So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?

[dwight]

Apollo 4 which went to the moon, right?

[ka9q]

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 tell me, are you deliberately ignoring me because you can see that I know what I'm talking about and have answered this exact question for you?

See http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg7976#msg7976 on the outside chance that you missed it.

[gwiz]

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...

On the contrary, it seems quite a few people here understand the basic rocket equation, which any student can derive from Newton's Laws and a little simple calculus.  You are the one who lacks such understanding.

[ka9q]

Re-entry had been tested with Apollo 4 after a trip around the Moon

As dwight has already asked, where did you get the idea that Apollo 4 went around the moon? NASA has certainly never said that. The record clearly states that the upper stage of the Saturn V rocket and the CSM engine were used to gain enough velocity to simulate a return from the moon -- specifically to test the heat shield on the CM.

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

So your "calculations" are wrong, aren't they? So what else is new?

[Heiwa]

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.

...

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.

ka9q - I thought you had given up getting the €1 000 000:-. 

An energy balance is very useful to analyse any engineering problems, e.g. how to fine tune a steam plant, a nuclear power station, how to slow down in space etc, etc. Apollo 11 is thus no exception. It doesn't matter the least how the rocket engine transforms the fuel energy into a driving force. If a space ship is attracted by the Moon gravity, you better slow down and try to enter Moon orbit first before landning, as suggested by NASA. Question remains how much fuel is needed during the braking trajectory and how long it takes. If fuel required is >100% of the mass of the Apollo 11 space ship, no landing is evidently possible as there is no place for Neil & Co aboard. 

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?

[dwight]

And what about Apollo 4 which went to the moon?

[Heiwa]

So your "calculations" are wrong, aren't they? So what else is new?

Why do you ask so many questions? Evidently my calculations are not wrong unless you show it. Take out your red pen and correct my calculations and show where, how, when I am wrong and what is right. Just moaning about that they are wrong doesn't mean a thing. It isn't new!

[dwight]

And what about Apollo 4 which went to the moon?

[Heiwa]

And what about Apollo 4 which went to the moon?

?? I just use the Apollo 4 skip re-entry to Earth as described by NASA as an example on my web page how to return from the Moon. I doubt very much Apollo 4 or 11 were anywhere close the Moon with regard to their re-entries into Earth atmosphere. They would burn up within minutes in the mesosphere that extends from the stratopause to 80–85 km. It is the layer where most meteors burn up upon entering the atmosphere. Space ships with thin plate structures returning from the Moon or an orbiting ISS are no exceptions. They all burn up ... much quicker than a more solid meteorite.
I think both Apollo 4 and 11 were dropped from an airplane to splash into the water - to impress any observers like Dick Nixon.

[dwight]

Mate its all good that you back peddle but YOU SAID less than 1 hour ago, "Re-entry had been tested with Apollo 4 after a trip around the Moon ...", are you getting lost in all the garbage you are writing that your losing your way??

[Heiwa]

Mate its all good that you back peddle but YOU SAID less than 1 hour ago, "Re-entry had been tested with Apollo 4 after a trip around the Moon ...", are you getting lost in all the garbage you are writing that your losing your way??

Actually it was a simulated Moon trip return to Earth that Apollo 4 did according NASA. What's the difference? No big deal, actually, and nothing to get upset about.

Back to our interesting topic:

One basic question is how much fuel Apollo 11 needed in space to get into orbit around the Moon upon arrival. According NASA Apollo 11 slowed down using its rocket engine to brake but ... fuel (kg) consumed for it is not provided.

Not even Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_propulsion can inform the answer.

It should be easy to find the answer. Apollo 11 had a mass incl. fuel of about 43 000 kg and slowed down from about 2400 to about 1500 m/s during about 358 seconds using about 97400 N brake force according NASA.

Maybe it took longer - say 397 seconds.

Then Apollo 11 travelled 1950 (m/s) x 397 (s) = 774 150 m during braking, while applying the full force 97 400 N, which adds up to 75.4 GNm energy used for braking. If 1 kg rocket fuel produce 1.63 MJ energy, it seems you need 46 259 kg fuel for this maneouvre. Simple calculation, isn't it?

46 259 kg? But it is bigger than the mass of Apollo 11. Yes, it is a mystery, isn't.

You may ask if 1 kg rocket fuel ony produce 1.63 MJ energy? Where does this figure come from?

It is just the fuel consumption of the decent and ascent rocket engines of the Lunar Module according NASA.

I just assume the efficiency is the same for the Service Module rocket engine. Read about it in my presentation - link at post #1.

On return trip when Apollo 11 has dumped the LM and the mass is say 30 000 kg, you need another 46259x30000/43000=32273 kg fuel to speed up from 1500 to 2400 m/s to get out of orbit. Again it is much more than the mass of Apollo 11.

That's why I conclude the Apollo 11 trip was a hoax. The space ship couldn't carry the fuel to get in and out of Moon orbit. It is not a conspiracy theory. It is just physics. To improve safety of space travel.

The Apollo 11 cosmonots on the other hand do not look reliable at their press conference afterwards 1969. See link in my report. To me they look like three liars. But it was a funny show anyway! It has just lasted too long. 

[gwiz]

They would burn up within minutes in the mesosphere that extends from the stratopause to 80–85 km. It is the layer where most meteors burn up upon entering the atmosphere. Space ships with thin plate structures returning from the Moon or an orbiting ISS are no exceptions. They all burn up ... much quicker than a more solid meteorite.

I've just looked at your website to see what exactly you claim about this.  I see that you claim that the kinetic energy of the re-entering capsule would be enough to vaporise it.

Your error lies in thinking that all the energy is absorbed by the capsule.  You neglect the fact that most of the energy goes into heating the air as the capsule passes through it.

Once again, one is forced to question the engineering qualifications of anyone who misses such a factor.

[dwight]

Mate its all good that you back peddle but YOU SAID less than 1 hour ago, "Re-entry had been tested with Apollo 4 after a trip around the Moon ...", are you getting lost in all the garbage you are writing that your losing your way??

Actually it was a simulated Moon trip return to Earth that Apollo 4 did according NASA. What's the difference? No big deal, actually, and nothing to get upset about.

Back to our interesting topic:

One basic question is how much fuel Apollo 11 needed in space to get into orbit around the Moon upon arrival. According NASA Apollo 11 slowed down using its rocket engine to brake but ... fuel (kg) consumed for it is not provided.

Not even Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_propulsion can inform the answer.

It should be easy to find the answer. Apollo 11 had a mass incl. fuel of about 43 000 kg and slowed down from about 2400 to about 1500 m/s during about 358 seconds using about 97400 N brake force according NASA.

Maybe it took longer - say 397 seconds.

Then Apollo 11 travelled 1950 (m/s) x 397 (s) = 774 150 m during braking, while applying the full force 97 400 N, which adds up to 75.4 GNm energy used for braking. If 1 kg rocket fuel produce 1.63 MJ energy, it seems you need 46 259 kg fuel for this maneouvre. Simple calculation, isn't it?

46 259 kg? But it is bigger than the mass of Apollo 11. Yes, it is a mystery, isn't.

You may ask if 1 kg rocket fuel ony produce 1.63 MJ energy? Where does this figure come from?

It is just the fuel consumption of the decent and ascent rocket engines of the Lunar Module according NASA.

I just assume the efficiency is the same for the Service Module rocket engine. Read about it in my presentation - link at post #1.

On return trip when Apollo 11 has dumped the LM and the mass is say 30 000 kg, you need another 46259x30000/43000=32273 kg fuel to speed up from 1500 to 2400 m/s to get out of orbit. Again it is much more than the mass of Apollo 11.

That's why I conclude the Apollo 11 trip was a hoax. The space ship couldn't carry the fuel to get in and out of Moon orbit. It is not a conspiracy theory. It is just physics. To improve safety of space travel.

The Apollo 11 cosmonots on the other hand do not look reliable at their press conference afterwards 1969. See link in my report. To me they look like three liars. But it was a funny show anyway! It has just lasted too long. 

Then my learned buddy, you might want to add "simulated" in your description, even lost in translation, ommitting that word certainly changes the meaning.

Oh and if you are really sugar and spice and all things nice, why on earth would you feel the compelling urge to use the conspiracy theorists' derogatory terms like asstronot and cosmonot?

[Glom]

So you cannot see a dozen posts explaining that your calculations are wrong?

Do you know what the Tsiokovsky equation is?

[LunarOrbit]

BTW, Anders, you have refused to prove the existence of the $1m, so I think we can take that as a lie.  How surprising..

Re the money, it is in the bank evidently, so you do not have to worry about it. It is also OT.

This thread was started by Daggerstab to discuss your 1 million Euro challenge, so how exactly is it off topic to talk about the prize money? Explain that to me, please.