So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?

[gillianren]

I've been to JPL any number of times.  They had adopted my junior high in the school district's Adopt-a-School program.  I saw Hubble before its launch and various tests of various Mars rovers.  JPL scientists judged my junior high science fair.  People I knew growing up now work at JPL.  They aren't actors.

[nomuse]

And, uninformed.  The orbiter doesn't fly "backwards."  It performs the de-orbit burn in that attitude.  The aerobraking is performed at a different attitude.  So is the landing.  Your description is akin to watching a 757 performing the first rotation and claiming it then crosses the Atlantic and lands at Heathrow in the same nose-up orientation.  Given your previous posts, I'm surprised you wouldn't then ask how "Walter" put the wheels back on!

And, yes, pilots fly.  That's what they like to do.  There are lots of Army Reservists who are Civil War re-enactors; does that mean that same soldier serving in Iraq is only capable of operating a smooth-bore musket?  Ridiculous.  You are casting for aspersions.

(And, incidentally, I'd love for you to go up to anyone who pushes heavy iron through the sky at an airshow and tell them it's just a "hobby" prop plane.)

But then, you apparently have no understanding of the Shuttle, up to and including what role the Orbiter plays in the system.

[nomuse]

...
The Heiwa Challenge 2 is first to calculate the amount of fuel (or energy) required to complete a manned Moon and/or planet Mars return trip after being ejected into space from Earth towards the Moon and/or planet Mars by external rockets and second to describe the space ship incl. heat shield, its engines and fuel tanks that can carry that amount of fuel using 1960 or 2010 technology.
...

Ridiculous.  Your parameters are grossly undefined.

"Ejected into space from Earth towards the Moon" is meaningless.  What velocity are we talking about here?  You don't have the slightest grasp of delta-v budgets.  Ejected my RCS!  No Apollo mission was "ejected" from orbit around the Earth (much less the Sun), and a moment's thought would tell you this was so.  (Hint: where is the Moon now and where is it going?)

[carpediem]

Are there any manned space flights that this guy doesn't think are faked?

[Heiwa]

The orbiter doesn't fly "backwards." 

You are kindly invited to explain how the Shuttle manages to leave the ISS at 400 000 m altitude and velocity 7200 m/s and then, by using its engines manage to reduce altitude to say 120 000 m. The engines are aft so to do this maneuver the Shuttle flies backwards.
It seems the actual velocity (kinetic energy) increases due to loss of potential energy (change in altitude) so the velocity is 9000 m/s at entry Earth atmosphere at 120 000 m altitude.
Now, due to friction, the Shuttle starts to heat up - all of it - because there is no heat shield and one way or another the Shuttle turns with nose forward and starts to brake. How? Explain! Using wing flaps!
According some sources the Shuttle flies by autopilot most of the time during braking and the pilot only jumps in when speed is below that of sound at 340 m/s or so. But how did the Shuttle slow down from 9000 to 340 m/s without burning or braking up?

[Heiwa]

Are there any manned space flights that this guy doesn't think are faked?

Answer is in link given in post #1. And this guy is Heiwa - a gentle, intelligent first class engineer, etc, but he is not the topic here. The topic is the info given in the link in post #1. Try to focus on topic and not on author of topic.

[carpediem]

Are there any manned space flights that this guy doesn't think are faked?

Answer is in link given in post #1. And this guy is Heiwa - a gentle, intelligent first class engineer, etc, but he is not the topic here. The topic is the info given in the link in post #1. Try to focus on topic and not on author of topic.

Are there any manned space flights that this guy doesn't think are faked?

[Sus_pilot]

The orbiter doesn't fly "backwards." 

You are kindly invited to explain how the Shuttle manages to leave the ISS at 400 000 m altitude and velocity 7200 m/s and then, by using its engines manage to reduce altitude to say 120 000 m. The engines are aft so to do this maneuver the Shuttle flies backwards.
It seems the actual velocity (kinetic energy) increases due to loss of potential energy (change in altitude) so the velocity is 9000 m/s at entry Earth atmosphere at 120 000 m altitude.
Now, due to friction, the Shuttle starts to heat up - all of it - because there is no heat shield and one way or another the Shuttle turns with nose forward and starts to brake. How? Explain! Using wing flaps!
According some sources the Shuttle flies by autopilot most of the time during braking and the pilot only jumps in when speed is below that of sound at 340 m/s or so. But how did the Shuttle slow down from 9000 to 340 m/s without burning or braking up?

Aerodynamic braking and ceramic tiles, sport.  Although exquisite in execution, the concept is simple. 

The only "backwards" part is the de-orbit burn.  When the Shuttle did that, it wasn't flying - it was in orbit, in a near vacuum, so it's attitude, other than orienting the engines, didn't really matter.

The aerodynamic braking was achieved by maintaining an extremely high angle of attack during the hypersonic portion of re-entry. 



Bye the bye, as a flight instructor, I'm going to agree completely with nomuse:  tell me that flying any aerobatic performance, regardless of power plant, doesn't take considerable skill.  Especially the airshow variety where one is working close to the ground.

[Sus_pilot]

Are there any manned space flights that this guy doesn't think are faked?

Answer is in link given in post #1. And this guy is Heiwa - a gentle, intelligent first class engineer, etc, but he is not the topic here. The topic is the info given in the link in post #1. Try to focus on topic and not on author of topic.

Please share your C.V., since, by claiming you're a "first class engineer", you've made yourself the topic.

[Jason Thompson]

The orbiter doesn't fly "backwards." 

You are kindly invited to explain how the Shuttle manages to leave the ISS at 400 000 m altitude and velocity 7200 m/s and then, by using its engines manage to reduce altitude to say 120 000 m. The engines are aft so to do this maneuver the Shuttle flies backwards.
It seems the actual velocity (kinetic energy) increases due to loss of potential energy (change in altitude) so the velocity is 9000 m/s at entry Earth atmosphere at 120 000 m altitude.
Now, due to friction, the Shuttle starts to heat up - all of it - because there is no heat shield and one way or another the Shuttle turns with nose forward and starts to brake. How? Explain! Using wing flaps!

The shuttle, like Apollo, has an RCS system that allows it to be turned to point in any direction regardless of which way it is actually travelling. It performs the braking burn with its main engines, then uses the RCS system to flip around so it enters the atmosphere nose up facing forwards. Really, why do you find this whole concept so hard to grasp?

[Jason Thompson]

... 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.

Hm, ... free return trajectory, looping around the moon, minor change in velocity ... no fuel consumed ? ... figures easily available. It does not sound convincing.

That's your problem. Since you are evidently entirely unqualified in any relevant field and lack the understanding needed to be convinced, i suggest you take the time to educate yourself.

Suggest you explain how Apollo 13 managed to change direction in space and get back to Earth and fuel consumed for the maneuver.

Suggest you explain why you find the idea of a spacecraft looping behind a massive body like the Moon and coming back without expending fuel at all is so hard for you to comprehend when large lumps of rock and ice do it all the time. How much fuel do comets use to loop around the Sun and return to the outer reaches of the solar system?

[Jason Thompson]

The weakness is always in the technical details, e.g. fuel consumed as I demonstrate by studying the energies involved at the various stages of the trip.

Which you have been told repeatedly is the WRONG way to look at it. You were even given a simple everyday case to consider to show why you were wrong. Here's another.

Ever flown in a passneger aircraft? Ever walked around the cabin during flight? Ever found it more difficult to walk during flight than on the ground? no? Why not?

The average walking spped of a human is about 5 km/h. So, how much kinetic energy do you have when stationary and when walking at 5 km/h? The average cruising speed of a passenger plane is about 800 km/h. How much kinetic energy do you have when seated travelling at 800 km/h and how much do you have when walking forward the length of the cabin, when you would be going at 805 km/h?

According to your own methods, and assuming you have the average mass of 71 kg for a European human, there is a difference of 68.5 J when walking from a standing start and about 22 KJ while on the plane. Are your legs suddenly really 320 times more powerful during flight?!

But i don't expect you will take any notice of that. Your inability to comprehend the mathematics is either the result of stubbornnesss, ignorance, plain stupidity or else you really don't believe a word you say and are just trolling for your own amusement. I can't decide which is more pathetic, to be honest.

[nomuse]

Or ignore the airplane for a moment and just think about Earth's rotation.  Bruce Lee's one-inch punch; if he stands at the Equator, is the punch more powerful if he is facing towards the East or facing towards the West?

[Tedward]

As a lay person in all things rocketery (inc Apollo but find this subject very interesting) I am finding the reticence to apply ones self to this rather amazing considering the claims and claim to authority. As a lay person I find the information provided here is often easy to follow and indeed you can fly off around the world checking the information with the magic of the web.

But I am a Moon safety expert as well. It is dangerous, My credentials? Back of a corn flake packet somewhere.

[Echnaton]

Evidently

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means!