So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?

[Glom]

That's a new one. Conspiracy theorists have said some crazy things over the years, but this is the first time I heard that Armstrong's crew just made it up for bragging purposes in the pub.

Truly we have entered a new realm of illucidity.

In fact, the ignorance of the very basics of the mission design, such as transposition and docking, remind me of the Nasascam website.

Heiwa, do you think it was only three drunken sailors? Do you know the names of the other 18 drunken sailors who have been to the Moon.

[frenat]

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.

Probably so.  And doubtful it is 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.

I didn't call you that, but you are.

I'll give you point for not being a seagull though.

[frenat]

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.

Engineers aren't as stupid as you think they are.  The math has been done.  It is out there.  Again, not worth it to bring it to you because you evidently don't want to see it.  If you really cared you would have found it already or done the research and figured it out yourself.

[BazBear]

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.

Well that's a relief, otherwise GPS, satellite communications, weather satellites etc. wouldn't work quite as well as they do.

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.

[nomuse]

On the subject of sailors telling stories: is there a term for those peculiarly Navy tall tales?  Like the one about a destroyer spreading blue paint on the ocean; the submarines it was chasing would get paint all over the periscope when they tried to take a look topside and would think they were still underwater.  They'd keep blowing ballast until they were a few hundred feet in the air, at which point the destroyer would open up on them with anti-aircraft guns.

[Count Zero]

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..."

[nomuse]

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..."

Thanks!  I knew there was some formulaic phrase...but I couldn't even formulate how to ask about it.

[Heiwa]

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.

43000*(2400²-1500²)/2

It is basic physics. See table at end of article in link given in post #1, where all is explained.

[gillianren]

How did you get those numbers?

[Heiwa]

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.

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. Same happens on the return trip - after getting out of Moon orbit (you need extra force for it) and away from Moon gravity force, Apollo 11 accelerates all the time due to Earth gravity force (and arrives with great velocity at Earth < 11200 m/s they say). 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.

[Heiwa]

How did you get those numbers?

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.

[Chew]

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.

What happens if I throw a ball from the surface of the Earth at a 45° up angle at 20 m/s? Will the ball follow a parabolic arc or will it continue up at a 45° angle until gravity stops it moving upward and forward and then it falls straight to the ground?

[JayUtah]

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.

[Grashtel]

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 on a webpage that you have been pointed at earlier in this thread 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.

In fact for ease of reference here are the numbers that NASA doesn't tell us in that non-existant report:

Lunar Orbit Insertion:
Ignition: 96061.6 lb
Cutoff: 72037.6 lb

Circularization:
Ignition: 72019.9 lb
Cutoff: 70905.9 lb

(I'm leaving the values in pounds because that is what the report has them in and I have held your hand more than enough already).

[LunarOrbit]

I think Grashtel deserves the 1 million Euro.