So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?

[Heiwa]

Hey, Heiwa, do rocket engines work in vacuum?

Rocket engines work in this case in space ships like Apollo 11. Try to be on topic and avoid stupid questions.

[Andromeda]

Hey, Heiwa, do rocket engines work in vacuum?

Rocket engines work in this case in space ships like Apollo 11. Try to be on topic and avoid stupid questions.

What, like you avoid making stupid statements?  HA!

[Heiwa]

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?

Thanks for your intelligent comment. What are you trying to say?

[Heiwa]

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.  ...

Why do you think that directly compares?

Thanks for your comment. Try to be on topic. 

[Jason Thompson]

Try to be on topic and avoid stupid questions.

That would carry a whole lot more weight if any of us thought you'd recognise an intelligent question...

How about answering the ones we have already put to you:

Do you acknowledge that the fuel was Aerozine-50 and not pure hydrazine?

Do you acknowledge you have the LM fuel load wrong?

How did you calculate the mass of fuel from the volume in liters? We want the numbers and calculations you used to get your asnwer, because on your own webpage you said 'assumed' mass of...

[JayUtah]

Damn, Jay - post 516 might just be the finest thing I've ever read here.

I will graciously accept your compliment, but instead suggest you praise yourself, Bob, Glom, and KA9Q for slogging through the meat and potatoes of the relevant computations.  Due to attention paid elsewhere, I'm sort of cruising across this thread at a higher altitude.  Others have borne the burden far better than I here.

[LunarOrbit]

Hey, Heiwa, do rocket engines work in vacuum?

Rocket engines work in this case in space ships like Apollo 11. Try to be on topic and avoid stupid questions.

I've warned you about your pretending to be a moderator here, and about insulting the other members of the forum, and yet you keep on doing it.

I'm putting you onto the moderation list until I decide you've changed your ways.

[Andromeda]

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.  ...

Why do you think that directly compares?

Thanks for your comment. Try to be on topic. 

It is on topic because he has proven you wrong.

I've said it before and I will say it again.... Pratt.

[Jason Thompson]

Try to be on topic.

You have been told to stop trying to dictate what is and is not on topic. Since being outright abusive failed to get you the ban you so clearly wanted, you are now trying for ignoring moderator instructions, yes?

[JayUtah]

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.

[nomuse]

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.

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.

[JayUtah]

Thanks for your comment. Try to be on topic.

I am on topic.  Address my point or admit that you cannot.

This disrespectful nonsense is what's off-topic.  Fewer smilies and more correct math, please.

[Mag40]

Hey, Heiwa, do rocket engines work in vacuum?

Rocket engines work in this case in space ships like Apollo 11. Try to be on topic and avoid stupid questions.

Well yes, they do work in space. Now all you have to do is to take your head out of 'that place'......and educate yourself as to how. With all the input you've received...an engineer would be able to do it.


I'll give you a million euros* if you answer this question:
Please account for the massive difference in work supposedly needed to stop walking down the aisle of a plane as opposed to stopping walking in the park.










* under the same conditions you currently employ for your payment.

[Heiwa]

Pls send me an e-mail when you allow the discussion to proceed.

[nomuse]

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. 

The mass of the ship does.  The mass of the system doesn't.

Or don't you believe in conservation of mass, either?

So, actually, you are wrong there too.  Momentum is conserved. That's how rockets work!

Your own numbers are telling you this!  You must have noticed that every time you attempt the calculation your way, you get a negative number as a result.  Your own numbers are trying to tell you something.