So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?

[Zakalwe]

I did warn about Heiwa's... ideas about nuclear weapons in the very first post of this thread, and I even linked to the page. Does anyone read threads from the beginning any more?

For my part, yes, I have read from the start.

Heiwa's "reasoning" of Apollo now seems to contain glaring errors that he has thus far failed to acknowledge. He has also repeatedly referred to the money that he is offering up. I personally think that given his refusal to address the anomalies in his calculations that it is fair and reasonable to start to "scratch the surface" a little and see who this individual is.
Also, as he has yet to address the anomalies, I presume that further discussion of Apollo is becoming moot? Might as well occupy some time time with his other "theories"......

[Andromeda]

Amusing and diverting as his other "ideas" are, it could result in a huge amount of confusion if Heiwa ever comes back.

I think we should just stick to Apollo for now.

[Zakalwe]

Oh, he thinks fission works - IF you moderate the neutrons. That's his rationale about fission explosions - fast neutrons can't cause a chain reaction no matter how much enriched U-235 you put together.  But you're right, he should ask the ghost of  Louis Slotin if he still thinks tickling dragons with a screwdriver is a good idea.

He's correct AFAIK. Slow neutrons are required to initiate fission in U-235.

What he doesn't get (amongst other things) is the speed of assembly that is required to ensure that a slow fizzle doesn't happen. he's also ignoring the tungsten-carbide tamper that surrounded the assembled core which is used to reflect unspent neutrons back into the core.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa:
Can you please clarify to status of Heiwa Co?

Your use  of the European union symbol and the use of "European Agency" on your Tripod.com would appear to imply some authority and linkup with the EU. Can you please clarify your authority to use the EU symbol?

Of course, you are light years off topic about the Heiwa €1M Challenges, but I can clarify anything (subject to Apollohoaxmoderator approval):

Heiwa Co is a European agency for Safety at Sea. It is based at Beausoleil, France, which is part of Europe. Beausoleil is a nice, land locked place with a view of the Mediterranean Sea. The Heiwa Co web site, http://heiwaco.tripod.com  is very popular with > 1 450 000 downloads.

It seems we citizens of member states of the European Union can use the EU flag to show that we are committed to European unity. So I have copied/pasted in my web site.

Back to topic. The € 1 000 000:- Heiwa Challenges.

No 1 Challenge (not topic) is about showing how a weak top part of a skyscraper (WTC 1 or 2) can crush the strong bottom part 9/11 2001. For details refer to link given in post #1. Some US clowns (in the White House, e.g. Condi) suggest that terrorists dislocated the weak top parts and ... POUFF, POUFF, POUFF ... the strong bottoms became rubble (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/pouf.htm ) .  Amazing. What a hoax!

No 2 (topic) is about showing how a 1969 space ship - Apollo 11 - managed to get from Earth and to the Moon and back to the Earth. George 'Willy' Low has described it in his report ref [1] at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm and it is not convincing. I think it is a hoax.

So to clarify matters I offer €1M to do it ... clarify matters. To start with just explain how the first and only lunar orbit insertion maneuver was done.
Willy suggested 1969 that Neil or somebody burnt 10 tons of fuel during 6 minutes and the 43.5 ton Apollo 11 space ship inserted itself in orbit around the Moon.

I evidently do not believe it.

I think it is a hoax.

So I offer anybody €1 M to show that I am wrong.

I cannot understand why people get upset about THAT!

Now a little PR for me and my agency:

If you have any problems with safety at sea I recommend you to ask Heiwa Co - European Agency for Safety at Sea for ideas how to proceed. It will not cost you anything because it is free of charge. To ask. It is like all biz. It doesn't cost to ask.

Free info why chemicals burn in vaccum space is probably available in posts above/below this one. They are all OT allowed by the moderator to silence this thread. Like my ideas about the ATOMIC BOMB! Evidently OT but quite interesting. You see, I worked in Japan for 5 years in the 70's and could not really find any traces of atomic bomb explosions - http://heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htm . I find it strange.

[sts60]

Amusing and diverting as his other "ideas" are, it could result in a huge amount of confusion if Heiwa ever comes back.

I think we should just stick to Apollo for now.

I heartily agree and endorse this.  This is the Apollo subforum, and I do not intend to let the discussion be fuzzed by side issues.  Please (I have no delusions of being a moderator, this is just my personal appeal) take all discussions of nuclear issues, 9/11, etc. to the Other Conspiracies subforum.

Heiwa, your post responding to my last post merely recapitulated your fundamental error, and did not address my other two points.   I will return to this in more detail when I have a few minutes.

[ka9q]

He's correct AFAIK. Slow neutrons are required to initiate fission in U-235.

Not true. U-235 will certainly fission with fast neutrons. That's how nuclear weapons using U-235 work.

The U-235 fission cross section for fast neutrons is considerably smaller than for thermal neutrons, so a high enrichment is needed. Because there's no moderator, reactor stability has to depend on thermal expansion and Doppler broadening of the fuel.

When the neutrons are energetic enough, even U-238 will fission. Many thermonuclear weapons have a jacket of U-238 that fissions from the burst of fusion neutrons. Most of the yield of the Ivy Mike shot, the very first thermonuclear explosion, actually came from this fission of U-238. Modern thermonuclear weapons mix fission and fusion rather intimately, with fusion boosting in the fission core of the trigger and a plutonium fission "sparkplug" in the middle of the fusion fuel, as well as the U-238 tamper around the whole thing that fissions.

[Bob B.]

Freezing point depression is also a reason to use Aerozine-50 vs straight hydrazine. Straight hydrazine freezes at +2C (even worse than N₂O₄ at -11.2C) while UDMH freezes at -57C. (I don't know offhand if they form a eutectic that freezes at a temperature below either pure compound.)

Straight hydrazine also cannot be used in regeneratively cooled rocket engines (i.e, most bipropellant engines) because it would decompose.

UDMH cannot be used in monopropellant rockets, so I guess the high freezing point of straight hydrazine is one reason to switch to a more complicated bipropellant engine. On the other hand, some spacecraft with large bipropellant engines use hydrazine-fueled monopropellant thrusters for attitude control so at least one set of tanks still has to be kept warm.

U.S. military specifications for UDMH (1955) came out about than same time as IRFNA (1954).  Both were developed for the primary purpose of providing stability and storability over a wide temperature range.  The specific impulse of UDMH/IRFNA is not nearly as good as other fuel/oxidizer combinations, but when you’re on a freezing battlefield, that’s not always to most important factor.

As a fuel in a bipropellant engine, straight hydrazine has the best performance of the hydrazine derivatives, but as you say, its poor freezing point and stability usually regulates to use only as a monopropellant.  However, it’s superb in that application and has become the standard in catalytic decomposition engines.

Bipropellant engines are more common because they provide far better specific impulse than monopropellant engines.  Monopropellant hydrazine has a specific impulse of only about 230-240 seconds, versus better than 300 s for a bipropellant engine.  Monopropellant hydrazine is typically used only when simplicity is more important than high performance, such as RCS thrusters.  These types of systems also have a small fuel load, so the trade off of having to keep the hydrazine warm is usually worth it.

Hydrazine is also sometimes used in dual-mode systems, where the same fuel supply is used in both monopropellant RCS thrusters and a bipropellant main engine.  I have a vague memory that Surveyor might have used a dual-mode system, but I could be wrong about that.

MMH was discovered about the same time as UDMH, but it’s not as stable as UDMH in applications where regenerative cooling is used.  However, MMH gives a better specific impulse, so that’s why we often see the switch to MMH in applications where ablative or radiation cooling is used, such as small pressure-fed spacecraft systems (Space Shuttle’s OMS for example).  I think MMH is also less toxic and a safer alternative for a manned vehicle.

So why not just use straight UDMH in bipropellant engines? Some rockets do (or did), notably the original Ariane 1 design. Its second launch failed due to a combustion instability, an event I remember very well because my group had a payload on it. One of the design modifications was to switch to UH-25, 75% UDMH + 25% hydrazine. I'm not sure why it helped.

Some rocket’s still use straight UDMH.  I’m pretty sure that Russian Proton rocket and the Chinese Chang Zheng (Long March) rockets use UDMH.

One of the main reasons to use UDMH-hydrazine blends it to improve performance.  Hydrazine, when used as a bipropellant, produces a higher specific impulse than UDMH.  Thus, by using a blend we obtain a fuel that has a higher specific impulse than UDMH alone, and that still has enough stability to use in a regenerative-cooled engine.  The only blends in use that I know of are Aerozine 50 and UH25.

Another reason to add hydrazine to UDMH is to increase its average density. Hydrazine is 1.021 g/cc while UDMH is only 0.79 g/cc.

Yes, that’s another good point.


BTW, ka9q, thanks for the nice explanation about enthalpy of formation.

[JayUtah]

My calculations are very simple...

It doesn't matter how simple they are if they're wrong.  You've been told many times by many people exactly how your calculations are wrong.  Pretending they still work is not an option for you at this point.

In fact your calculations are wrong because they're too simple.  They fail to account for all relevant factors.  I believe it is because you don't know how to properly formulate the energy analysis you've attempted, which leads further to conclude that you are not at all the expert you tell us you are.

As shown in my presentation...

You have been told specifically what is wrong with that presentation.  Your continued ignorance of that refutation only further cements your reputation as an international crackpot, liar, and fraud.

It seems nobody, incl. Willy at NASA...

"Willy" is the only source at NASA you seem to have considered.  You insist on the diminutive nickname in order to belittle him, and by proxy all of NASA.  However, you have ignored literal reams of material on the subject published by NASA.

...can explain what systems - manual and or automatic - were used to carry out maneuvers...

Explicitly false.  You have been shown exactly those sources, available from NASA.  You simply choose to pretend they do not exist.  Again, you seem to think space operations are some dark art practiced only by NASA such that they could lie about them and get away with it.  You fail to realize that it is a multibillion dollar international industry with civilian practitioners who have no ties whatsoever with NASA or any desire to protect its alleged secrets.  Nevertheless all these learned practitioners seem to be able to answer your challenges with ease and to point you to sources at NASA to show that NASA also solved the same problems.

You are simply wilfully ignoring evidence that disputes your belief.  That is not a position from which you can credibly argue that no one has been able to refute you.

...therefore I conclude that the whole trip was a hoax...

No, you conclude it was a hoax because you desperately need some ego boost to make up for your failed career.  You thus pretend to be a genius engineer and you go from forum to forum until you are banned, spewing utter nonsense and failing at every turn to account for where your theories depart from the real world.  You are patently ignorant of even the most basic facts of space travel, the basic historical claims, sources, and facts of the Apollo missions, and patently inept at any sort of practical physics.  That is not a basis from which you can mount a credible challenge to missions considered authentic unanimously by the relevant practitioners and industries.

You conclude it was a hoax because successful Apollo missions would validate those "fat NASA PhDs" you despise so much.  There is no technical justification whatsoever for your claims.  You are arguing purely from emotion, dressed up with a few nonsense equations.

So your clarifications are welcome so we can learn a little.

No "we" about it.  You are being taught by people who practice this science for a living.  You are stubbornly refusing to learn.  But now that you've admitted the need to be corrected and taught, you owe someone a million euros.  That was the deal.

[Jason Thompson]

So to clarify matters I offer €1M to do it ... clarify matters. To start with just explain how the first and only lunar orbit insertion maneuver was done.
Willy suggested 1969 that Neil or somebody burnt 10 tons of fuel during 6 minutes and the 43.5 ton Apollo 11 space ship inserted itself in orbit around the Moon.

For all your claims to have tried to find information, the fact that you can make this claim with any degree of seriousness is highly suspect. It leads me to conclude with even more certainty that you are either a troll or delusional about your research skills and technical knowledge and abilities.

If you can't work out why the use of the term 'first and only lunar orbit insertion manoeuvre' leads to that conclusion after the time you have been on this forum, and even some of the things you have said on it, then you really don't deserve anyone's attention, frankly.

So I offer anybody €1 M to show that I am wrong.

I cannot understand why people get upset about THAT!

It is not the offer itself, it is the fact that you are blatantly lying about it. You have refused to prove you have the money, and you have refused to accept any and all corrections to your methods and data. You have taken some of the data corrections on the sly and quietly updated your website with them, hoping we wouldn't notice, so we have already proved you were wrong in some areas and you have implicitly acknowledged the same. However, when this was pointed out you promptly moved the goalposts and said we had to actually do a lunar orbit insertion manoeuvre ourselves to win the million Euros. Even if you had the cash you are evidently not willing to hand it over to anyone for anything because you will not accept that you are wrong. If you will not accept the stated condition of winning the challenge, how can anyone win it?

Now a little PR for me and my agency:

If you have any problems with safety at sea I recommend you to ask Heiwa Co - European Agency for Safety at Sea for ideas how to proceed. It will not cost you anything because it is free of charge. To ask. It is like all biz. It doesn't cost to ask.

I looked at your website. Where is the actual business info about the service you provide? Where is any of the relevant information you would expect to find easily on any serious company website? Why do we have to wade through your stuff about 9/11, nuclear weapons and space travel on a site you claim is your company website offering a safety consultancy service?

Where is the company registration info? Where are the testimonials from people you have consulted for? Where is your company's record of service? You must have some kind of business trail we can follow, so why is it that it seems the sole route to your company is via that hideous Tripod hosted website which is crammed full of irrelevancies for a marine safety consultancy business?

[Bob B.]

No 1 Challenge (not topic) is about showing how a weak top part of a skyscraper (WTC 1 or 2) can crush the strong bottom part 9/11 2001. For details refer to link given in post #1. Some US clowns (in the White House, e.g. Condi) suggest that terrorists dislocated the weak top parts and ... POUFF, POUFF, POUFF ... the strong bottoms became rubble (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/pouf.htm ) .  Amazing. What a hoax!

Please stay on topic.  This is "The Hoax Theory" forum of the "Apollo Discussions" section.  Move your 9/11 topic to the appropriate forum, thank you.

So to clarify matters I offer €1M to do it ...

Please designate who is to judge this challenge.

clarify matters. To start with just explain how the first and only lunar orbit insertion maneuver was done.

"Only"?  What the hell are you talking about?  Many lunar orbit insertions have been performed.

Willy...

That's Mr. Low, thank you.

[Zakalwe]

Not true. U-235 will certainly fission with fast neutrons. That's how nuclear weapons using U-235 work.
The U-235 fission cross section for fast neutrons is considerably smaller than for thermal neutrons, so a high enrichment is needed. Because there's no moderator, reactor stability has to depend on thermal expansion and Doppler broadening of the fuel.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

[LunarOrbit]

Let's keep the discussion limited to Heiwa's beliefs about space travel. His thoughts on 9/11 or atomic bombs are a whole other can of worms and I don't want to encourage Heiwa to go off on a tangent. Yes, they do say a lot about his credibility, but there are enough mistakes on his Apollo pages to make it clear that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Andromeda]

I still think it's all just a big joke on Heiwa's part.

[Jason Thompson]

It has certainly reached the point where no-one can possibly take him seriously, so either he knows it and is just trying to get attention or else he really is as deluded as he appears to be.

[LunarOrbit]

Heiwa:
Can you please clarify to status of Heiwa Co?

Your use  of the European union symbol and the use of "European Agency" on your Tripod.com would appear to imply some authority and linkup with the EU. Can you please clarify your authority to use the EU symbol?

Of course, you are light years off topic about the Heiwa €1M Challenges, but I can clarify anything (subject to Apollohoaxmoderator approval):

It is a reasonable question as it relates to the credibility of your "1 million Euro" contest. I almost didn't approve your response, however, because you once again tried to moderate the discussion. I allowed it (this time) because Zakalwe deserved a response.

Heiwa Co is a European agency for Safety at Sea. It is based at Beausoleil, France, which is part of Europe. Beausoleil is a nice, land locked place with a view of the Mediterranean Sea. The Heiwa Co web site, http://heiwaco.tripod.com  is very popular with > 1 450 000 downloads.

Calling something a " European Agency" implies a connection with a government. Is Heiwa Co. a government agency? Do you receive any funding from the government? How many employees do you have?

No 1 Challenge (not topic) is about showing how a weak top part of a skyscraper (WTC 1 or 2) can crush the strong bottom part 9/11 2001. For details refer to link given in post #1. Some US clowns (in the White House, e.g. Condi) suggest that terrorists dislocated the weak top parts and ... POUFF, POUFF, POUFF ... the strong bottoms became rubble (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/pouf.htm ) .  Amazing. What a hoax!

That is off topic for this section of the forum. Please stick to discussing Apollo or relevant topics (rocketry, orbital mechanics, etc.) here.

No 2 (topic) is about showing how a 1969 space ship - Apollo 11 - managed to get from Earth and to the Moon and back to the Earth. George 'Willy' Low has described it in his report ref [1] at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm and it is not convincing. I think it is a hoax.

How about you show some respect to Mr. Low and stop calling him "Willy". That is not his name.

So to clarify matters I offer €1M to do it ... clarify matters. To start with just explain how the first and only lunar orbit insertion maneuver was done.
Willy suggested 1969 that Neil or somebody burnt 10 tons of fuel during 6 minutes and the 43.5 ton Apollo 11 space ship inserted itself in orbit around the Moon.

People have clarified it. Repeatedly. It appears that you are simply incapable of learning.

So I offer anybody €1 M to show that I am wrong.

I cannot understand why people get upset about THAT!

If anyone is getting upset it is because you have repeatedly ignored the explanations they have given you. They would be justified in being upset because they have apparently been wasting their time trying to educate someone who can not be educated.

Now a little PR for me and my agency:

If you have any problems with safety at sea I recommend you to ask Heiwa Co - European Agency for Safety at Sea for ideas how to proceed. It will not cost you anything because it is free of charge. To ask. It is like all biz. It doesn't cost to ask.

I'll let you have the first advertisment for free. We can discuss my advertising rates for future ads, if you'd like. I'm sure you can afford them if you have 1 million Euro burning a hole in your pocket.

Free info why chemicals burn in vaccum space is probably available in posts above/below this one. They are all OT allowed by the moderator to silence this thread. Like my ideas about the ATOMIC BOMB! Evidently OT but quite interesting. You see, I worked in Japan for 5 years in the 70's and could not really find any traces of atomic bomb explosions - http://heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htm . I find it strange.

This is off topic for the "Apollo Hoax Theory" section of the forum. If you want to discuss the reality of atomic bombs then start a thread in the  Other Conspiracy Theories section.