So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?

[Count Zero]

Is it a requirement of a CTer to have arrogance in direct proportion to accuracy?

No, the arrogance is in inverse proportion to accuracy.

I assume that's what you actually meant (being a non-CT, and therefore able to apply context to a quote).

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

How deluded the Hoaxers are! We, the rational minded, view this thread as pure win, whilst the the OP undoubtably views this thread as win as well. Lord, what fools these hoaxers be!

[Heiwa]

But ref [1] says something else. Willy Low is of course dead (since 1986) and cannot reply but ... maybe he is wrong? What do you think?

What do I think? I think your arrogance far exceeds your poor research capabilities and so called engineering skills. The mission report is slightly different to the web page I quoted....but sadly for you, nowhere near your figure of 8,777kg.

The [1] is http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11MIssionReport_1971015566.pdf

From page 122 (pdf page 134)....we get two tables showing the totals.....

Descent propulsion 18,184lbs = 8,248kg :


Ascent propulsion 5,238lbs = 2,376kg :


So, tell everybody where you got your 8,777kg figure from......are you going to correct your rubbishy web page again?

According Mr Low (Willy):

The 15 102 kg (or 33 294 lb) lunar module (LM), Eagle, fitted below the CSM at departure, carried 3 800 liters nitrogen tetroxide + 4 500 liters hydrazine (mass 8 777 kg) fuel for 1 descent engine with 46 700 N thrust and 1 ascent engine with 15 700 N thrust. …
On July 20 at 100 hours, 12 minutes into the flight, the LM Eagle, mass 15 279 kg (or 33 683 lb), undocked and separated from CSM Columbia … (two asstronuts + equipment have mass 177 kg!)
The LM descent engine continued to provide 46 700 N braking thrust until about 102 hours, 45 minutes into the mission when the LM Eagle, arrival mass 7 327 kg (16 153 lb) landed in the Sea of Tranquility at 0 degrees, 41 minutes, 15 seconds north latitude and 23 degrees, 26 minutes east longitude. …
7 952 kg fuel carried in the LM was used for the 100 000 m descent and decrease in speed from 1 500 m/s to 0 m/s. …
The LM - mass 4 888 kg - lifted off from the Moon at 17:54:01 UT on 21 July after 21 hours, 36 minutes on the lunar surface. Nose to nose LM/CSM docking occurred on the CSM's 27th revolution at 128 hours, three minutes into the mission. …  The LM mass was then 2 603 kg.
2 285 kg fuel carried in the LM was used for the 100 000 m ascent and increase in speed from 0 m/s to 1 500 m/s.
... Total fuel used by the LM for descent and ascent was 10 237 kg according [1] . How it was possible as the LM could only carry 8 777 kg fuel remains a mystery.
---

Answer is actually no mystery. The figures simply do not add up. No big deal. Maybe they disappeared in the exhaust?
BTW Lycos Tripod ISP evidently charges you for its services. No free lunch there too. 

[nomuse]

According Mr Low (Willy):

The 15 102 kg (or 33 294 lb) lunar module (LM), Eagle, fitted below the CSM at departure, carried 3 800 liters nitrogen tetroxide + 4 500 liters hydrazine (mass 8 777 kg) fuel for 1 descent engine with 46 700 N thrust and 1 ascent engine with 15 700 N thrust. …
On July 20 at 100 hours, 12 minutes into the flight, the LM Eagle, mass 15 279 kg (or 33 683 lb), undocked and separated from CSM Columbia … (two asstronuts + equipment have mass 177 kg!)
The LM descent engine continued to provide 46 700 N braking thrust until about 102 hours, 45 minutes into the mission when the LM Eagle, arrival mass 7 327 kg (16 153 lb) landed in the Sea of Tranquility at 0 degrees, 41 minutes, 15 seconds north latitude and 23 degrees, 26 minutes east longitude. …
7 952 kg fuel carried in the LM was used for the 100 000 m descent and decrease in speed from 1 500 m/s to 0 m/s. …
The LM - mass 4 888 kg - lifted off from the Moon at 17:54:01 UT on 21 July after 21 hours, 36 minutes on the lunar surface. Nose to nose LM/CSM docking occurred on the CSM's 27th revolution at 128 hours, three minutes into the mission. …  The LM mass was then 2 603 kg.
2 285 kg fuel carried in the LM was used for the 100 000 m ascent and increase in speed from 0 m/s to 1 500 m/s.
... Total fuel used by the LM for descent and ascent was 10 237 kg according [1] . How it was possible as the LM could only carry 8 777 kg fuel remains a mystery.
---

Answer is actually no mystery. The figures simply do not add up. No big deal. Maybe they disappeared in the exhaust?
BTW Lycos Tripod ISP evidently charges you for its services. No free lunch there too.

Typical hoaxie.  Why should you POSSIBLY use the most accurate and vetted figures available, when you can find something that might or might not have been edited competently in a popular book released to a general audience?


Well, anyhow.  Your rambling writing style makes it difficult to understand what you are doing, but it sure looks to me as if you are subtracting the ASCENT propellant from the propellant used on the lunar DESCENT (and the LM's de-orbit burn).

Assuming this is a true reflection of what you said above, can you think of any reason why that might be a silly way of looking at it?

[Glom]

We've told you and shown you the tables. You've omitted the ascent engine propellant in your total. The figure you're using is wrong.

You haven't even got the type of fuel correct, which was not hydrazine but Aerozine 50.

What is so hard to understand? Your data is wrong.

[ChrLz]

'Asstronuts'?
So far, Anders Bjorkman, you have:
- proven yourself to be a liar in regard to the money.
- proven that you have no engineering competence whatsoever with your ridiculous misuse of figures and stupidly inapplicable calculations, your completely flawed and equally inapplicable analogies (like your inane comparison with seafaring - another topic you clearly don't understand) and your ignorant simplifications (like your inability to account for reducing mass as propellant is consumed).
- moved on to prove your are a slimy plagiarist who steals others work and posts it without acknowledging it (and yet still gets it wrong)
- very cowardly posted numerous insults and untruths about people who are correcting you.
- refused to acknowledge even one of your multitude of errors

Just as an aside those last two issues, more than anything else, suggest you need to seek help urgently for your condition/delusion, before you do something *really* stupid.

And now, you call some of our finest heroes 'asstronuts'?  Do you really have the mental age that indicates?

I gather that other stuff you have posted suggests you aren't just a troll, in which case there is simply no excuse whatsoever for your disgusting, disgraceful, reprehensible behavior.  Sure, it's been mildly entertaining to watch the demolition of your stupidity, but once you start cowardly insulting people on your webpage and flinging names around like a kid in a tantrum, I've seen enough..


BTW, can I suggest you get someone to help you with your English - your over- and mis-use of 'evidently' is laughable.  Why not go visit a local University and ask a Professor in a suitable discipline to help you with your work.  If s/he can stop laughing, they might help you learn something..  Don't show them what you have already posted, as you will get no help whatsoever - most professional people know lost causes when they see them..

[Heiwa]

We've told you and shown you the tables. You've omitted the ascent engine propellant in your total. The figure you're using is wrong.

You haven't even got the type of fuel correct, which was not hydrazine but Aerozine 50.

What is so hard to understand? Your data is wrong.

Re rocket engine fuel consumption, i.e. how much energy MJ can 1 kg of rocket fuel produce, my observations are clear:

1. At about 75 hours, 50 minutes into the Apollo 11 flight, when the space ship had total mass of 43 574 kg (or 96 062 lb), a retrograde firing of the service module, SM, P-22KS rocket engine with 97 400 N thrust for 357.5 seconds reduced the speed to 1 500 m/s at 2.52 m/s² deceleration and placed the spacecraft into an initial, elliptical-lunar orbit at about 115 000 m altitude.
 
During the 357.5 seconds braking the space ship travelled about 697 125 meter or maybe 910 000 meter, with a brake force 97 400 N provided by the P-22KS rocket engine.

Mass of space ship after this brake maneuver was 32 676 kg (or 72 038 lb). It would thus appear 10 898 kg of fuel was used.

The spaceship kinetic energy before braking was 43574*2400²/2 = 125.4 GJ and after braking 32676*1500²/2 = 36.76 GJ, i.e. change in kinetic energy due braking was 88.64 GJ, i.e. fuel consumption was 8.13 MJ/kg.

2. Trans-Earth injection of the Apollo 11 CSM, mass now 16 829 kg (37 100 lb) began July 21 as the P-22KS rocket engine with 97 400 N thrust fired for two-and-a-half minutes (150 seconds), when Columbia was behind the moon in its 59th hour of lunar orbit. The speed increased from 1 500 m/s to 2 400 m/s at average acceleration 6.00 m/s² (!) and placed the CSM into course back to Earth. Mass of CSM was then 12 153 kg (or 26 793 lb).

The distance travelled during the 150 seconds trans-Earth injection was only 292 500 meter. It looks like you need an average force of ~57 000 N to do this maneuver, so maybe the rocket was not on full blast?

The amount of fuel used on the CSM for trans-Earth injection was 4 676 kg!

The CSM kinetic energy before trans-Earth injection was 16829*1500²/2 = 18.93 GJ and after trans-Earth injection 12153*2400²/2 = 35.68 GJ, i.e. change in kinetic energy due trans-Earth injection was 16.75 GJ. As 4 676 kg fuel was used, 1 kg of fuel produced 3.58 MJ kinetic energy; fuel consumption 3.58 MJ/kg. The SM rocket engine was suddenly 2.27 times less efficient than when braking into orbit.

However, IMO opinion fuel consumptions 8.13 MJ/kg or 3.58 MJ/kg are very optimistic and should be of the order <2 MJ/kg.

It means that you need 4 times more fuel to slow down on arrival or 40 000-50 000 kg and almost twice as much fuel for trans-Earth injection or 10 000 kg and … you couldn’t carry it. So Apollo 11 was a hoax.

[Glom]

Horse changing. What about the point regarding LM propellant? Do you acknowledge that your figures and fuel type are wrong?

You obviously haven't acknowledged previous mistakes because you just made them again. Your calculations are incorrectly constructed and you're using incorrect figures. It has been explained to you the energy density figure is wrong.

[Jason Thompson]

The 15 102 kg (or 33 294 lb) lunar module (LM), Eagle, fitted below the CSM at departure, carried 3 800 liters nitrogen tetroxide + 4 500 liters hydrazine (mass 8 777 kg) fuel for 1 descent engine with 46 700 N thrust and 1 ascent engine with 15 700 N thrust. …

1: how many times do you have to be told that the engine used Aerozine 50, NOT hydrazine? Hydrazine is one of the components of aerozine 50 but that is all.

2: How did you calculate the mass of fuel from those figures?

3: Why is it not one single source agrees with that Saturn V schematic in terms of total fuel for the LM, and yet you insist on using that one as if it was the most authoritative source?

(two asstronuts + equipment have mass 177 kg!)

What equipment do you think they transferred into the LM with themselves to add to the mass? Everything needed for the landing on the Moon was already in the LM at launch. Pretty much the only additional mass added for the landing itself was the two men.

The LM descent engine continued to provide 46 700 N braking thrust until about 102 hours, 45 minutes into the mission when the LM Eagle, arrival mass 7 327 kg (16 153 lb) landed in the Sea of Tranquility

Wrong. The LM descent engine could be throttled, and it was not producing full thrust all the way down. Your research skills really are poor, aren't they?

... Total fuel used by the LM for descent and ascent was 10 237 kg according [1] . How it was possible as the LM could only carry 8 777 kg fuel remains a mystery.

What remains a mystery is why you think the LM could only carry that much fuel when EVERY OTHER SOURCE BESIDES THAT SCHEMATIC says otherwise. Even if you have derived the mass of fuel from the quantities given in litres on that schematic you still have it wrong.

The figures simply do not add up. No big deal. Maybe they disappeared in the exhaust?

Or maybe you just have no idea what you are talking about. The figures DO add up if you extend your research into the actual mission reports and engine specs rather than that single, simplified schematic diagram. That's what REAL researchers do.

Idiot.

[Jason Thompson]

Re rocket engine fuel consumption, i.e. how much energy MJ can 1 kg of rocket fuel produce,

No, deal with the questions raised in the post you are quoting. What have you to say about your getting the total propellant load of the LM and the fuel type wrong?

a brake force 97 400 N provided by the P-22KS rocket engine.

Again, where else is the SPS engine referred to as the P 22K S? What other sources have you checked besides this single simplified schematic, and why, assuming you have checked any, do you take this schematic over every other source that says the engine is NOT a P 22K S, a designation that shows up literally NOWHERE else in rocket engine terms?

The spaceship kinetic energy before braking was 43574*2400²/2 = 125.4 GJ and after braking 32676*1500²/2 = 36.76 GJ, i.e. change in kinetic energy due braking was 88.64 GJ,

So explain your kinetic energy balance and why it seems to show a man walking on a plane has legs 320 times more powerful when walking forward on the plane than walking on the ground. Explain your total inability to grasp that because of the inertial reference fames used we need only consider the change in momentum, and use the Tsiolkovsky equation for that.

Why can't you get your head around the simple fact that high school physics does NOT provide you with the requisite framework to calculate this stuff?

[Mag40]

According Mr Low (Willy):

The 15 102 kg (or 33 294 lb) lunar module (LM), Eagle, fitted below the CSM at departure, carried 3 800 liters nitrogen tetroxide + 4 500 liters hydrazine (mass 8 777 kg) fuel for 1 descent engine with 46 700 N thrust and 1 ascent engine with 15 700 N thrust. …

Source for this quote please.....and explain why you ignore all official reports from post mission. Actually, don't bother with the second part of that request, we know why you do that. I can't stand dishonest people...you remind me of so many other CTers.

[Glom]

Heiwa, make a new years resolution to use facts and figures from official reports.

[ka9q]

Why can't you get your head around the simple fact that high school physics does NOT provide you with the requisite framework to calculate this stuff?

Actually, high school physics would be very useful here -- if he actually knew it. As somebody in the space business told me a long time ago, you can go very far with just F=ma.

[Jason Thompson]

Very well, perhaps i should have said high school physics is not enough on its own even if he did know it. You can't, for example, apply F=ma to a system where the mass is not constant, such as a rocket firing its engine.

This is of course all pointless. There's no million euros to be won, since he doesn't have it and the terms on which he offered it cannot be met.

[peter eldergill]

Just out of curiosity:

Since the mass of the rocket is changing, does the thrust also change to compensate and keep acceleration constant or does the acceleration increase?

Having never sent a rocket into orbit, I'm not sure if you want to change the acceleration during liftoff or if the thrust on a rocket engine is easily adjustable.

I mention this concept to my physics class when I teach it but we don't do any calculations involving non-constant acceleration (except a little bit of simple harmonic motion, but that's not rockets)

Does the acceleration increase linearly?

Long time no post

Pete