So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?

[Heiwa]

Nobody here believes you have the money. 

What nobody believes is evidently of little interest. Maybe nobody is just poor and jealous. Maybe angry? But it is off topic. Like all these NASA PhDs with fat salaries doing nothing but producing propaganda.

[Heiwa]

Your calculations have been shown to be wrong repeatedly. 

Where, when, how? Pls provide the correct calculation! 

[frenat]

Nobody here believes you have the money. 

What nobody believes is evidently of little interest. Maybe nobody is just poor and jealous. Maybe angry?

But it is off topic. Like all these NASA PhDs with fat salaries doing nothing but producing propaganda.

It is not off topic and you have not proven they do nothing but produce propaganda.  What you have proven is
1. You don't have the money as you have no intention of showing proof of it
2. You have no intention of giving out any money as you repeatedly ignore your mistakes.
3. You are a troll.

[dwight]

150 degrees. Armstrong's shoes didn't melt - (astronauts would be too hot) Bingo!
I am not in conspiracy theories. I just report my observations and calculations and results. (I don't believe in a hoax, but...) Bingo!

[Heiwa]

You can produce a force forever with no energy at all when that force does not act through a distance.

Yes, a force applied to any mass while not displacing the mass any distance does not require energy to exist ... as no energy is required. But here the force is applied on Apollo 11 by its SM rocket engine to slow down Apollo 11 during a rather long trajectory to enter Moon orbit and for that energy/fuel is required. Pls try to stay on topic and do not start with some metaphysical nonsense popular amongst SF-writers.

[Heiwa]

150 degrees. Armstrong's shoes didn't melt - (astronauts would be too hot) Bingo!
I am not in conspiracy theories. I just report my observations and calculations and results. (I don't believe in a hoax, but...) Bingo!

Thanks for quoting from my presentation. Yes, try to walk on a 150° hot tin roof ... . Cats do not like it.

[Glom]

It's been showed numerous times how you're approaching the calculations from completely the wrong direction. The delta-v is known. The propellant required to achieve this delta-v can be calculated from the Tsiokovsky rocket equation.

Your misuse of 1/2 mv^2 shows your understanding of physics is at a 14 year old level. You're applying equations wrong. Go back and do it again with the Tsiokovsky equation.

[ka9q]

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! I assume we all agree to this - see discussion above.

No, we don't all agree because you're simply wrong.

Scratch that, you're so confused that you're not even wrong.

If 1 kg rocket fuel produce 1.63 MJ energy as NASA suggests, it seems you need 46 300 kg fuel for this maneover.

My question is therefore - where did NASA store 46 300 kg fuel in the Apollo 11 SM?

Nope, also wrong. I've already given you the correct amount of propellant and showed that it's consistent with its known properties and those of the rocket engine. That you continue to ignore my direct answers to your questions, and everyone else on this forum who does (unlike you) know what they're talking about, shows that you're not at all serious about the discussion.

[ka9q]

Yes, a force applied to any mass while not displacing the mass any distance does not require energy to exist ... as no energy is required.

Which directly contradicts your previous claims:

Applying a force 1 N to a mass of 1 kg will accelerate that mass at 1 m/s² ... and no energy is required for that acceleration.

But you need energy to produce the force.

So are you now conceding that you were in error?

But here the force is applied on Apollo 11 by its SM rocket engine to slow down Apollo 11 during a rather long trajectory to enter Moon orbit and for that energy/fuel is required. Pls try to stay on topic and do not start with some metaphysical nonsense popular amongst SF-writers.

There's no metaphysical nonsense here, only a (so-far unsuccessful) attempt to explain to you the proper physical model of the operation of a rocket engine and to use that model to give you the answers you claim don't exist. Please try to stay on topic and do not continue trying to bait the people who are trying to help you.

[dwight]

150 degrees. Armstrong's shoes didn't melt - (astronauts would be too hot) Bingo!
I am not in conspiracy theories. I just report my observations and calculations and results. (I don't believe in a hoax, but...) Bingo!

Thanks for quoting from my presentation. Yes, try to walk on a 150° hot tin roof ... . Cats do not like it.

Good thing they landed to take advantage of a sun elevation angle on the lunar surface of 10.8°. How could you miss that fact with all the study you have done? I mean those shadows are l-o-n-g.

[gwiz]

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! I assume we all agree to this - see discussion above.

We certainly don't agree.  You've made such a colossal howler in coming up with that number for the energy that no-one believes your claim of engineering expertise. 

Since you lie about that, why should anyone believe you about the million dollars?

[Heiwa]

It seems nobody at Apollohoaxforum can explain how much energy/fuel Apollo 11 needed to enter into and out of orbit of Moon without atmosphere, so I suggest we now turn to the famous re-entry through Earth atmosphere and landning, where no energy was needed at all according NASA. Just dive into the atmosphere! But how?
Re-entry had been tested with Apollo 4 after a trip around the Moon and Apollo 4 arrived at Earth outer atmosphere with velocity 11 200 m/s. Apollo 4 then managed a short re-entry - distance 4 400 km first down into the atmosphere during an initial entry phase, then the on-board computer changed the pitch and Apollo 4 flow up in the atmosphere - upcontrol phase - and then there was a final entry phase and ... parachutes deployed and splash down. Fantastic.
Apollo 11 apparently did another trajectory - much slower, much longer, no ups or downs but a smooth ride down and managed to splash down just in front of US president 'Tricky' Dick Nixon on an aircraftcarrier south of Hawaii. It was not fantastic - it was magic.
According my calculations such re-entries, incl. all backwards Shuttle re-entries from the ISS later,  are not possible at all - the so called heat shield burns up immediately and with it the whole space ship. OK, the Shuttle had no heat shield but went backwards doing loops like a screwdriver to come down - all fantasy. Like usual. 
How can anybody believe that re-entry is possible just dropping down from space? Just diving or jumping from 10 meter is difficult if you look down before. If you look straight and dive you arrive at great speed into the water a little later. Diving from 400 000 meter with a start velocity 11 200 m/s is another biz. You will burn up long before you hit water.

[dwight]

"Apollo 4 after a trip around the Moon" - say what? You sure you don't mean Mercury Friendship 7 made the trip to the moon with both Ham and Enos in the pilot's seat? I mean, come on, if you are going to make such howlers, at least do it with style.

[ka9q]

But here the force is applied on Apollo 11 by its SM rocket engine to slow down Apollo 11 during a rather long trajectory to enter Moon orbit and for that energy/fuel is required.

Although an energy analysis is not really necessary to show that Apollo 11 worked as advertised, it can be useful in gaining some of the basic insights into rocket fundamentals that you very obviously lack.

In that case you must consider not just the chemical energy in the propellant but also its very substantial amounts of kinetic energy, both before the burn when it is still in the spacecraft tanks and after the burn as hot gas expelled from the rocket engine. I'd tell you to look up the "Oberth Effect" but I seriously doubt you're actually interested in learning anything, especially as it would force you to part with EU 1M.

This is a good example of how your shipping-based intuition has gotten you in big trouble. The fuel on an oceanic ship is used purely to store energy and is usually a tiny fraction of its total mass; this is most decidedly not the case for a spacecraft. An oceanic ship propels itself by pushing on the surrounding water. No water (or air, or anything else) surrounds a spacecraft in space so it can only propel itself by pushing on material that it has carried with it. That material is called "propellant"; in a chemical rocket it additionally stores energy. Energy alone is insufficient to propel a spacecraft, so even when energy is available from solar or nuclear sources, propellants must still be carried.

If you really were an engineer as you claim, you would have enough theoretical understanding to appreciate that important fundamental differences exist between shipping and space flight even if you didn't already know what they were. You'd have an open mind and be willing to learn what they are. That you can't even accept that they exist shows that you're no engineer of any kind.

[Heiwa]

"Apollo 4 after a trip around the Moon" - say what? You sure you don't mean Mercury Friendship 7 made the trip to the moon with both Ham and Enos in the pilot's seat? I mean, come on, if you are going to make such howlers, at least do it with style.

No, I mean the unmanned, computer steered Apollo 4 fantasy story as described by NASA and quoted on my web page (topic - see post #1).