", "flaky", or "a 'roo loose in the top paddock", how do we characterize them?
I've known people who believe firmly in the old paradigm of "barefoot and pregnant" as the proper state for women. I remember talking to a fellow (this one is really offensive; I apologize in advance) who had reconciled the question of creation vs evolution; his notion was that white people were created, while people of color were "descended from monkeys".
I would put those in totally different categories. The second one is a positive statement which can be addressed by evidence; the first one is a normative judgement which cannot (although I can't count the number of times I've heard people declare that things like "science" or "logic" or "reason" will prove that their normative judgements are correct).
Back years ago, while working as a Paramedic, my partner and I went to a call where it turned out that a 60-ish year old man had died in his sleep, in bed. As we and the M.E. examined the body we found that he was nude. My partner - a guy in his mid-20s - was incensed. His opinion was that "it ain't decent" for a grown man who lived alone to sleep nude.
My point is that there are a lot of people in this world who, even in the absence of any disorder found in the DSM-IV, have some (to me) very odd ways of thinking. I don't think it always falls under the heading of "willful ignorance" - it doesn't seem to me to be a lack of knowledge so much as something in the reasoning process. If not as "balmy", "bonkers", "flaky", or "a 'roo loose in the top paddock", how do we characterize them?
In the last particular case cited, I would characterise the person as someone who has a different value/judgement/preference system than you do (and also different than I do). If they don't attempt to impose this system on other people, it doesn't particularly bother me. I don't see that anything like "knowledge" or "reason" plays the slightest role here. Can you use knowledge and reason to prove that this viewpoint is incorrect? I don't know how.
Why should we, if they don't all fit the same category?
I realize this is a hot-button issue for you and I understand, really I do - I've spent some time in the place where they lock the doors to keep the world out, not the patients in.
Maybe it's just me, but sometimes when dealing with these... persons... frustration causes me to temporarily lose my formal vocabulary skills and grope for more visceral, descriptive terminology.
The second one was something I heard from a classmate 'way back in high school, so maybe allowance can be made for a not-yet-matured brain. I think that it was the incredible racism of the comment that floored me at the time; would having a low opinion of people of another race be considered a normative (I had to look that up) judgment?
Also, if I had made any attempt at evidence-based reasoning with him on this one, the only safe position at that time and place would be to argue that all humans were the product of Creation. I grew up (and still live) in the rural south, and to question divine creation or (horrors!!) to be an avowed atheist or agnostic, especially for a teenager, was to be a pariah.
I think the phrase bolded above is what worried me. I was in my 20s myself at the time, and still learning about the real world, I guess. The idea of a guy my own age - and this guy was a weekend-beer-guzzling, bed-hopping, hell-raising sort - who was that judgmental about something so innocuous (I forgot to mention that it was a hot August and the house had no A/C except for a window unit in the living room, so it could have been a practical matter as much as a personal preference) as sleeping in the buff in your own home... well, it just struck me that he could easily go on to become one of those legislators who are perfectly willing to extend the law into places it has no business going, such as the bedrooms of consenting adults.(1)
I would put those in totally different categories. The second one is a positive statement which can be addressed by evidence; the first one is a normative judgement which cannot (although I can't count the number of times I've heard people declare that things like "science" or "logic" or "reason" will prove that their normative judgements are correct).In other words, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.
I should probably clarify that in debating these... persons... I strive to ignore personalities and insults and stick to debating the facts. It's when I'm discussing certain HBs with other folks on this side of the line that I find myself groping for descriptive terms.I realize this is a hot-button issue for you and I understand, really I do - I've spent some time in the place where they lock the doors to keep the world out, not the patients in.
Maybe it's just me, but sometimes when dealing with these... persons... frustration causes me to temporarily lose my formal vocabulary skills and grope for more visceral, descriptive terminology.
I can sympathize. However, I do not think it is helpful to any discussion to pejoratively label either side in it. If you can't be polite, who are you helping? If you're reduced to insults, why should anyone think your argument is better than the other? The HBs and so forth have their preferred terms--"shills," "sheeple," and so forth--and we know that, when they are reduced to using them, they've run out of anything sensible and logical to say. Why, then, should we be held to a lesser standard? If you're reduced to arguing the person, not the idea, maybe the better solution is to take a step back, not to be rude to a whole other group, one you hadn't intended to insult, in addition to the person you are trying to insult.
What about allegations of Dunning-Kruger?
Daniel Patrick MoynihanIt's often attributed to him, but he doesn't seem to have originated it. It was used by James Schlesinger and Bernard Baruch before him.
but it's also an argument from authority in some ways. "Trust me--I know what I'm talking about. I'm an Expert."This can be an argument from authority, but experts often have and can cite empirical evidence that non-experts don't have -- and that gives them considerable weight that isn't just "authority".
Interesting. I'd always read that Moynihan was the source.Daniel Patrick MoynihanIt's often attributed to him, but he doesn't seem to have originated it. It was used by James Schlesinger and Bernard Baruch before him.
What about allegations of Dunning-Kruger?The problem with pointing out the DK effect is that in doing so one is inferring an unobservable psychological state of an individual from a very limited scope of interaction. While we all have a thought about the psychological state of various HBs, we really don't know much about them. Certainly not enough to make that kind of judgement to the exclusion of other possible reasons for their behaviors. It can easily become a dismissal or a straightforward ad hominem.
but it's also an argument from authority in some ways. "Trust me--I know what I'm talking about. I'm an Expert."This can be an argument from authority, but experts often have and can cite empirical evidence that non-experts don't have -- and that gives them considerable weight that isn't just "authority".
but it's also an argument from authority in some ways. "Trust me--I know what I'm talking about. I'm an Expert."This can be an argument from authority, but experts often have and can cite empirical evidence that non-experts don't have -- and that gives them considerable weight that isn't just "authority".
Like the man said in the movie Armageddon: "I know the presidents' chief scientific advisor, we were at MIT together. And, in a situation like this, you-you really don't wanna take the advice from a man who got a C minus in astrophysics."Or from Homer J. Simpson:
Oh, there's so much I don't know about astrophysics. I sure wish I'd read that book by that wheelchair guy.In all seriousness, we all give weight to expert opinions. I know I do. But not blindly. I also test them. I'll read up on the topic, probe here and there and kick the tires so to speak, to see if at least some of what they say checks out with other sources or from my own knowledge and experience.
"Tom's car wasn't in the garage last night and he wasn't answering his phone. I think he's having an affair."
"He could be, or perhaps he was working late and didn't want to be disturbed."
"I have a fever and a stuffy nose. I must have the flu."
"No, I'm a qualified doctor and the results of my medical examination are consistent more with a sinus infection."
"Noted physicist Stephen Hawking told me I have the flu, not strep throat."
"Noted physicist Stephen Hawking once stated that if some Texans have loud voices and Tom is a Texan, then Tom must have a loud voice."
"Noted physicist Stephen Hawking once stated that if some stars are destined to become black holes, then our sun will inevitably become one."
"Noted physicist Stephen Hawking once stated he believed our sun would eventually become a black hole."
"The police officer said he heard a loud noise."
"The police officer heard a gunshot."
"The police officer heard a blimp hitting a building."
"The police officer saw what he believed to be an alien spacecraft."
"How did he know it was?"
"Because it didn't look like anything he'd seen before, and police officers are trained to be careful observers."
Well, for me at least, a great many things that we accept as "facts" are dependent upon someone else's authority.
Moon rocks, for example. I accept as fact that the materials so labeled are indeed samples taken from the lunar surface. I cannot make that statement from my own knowledge, however; I accept the personal testimony of the astronauts who collected them, and the collective expertise of the geologists who have examined them.
Hell, all of my rudimentary knowledge of astrodynamics and orbital mechanics is authority based. I accept the principles I've learned because the engineers - like Jay - who have verified them empirically vouch for them and they are consistent with the world as I have observed it.
IMHO, when you get right down to it, pretty much everything we laypersons know about the Apollo missions is what we are told by people who are putative experts in the appropriate fields.
(And of course I can't leave it there. I've run into a number of hoaxies and other conspiracy believers who don't accept the idea of a scientific or technical field. To them, it is all individuals doing as little as possible, concerned only with keeping their jobs and keeping their heads down, and who do nothing but parrot whatever the official word is. The idea of the constant policing and, yes, sniping that goes on in the sciences to keep them basically honest, the complexities of certification and classification and licensing and professional bodies that make a sort of equivalent in the technical fields, heck, the idea of the individual scientist or engineer as active and interested, is entirely foreign to them. It doesn't appear to match their personal work experience, so they discard it.)This. The usual form I see is "All those scientists and engineers are just parroting what they were told in school, by their instructors who are just parroting what THEY were told in school."
...what I dont get, talking Specifically about Anders Bjorkmann, who lets face it is the reason behind this thread, is how a trained 'Engineer' (I have read here that someone has verified that his MSc is genuine) can deny or question something that even I as a layman can see to be true/practicable.
e.g the principles of thrust (am I right here?) he questions how the command module can turn around in space and dock with the LM, or how the shuttle can make an approach in one attitude and then turn around to enter the atmosphere in another attitude. Surely as a Marine architect/Engineer he must have seen ships being 'nudged' around by tugboats..to me the principle is the same even if the mechanics aren't.
And as an Engineer he must have been fascinated by the Harrier jump jet (to some degree at least seeing as it was developed whilst he was a young man who was interested in an Engineering career), which uses 'puffer jets' to change directions of yaw and pitch (and to a degree roll I beleive) in the hovering state. You definitely dont need to be a rocket scientist to see how that can be utlised on a space craft...regardless of your main Engineering discipline.
Also for a Marine Engineer to state that a sea-going vessel moves in 3 dimensions; which obviously it does, but not under its own power in all 3 dimensions, when he knows that the subject matter is a craft moving in 3 dimensions under its own power. What is he trying to prove? because it definitely isn't his expertise in Marine engineering let alone any expertise in aerospace engineering!
I can forgive people like Jarrah White, Bill Kaysing, Bart Sibrel and Marcus Allen....because they dont know any better....but a trained Engineer should know better regardless of his field of speciality!
The CSM disconnected from the third stage and the Lunar Module, LM, stored there, rotated or flipped 180° and then connected to the top of the LM! Quite impressive! Imagine doing this at 11 200 m/s speed.
Space ships operate in space that offers no resistance until you enter a planet's atmosphere. Only gravity forces of the Sun, planets and moons affect vehicles in space.
Three minutes later the launch escape three motors system on top the CM was jettisoned ... one way or another. Why it was fitted in the first place is not clear.
Who was it who expressed astonishment at the ability of the astronauts to clamber between the LM and CM through the latter's heat shield? Was that a Sibrel special?It wasn't him. It was one of the regular HBs on (IIRC) the old BA or BAUT forum.
Confusion about the orientation of the craft seems endemic among the hoaxies.
The SM engine was obstructed by the lunar module (LM) fitted below it at departure.
...some people wonder if they ever existed ... or if they were just one empty mock up with some jet engines at bottom and trick film!
Who was it who expressed astonishment at the ability of the astronauts to clamber between the LM and CM through the latter's heat shield? Was that a Sibrel special?I agree with Peter B., I'm almost certain that wasn't a Sibrel claim.
Confusion about the orientation of the craft seems endemic among the hoaxies.
The funny thing is if the USAF had ever got their Manned Orbiting Laboratory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Orbiting_Laboratory) operational, the astronauts actually would have entered the lab through a hatch that went through their modified Gemini B spacecraft's heat shield.Strictly speaking, the entire Apollo CM was covered with a phenolic heatshield (although I'm not sure about the outside surface of the forward hatch). It was just considerably thicker on the bottom of the capsule that was designed to face forward during re-entry.
Anyway, here's a quote which I think illustrates the point:QuoteThe CSM disconnected from the third stage and the Lunar Module, LM, stored there, rotated or flipped 180° and then connected to the top of the LM! Quite impressive! Imagine doing this at 11 200 m/s speed.
The italics above are mine, to highlight what I just don't get - what is so significant about conducting the maneuver at such a high speed relative to the Earth? What matters is the relative speed of the CSM and the S-IVB, and here we're talking about less than 1 metre per second. It's almost as though he's comparing it to a battleship pulling up alongside an aircraft carrier and the two ships being lashed together, while travelling at 30 knots.
Who was it who expressed astonishment at the ability of the astronauts to clamber between the LM and CM through the latter's heat shield? Was that a Sibrel special?I agree with Peter B., I'm almost certain that wasn't a Sibrel claim.
Confusion about the orientation of the craft seems endemic among the hoaxies.
Anyway, here's a quote which I think illustrates the point:QuoteThe CSM disconnected from the third stage and the Lunar Module, LM, stored there, rotated or flipped 180° and then connected to the top of the LM! Quite impressive! Imagine doing this at 11 200 m/s speed.
The italics above are mine, to highlight what I just don't get - what is so significant about conducting the maneuver at such a high speed relative to the Earth? What matters is the relative speed of the CSM and the S-IVB, and here we're talking about less than 1 metre per second. It's almost as though he's comparing it to a battleship pulling up alongside an aircraft carrier and the two ships being lashed together, while travelling at 30 knots.
OMG I parked my truck this morning. With an Earth rotational speed of ~1000 mph at the equator and my parking spot at ~30 degrees north, that means I was going east at ~866 MPH. Good thing my parking spot faces north! ;) Lets not even get into the speed of the earth around the sun, parking at that speed must be impossible.
Who was it who expressed astonishment at the ability of the astronauts to clamber between the LM and CM through the latter's heat shield? Was that a Sibrel special?
On March 30, 2013 the Apollo11hoaxster.net thread has > 1410 posts (96 pages) about The Heiwa Challenge and none has managed to produce any evidence that space travel is even possible ... or safe. It seems ex-SpaceX clowns are trying to explain why their launch vehicles fizzled. So my money is still in the bank.Yeah, right. ::) Even if it exists, it's a fraction of SpaceX's capital, who, by the way, do launch rockets and retrieve spacecraft from orbit. Jealous much, Björkman? :p And the domain is "apollohoax.net". Your repeated dishonesty and/or incompetence has been noted.
controlled by a robot or computerThe robot part has been added later. I wonder what he imagines to be the difference. :D
I'm increasing tempted to finish every post of mine in this thread with a video of the Swedish Chef ("Björk! Björk! Björk!"), but doing it would be disrespectful. To the Chef. :(
...How you cannot grasp simple fundamentals that apply to all the thousands of satellites, interplanetary probes and manned flights into space........is just baffling...On the previous page I posted a comparison to a battleship pulling up alongside an aircraft carrier and being lashed to it while they were both travelling at 30 knots.
...How you cannot grasp simple fundamentals that apply to all the thousands of satellites, interplanetary probes and manned flights into space........is just baffling...On the previous page I posted a comparison to a battleship pulling up alongside an aircraft carrier and being lashed to it while they were both travelling at 30 knots.
I now think that was an inaccurate comparison. I'm wondering if Mr Bjorkman is still applying a nautical model of propulsion and steering to spacecraft.
In other words, imagine you have a ship travelling along at 5 knots on a course of 90 degrees (that is, to the east). Now imagine you want the ship to maintain that course and speed, but travel stern first. What would you do? You'd order the ship to do a 180 degree turn, then put the engines in reverse. At the instant the ship completes the turn it's travelling at 5 knots on a course of 270 degrees (possibly slower thanks to the turn). It then slows down, stops, and then picks up speed in the reverse direction (course 90 degrees) until it's travelling at 5 knots again.
I think Mr Bjorkman is expecting that the CSM has to do something similar to undertake the Transposition and Docking maneuver.
Take the example above and now imagine you have two ships, one right behind the other, travelling at 5 knots on a course of 90 degrees. You now want the front ship to reverse its facing and instead travel stern first, such that it's facing the second ship bow to bow. What would you do now? The lead ship would have to increase speed and head off at an angle (say, a course of 60 degrees) until you were a few miles away. That would give you enough room and time to circle around until you were directly in front of the second ship, slow down, stop and then accelerate in reverse, while the second ship maintained its speed and heading. If the second ship couldn't alter its speed or heading, then all the adjustments would need to be made by the first ship while it was reversing, until it could take up station bow to bow with the second ship.
But in space, direction of facing and direction of travel are completely decoupled: changing the direction the spacecraft is facing has absolutely no effect on the direction it's travelling.
Hence the reason I like to use the example of the shopping trolley (as long as it has four unlocked wheels) as an analogy for the motion of a spacecraft. I can push the shopping trolley in such a way that it completes a 360 degree rotation while it maintains a fixed distance in front of me (much to the delight of my sons).
Sea going ships operate in the interface water/air on planet Earth - generally only in two dimensions but with the risk of groundings in shallow water. Space ships operate in three dimensions off planet Earth and will hardly run aground but ... are very difficult to slow down. More at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm . Prove me wrong and earn €1M at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm .
Dear Mr Bjorkman
I have received a message requesting that I approve your comment on my website.
I regret to inform you that I am going to treat the comment as spam.
I do not have the time or inclination to debate with you privately regarding our respective understandings of space travel. It is enough to say that the website you have commented on has nothing to do with my interests in space travel, and so comments on it relating to space travel are not appropriate. However, as you intended that the comment be visible to people visiting my website, I will post it on the Apollohoax forum so that it will be visible to people visiting the forum.
I would normally invite you to continue this discussion on the Apollohoax forum, but as you have been banned that obviously is not possible.
I wish you the best, and hope you continue to examine the historical record of space travel.
Kind regards
Peter B
It is enough to say that the website you have commented on has nothing to do with my interests in space travel, and so comments on it relating to space travel are not appropriate.
Why should a spacecraft be hard to slow down? Just apply a force in the opposite direction, and you're slowing.
I'm afraid Heiwa really does not get that it's difference for ships versus spacecraft. I'm sure he's convinced since there's no rudder or opportunity for drag from water to have an effect, a spacecraft is completely uncontrollable.
He wasn't banned for failing to understand how to construct an argument...
He wasn't banned for failing to understand how to construct an argument...
I'm confused...where did I post that as the reason for his dismissal???
QuoteThe CSM disconnected from the third stage and the Lunar Module, LM, stored there, rotated or flipped 180° and then connected to the top of the LM! Quite impressive! Imagine doing this at 11 200 m/s speed.
QuoteThree minutes later the launch escape three motors system on top the CM was jettisoned ... one way or another. Why it was fitted in the first place is not clear.
Actually, I'm beginning to not want to trust him around boats, either.
Anyone who thinks a ship or boat goes in the direction the bow is pointed has NO business getting anywhere near a dock, quay, or within the buoys of a marina.]
Twin screwed ships can run their engines in opposite directions and rotate around without moving forward or aft. It's called casting.
The old-timey aircraft carriers would chock and chain their aircraft along the flight deck edges, fore and aft, port and starboard, pointing outboard, and by revving their engines in various combinations could rotate and translate the carrier in the desired direction.
Yep, and when you add rudder hardovers at the right time, you can accomplish a great deal of maneuverability. For someone presenting himself as a maritime engineer not to know and respect this is beyond incompetent and/or dishonest.
Bjorkman has a legitimate education credential and a verifiable work history in the relevant field, up to a certain point. I don't know that Hunchbacked has any of that.
Anyone who thinks a ship or boat goes in the direction the bow is pointed has NO business getting anywhere near a dock, quay, or within the buoys of a marina.
Oh, heck, I know from personal experience a car may end up moving in a completely opposite direction from the way the nose is pointing. And don't tell me Heiwa in Sweden has no experience with black ice!You would think that, but if his skill and knowledge of driving is anything like his apparent engineering knowledge, I have to wonder if he even has a driver's license.
Tell me about it. In the Bay Area, the first rains seem to call for, "Drive faster! My car might get wet!"
Especially during the first few hours, when all that oil rises out of the pavement in a rainbow sheen, and cars slide through intersections like bumper cars at the Boardwalk.
Consider a couple of facts.
I grew up in a town with an average annual rainfall of twenty-two inches; my current hometown has over twice that--and is in a rain shadow. Second, we don't get it all at once. It probably drizzles three days out of five from September to March, and we get a few heavy falls every year to boot. I don't know where you're living, but I live in a region known for rain. That's all most people do seem to know about my region--rain, coffee, and Microsoft.
Damn those crafty bastards who name things for their function!
Consider a couple of facts.
I grew up in a town with an average annual rainfall of twenty-two inches; my current hometown has over twice that--and is in a rain shadow. Second, we don't get it all at once. It probably drizzles three days out of five from September to March, and we get a few heavy falls every year to boot. I don't know where you're living, but I live in a region known for rain. That's all most people do seem to know about my region--rain, coffee, and Microsoft.
Don't forget the giant slugs.
Consider a couple of facts.
I grew up in a town with an average annual rainfall of twenty-two inches; my current hometown has over twice that--and is in a rain shadow. Second, we don't get it all at once. It probably drizzles three days out of five from September to March, and we get a few heavy falls every year to boot. I don't know where you're living, but I live in a region known for rain. That's all most people do seem to know about my region--rain, coffee, and Microsoft.
Don't forget the giant slugs.
Well it continues to throw me. I still have absolutely no idea what the Launch Escape System was actually used for.
Well it continues to throw me. I still have absolutely no idea what the Launch Escape System was actually used for.
Don't forget the giant slugs.
And tree octopus (http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/)!
The poor things are being hunted to extinction by the Sasquatch. Something must be done.
Well it continues to throw me. I still have absolutely no idea what the Launch Escape System was actually used for.
Well it continues to throw me. I still have absolutely no idea what the Launch Escape System was actually used for.
It was fastened into the CM docking probe apparatus and pulled the CM free in case the Saturn V exploded. Consider it has to be powerful enough to outrun an exploding Saturn V. That should give you an indication of the potential g-forces the crew would have experienced.
Well it continues to throw me. I still have absolutely no idea what the Launch Escape System was actually used for.
It was fastened into the CM docking probe apparatus and pulled the CM free in case the Saturn V exploded. Consider it has to be powerful enough to outrun an exploding Saturn V. That should give you an indication of the potential g-forces the crew would have experienced.
I think I remember hearing Jim Lovell say during an interview that you really didn't want to use the LES because you would be pulling about 20 g for a few seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqeJzItldSQ
Moon Machines has some footage of the (in)famous Little Joe test, where the rocket actually suffered an unexpected guidance failure and added some spice to the test. It's probably YouTubable.
Don't forget the giant slugs.
And tree octopus (http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/)!
The poor things are being hunted to extinction by the Sasquatch. Something must be done.
Well it continues to throw me. I still have absolutely no idea what the Launch Escape System was actually used for.
It was fastened into the CM docking probe apparatus and pulled the CM free in case the Saturn V exploded. Consider it has to be powerful enough to outrun an exploding Saturn V. That should give you an indication of the potential g-forces the crew would have experienced.
I've mentioned before that my friend Chris was working as an engineer on the Orion LES, and they were using the Apollo-Saturn LES as an example (since the company he works for was the original LES contractor). He was working from full-scale original drawings of the LES from their archives. Those who say the "plans for the Saturn V don't exist anymore" don't really realize what "the plans" consist of. I'd be hard-pressed today to find a machine that could copy or digitize the drawings we were looking at.
Moon Machines has some footage of the (in)famous Little Joe test, where the rocket actually suffered an unexpected guidance failure and added some spice to the test. It's probably YouTubable.
Don't forget the giant slugs.
And tree octopus (http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/)!
The poor things are being hunted to extinction by the Sasquatch. Something must be done.
OK, I'm on it! (goes off to kill all the Sasquatch)
In conspiretard-world, nobody ever makes misteaks.Except when they reveal the conspiracy, but would be incredibly stupid to make, like crosshairs being obstructed by composition errors, or forgetting to dig a crater under the "LEM", or add stars to the sky.
A quick question:From the illustrations in the Apollo 16 ALSEP Manual (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/ALSEP_MT_06.pdf) (22MB PDF), pages 4-10 through 4-15, it looks like extra zero was left off the end of almost every angle scale, probably to improve clarity.
...
Does anyone know why they would have listed the numbers with the decimal shifted one place to the left?
In conspiretard-world, nobody ever makes misteaks.If that was in answer to me, I tend to think there's more to it than that. Could the elevation & azimuth scales have been marked to coincide with lat & long, to remove the need for one calculation? And, just due to size, could the scales have been marked in single digits, like a 10x scale?
Sure enough . The Little Joe LES test footage starts at about 13:40.Well it continues to throw me. I still have absolutely no idea what the Launch Escape System was actually used for.
It was fastened into the CM docking probe apparatus and pulled the CM free in case the Saturn V exploded. Consider it has to be powerful enough to outrun an exploding Saturn V. That should give you an indication of the potential g-forces the crew would have experienced.
I've mentioned before that my friend Chris was working as an engineer on the Orion LES, and they were using the Apollo-Saturn LES as an example (since the company he works for was the original LES contractor). He was working from full-scale original drawings of the LES from their archives. Those who say the "plans for the Saturn V don't exist anymore" don't really realize what "the plans" consist of. I'd be hard-pressed today to find a machine that could copy or digitize the drawings we were looking at.
Moon Machines has some footage of the (in)famous Little Joe test, where the rocket actually suffered an unexpected guidance failure and added some spice to the test. It's probably YouTubable.
I've mentioned before that my friend Chris was working as an engineer on the Orion LESI saw the video of the successful test of the complete Orion LES. It was impressive, but I had a strong sense of deja-vu. I kept thinking: damn, that's complicated...just look at all those parachutes...if just one snarls...there's got to be a simpler way...
That is much the same level of "G" as a typical "zero-zero" rocket powered ejection seat.What put those ejection seats in context for me was calculating that their main rocket is an "M"-class engine in the model/high power rocketry classification system. (Each letter indicates a doubling of total impulse from the class below it.) That's a total impulse between approximately 5,000-10,000 Newton-seconds, and using one requires a level "3" high power certification. This is the largest engine you can legally use in the State of California, though other states have higher limits.
A quick question:From the illustrations in the Apollo 16 ALSEP Manual (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/ALSEP_MT_06.pdf) (22MB PDF), pages 4-10 through 4-15, it looks like extra zero was left off the end of almost every angle scale, probably to improve clarity.
...
Does anyone know why they would have listed the numbers with the decimal shifted one place to the left?
Full-scale? Did all parts have this?
It probably drizzles three days out of five from September to March, and we get a few heavy falls every year to boot.
Don't forget the giant slugs.
This weekend, I will probably see someone dressed up as one. Yay, Procession of the Species!
This harks back to "loftsmen" in the shipbuilding industries who would lay out ship parts in full scale, etched in the wooden floors of the lofts above workshops. You actually did confirm the part by laying it on the floor. These loftsmen used long flexible splines tied into curves with ropes and nails in the floor.At Chatham Dockyards on the Tahmes there are three Drydocks, two of them areee from the 18th Century and one was used to build HMS Victory. They have a vast wooden roof over each one built like an upturned ships hull. Their last building job was the Oberon Class Submarines in the 1950s and 60s. Next to the docks themselves is a 'laying out floor' It is still marked with the full size plate dimensions for the hulls, like a giant sewing pattern.
During the 1940s it was common to hold the manufactured part up to the drawing to match the profile: a sort of machinist sanity check. This harks back to "loftsmen" in the shipbuilding industries who would lay out ship parts in full scale, etched in the wooden floors of the lofts above workshops. You actually did confirm the part by laying it on the floor. These loftsmen used long flexible splines tied into curves with ropes and nails in the floor.In the earlier part of my career we still had a loft department at Hawkers producing full-scale drawings on plastic film, which gave better stability than paper. It helped that the Harrier wasn't that large an aircraft. No nails in the floor, though, but spline weights, lead weighted with a clip to hold the spline down. They later installed a Kongsberg computer-controlled drawing machine, big enough for full-scale drawings. Before we got our own printers, we'd borrow it to draw graphs for reports, lots of them across the width of the film and cut them out as A3 or A4 size, then xerox on to paper.
In the earlier part of my career we still had a loft department at Hawkers producing full-scale drawings on plastic film, which gave better stability than paper.
I remember using Drafting Linen as a youngster. It makes fantastic sails for model ships these days.
Can you imagine an entire working career just drawing bolt heads and screw threads?
I had a couple of school friends who went in to drawing offices and that's what they did all day. I suppose as your career went on you get more important things to do.
I did Technical Drawing at school from Year 8 to Year 10 back in the early 1980s. We did most of our work with pencils on paper, but in Year 10 we got to do some work with pens on some other sort of material which we could only use one side of. Would this have been acetate or polyester drafting film?In the earlier part of my career we still had a loft department at Hawkers producing full-scale drawings on plastic film, which gave better stability than paper.
Yes, my last hand-drawing stuff was done on acetate or polyester drafting film...
I discovered later (and wrote a thesis on it) that the eye-mind-hand phenomenon is pretty real. People whose product relies on high levels of spatial reasoning do better at their jobs when they can demonstrate basic competence at 2D drawing such as was classically taught to engineers and architects.I've never been all that good at freehand drawing of views of 3D physical objects, artificial or natural (e.g., people) probably because I hated art class and had exactly 1 semester of engineering graphics way back in high school.
I remember using Drafting Linen as a youngster. It makes fantastic sails for model ships these days.
I should get my 30-inch model of USS Constitution out of the attic and try that. I'm just amazed that I can hold 100-year-old drawings in my hand and they look as crisp and fresh as the day they were drawn. In contrast to CAD, which lasts only as long as the next software revision.QuoteCan you imagine an entire working career just drawing bolt heads and screw threads?
Yeah but some of those guys were proud of how fast they could crank that stuff out.QuoteI had a couple of school friends who went in to drawing offices and that's what they did all day. I suppose as your career went on you get more important things to do.
That is true, and engineers don't draw in general. However the belief during my education was that an engineer who can't draw isn't really worth much. I quickly came to realize that. CAD aside, the best engineers I've seen (and architects too, for that matter) were those who could freehand a passable drawing as they went. I discovered later (and wrote a thesis on it) that the eye-mind-hand phenomenon is pretty real. People whose product relies on high levels of spatial reasoning do better at their jobs when they can demonstrate basic competence at 2D drawing such as was classically taught to engineers and architects.
Sounds like Murray and Cox's description of Caldwell Johnson.I remember using Drafting Linen as a youngster. It makes fantastic sails for model ships these days.
I should get my 30-inch model of USS Constitution out of the attic and try that. I'm just amazed that I can hold 100-year-old drawings in my hand and they look as crisp and fresh as the day they were drawn. In contrast to CAD, which lasts only as long as the next software revision.QuoteCan you imagine an entire working career just drawing bolt heads and screw threads?
Yeah but some of those guys were proud of how fast they could crank that stuff out.QuoteI had a couple of school friends who went in to drawing offices and that's what they did all day. I suppose as your career went on you get more important things to do.
That is true, and engineers don't draw in general. However the belief during my education was that an engineer who can't draw isn't really worth much. I quickly came to realize that. CAD aside, the best engineers I've seen (and architects too, for that matter) were those who could freehand a passable drawing as they went. I discovered later (and wrote a thesis on it) that the eye-mind-hand phenomenon is pretty real. People whose product relies on high levels of spatial reasoning do better at their jobs when they can demonstrate basic competence at 2D drawing such as was classically taught to engineers and architects.
I have to remember which Apollo history that told of this person, but wasn't there someone at Langley that was famous for turning out better free-hand drawings then a draftsman could render on the drawing board?
I did Technical Drawing at school from Year 8 to Year 10 back in the early 1980s. We did most of our work with pencils on paper, but in Year 10 we got to do some work with pens on some other sort of material which we could only use one side of. Would this have been acetate or polyester drafting film?
...the draftsman apparently didn't need to do much more than copy what I'd prepared.
Incidentally, at the start of Year 8 I had to choose between doing TD and Latin. I wanted to do both but they were on the same stream, and it was very hard making a selection. On the upside, the skills I learned in TD are still with me: when I drew up plans for an extension for our house, the draftsman apparently didn't need to do much more than copy what I'd prepared.My school didn't offer technical drawing, so I did it to O-Level standard at evening class. Came in handy when, having got my college place to do engineering, they said it was conditional on my passing the Mechanical Drawing Qualifying Exam. There was more technical drawing to come during the first year at college.
Somewhere in my piles of papers - I hope I still have it - is a little freehand sketch of CC's he drew when we were working on an upgrade to a Shuttle middeck experiment. It's a little masterpiece of design clarity. I also have a framed lithograph of his original concept drawing of the Mercury capsule: practical design with a dash of Jules Verne.I have to remember which Apollo history that told of this person, but wasn't there someone at Langley that was famous for turning out better free-hand drawings then a draftsman could render on the drawing board?Sounds like Murray and Cox's description of Caldwell Johnson.
The latest Conspiracy Skeptic Podcast is about Heiwa. (http://www.yrad.com/cs/#may23) It's only a ~50 minute podcast so they could only touch on about 1% of his legacy.
I hope he is better at nautical stuff than all the other things he write about.
I hope he is better at nautical stuff than all the other things he write about.
He is not. If you think his performance here was dismal, wait until you see professional seafarers, ship masters, and sailors tear into him.
Is he really a professional in what he claims to be? I find it so hard to believe.
And yes, it is difficult to believe that someone who displays such an egregious misunderstanding of the behavior of the physical world could ever have been any sort of engineer.
So how does it feel to be fragilized? Do you get fries with that? :o ::) ::)
Speaking of which, I don't know whether you keep any kind of eye on him but Hunchbacked...
So how does it feel to be fragilized?
Do you get fries with that? :o ::) ::)
Is that what happens to the LM if the DPS fails?
After all these years, I'm still struggling with the finer points of English . . .
Do you happen to recall what the nominal descent rate was at that altitude?
Is that 60 meter abort limit correct? I would have thought they wouldn't have such an embiggened abort window.It was called the 'deadman's zone', and the flight controllers were very aware of it during the final stages of a landing.
This video shows that Clavius, in spite of his reputation, has many misconceptions, and a miscomprehension of Apollo technology. I show points that Clavius failed to see, and which fragilize his debunk of the moon hoax.Just as it says in the Wikipedia article about cranks, a universal attribute is an inability to recognize the compence of actual experts.
Is that 60 meter abort limit correct? I would have thought they wouldn't have such an embiggened abort window.
:( First "fragilised", now "embiggened". I am flummoxicated.
If your descent rate is slower, your window is higher.
:( First "fragilised", now "embiggened". I am flummoxicated.
I can't help with "fragilized," but here's the origin of "embiggen."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_the_Iconoclast
:( First "fragilised", now "embiggened". I am flummoxicated.
I can't help with "fragilized," but here's the origin of "embiggen."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_the_Iconoclast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_the_Iconoclast)
I see. I was not aware of the cromulence of "cromulent". (Or is it cromulentarity?) My most enthusiastic contrafibularities.
That's what I was thinking too.If your descent rate is slower, your window is higher.
Lower surely? Slower descent rate means you can be lower but still safely abort?
Okay, who left the thesaurus lying around...? :):( First "fragilised", now "embiggened". I am flummoxicated.
I can't help with "fragilized," but here's the origin of "embiggen."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_the_Iconoclast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_the_Iconoclast)
I see. I was not aware of the cromulence of "cromulent". (Or is it cromulentarity?) My most enthusiastic contrafibularities.
I'm anispeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused you such pericombobulation.
Not a thesaurus, Peter - Blackadder.
I see. I was not aware of the cromulence of "cromulent". (Or is it cromulentarity?) My most enthusiastic contrafibularities.
I'm anispeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused you such pericombobulation.
If your descent rate is slower, your window is higher.
Lower surely? Slower descent rate means you can be lower but still safely abort?
Not a thesaurus, Peter - Blackadder.Ah, I see you had a cunning plan...
Not a thesaurus, Peter - Blackadder.Ah, I see you had a cunning plan...
I do actually argue for the cromulence of "cromulent." It's a fake word, of course, and meant to sell a specific joke, but it serves a valuable function in the language so far as I'm concerned, and that's all it counts to make it a "real" word.
That's what I was thinking too.If your descent rate is slower, your window is higher.
Lower surely? Slower descent rate means you can be lower but still safely abort?
That's what I was thinking too.If your descent rate is slower, your window is higher.
Lower surely? Slower descent rate means you can be lower but still safely abort?
But since I said it first, I get the T-shirt. :p
I agree. People who use the language make the language. Lexicographers are just around to record what happens, not to prescribe usage. Its antecedent "embiggen" pokes fun at the mechanism by which English contrives new words with prefixes and suffixes, often at the expense of a more suitable existing word. As such it shares a bench with the baroque "antidisestablishmentarianism," also perfectly cromulent. Start with a faux root, add an anglicized Latin adjective suffix, give it a context from which its meaning can be inferred, and you have the makings of a new adjective. Since it has an agreed-upon meaning -- "ironically our counterintuitively valid" -- it thus fits a niche. This is how the language grows, intentionally or otherwise. It is as valid as any other word.
I agree. People who use the language make the language. Lexicographers are just around to record what happens, not to prescribe usage. Its antecedent "embiggen" pokes fun at the mechanism by which English contrives new words with prefixes and suffixes, often at the expense of a more suitable existing word. As such it shares a bench with the baroque "antidisestablishmentarianism," also perfectly cromulent. Start with a faux root, add an anglicized Latin adjective suffix, give it a context from which its meaning can be inferred, and you have the makings of a new adjective. Since it has an agreed-upon meaning -- "ironically our counterintuitively valid" -- it thus fits a niche. This is how the language grows, intentionally or otherwise. It is as valid as any other word.
I confess that I'm a prescriptionist by nature. However, I would posit that more Americans, at least, recognize "cromulent" than many other words of longer standing. Heh--just as an example, a lot of people know that "antidisestablishmentarianism" is a word, but how many of them actually know what it means? So leaving aside that we all understood in context what "cromulent" meant in its first appearance--Mrs. Krabapple's throwaway usage is probably the funniest part--enough people understand it out of context that even prescriptionists must accept its validity. And there is enough difference between, for example, "cromulent" and "valid" that it serves its purpose as no other word can, and I'm always supportive of words that increase precision.
I agree. People who use the language make the language. Lexicographers are just around to record what happens, not to prescribe usage. Its antecedent "embiggen" pokes fun at the mechanism by which English contrives new words with prefixes and suffixes, often at the expense of a more suitable existing word. As such it shares a bench with the baroque "antidisestablishmentarianism," also perfectly cromulent. Start with a faux root, add an anglicized Latin adjective suffix, give it a context from which its meaning can be inferred, and you have the makings of a new adjective. Since it has an agreed-upon meaning -- "ironically our counterintuitively valid" -- it thus fits a niche. This is how the language grows, intentionally or otherwise. It is as valid as any other word.
I confess that I'm a prescriptionist by nature. However, I would posit that more Americans, at least, recognize "cromulent" than many other words of longer standing. Heh--just as an example, a lot of people know that "antidisestablishmentarianism" is a word, but how many of them actually know what it means? So leaving aside that we all understood in context what "cromulent" meant in its first appearance--Mrs. Krabapple's throwaway usage is probably the funniest part--enough people understand it out of context that even prescriptionists must accept its validity. And there is enough difference between, for example, "cromulent" and "valid" that it serves its purpose as no other word can, and I'm always supportive of words that increase precision.
It was Miss Hoover, not Mrs Krabapple.
If it's any consolation Jay, I understood "higher" to mean "larger", and when Glom said "lower", I read it as "smaller", which had me scratching my head how he could think that...until it kicked in to my thick skull that he was understandably reading it as meaning altitude. ;DIf your descent rate is slower, your window is higher.
Lower surely? Slower descent rate means you can be lower but still safely abort?
Er, yeah. ;D
It was Miss Hoover, not Mrs Krabapple.
It was Miss Hoover, not Mrs Krabapple.
How to tell that I didn't even read my own link, huh?
If it's any consolation Jay, I understood "higher" to mean "larger", and when Glom said "lower", I read it as "smaller", which had me scratching my head how he could think that...until it kicked in to my thick skull that he was understandably reading it as meaning altitude. ;D
More like I've given myself away as someone who watches far too much Simpsons.
More like I've given myself away as someone who watches far too much Simpsons.
I tend to joke that most English majors graduate able to quote Keats and Milton, but I was mostly able to quote Homer. On the other hand, Matt Groening is an alumnus of my alma mater, and the show was still good when I was a student, so it was practically a religion. However, I haven't had cable in several years, we don't own any seasons on DVD, and it isn't available streaming from Netflix, so I'm a bit behind. At least I knew that it was Mrs. Krabapple (whose name I both remember and spell correctly!) talking to Miss Hoover during the assembly?
Mrs. Krabappel: Embiggens? I never heard that word before moving to Spingfield.
Miss Hoover: I don't know why, it's a perfectly cromulent word.
I tend to joke that most English majors graduate able to quote Keats and Milton, but I was mostly able to quote Homer. On the other hand, Matt Groening is an alumnus of my alma mater, and the show was still good when I was a student, so it was practically a religion. However, I haven't had cable in several years, we don't own any seasons on DVD, and it isn't available streaming from Netflix, so I'm a bit behind.You haven't missed much. The writing took a big downward plunge around 2000 or so, and it went from by far the greatest show on TV to one that we don't even bother to watch anymore on a regular basis. Even great TV shows have their day.
Yeah, but I haven't seen old episodes much in the last couple of years, either.That's what the Internet is for.
I note there are 106 pages discussing my popular Challenge and nobody has managed to win. I wonder why.
I note there are 106 pages discussing my popular Challenge and nobody has managed to win. I wonder why.
I note there are 106 pages discussing my popular Challenge and nobody has managed to win. I wonder why.
I note there are 106 pages discussing my popular Challenge and nobody has managed to win. I wonder why.
I note there are 106 pages discussing my popular Challenge and nobody has managed to win. I wonder why.
I note Heiwa hasn't explained how steel can float on water, either. I wonder why.I wonder if he's worked out why the Launch Escape System was fitted to the Saturn V rocket? Or how the CSM and LM were steered during the Lunar Orbit Insertion burn?
I note there are 106 pages discussing my popular Challenge and nobody has managed to win. I wonder why.
Several people have given you the calculations you asked for, you have completely ignored that.
Welcome back, Heiwa. Please answer the above.Thanks - I actually respond to all serious emails sent to me at [email protected] . Try yourself!
You are right. Because you are wrong.
I'd like to think you might have actually taken some time to learn a few things about the subject in your absence, but I doubt it.
I don't suppose Heiwa would care to put the question before an impartial group of aerospace engineers and let them judge?
. . . No, I thought not. That's because all the aerospace engineers in the world agree that Apollo happened as described by NASA, so of course they're in on a conspiracy!
Plenty aerospace engineers and NASA experts have been encouraged by me to win my €1M Challenge by just copy/paste the 1960's energy/force/fuel/mass calculations how to get in and out of Moon orbit down to Moon and back to Earth with the Apollo space ship but it seems NASA lost those calculations.
Imagine the Apollo asstronuts punching cards in space feeding the computer how to navigate 1969 in order not to crash on the Moon or speed off to Mars or into the Sun.
It seems they also used a sextant to plot the position of the Sun to double check the data.
But it should be easy to do the calculations and make a simulation on a modern PC today and just to send me a copy of the voyage data ... and collect €1M.
Several people have given you the calculations you asked for, you have completely ignored that.
My Challenge rules are at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm . Apart from calculations (?) you have to show with a real structure (any scale/size) + video of it how a small top part C of a structure can crush down, by dropping it on bottom part A of same structure that keeps part C up statically. C = 1/10A.
Thus - show first how bottom part A keeps top part C on top in place (it is simple).
Then remove top part C from bottom part A - elevate C 3.6 meters and drop it on A.
If C then crushes A you win €1 000 000:-.
That's the Challenge.
Actually my calculations at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm or http://heiwaco.tripod.com/emi2013.htm show that it is not possible.
Show me wrong and collect € 1 000 000:- .
Welcome back, Heiwa. Please answer the above.Thanks - I actually respond to all serious emails sent to me at [email protected] . Try yourself!
Several people have given you the calculations you asked for, you have completely ignored that.
My Challenge rules are at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm . Apart from calculations (?) you have to show with a real structure (any scale/size) + video of it how a small top part C of a structure can crush down, by dropping it on bottom part A of same structure that keeps part C up statically. C = 1/10A.
Thus - show first how bottom part A keeps top part C on top in place (it is simple).
Then remove top part C from bottom part A - elevate C 3.6 meters and drop it on A.
If C then crushes A you win €1 000 000:-.
That's the Challenge.
Actually my calculations at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm or http://heiwaco.tripod.com/emi2013.htm show that it is not possible.
Show me wrong and collect € 1 000 000:- .
What has the WTC collapse (which, again, you have refused to accept corrections on in other places) have to do with space flight? Have you given up on it because you know you are wrong?
I don't suppose Heiwa would care to put the question before an impartial group of aerospace engineers and let them judge?
. . . No, I thought not. That's because all the aerospace engineers in the world agree that Apollo happened as described by NASA, so of course they're in on a conspiracy!
Plenty aerospace engineers and NASA experts have been encouraged by me to win my €1M Challenge by just copy/paste the 1960's energy/force/fuel/mass calculations how to get in and out of Moon orbit down to Moon and back to Earth with the Apollo space ship but it seems NASA lost those calculations.
Of course, in those days you had to punch holes in cards that you then fed into the computer's card reader and then you had to wait a day before the computer printed out 1 000's of pages of results of all sorts. If one card was wrong all output would be wrong.
Imagine the Apollo asstronuts punching cards in space feeding the computer how to navigate 1969 in order not to crash on the Moon or speed off to Mars or into the Sun. It seems they also used a sextant to plot the position of the Sun to double check the data. GPS didn't exist then.
But it should be easy to do the calculations and make a simulation on a modern PC today and just to send me a copy of the voyage data ... and collect €1M.
You are here, you can respond here as well.Welcome back, Heiwa. Please answer the above.Thanks - I actually respond to all serious emails sent to me at [email protected] . Try yourself!
Blah blah blah
Several people did just that - they provided the calculations openly, both here and on other forums (and I believe you won a Stundie in the process of demonstrating your wilful ignorance). You ignored them, just as you will no doubt ignore this.
Welcome back, Heiwa. Please answer the above.Thanks - I actually respond to all serious emails sent to me at [email protected] . Try yourself!
Given how abusive you have been, why the heck would anyone give you their email address?!
I really have no idea how this guy got unbanned, but if it is the same one posting on cluesforum that the Boston marathon bombing was a faked psyop, there really is no hope of getting anything meaningful from him.
What kind of idiot makes a claim like this below -
http://cluesforum2.info/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1602&sid=a0602e9912c18f5e8f5d9afa0ac61ec9&start=420#p2383414
Shame on you!
Heiwa's challenge reminds me of an old story about a psychotic patient who believed he was dead, and the new psychiatrist who decided to cure him of his delusions by logic.
He asked the patient, "Do dead people bleed?" and the patient responded, "No, of course, everyone knows dead people do not bleed, because their blood no longer circulates."
So, the psychiatrist took out a scalpel, and made a small incision on the patient's arm. Blood immediately started welling out.
"There!" said the psychiatrist triumphantly. "You're bleeding, and this proves you're alive!"
"No," the patient responded dolefully, "it just proves that dead people do bleed, after all."
The moral is, if someone is determined to cling to a certain conclusion, no amount of logic or sound scientific argument will persuade them. So, Heiwa's claim that "no one has succeeded in proving the case," is pointless, because there is no proof he will accept.
I really have no idea how this guy got unbanned, but if it is the same one posting on cluesforum that the Boston marathon bombing was a faked psyop, there really is no hope of getting anything meaningful from him.What a disgrace.
What kind of idiot makes a claim like this below -
http://cluesforum2.info/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1602&sid=a0602e9912c18f5e8f5d9afa0ac61ec9&start=420#p2383414
Shame on you!
the only person not telling the truth here is YOU. YOU have been provided the answer on this forum multiple times. YOU have refused to admit YOUR errors.Several people did just that - they provided the calculations openly, both here and on other forums (and I believe you won a Stundie in the process of demonstrating your wilful ignorance). You ignored them, just as you will no doubt ignore this.
They did? Where? When? How? They never sent it to me for verification and pay out. Sorry, you are not telling the truth.
Several people did just that - they provided the calculations openly, both here and on other forums (and I believe you won a Stundie in the process of demonstrating your wilful ignorance). You ignored them, just as you will no doubt ignore this.
They did? Where? When? How? They never sent it to me for verification and pay out. Sorry, you are not telling the truth.
He doesn't care. He is obviously no stranger to lying. Just check out his page where he slanders the posters here and makes the fallacious claim that the forum and posters here work for NASA. Or the claim that he understands the problem in the first place. We all know that one is a lie.Several people did just that - they provided the calculations openly, both here and on other forums (and I believe you won a Stundie in the process of demonstrating your wilful ignorance). You ignored them, just as you will no doubt ignore this.
They did? Where? When? How? They never sent it to me for verification and pay out. Sorry, you are not telling the truth.
How dare you.
It has been presented here, in this thread and in the one on CosmoQuest many times as you requested.
How dare you.
He doesn't care. He is obviously no stranger to lying. Just check out his page where he slanders the posters here and makes the fallacious claim that the forum and posters here work for NASA. Or the claim that he understands the problem in the first place. We all know that one is a lie.
You know, there was a teacher in France who recently committed suicide partly in a protest against the ever increasing stupidity he encountered in the country.
I really have no idea how this guy got unbanned
I really have no idea how this guy got unbanned
To be honest, I'm not sure why he was unbanned either. Apparently I set his ban to expire, although I didn't mention that when I announced his banishment (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=109.msg14944#msg14944) back in April. But fortunately this is a mistake I can rectify.
Several people have given you the calculations you asked for, you have completely ignored that.
My Challenge rules are at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm . Apart from calculations (?) you have to show with a real structure (any scale/size) + video of it how a small top part C of a structure can crush down, by dropping it on bottom part A of same structure that keeps part C up statically. C = 1/10A.
Thus - show first how bottom part A keeps top part C on top in place (it is simple).
Then remove top part C from bottom part A - elevate C 3.6 meters and drop it on A.
If C then crushes A you win €1 000 000:-.
That's the Challenge.
Actually my calculations at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm or http://heiwaco.tripod.com/emi2013.htm show that it is not possible.
Show me wrong and collect € 1 000 000:- .
What has the WTC collapse (which, again, you have refused to accept corrections on in other places) have to do with space flight? Have you given up on it because you know you are wrong?
OK, where's my pay-cheque then. If I am a paid shill for NASA, then I want my shilling fee !!
PS: Is this idiot anything to do with that other idiot who claims that dropping something like a six million pound* block of concrete on one of The WTC Towers from a height of two miles would not have damaged them.
PS: Is this idiot anything to do with that other idiot who claims that dropping something like a six million pound* block of concrete on one of The WTC Towers from a height of two miles would not have damaged them.
* for reference, that is the weight of 15 fully laden, fully fuelled Boeing 767's!
Why do you get so upset and OT? I am just a nice guy living in southern France offering my advice and opinions free.You're charging much more than they're worth.
Yes, same guy.
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world
How sad is it though that when his ban expired he was back here?
They did? Where? When? How?
They never sent it to me for verification and pay out. Sorry, you are not telling the truth.
"Björkman believes his house would survive an asteroid impact."I'm now picturing a house (of the "small backwoods shack" variety) levitating in the center of that crater at ground level, with Björkman poking his head out the door and holding up a sign that reads "Good thing I never studied physics."
I think a cursory examination of the terrain 43 miles east of Flagstaff AZ might change his mind!!
I think a cursory examination of the terrain 43 miles east of Flagstaff AZ might change his mind!!Have you ever been there? I recommend it. It looks even bigger when you're standing at the rim.
Anyone knows how to report to french authorities someone that obviously needs to be put in mental hospital??
Anyone knows how to report to french authorities someone that obviously needs to be put in mental hospital??
I'm not sure he's mentally ill. I wouldn't quickly make that accusation based on a few posts online. I do think he is paranoid, arrogant, and an ignoramous.
Agreed. Having opinions in an area in which he is totally ignorant, and being too arrogant/stubborn to admit he's wrong does now equate to mental illness.(I assume you meant "not".)
If he genuinely believes the things he is saying then I would agree he is not a well man, but there is no evidence he is risking harm to himself or others (his claims to be a safety consultant are clearly false, as his 'company' webpage is nothing of the sort and no official body recognises him as such), therefore no need to section him.
Agreed. Having opinions in an area in which he is totally ignorant, and being too arrogant/stubborn to admit he's wrong does now equate to mental illness.(I assume you meant "not".)
Yeah, I agree. Otherwise much of the world would be considered mentally ill.
There is an intriguing phenomenon called "folie a deux", though sometimes "deux" can be a very large number.
If he genuinely believes the things he is saying then I would agree he is not a well man, but there is no evidence he is risking harm to himself or others (his claims to be a safety consultant are clearly false, as his 'company' webpage is nothing of the sort and no official body recognises him as such), therefore no need to section him.
I'm willing to leave the decision to the proper authorities who can examine him personally, but just because no one is using his "professional" services doesn't mean he is harmless. Just the idea that he is his usual realitydenying self, while driving a car makes me glad he is not near me...
I did indeed.Agreed. Having opinions in an area in which he is totally ignorant, and being too arrogant/stubborn to admit he's wrong does now equate to mental illness.(I assume you meant "not".)
There is an intriguing phenomenon called "folie a deux", though sometimes "deux" can be a very large number.
I'm not sure he's mentally ill. I wouldn't quickly make that accusation based on a few posts online. I do think he is paranoid, arrogant, and an ignoramous.
Similar to Smartcooky I am also, apparently, a NASA employee. I wonder when I'll get told to go home from work...... ::)Yep, me too. Either that or one of ka9q's sock puppets - it varies day-to day.
I think a cursory examination of the terrain 43 miles east of Flagstaff AZ might change his mind!!Have you ever been there? I recommend it. It looks even bigger when you're standing at the rim.
Yep, me too. Either that or one of ka9q's sock puppets - it varies day-to day.
Maybe we ought to stop commenting on his posts during the current idiocy, just to feed his delusion....
He's trying to use the Tsiolkovski formula...
Didm't he say that equation had nothing to do with it?! :P
97% of NASA employees are on furlough. I doubt they have the budget for bonus payments right now.
British guy here. I've been giving out disinfo for free? Damnit.
It looks like the last time I've done a diff/saved a copy was in April (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg15025#msg15025). Does anyone want me to do a new one? The page has probably accumulated a lot of changes.A bit late reply, but yes, please.
They've shut down our open bar policy here. But the bar owner is keeping a tab open for the regulars in the hope he will keep our business and maybe even get back pay. The restrictions have put a crimp on recruiting though. Who would want to work so hard to keep this hidden for just money.British guy here. I've been giving out disinfo for free? Damnit.
Yea, where's mine?.. I have some serious back-pay owed here :|
/snark
British guy here. I've been giving out disinfo for free? Damnit.
British guy here. I've been giving out disinfo for free? Damnit.
The British Rocket Group signs our cheques. Contact Professor Bernard Quatermass. He'll sort you out.
British guy here. I've been giving out disinfo for free? Damnit.
The British Rocket Group signs our cheques. Contact Professor Bernard Quatermass. He'll sort you out.
Honestly guys, all this stuff is in the Disinfo Monthly newsletter...
Most people believe US astronauts visited the Moon 1969-1972.*facepalm* No, dipshit, it's a painting, not a "fake photo". It's clearly presented as a painting on the artist's website, and it's easily distinguishable from a photography.
People believe it because they were manipulated to believe it by TV, false films, photos, reports and testimonies.
Like this fake photo below right:
Apollo 11 taking off from the Moon!
100% fake!
It is easy to manipulate people.
(16 October 2013 or even before all below nasa links/photos were not working due to some shutdown in USA, i.e. NASA cannot pay $ 4 /month to the ISP to keep them running! It is serious if you cannot pay $ 4/month! It seems I am right about NASA! It is just propaganda).
(16 October 2013 or even before all below nasa links/photos were not working due to some shutdown in USA, i.e. NASA cannot pay $ 4/month to the ISP to keep them running! It is serious if you cannot pay $ 4/month! It seems I am right about NASA! It is just propaganda that has gone bankrupt).So, we can add "US politics", "government agency operation" and "web hosting" to the ever growing list of subjects about which Björkman is (wilfully?) ignorant.
Actually all the 534+ astronuts or kosmocrauts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_travelers_by_name) of many countries claiming having been travelling in space between 1960 and 2013 are simple liars paid to keep up the hoax. We are living in a world of liars.Was it me or someone else who asked him about that page in this thread? :D
[describes retroreflectors] Imagine that! A whole or half silica cube with a diameter that bounces light!And the page is full of things like this. Every time I see one I must resist the temptation to use a certain meme inspired by Pulp Fiction.
Actually anything entering Earth atmosphere at ~11 000 m/s immediately burns up and becomes gas, smoke ... nothing but atoms unless the forces acting on the object breaks it into small pieces ... that burn up.This time, it's the immortal words of Bugs Bunny that come up... I'm sure Earth's atomizing magic shield would be a great comfort to the dinosaurs, Björkman. :P
Above photo shows a small 78 tons NASA Shuttle with x tons payload (or is it a 5 tons empty mock-up?) being sent into space to reach the ISS by a very big 3 750+ tons NASA launch vehicle full of fuel. The 78+ tons Shuttle is connected to the 3 750+ tons launch vehicle via one little bolt that is removed when the Shuttle and launch vehicle separate.No, you ignorant, pompous crank, the External Tank is not a launch vehicle, and the rest reveals a lot of ignorance about space terminology and the Shuttle stack. Which would be normal for a layman, but most lay people don't presume they can debunk human spaceflight...
Shouldn't the NASA launch vehicle be a little bigger than the little NASA Shuttle?
Anyway - never believe what you see on a photo type above. It is a FAKE!
Me and Zakalwe still get shout-outs, though. Hi, Björkman!
P.S. By the way, do you know one of the reasons why his website looks as if it was made in 1998? 8) Because it's made with an application last released in 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claris_Home_Page)! :D :D :DI thought it was because it was made by a moron??
...Also, apparently meteorites don't exist:So...the Chelyabinsk meteor was a hoax too?QuoteActually anything entering Earth atmosphere at ~11 000 m/s immediately burns up and becomes gas, smoke ... nothing but atoms unless the forces acting on the object breaks it into small pieces ... that burn up.This time, it's the immortal words of Bugs Bunny that come up... I'm sure Earth's atomizing magic shield would be a great comfort to the dinosaurs, Björkman. :P
So...the Chelyabinsk meteor was a hoax too?
Or was it actually an American missile? Oh, hang on, those things re-enter the Earth's atmosphere at many klicks a second too...
It seems Mr Bjorkman has upped the ante since the last update on his site: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm
- A photo of the Chang-E 3 mission control room is "funny": "Imagine that watching a funny square TV screen in a bulky box makes you control a Moon landing. The photographer in the middle of the photo must have been impressed." A square TV screen is funny?
It seems Mr Bjorkman has upped the ante since the last update on his site: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm
- A photo of the Chang-E 3 mission control room is "funny": "Imagine that watching a funny square TV screen in a bulky box makes you control a Moon landing. The photographer in the middle of the photo must have been impressed." A square TV screen is funny?
- Regarding a mission to map a billion stars in the Milky Way and the Local Group: "Do not ask me what the Local Group is." I suppose admitting your ignorance is a good thing, but surely a visit to Wikipedia would provide a big clue.
- Because parachutist Felix Baumgartner exceeded the speed of sound on his jump, the atmosphere is too thin to slow an Apollo spacecraft.
- He still doesn't know why the Saturn V had a launch escape system.
- Then there's the general ignorance: "You would expect that you could vary the 5 tons thrust to slow down or stop the descent...but there is no indication that you could do it." "There was no window in the LM." "The rubber tyres [on the lunar rover] didn't melt." "...a plasma trail, whatever it is, can maybe not be seen - what is it?" "...how can a sonic boom or two claps (?) from a shuttle propagate from space to ground?"
- Swedish astronaut Christer Fuglesang is "...just a bad actor. And a very stupid engineer." Well, I suppose the opprobium is spread evenly.
- SpaceX "...has done the same, impossible, thing starting October 28, 2012, when the Dragon capsule dropped into the Pacific just outside Los Angeles. Its PICA-X heat shield is private property, i.e. no details are available. I evidently assume the SpaceX Dragon was dropped into the Pacific from a plane having taken off from a nearby airport ... Hollywood style ... and never visited the ISS." The fact that they're doing what the USA, USSR/Russia and China have done isn't perhaps a suggestion that it's real?
Which raises the obvious question (well, it's obvious to me): Why would all these countries and companies want to hide from us the impossibility of space travel? Other things are recognised as impossible (like, say, travel to the stars). What's the point of maintaining the idea that, out of all the currently impossible things, manned spaceflight is possible?
If I were one of his followers, I'd be starting to get embarrassed about it now. It's one thing when he sounds like he knows what he's talking about. It's another when he so frequently admits that he doesn't.
NASA and Dr. David R. Williams of the NASA Solar System Exploration Data Services Office or Solar System Exploration Division Services Offce (sic), are not willing to tell neither how much fuel was actually needed and carried by the Apollo 11 Service and Lunar modules and times used to fire the various rockets to produce the kinetic energy required to get into orbit around Moon with the Lunar Module, visit the Moon and then get out of orbit around Moon direction Earth and to brake upon arrival Earth again, nor how and where to store it during the trip! Info is available in very confusing reports, but if it can be trusted is not certain.
I especially like this paragraph:
Anders Björkman:QuoteNASA and Dr. David R. Williams of the NASA Solar System Exploration Data Services Office or Solar System Exploration Division Services Offce (sic), are not willing to tell neither how much fuel was actually needed and carried by the Apollo 11 Service and Lunar modules and times used to fire the various rockets to produce the kinetic energy required to get into orbit around Moon with the Lunar Module, visit the Moon and then get out of orbit around Moon direction Earth and to brake upon arrival Earth again, nor how and where to store it during the trip! Info is available in very confusing reports, but if it can be trusted is not certain.
Brake?
Did the Apollo capsule actually fire some kind of braking thruster? I have always thought they returned with the main engine on the SM pointing back towards the moon (making subtle course corrections using the RCS as needed on the return flight) then just before arrival, they dumped the SM and translated the CM to face heat shield first and hit the Earth's atmosphere at the specified angle so as not to burn up or skip off, and allowed aerodynamic drag do the braking for them?
Brake?
Did the Apollo capsule actually fire some kind of braking thruster? I have always thought they returned with the main engine on the SM pointing back towards the moon (making subtle course corrections using the RCS as needed on the return flight) then just before arrival, they dumped the SM and translated the CM to face heat shield first and hit the Earth's atmosphere at the specified angle so as not to burn up or skip off, and allowed aerodynamic drag do the braking for them?
Bjorkman doesn't believe in aerodynamic braking though. So I expect he thinks that they had a big anchor that they just threw out to slow the CM down.....
Wait a minute. Are you suggesting there was _no_ anchor?
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.QuoteAnd Walter did it?
Walter Cronkite was an American broadcast journalist for CBS News. He described how the maneuver was completed to the American public on TV. Why are you obsessed with him?!QuoteAnd then the CSM with the Lunar Module on top of the CM was sent off to the Moon.
Yes.QuoteWhy not?
Does that mean you accept you were wrong?
Thread necromancy alert, 6 years, just about. Andromeda hasn't been here in months, and Heiwa has been banned.
Fred
Thread necromancy alert, 6 years, just about. Andromeda hasn't been here in months, and Heiwa has been banned.
Fred
Anders has found a new home, he's just as arrogant and ignorant as always.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=3.0
Phil
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/39/39b6a201d8808d5a9ce084e1bb3bc4fa6b0bfecaefc8d941b37dc23fb4e10b88.jpg)Thread necromancy alert, 6 years, just about. Andromeda hasn't been here in months, and Heiwa has been banned.
Fred
Anders has found a new home, he's just as arrogant and ignorant as always.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=3.0
Phil
One must realise that Heiwa is fast running out of venues that will allow his wild claims. Thus he must necessarily seek further reaches of the fringe to even have a chance of posting anything. Do not forget, he was banned by Simon Shack. That takes some effort.(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/39/39b6a201d8808d5a9ce084e1bb3bc4fa6b0bfecaefc8d941b37dc23fb4e10b88.jpg)Thread necromancy alert, 6 years, just about. Andromeda hasn't been here in months, and Heiwa has been banned.
Fred
Anders has found a new home, he's just as arrogant and ignorant as always.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=3.0
Phil
Man, some people just don't know when to lay off. His thread there has something like three times as many pages as this one, and I think TFES has a higher post/page ratio than here.
Edit: Yeah, they do 30 posts per page versus the 15 here. So, obviously, the thread is 6 times longer and still growing.
One must realise that Heiwa is fast running out of venues that will allow his wild claims. Thus he must necessarily seek further reaches of the fringe to even have a chance of posting anything. Do not forget, he was banned by Simon Shack. That takes some effort.
Owner/operator of this kettle of crazy...One must realise that Heiwa is fast running out of venues that will allow his wild claims. Thus he must necessarily seek further reaches of the fringe to even have a chance of posting anything. Do not forget, he was banned by Simon Shack. That takes some effort.
Simon Shack as in....?
Anyone who claims rockets work in a vacuum or that radiation/nuclear power is real risks a ban at Clues Forum. Last year Simon Shack started promoting his own theory of how the Solar System works.Bwahahaha. That was a "Wait,what?" moment.
Owner/operator of this kettle of crazy...One must realise that Heiwa is fast running out of venues that will allow his wild claims. Thus he must necessarily seek further reaches of the fringe to even have a chance of posting anything. Do not forget, he was banned by Simon Shack. That takes some effort.
Simon Shack as in....?
cluesforum[dot]info
Link intentionally broken. Be warned. It will make your eyes bleed.
Owner/operator of this kettle of crazy...One must realise that Heiwa is fast running out of venues that will allow his wild claims. Thus he must necessarily seek further reaches of the fringe to even have a chance of posting anything. Do not forget, he was banned by Simon Shack. That takes some effort.
Simon Shack as in....?
cluesforum[dot]info
Link intentionally broken. Be warned. It will make your eyes bleed.
Never been there, thanks.
Not a member there either. Why? Are dissenting voices banned? No. Because dissenting voices never even get that far. The sign-up procedure requires an interview with Simon, and one must agree with him.Owner/operator of this kettle of crazy...One must realise that Heiwa is fast running out of venues that will allow his wild claims. Thus he must necessarily seek further reaches of the fringe to even have a chance of posting anything. Do not forget, he was banned by Simon Shack. That takes some effort.
Simon Shack as in....?
cluesforum[dot]info
Link intentionally broken. Be warned. It will make your eyes bleed.
Never been there, thanks.
I recall a two seat chopper had a failure and crashed into some random pub in England. Tragic event with casualties, but not many. They then proceeded to claim that all of the news pics were faked because.....something. The powers that be wanted it to be so. To what end is left unexplained. I have not been for some time, but whenever I dip in, the utter fruit loopiness is guaranteed for a larf.Owner/operator of this kettle of crazy...One must realise that Heiwa is fast running out of venues that will allow his wild claims. Thus he must necessarily seek further reaches of the fringe to even have a chance of posting anything. Do not forget, he was banned by Simon Shack. That takes some effort.
Simon Shack as in....?
cluesforum[dot]info
Link intentionally broken. Be warned. It will make your eyes bleed.
Never been there, thanks.
The guy ranting on the bus that you don't want to make eye contact with? That's Cluesforum.
You really can't make this stuff up. Reminds me of two things, the first being a flat earther on Reddit who, despite being absolutely insane when it came to the FE stuff, was able to very cogently describe why they thought Star Wars: The Last Jedi sucked. The other was some infighting between flat earthers, when a guy who is well known for making absurd claims was actually the voice of reason against another FE'er who was spouting a lot of racist talking points.Not a member there either. Why? Are dissenting voices banned? No. Because dissenting voices never even get that far. The sign-up procedure requires an interview with Simon, and one must agree with him.Owner/operator of this kettle of crazy...One must realise that Heiwa is fast running out of venues that will allow his wild claims. Thus he must necessarily seek further reaches of the fringe to even have a chance of posting anything. Do not forget, he was banned by Simon Shack. That takes some effort.
Simon Shack as in....?
cluesforum[dot]info
Link intentionally broken. Be warned. It will make your eyes bleed.
Never been there, thanks.
It is really out there. It competes with the Icke forum on the scale of flat out nuts.
The thing that cracks me up is that Heiwa was banned for being too rational. Wow.
Are you thinking of the crash in Glasgow in 2013? I ask because best not say it was in England.I recall a two seat chopper had a failure and crashed into some random pub in England. Tragic event with casualties, but not many. They then proceeded to claim that all of the news pics were faked because.....something. The powers that be wanted it to be so. To what end is left unexplained. I have not been for some time, but whenever I dip in, the utter fruit loopiness is guaranteed for a larf.Owner/operator of this kettle of crazy...One must realise that Heiwa is fast running out of venues that will allow his wild claims. Thus he must necessarily seek further reaches of the fringe to even have a chance of posting anything. Do not forget, he was banned by Simon Shack. That takes some effort.
Simon Shack as in....?
cluesforum[dot]info
Link intentionally broken. Be warned. It will make your eyes bleed.
Never been there, thanks.
The guy ranting on the bus that you don't want to make eye contact with? That's Cluesforum.