So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?

[Daggerstab]

Rather interesting word choices here. Heiwa, do you use some kind of machine translation?

[gillianren]

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.

No.  As I said, my browser says that your site is distributing malware and won't let me visit.  Besides, why should I bother tracking yet another ignorant claimant around the internet when the evidence shows he won't listen to evidence anyway?

As a Moon travel safety consultant I do not want that to happen to you. 

To whom?  This is clearly a job title, and if so, you can obviously give information as to who you serve as travel safety consultant to.  Or are you making this claim to make yourself seem more important to people even more ignorant than you are?

And pls do not call me a conspiracy theorist, if you you ever get that idea. I am a safety consultant.

You are proposing a conspiracy.  By definition, you are a conspiracy theorist.  Why should I care if you don't like the term?

[Jason Thompson]

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.

[dwight]

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.

But if the piano player clearly has no idea how to read music, uses the footpedals as the keyboard, and doesn't even realize he's playing an out-of-tune instrument, surely he can't be too surprised when someone does shoot?

[Heiwa]

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. 

[Chew]

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.

Please explain how you got this 75.47 GJ result:

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.

[Andromeda]

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. 

Please provide your calculations to prove that.

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.

And quit with the libellous ad hominem attacks.

[Jason Thompson]

You are a little off topic

Not at all. Apollo does not exist in isolation. The principles that apply to Apollo apply to all space flight, manned or otherwise. You don't get to ignore any and all related topics when you can't answer them just because they are not specifically related to Apollo 11.

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.

And yet we seem to have managed it. I repeat, do you claim that probes such as Lunar Orbiter, Surveyor, Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, Clementine, Lunar Propspector, Selene, Kaguya, Galileo, Cassini, Magellan and many more are also fake? If not, what is so specifically hard about a manned lunar orbiting craft?

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.

You don't need fuel to provide any of those things, but even so we await your calculations to prove your assertion.

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.

And what of the other Apollo flights? You know there were others, right?

[Daggerstab]

For the benefit of the random spectators, here's some commentary about specific claims on Heiwa's page. I'll leave the physics "calculations" to the more qualified and focus on the various lapses of basic knowledge in the text. The whole thing is an example of why conspiracy theorists should be familiar with the "mainstream version" before "criticizing" it.

http://www.members.tripod.com/heiwaco/moontravel.htm

It's a bit hard to decide where to start, but:

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 first two are entries for the Apollo 11 CSM and LM in the spacecraft catalog of the National Space Science Data Center. Due to its nature, these are short, encyclopedia-style descriptions of the spacecraft, not full blown treatises on the Apollo system. The last link is a short layman-level description of the Apollo 11 mission on NASA's main website. It's unclear if Björkman thinks that this is everything NASA has to offer about the Apollo program, or if he just can't be bothered to find more.

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.

It's unclear why he thinks that the masses of modules differ, or where did he get that orbital velocity. I couldn't find it in the linked pages.

He also appears to be unaware of the CSM's maneuvering thrusters, which makes docking with the LM a problem in his world, requiring repeated emphasis on their relative positions during launch and flight:

[illustration caption]

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).

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.

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.

Just a sidenote: is is that hard to find out that the main engine used a combination of Aerozine 50 and N₂O₄? I believe that their densities can be also easily found...

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.

Using the thrusters of the reaction control system, the CSM turns around, docks with the LM and extracts it. There is an illustration of it in the SLA article linked above, and a separate article - Transposition, docking and extraction that has video of the process. The process was even portrayed in Apollo 13. How is possible for someone to pretend to comment on Apollo without knowing this?

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.

It's the main engine of the CSM. It's mentioned in the page about the CSM linked by Björkman himself. ("...mid-course correction burn of the main engine was performed...") Failure in reading comprehension or he just didn't bother to read it?

Eagle undocking and decent on the Moon
(...)
How the undocking was done is not clear as LM and CSM had same speed and engines at opposite ends.

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).

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!

^{[citation needed]} for the temperature of the spot under Armstrong's feet. I'm also curious why Heiwa thinks that Armstrong's "shoes" should have melted. Materials able to withstand 150°C are not inconceivable even for Earth conditions (what shoes do firefighters and metalworkers wear?)

The spacesuits were well-insulated against thermal radiation. Internally generated heat was collected by the Liquid Cooling Garment and discarded by a sublimator in the backpack.

Another major research failure is the assertion that the helmets or the visors (I assume this was meant by "screens") were made of glass (it was plastic).

Anyway, the heat claim is pretty much a standard canard of Moon conspiracy theorists. It has been addressed on Clavius:
http://www.clavius.org/envheat.html

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.

It is also possible as you use the third stage of the start rocket but not really recommended with people aboard!

Why?

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.

The CSM used its RCS to detach from the S-IVB stage. The stage was steered aside and sent into a heliocentric orbit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V#S-IVB_sequence for a start. After Apollo 13, the S-IVB stages were sent to impact the Moon to provide seismological data.

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!

Actually, no, if they missed the brake burn, they would be on a free return trajectory to Earth. Even if they were not, they would still be in heliocentric orbit subject to perturbations by the Moon and the planets.

And this is the point where I got bored.

[JayUtah]

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.

No.  Your reputation precedes you.  You are obviously no engineer.  I am a qualified engineer working for more than 20 years in the U.S. aerospace community.  You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when it comes to operating spacecraft in space.  Since you are the lone individual challenging an entire multi-billion dollar industry, you have to show that your objections are based upon more than your ignorant misunderstanding of a highly technical field.

Re Moon travel you have, e.g. to show how you brake to get into Moon orbit...

Your objection on this point is based on requirements you simply invent.  You do not enjoy a priori credibility.  You do not properly derive or validate your expectations, therefore there is no point in asking someone to explain how those expectations should be met.  You bear the burden to prove you have analyzed this dynamics problem correctly, in contravention of the findings of the entire rest of the industry.  You are not a lone genius.

As a Moon travel safety consultant I do not want that to happen to you.

You are not a "Moon travel safety consultant."  You have practically no useful knowledge of orbital mechanics or astrodynamics.

Your claim that NASA does not discuss fuel requirements for its Apollo missions is factually false.  You are using the wrong dynamic models for the spacecraft.  Your assumptions about what should instead be the case is simple layman's preconceptions.

Correct those egregious errors first, and only then will it make sense to discuss anything else you've written.

And pls do not call me a conspiracy theorist, if you you ever get that idea. I am a safety consultant.

No, the only activity we can discern for you here or anywhere is promoting conspiracy theories, some of which you promote for profit.  You are a conspiracy theorist.  If you are unable to face the essential nature of what you do and what you propose, then there is no point in attempting to discuss anything further with you.

[ka9q]

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.

[ka9q]

The mass properties for the Saturn V rocket used to launch Apollo 11 are given in the Saturn V launch vehicle flight evaluation report starting on page 20-1. The numbers are given in exquisite detail, including even the masses of frost formed on the outsides of the cryogenic propellant tanks.

Using the propellant consumption figures from this table and the known performance of the F-1 and J-2 rocket engines, one can compute the performance of each stage and see that it provided the necessary delta-V to first get Apollo 11 into earth orbit and then on its way to the moon.

[Chew]

I'd tell him to start with the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation

Tsiolkovsky schmiolkovsky. Everybody knows the unit of measure of momentum is the joule.

[DataCable]

Every change in speed or direction during Moon travel requires energy

False.  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.

[ChrLz]

Do not worry.

What, me worry?  I am simply amused/bemused by what I see on forums..

The MONEY is there for anyone

Well, 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.

Q. 1  You will now show the PROOF that the money is there.

Q. 2 Are *you* the sole arbiter of the challenge?
 2a If not, who else is involved and what are the terms?
 2b If you are 'it', do *you* think it is a fair and reasonable challenge, given what does appear to be a significant bias on your part and the fact that the alleged money is .. yours..?

As a Moon travel safety consultant

I'm sorry .. what?

Q. 3 WHO are you consulting for?

Q. 4 Did you consult for the only people who have gone, to date? (That would be NASA..)  Evidence please.

Q. 5 Please link to whatever you think is the *best* example of an analysis *you* have done regarding moon travel.  It should be thorough and comprehensive (and I hope it isn't what you have already posted..).


Anders, I'm afraid I have doubts about the existence of the money, and I also *highly* doubt your qualifications/experience/knowledge.  As you have now come to this forum of your own volition, the onus is now on YOU.  If you expect to be taken seriously here, but do not fully and properly answer all of the questions above, then I think the implication is VERY obvious.

If you do answer them satisfactorily, then perhaps I (or even a group of AHers) might consider your challenge...