So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?

[Andromeda]

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.

Precisely.

[gillianren]

But it can be seen in US museums and it is easy to cut off a piece and test. It burns at 1200°C!

Oh, I missed this one.  Yeah, just go ahead and cut off bits of museum displays.  That'll go over well.

[Jason Thompson]

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

Prove it.

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

YES! At least three individuals have done just that. Explain your complete inability to read and understand and why you just keep repeating your same tired old incorrect assumptions.
 

I have asked NASA how the Apollo 1969 heat shield was designed, what material it used, how it was tested, lab reports, etc. SECRET!

Bull. The information is published widely. I do not believe for a moment you have asked NASA anything. Or at least that you have asked NASA anything they could actually answer in ways you could understand. You are clearly no engineer.

It burns at 1200°C!

That's how it works. It's called ablation. Look it up.

[Heiwa]

The fuel consumption for EVERY use of EVERY engine on Apollo IS provided.

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?

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.

[JayUtah]

OK, the money is in the bank! Happy?

No.  You have provided no proof that the money is in the bank and available to be claimed.  I explained to you how that was typically done.  Tell us why you have failed to demonstrate it as asked.

But in order to collect it, you must perform - as explained above - and be polite.

You're being politely indulged.  No one believes you have the money and would be willing to pay it out, so kindly drop the charade.

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!

This has been done for you multiple times.  You ignore the explanation because you do not understand physics and engineering.  This is why you are a poor judge of whether or not you are wrong.  Hence the proper way to pay out your alleged reward would be to place it in escrow under control of a competent third-party judge.
 

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

Nonsense.  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.

Very confusing actually.

Not to us.  Many of us do this for a living.  Yes, it is clear you are very confused, which is why the charade of your being a wealthy, highly qualified engineer is so comical.
 

I have asked NASA how the Apollo 1969 heat shield was designed, what material it used, how it was tested, lab reports, etc. SECRET!

Nonsense.  The Apollo heat shield was not new technology at the time.  It was, in fact, borrowed from existing designs for re-entry heat shields for unmanned vehicles.  There is an abundance of technical information on its construction, composition, testing, and use -- both before and after Apollo.

The problem is that either through your incompetence or your laziness, you are unable to find even the most commonly available materials.  You then wrongly attribute your inability to do basic research to some vast secret.  The only factor at play here is your ignorance, sloth, and clear bias.

[Heiwa]

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.

[JayUtah]

Then use it and calculate the energy required to slow down in space.

This was done for you pages ago.

Just 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.

[ka9q]

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.

I worked it out during my last cruise (on a large, brand-new, diesel-electric, German-built cruise ship). It was about a ton per revenue passenger for a 10-day cruise. For about 2,400 passengers on a ship displacing nearly 100,000 tons, that is negligible compared to a spacecraft and launcher where, as I said, nearly all of the launch mass is propellant. In fact, the ratios are just about swapped.

And for a ship carrying large amounts of a commodity like ore or crude oil, where speed is not as important as on a cruise ship, the fuel ratios are even smaller.

Why don't you return the favor and do the calculations for the Apollo/Saturn V? You just might learn something.

[Jason Thompson]

Firstly, why assume I have a link? Some people get information from documents stored in places called libraries. They're a great research tool. You should get off your backside occasionally and try using one.

Secondly, why should I want to know the figures for a P-22KS engine with 97,400 N thrust when the SPS used an AJ10-137 engine with 91,000 N thrust, which used Aerozine-50 and nitrogen tetroxide?

[Jason Thompson]

But here's a link you might want to check out.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/842097.pdf

[ka9q]

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.

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.

And I did answer your exact question about the amount of fuel required for Apollo 11's first lunar orbit insertion burn. Read it and stop stalling.

[Heiwa]

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?

[Jason Thompson]

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.

Only when you have been given the CORRECT equations and numbers and refuse to acknowledge same.

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.

And your calculations used the wrong numbers and the wrong principles, as has been explained to you over and over and over again. Will you please get your head out of your backside and understand that physics understanding does not stop at grade school level and that things like the Tsiolkovsky equation are the things you should be looking at.

Where is the problem? Are you a NASA PhD?

Didn't take long for the veiled accusation of being a paid NASA shill to come out, did it?

[Andromeda]

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.

You did a lot more than that.  You made libellous statements about the astronauts, NASA, engineers and us and engaged in name-calling.

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.

You have been shown your are wrong repeatedly on that score, but you refuse to acknowledge it (let alone accept it).  That is why people are becoming frustrated with you.

Where is the problem? Are you a NASA PhD?

Are you asking for Jay's qualifications specifically?  Oh boy, this will be good.

[gwiz]

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.