Well, this thread has had some impact: Björkman has revised his page. Apparently, instead of acknowledging some of the rebuttals here, he just modified his page. As a result, some of the quotes in
my large post no longer appear on it. Good job I had archived the page before opening this thread.
For example, he has covered up his ignorance of the Apollo's RCS, but he still can't resist claiming that the CSM/LM movements were a problem:
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.
Umm, ever heard of "relative velocity",
Heiwa? The
transposition, docking and extraction that you were ignorant of (and still are) are possible for the same reason you can walk inside a flying airplane - or on the deck on a moving ship. And it was done after TLI, so the velocity of the whole stack was even greater.
And I'm addressing Heiwa because he apparently continues to read this thread after his flounce, resulting in prose like this:
Self-appointed space craft propulsion experts 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! 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.
Meltdown complete.
Should we keep score? The "self-appointed spacecraft propulsion experts" bit is deliciously ironic.
A lot of the numbers also seem to have been re-jiggled, though I'm too lazy at the moment to compare them with the old ones.
