So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?

[nomuse]

No, the capsule + heat shield is like a meteorite but much weaker because the meteorite is solid and the capsule is a framed steel structure mostly full of air (like a seagoing ship).

Nickle-iron meteorites are in the minority.  Most of what flashes across the sky is somewhere between soft snow and loose dirt.

Also, engineering 101; which provides better load resistance, a solid steel bar, or the same mass of steel formed into a box column (aka "mostly full of air.")

Atmospheric friction at 11 200 m/s speed first heats up the exposed surfaces

No.  At these velocities, air can't get out of the way.  The source of heat is compression, not friction.

that soon melts (and bye, bye) while also heating the inside and the passing outside air,

You got one right!  Well, two out of three; the heat shield melts, all right.  Or rather, the outside melts; like a candle melting from the top down.  And the super-heated vaporized material blows off and leaves the spacecraft, whilst also communicating heat to the atmosphere.  Meanwhile only the slow forces of conduction are left to try to get any heat into the spacecraft proper.

while turbulence heats up the outside air.

I don't even know what this means.

There is no way you can drop anything from space on Earth without it burning up, incl. heat shields and other nonsense.  For that reason return trips (drop downs - LOL) from the MIR and ISS space stations are impossible. So draw your own conclusions about those space vessels. 
The interior of the Apollo 11 command module would soon be heated up to 200°C early at the re-entry and the cosmonots would be burnt to death prior the whole space ship would disappear in smoke. Not even a Finn would manage it.
What about the Shuttle making all those trips up to and down from the ISS? Same nonsense. Especially Mark Kelly, the last American piloting down the last Shuttle. I write about him in my presentation. He is not even funny. He looks like a turkey.
Neil Armstrong - the first man on the Moon - was more fun. He looked really funny when asked what he did there! He wouldn't last 10 seconds being waterboarded by the CIA as a terrorist suspect, though.

And the Gish Horse has galloped out of the paddock.

[Jason Thompson]

we do not know the fuel consumed, which I find strange.

Explain why you maintain this fantasy in the face of numerous sources that have been provided that tell you how much fuel was used.

At one Apollo trip they could not dump the LM but still managed to get out of Moon orbit with that extra weight 13 000 kg and you really wonder how it was possible.

Oh I can't wait to see you tell us which mission this was. Please enlighten us as to which apollo mission left lunar orbit with the LM still attached. I have an idea which one you think it is but please tell us.

NASA will not explain.

It's not NASA's job to spoonfeed idiots like you with the education you need to understand the figures they publish. They have provided the information. Your job is to acquire the expertise needed to properly understand it. So far you have clearly not done that, as your insistence on using the WRONG equations and numbers and information attests.

[nomuse]

Yes, I agree all is very easy - to slow down a heavy (43 000 kg)  space ship in space from one high speed to another, little lower high speed, you apply a substantial force on it (eg 97 400 N), e.g. by using a 1960's rocket engine. The rocket engine consumes fuel in order to slow down the space ship. What is the fuel consumption (kg/s) to produce a certain force (N). According my calculations one kg fuel can produce 1.63 MJ energy to produce the required force. 

This is where you err.  And where you will never be able to achieve the right answers.

Let's put it as a thought problem.  Say I have a little wind-up toy car.  With the spring fully wound, that spring stores enough energy to drive the car forward about 8 meters on a smooth, level floor.

I take my little wind-up car with me on a flight from New York to Paris.  After the airplane has reached cruising altitude and level flight I set my little wind-up toy down in the center aisle.

Does it travel the same distance it did back in my room at home?  Does it travel further if I turn it around so it is rolling from the front of the airplane to the back?

The equations you are using claim that, yes, not only will the range of my little wind-up toy car be affected by the fact that I am using it in an airplane in flight, it will be GROSSLY affected; enough so that I would be lucky for it to roll at all.

It is not very efficient = more fuel is needed than can be carried, it seems.
 
Applied to a seagoing ship means that the ship sinks prior departure. Not very nice.

Imagine a 43 tons car on your door step. Imagine the engine you need to accelerate this heavy car to 2 400 m/s speed. It will be quite big. And now you want to brake from 2 400 to 1 500 m/s speed using a brake. You agree it is a big brake.

Or take the Shuttle - about 78 tons - flying at 7 800 m/s speed around the Earth at 400 000 m altitude to/from the ISS. To slow down for going back to Earth, the Shuttle is turned around and the engines are on full blast but the only result is that the altitude becomes lower and the speed increases to 9 000 m/s at 150 000 m altitude ... while you are still going backwards. You are flying backwards! How to stop?

No.  After one burn, regardless of which way the Orbiter is facing, it will NOT be in a circular orbit that is higher or lower in altitude.  It will not be in a circular orbit, period.

I'd suggest at this point getting a copy of Lunar Orbiter or similar and playing around until you get an actual feel for orbital mechanics.  Because your attempts to model it mathematically are leading you astray.

It is not possible. Not even a computer can land the Shuttle. But Captain Mark Kelly managed to do it. I explain how in my presentation. Enjoy. 

[raven]

You are right except that the space craft mass was 43 000 kg prior braking into Moon orbit at 2400 m/s speed. What it was in Moon orbit at 1500 m/s speed is not known = we do not know the fuel consumed, which I find strange. You would expect that fuel consumption was monitored carefully ... because you couldn't fill up underway. Same for getting out of Moon orbit after dumping the LM. Mass before may have been 30 000 kg but afterwards en route for Earth, difference of which is fuel consumed, is not known.

Except  it's been shown many times by others. The burn times are easy to find out and the fuel consumption rates have been posted directly.

At one Apollo trip they could not dump the LM but still managed to get out of Moon orbit with that extra weight 13 000 kg and you really wonder how it was possible. NASA will not explain.

If I make a guess, you are referring to Apollo 13, yes?
It never entered lunar orbit. Rather, after the explosion, the LM descent stage made a burn to put the CSM/LM stack *back* into the free return trajectory, looping around the moon, that would return it back to Earth, a pretty minor change in velocity. The figures are easily available.

[JayUtah]

I just query the fuel consumed to brake in space based on physics and engineering principles and people here go bananas and some become rude and impolite.

You don't "query" those principles, you flat-out accuse people of lying.  No one is going bananas, they are simply trying to overcome your stubbornness and arrogance.  You are being treated politely, despite your obvious attempts at emotional baiting and name-calling.

According my calculations the US 1969 rockets engines on Apollo 11 consumed too much fuel to produce the required thrust to slow down in space.

Your calculations are wrong.  It has been shown to at length what is wrong with them and how they should be done instead.  You promised that you would accept corrections, but it is clear at this point that you will not.  Your stubbornness in the face of absolutely certain error is why you are feeling beset upon.

Where is the problem? Are you a NASA PhD?

No.  I am a professional aeronautical engineer working in private and publicly owned industry.  Not all spacefarers work for NASA.  That said, I have contributed (and still do) to manned space flight engineering.

I can tell where this is going.  You have previously ranted incoherently against "NASA PhDs" whom you characterize as lazy and overpaid.  I promise you that if you attempt to extend that rant to libel me personally or professionally, there will be consequences.

[Sus_pilot]

I vote "How did Walter do it" to the same wall of fame as "How far up does this alleged vacuum go" and "Who is this Jodie Banks person?"

I'll admit I don't know how American-centric of me it is, but is it possible to study the Apollo record in any detail without encountering dear Walter Cronkite?

Since our new friend is so obsessed with the comparison between ships and spacecraft, is a ship the same weight after it crosses the Pacific as it was before?

And I'm just as willing to blindly believe in his million Euros as he is to believe, even after being shown, that he's wrong.  Even if there were a million Euros, as there is obviously not, no one would get it, because he's never going to admit to being wrong.  Acknowledging his Walter Cronkite goof instead of just pretending it hadn't happened would be a nice place to start.

When I was a kid, I preferred Huntley-Brinkley/Frank McGee when watching coverage of the space program.

[gillianren]

When I was a kid, I preferred Huntley-Brinkley/Frank McGee when watching coverage of the space program.

When I was a kid, Huntley was dead, Brinkley was hosting This Week, and Cronkite retired!

[Sus_pilot]

Wait a second...  An ISP in San Francisco?  "Cosmonots" and "Asstronots"?  "Lazy NASA physicists"?

Heiwa, you don't happen to play Bluegrass banjo, do you?

[Sus_pilot]

When I was a kid, I preferred Huntley-Brinkley/Frank McGee when watching coverage of the space program.

When I was a kid, Huntley was dead, Brinkley was hosting This Week, and Cronkite retired!

I'm like a fine wine - well aged and mellow.  . Besides, albeit on TV, I got to watch history as it happened.

[Glom]

When I was a kid, I preferred Huntley-Brinkley/Frank McGee when watching coverage of the space program.

When I was a kid, Huntley was dead, Brinkley was hosting This Week, and Cronkite retired!

I thought Andrew Neil had always hosted This Week.

Anyway, since we have established the scope of Heiwa's conspiracism, I'd like to know what it was I've seen in the sky during alleged Space Shuttle missions. I was only born more than a decade after the Apollo program ended so my knowledge of it comes only from historical study, eg I've read the press kits, the mission reports, the ALSJ. But I've seen the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station in orbit with my own eyes. If it's a lie, what did I see?

[darren r]

Wait a second...  An ISP in San Francisco?  "Cosmonots" and "Asstronots"?  "Lazy NASA physicists"?

Heiwa, you don't happen to play Bluegrass banjo, do you?

Given all the references to his mother, I was expecting to hear about his sister and girlfriend pretty soon.

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

Considering that promising a prize that doesn't exist must be some sort of fraud, can't we just sue Mr. Björkman?

Would keep the site in maintenance funds for decades.

[JayUtah]

Wait a second...  An ISP in San Francisco?  "Cosmonots" and "Asstronots"?  "Lazy NASA physicists"?

Heiwa, you don't happen to play Bluegrass banjo, do you?

No, Anders is not him.  This is, however, as bad or worse.

[dwight]

When I was a kid, I preferred Huntley-Brinkley/Frank McGee when watching coverage of the space program.

When I was a kid, Huntley was dead, Brinkley was hosting This Week, and Cronkite retired!

I thought Andrew Neil had always hosted This Week.

Anyway, since we have established the scope of Heiwa's conspiracism, I'd like to know what it was I've seen in the sky during alleged Space Shuttle missions. I was only born more than a decade after the Apollo program ended so my knowledge of it comes only from historical study, eg I've read the press kits, the mission reports, the ALSJ. But I've seen the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station in orbit with my own eyes. If it's a lie, what did I see?

Oh please, that's just effects of LSD the gubmint put in your water supply.

[ka9q]

You are right except that the space craft mass was 43 000 kg prior braking into Moon orbit at 2400 m/s speed. What it was in Moon orbit at 1500 m/s speed is not known = we do not know the fuel consumed, which I find strange. You would expect that fuel consumption was monitored carefully ... because you couldn't fill up underway. Same for getting out of Moon orbit after dumping the LM. Mass before may have been 30 000 kg but afterwards en route for Earth, difference of which is fuel consumed, is not known.

I cited for you a table of mass properties that give the mass (and much more) of each Apollo spacecraft at every important point in the Apollo 11 mission, including after the lunar orbit insertion burn and after the trans-earth injection burn (leaving lunar orbit). The same reports are available for every other Apollo mission as well. So the information you claim is not known is known quite well.

I can only conclude that you suffer either from brain damage or from an inability to understand plain English.

At one Apollo trip they could not dump the LM but still managed to get out of Moon orbit with that extra weight 13 000 kg and you really wonder how it was possible. NASA will not explain.

The only Apollo mission in which the LM was brought back from the moon was Apollo 13, which never went into lunar orbit in the first place.

NASA explains Apollo fully in a comprehensive pile of documents you simply haven't read and refuse to acknowledge exist.