So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

I wouldn't be surprised if some RL spacetravellers read this site.

For entertainment purposes.

Because they think everyone who defends Apollo does so out of national pride, ergo they must be American. The idea that people might defend Apollo because it happens to be real is completely alien to them.

In the CT's mind everybody has ulterior motives for what they say.
It's projection.

I could post a rant about every hoax proponent I have ever met being intellectually coward liars only interrested in whining about the EvilGubmint™, having no interrest in actually knowing the truth.

But that might get me moderated, so I won't.

[DataCable]

As I am offering the €1M award

No, you're not, because you don't have it.

I could just as easily offer you US$1 trillion to explain how boats made of steel, which is denser than water, could possibly float on water, and just as easily dodge every explanation you offer.

you have to listen to me and ... be polite.

No, we don't, to either condition.

Do not post nonsens posts that I am uneducated, blah, blah. Only uneducated idiots do that, so please avoid it.

Mr. Kettle, I have a Mr. Pot holding on line 3.

It is quite complicated and I wonder how the NASA pilots did it.

Very well, thank you very much.

...and to win 1 million Euro you have to repeat it.

Is it tiring dragging those goalposts around so much?  Your challenge was to explain how the event was done, not to repeat the event.

[gillianren]

Well, at Oslo you have to pay with Norwegian crowns, NOK, at Stockholm with Swedish, SEK, and at Copenhagen, Danish, DKK. They do not use Euro in Scandinavia, you see. Same in China or Japan. Or North Korea! But enjoy your flight anyway. My Euros? In the bank, of course.

Which bank?  Where is the actual evidence that you have so much as a buck seventy-five?  (That's in American dollars; I leave you to do your own conversion.  Doubtless you will be just as "competent" at it as you are at everything else.)  You keep telling us to trust you, but why should we?  We know nothing more about you than what you present here, and nothing you have presented thus far is trustworthy.

. . . I am 100% certain of that, and can hardly read.

Finally!  A statement of fact from you!  You can hardly read, or else you would start acknowledging the most egregious and obvious of your errors.

[Jason Thompson]

the LM descent stage rocket was throttleable and could be started numerous times, but the ascent stage rocket was a fire once only type, correct?

Following Bob's reply and my own, I just happened to watch NASA's Aeronautics and Space Report from February 1968, which includes a brief section on Apollo 5. The APS was fired twice on this unmanned test flight, so evidently the APS was not a 'fire once only type'.

[dwight]

Thanks for your replies. Bit under the weather today so reading is difficult. I have that report DVD so I will check it out. In the meantime I hope Heiwa does take the challenge of explaing how steel ships don't sink.

[Glom]

How about answering the simple questions I put forward?

Do you acknowledge you got the fuel wrong?

Do you acknowledge you got the propellant wrong?

Do you acknowledge you got the engine wrong?

They're very simple.

As a reminder.

You said: fuel in the LM in hydrazine.
Truth is: fuel is Aerosine 50

You said: the LM carries less than 9 tonnes of propellant
Truth is: it carried almost 11 tonnes

You said: the SPS was of some type no-one has heard of
Truth is: it was of type AJ-10

[JayUtah]

The APS was fired twice on this unmanned test flight, so evidently the APS was not a 'fire once only type'.

Yes, the APS was restartable, as in fact most pressure-fed hypergolic motors are.  The ascent and rendezvous protocols and their contingencies called for the ascent engine to be restartable.

[frenat]

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

no, the topic is who actually believes Heiwa has 1 Million Euro or has any intention of awarding it.  The answer is nobody.  Since that was determined early on, the topic has morphed.

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

Translation: Please don't keep bringing up the fact that I have no idea what I'm talking about.  There might still be a few left I can con.

I am concerned about space travel safety.

Yeah, nobody believes that either.

[frenat]

One example is the Space Shuttle. 

Is it? Space Shuttle trying to get into Moon orbit? You are trolling off topic and should be warned.

How DARE they follow the topic as it strays to more interesting matters after it has become clear you have no idea what you are talking about and have absolutely no prize money whatsoever!  How DARE they!   

[frenat]

I assume there are plenty space ship flying schools at Florida, NM or AZ training terrorists and drug smugglers paid by CIA that you can join. Big biz, you know.

Looks like somebody's trying to earn "I was banned at ApolloHoax" bragging rights.

Probably so he can add it to his page to make it sound like he's being suppressed.  Sadly IF he were banned that would be the only true thing on his page.

[Sus_pilot]

I think KA9Q mentioned using high school physics and Calculus.

I looked at the derivation of the rocket equation (which I had never heard of before) on Wikipedia.

The derivation is pretty straight forward, but it involves integral Calculus (or differential equations) which is beyond the high school level in Ontario and I'm guessing most of North America (I teach Calculus and some physics).

I would suspect the difficulty to be more of the first year university level.

Thanks everyone for the responses. I never even considered the fact that rocket stages are needed to drop so much mass. This is one of the reasons I don't design and launch rockets

Cheers

Pete

PS how is discussing how rockets work in any way off topic?

Calculus was a senior year elective at my high school (New Trier East in the Chicago area a million years ago).

Not that I took it there - waited until college...

[Glom]

We've done quite well lately what with HBs flouncing in a very mellowdramatic manner. I just went back and read the advancedboy thread as a little nighttime reading.

It's good when the HB doesn't need to be banned, especially if it's just for plain old not listening or understanding, infuriating though that may be (that moderation policy has killed BAUT stone dead).

[ka9q]

Yes, the APS was restartable, as in fact most pressure-fed hypergolic motors are.

Right. I can't think of a pressure-fed hypergolic rocket that isn't restartable, and can be fired an arbitrary number of times until its propellants are depleted. The only complication would be ensuring ullage, i.e., getting the propellants in partly filled tanks to the bottom where they can be piped off. This is usually not a problem on the first burn when the tanks are full (or in the case of the LM ascent engine, experiencing gravity) but restarting any kind of liquid-fueled rocket requires either the propellants to be enclosed in positive-expulsion bladders or an RCS "ullage burn" to push them to the bottoms of their tanks.

The difference between the two LM stages is that the descent engine could be throttled while the ascent engine could not be. The CSM's SPS engine was also fixed thrust.

I don't know why I forgot the space shuttle main engines. Yes, they were throttled to decrease acceleration during Max-Q, the period of maximum aerodynamic pressure. The solid rocket boosters also "throttled down" during this time, though it was not commanded in real time but built into the way the propellants were cast into them.

Closer to the original question, the space shuttle main engines also throttled down just before cutoff to limit acceleration to 3g. So yes, there is at least one case in which engines are throttled back to limit acceleration as the vehicle loses mass.

[cjameshuff]

The only complication would be ensuring ullage, i.e., getting the propellants in partly filled tanks to the bottom where they can be piped off. This is usually not a problem on the first burn when the tanks are full (or in the case of the LM ascent engine, experiencing gravity) but restarting any kind of liquid-fueled rocket requires either the propellants to be enclosed in positive-expulsion bladders or an RCS "ullage burn" to push them to the bottoms of their tanks.

Or dedicated small rockets to settle the propellants before ignition..."ullage motors".
Another interesting approach to the problem is to use special baffles or meshes to hold the propellant in place via surface tension.

Some stuff by Henry Spencer on restarting engines:
http://yarchive.net/space/rocket/restart.html

More on this:
http://books.google.com/books?id=pFktw0GYSX8C&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207

[Count Zero]

So, in summary, we have Heiwa:




The non-professional space fen (such as Gillianren and myself), thinking:



And then we have the professional aerospace engineers: