So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?

[Glom]

Most engines are fixed thrust because it's simpler that way so yes acceleration does increase during a burn.

In fact, on both the S-IC and the S-II the centre engine shut off a little early to prevent excessive acceleration.

[Andromeda]

Plus, remember it is easier to accelerate away as you climb further out of the Earth's gravity well.

[peter eldergill]

Thanks Glom (edit: and Andromeda, posting while I typed )

Oops, I also forgot about the changing gravitational field. Is that a large or small effect on a launch?

I'm sure it's calculated in a launch, but due to air resistance and so forth, does the rocket get shut down at a certain speed or is it all precalculated and shut down after a certain time?

Rockets are cool

Pete

[Heiwa]

I remind you that topic is So, who wants to win 1 million Euro? 

It seems we all agree to the following of post #381: 

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. 

---

In order to do a correct braking in universe of a space ship by retrograde firing of a rocket engine close to the Moon, the rocket engine outlet must evidently be positioned in the direction of flight during the 700 000 to 900 000 m braking trajectory. 

It means that the three astrokrauts under Willy's command flew backwards, when braking to get into Moon orbit. The trajectory was evidently not straight as you curved into Moon orbit. At start of braking space ship velocity was 2 400 m/s. Then you applied the 10 ton rocket brake force to your 43.5 ton space craft and braking started. 

At end of braking, 357.5 seconds later space ship velocity was 1 500 m/s and you were in orbit after having spent 10 898 kg fuel.   

Now, in order to win € 1M you have to show how this could have been done in reality. Were the three asstronots piloting manually with compass/chart pushing the brake button? 

How did they know what was up/down/right/left. How was it done? Assisted by computers? OK, show me the 1969 software of the computer helping Armstrong and Co to brake! Keep it simple.   

Try to focus on topic and pls do not remind me how stupid or ignorant I am (not). I am concerned about space travel safety. 

Can we really rely on three persons/astronauts to burn 10 000 kg of rocket fuel in a 6 minutes braking applying a 10 ton force on a little space ship as suggested by Willy Low in his report? 
 

[Andromeda]

The only thing we (not you) agree on is that your figures are wrong.

Pratt.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Give up. You've had your errors repeatedly pointed out to you.

[Daggerstab]

I remind you that topic is So, who wants to win 1 million Euro? 

No, that's the thread title. If it's not evident, that was sarcasm on my side.

It seems we all agree to the following of post #381: 

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. 

No, "we all" don't agree to that. It was repeatedly pointed out to you that the engine was not "P-22KS".

In order to do a correct braking in universe of a space ship by retrograde firing of a rocket engine close to the Moon, the rocket engine outlet must evidently be positioned in the direction of flight during the 700 000 to 900 000 m braking trajectory. 

[snip]

Now, in order to win € 1M you have to show how this could have been done in reality. Were the three asstronots piloting manually with compass/chart pushing the brake button? 

How did they know what was up/down/right/left. How was it done? Assisted by computers? OK, show me the 1969 software of the computer helping Armstrong and Co to brake! Keep it simple.   

*facepalm* Apparently you don't know anything about spacecraft guidance and attitude control, and yet you have the arrogance to call people "asstronots". Do you know what a "gyroscope" is, Mr. Marine Engineer?

Try to focus on topic and pls do not remind me how stupid or ignorant I am (not). I am concerned about space travel safety. 

Can we really rely on three persons/astronauts to burn 10 000 kg of rocket fuel in a 6 minutes braking applying a 10 ton force on a little space ship as suggested by Willy Low in his report? 

You know what? I think you should pay us. Why we should educate you and fix your errors for free? We can just leave you to your error-filled website. If someone gets suckered by your claims, we will just point out the easily verifiable errors on your page to discredit you.

To all the others: if you mention the AGC, he will just use it for more bullshit claims.

[Jason Thompson]

I remind you that topic is So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?

Irrelevant. The bet is beside the point because you a) don't have the money, and b) will not accept corrections to your mistakes.

It seems we all agree to the following of post #381: 

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. 

Which posts are you reading? We do NOT agree to that. Where are your supporting documents for your identification of the engine and its thrust?

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.

No because again you are using the wrong calculations. There really is no point trying to educate you at all, is there?

Try the Tsiolkovsky equation. You know, the one you said was nothing to do with changing velocity in space despite the fact it was derived and used precisely for that purpose.

It means that the three astrokrauts under Willy's command

Thanks for the further demonstration that you have no intention of taking any of this seriously. Stop trolling and go away.

Now, in order to win € 1M you have to show how this could have been done in reality. Were the three asstronots piloting manually with compass/chart pushing the brake button? 

How did they know what was up/down/right/left. How was it done? Assisted by computers? OK, show me the 1969 software of the computer helping Armstrong and Co to brake! Keep it simple.

Haha. Oh boy, you claim to have done the research but you can't even find the basics of the navigation system without help? You are a hopeless case.

Try to focus on topic and pls do not remind me how stupid or ignorant I am (not).

So far you qualify for both those labels. You have been given the information you requested over and over again. You are evidently ignorant of a lot of Apollo information, and the fact you don't accept it when it is given to you shows some level of stupidity. Your inability to accept or understand it is your problem, not ours.

I am concerned about space travel safety.

Oh bollocks. You are concerned with trying to make yourself look clever. You are also failing miserably.

Can we really rely on three persons/astronauts to burn 10 000 kg of rocket fuel in a 6 minutes braking applying a 10 ton force on a little space ship as suggested by Willy Low in his report?

Why not? How hard is it to press a button to turn on and turn off an engine and time the burn?

You're just getting tiresome now.

So, to sum up:

Do you acknowledge that the LM did not use hydrazine as a fuel exlcusively?

Do you acknowledge that you have the LM fuel loads wrong?

Do you have a source besides that one schematic for your specifications for the SPS engine?

Do you have any eplanation for how you calculated the mass of fuel based on the volume in litres?

[Andromeda]

How dare you lecture us on manners while using a word like "asstronots"?

How did they know what was up/down/right/left. How was it done? Assisted by computers? OK, show me the 1969 software of the computer helping Armstrong and Co to brake! Keep it simple.   

Never heard of orienting by gyroscope?

You want to see the software?  Fine:



From http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/accession/XD115.76

[Heiwa]

The only thing we (not you) agree on is that your figures are wrong.

Pratt.

According George M Low (Willy) of NASA (actually more or less running the Apollo show) and his report 1969 the three persons/astronauts on Apollo 11 burnt 10 000 kg of rocket fuel in a 6 minutes braking while applying a 10 ton force on Apollo 11. The result was that the 43 000/34 000 kg space craft slowed down from 2400 to 1500 m/s, changed direction in space and started orbiting the Moon. IMHO it sounds crazy and only assholes could claim having done it.

Do you think it really happened? Could it be done 1969? I offer anybody €1 M to explain how! Isn't it generous?   

[Heiwa]

How dare you lecture us on manners while using a word like "asstronots"?

It is my satiric/ironic/irresponsible style when looking into hoaxes. Sounds funnier than assholes. So, who wants to win 1 million Euro? You?

[Donnie B.]

Heiwa, seriously, give it up.  Repeating your inanity over and over doesn't make it any less inane.  It just makes you look more and more moronic.

[Heiwa]

So, to sum up:

Do you acknowledge that the LM did not use hydrazine as a fuel exlcusively?

Do you acknowledge that you have the LM fuel loads wrong?

Do you have a source besides that one schematic for your specifications for the SPS engine?

Do you have any eplanation for how you calculated the mass of fuel based on the volume in litres?

All figures/calculations I use are from or based on NASA reports/websites (or Wikipedia using same sources) quoted in my presentation. You do not really suggest I make up things? Why would I do that? I am interested in space travel safety. What is your interest?

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, seriously, give it up.  Repeating your inanity over and over doesn't make it any less inane.  It just makes you look more and more moronic.

Donnie B. I think I make sense and I can assure you my IQ>100 ... so do not worry. So, you want to win 1 million Euro? Focus on topic.

[Mag40]

The only thing we (not you) agree on is that your figures are wrong.

Pratt.

According George M Low (Willy) of NASA (actually more or less running the Apollo show) and his report 1969 the three persons/astronauts on Apollo 11 burnt 10 000 kg of rocket fuel in a 6 minutes braking while applying a 10 ton force on Apollo 11. The result was that the 43 000/34 000 kg space craft slowed down from 2400 to 1500 m/s, changed direction in space and started orbiting the Moon. IMHO it sounds crazy and only assholes could claim having done it.

Do you think it really happened? Could it be done 1969? I offer anybody €1 M to explain how! Isn't it generous?   

So where did you get this from? Are you afraid to quote your source......or maybe you 'can't remember'?