So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?

[Jason Thompson]

The Apollo 11 had, according Willy of NASA, total mass incl. fuel of 43 574 kg (or 96 062 lb) and speed 2 400 m/s when 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 no and no. You do not get to attribute all of that to George Low, for two reasons:

1: George Low did not write the report, he provided the preface and signed the report off. He was not the author. We have reports here where I work that have my name on the front page. They were written by anything up to seven people. I just compiled the report from these disparate sources. According to your reasoning I am personally accountable for everything written therein.

2: You are blatantly pulling at least the engine specs from a different source. I have been trying without success to get you to tell me why you accept that Saturn V schematic over every other published source about the Apollo SPS engine, which is an AJ10-137 engine with 91,000 lb thrust according to everything but that schematic.

Who cares?

You should. That's the point.

The energy of the fuel burnt in the rocket engine evidently created the 97 400 N force to reduce the speed.

Yes, burning the fuel ADDED energy to the system. So why then are you not accounting for that fact?

The spaceship + fuel 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 applying the force was 88.64 GJ.

NO. The kinetic energy of the spacecraft alone was 36.76 GK. You have ignored the kinetic energy of the fuel after the burn. The exhaust still has mass and energy that you have simple elected to ignore. What you have stated is that adding energy by nurning the fuel has led to a reduction in energy overall. Impossible. Not because Apollo 11 is a fake but because YOU ARE DOING THE CALCULATION WRONG!

That energy thus became part of the space environment outside the space craft and could not be recuperated.

The fact that it could not be recovered does not mean you can simply ignore it in your calculation. The energy of the mass of the exhaust MUST be accounted for in your balancing equation.

You are not an engineer. You are a liar and a fraud.

[Chew]

So he still thinks you need to be able to see where you are going to get there properly? Physics doesn't apply if you can't see where you are going?

The question every civilian has asked me when I tell them I navigated submarines for the US Navy was, "How do you know where you're going when you're underwater?"

[gwiz]

The question every civilian has asked me when I tell them I navigated submarines for the US Navy was, "How do you know where you're going when you're underwater?"

Submarines have been fitted with GPS ever since they were invented in the 17th century.

Not many people know that.

[JayUtah]

The Apollo 11 had, according Willy of NASA...

What did we say about this?

The spaceship + fuel 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 applying the force was 88.64 GJ.

That energy thus became part of the space environment outside the space craft and could not be recuperated.

No, that is not a proper formulation of an energy-balance equation.  If you like them so much, you should learn to do them correctly.

If the system consisted of the {spacecraft + fuel} at initial conditions, it must also consist of the {spacecraft + fuel} at final conditions, even if the fuel is no longer physically in the same location it was for initial conditions.  The "system" for energy-balance purposes is an abstraction.  It is a list of predetermined components, wherever they may be located, not whatever happens to be found within some arbitrary geometric boundary from time to time.  This is your fundamental error in formulating the problem, and it's going to cost you a million euros.

Or conversely you can say that the mass of the expended propellant has left the system, along with its associated kinetic energy.  But then in that case you won't have a closed system and you cannot attribute changes in component energy by default to propulsion.

[JayUtah]

Who cares?

You should. That's the point.

Indeed, someone who is likely to be sued for non-payment of a million euro prize should be intensely interested in the strength of the case against him.

You are not an engineer. You are a liar and a fraud.

The plot thickens when you realize that France has some of the most stringent laws in the world regarding the practice of engineering.  Criminal penalties apply to the practice of engineering without a degree or license, and to the malpractice of engineering even by licensed practitioners.  I wonder if the Beausoleil magistrates are aware of what is happening on their doorstep.

[JayUtah]

Just another demonstration of how fundamentally his basic mindset differs from that of an actual engineer...

To wit:  "I don't know how this works or how to incorporate it into my model, so I'm just going to pretend it doesn't exist."  In France, a real engineer who did that would almost certainly wind up behind bars.

[JayUtah]

So atmospheric drag will work with parachutes but it won't work with anything else?

Wow, I hope Boeing doesn't find out about this.  Otherwise they might ask me to return the $37 million they paid me and my company to solve nonuniform fluid dynamics problems relating to the 787 Dreamliner design.  If drag only works for parachutes then my efforts to minimize it for an airframe were clearly fraudulent.

[BTW Doug, if you're reading this, I'm kidding]

[Glom]

The spaceship + fuel 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 applying the force was 88.64 GJ.

But that's a loss of kinetic energy. Your original point was that the energy that could be derived from the fuel consumed was insufficient to account for this change but that's wrong because:

1) as pointed out but never acknowledged, you used the wrong specific enthalpy change of combustion.
2) you don't need an exothermic reaction to supply heat to a DROP in internal energy. By your logic, you should be asking where the energy went not where it came from.

And you're still giving the wrong name to the SPS engine.

[Heiwa]

The post you made after the one I quoted above was not allowed because in addition to calling George Low "Willy" you also told someone they were being off topic and insulted their intelligence. When are you going to realize that you're wasting your time writing posts that you know I won't allow?

It was Glom post #700 I replied to. Glom suggets "It takes a very delusional mind to think that when faced with something you don't understand, it's the whole world that's wrong and not just your understanding."

I simply didn't agree. The whole world is not wrong. Only Apollo 11 is SF. So why delete my reply?

And the purpose of my serious Challenge - topic here (not started by me) - is not deceive but encourage creative thinking by offering money, e.g. 1. show how the little (weak) top part C of a structure crushes the bigger, stronger bottom part A of same structure (A carries C statically) by gravity due to a failure in interface C/A or 2. show how any manned space ship manages to visit Moon (or Mars) while overpowering gravity forces and finally getting back to Earth in one piece incl. fuel used.

Re 1. many people say 'I saw it live on TV - twice - on 9/11 2001, so it must be true' ... but is it?, and re 2. many people also saw 1969 Apollo 11 take off from Earth, some blury B&W footage of people on the Moon and splash down in the Pacific five days later live on TV ... but what happened in between the three events? Did the trip really take place? Then how?

Those are my two Challenges. No big deal. Plenty of people suggesting I am broke, etc, etc. I am happy to say I am not and live comfortably in southern France with a grand view of the Med. I recommend posters to focus on topic and not divert from it.

[Heiwa]

But that's a loss of kinetic energy.

No, it is a change in kinetic energy of the space ship before/after a force was applied on it (to reduce the velocity). No kinetic energy was lost. It was transformed into heat.

You know "It takes a very delusional mind to think that when faced with something you don't understand, it's the whole world that's wrong and not just your understanding."

[gillianren]

We are focusing on the topic.  We don't believe you have the million Euros, and you have consistently refused to show evidence that you do.

[Heiwa]

The plot thickens when you realize that France has some of the most stringent laws in the world regarding the practice of engineering.  Criminal penalties apply to the practice of engineering without a degree or license, and to the malpractice of engineering even by licensed practitioners.  I wonder if the Beausoleil magistrates are aware of what is happening on their doorstep.

Aha, you are now an expert of French law? Are you suggesting I am breaking the law? That is serious! Off topic, of course. Anyway, the Tribunals d'Instance and de Grande Instance are located at Nice but you can always alert our local police municipale or nationale here at Beausoleil, if you are concerned. I think you are just upset not beating my Challenge. Yes, it is hard not to solve my Challenges.

Have you still not understand that it is IMPOSSIBLE to win my Challenges. Physical principles do not allow it. 

[LunarOrbit]

The post you made after the one I quoted above was not allowed because in addition to calling George Low "Willy" you also told someone they were being off topic and insulted their intelligence. When are you going to realize that you're wasting your time writing posts that you know I won't allow?

It was Glom post #700 I replied to. Glom suggets "It takes a very delusional mind to think that when faced with something you don't understand, it's the whole world that's wrong and not just your understanding."

I simply didn't agree. The whole world is not wrong. Only Apollo 11 is SF. So why delete my reply?

I deleted your reply because:

1) you continue to try to moderate the discussion by telling people they are off topic.
2) you continue to denigrate George Low by calling him "Willy".
3) you insulted Glom by telling him to be more "intelligent and clever"

How many times do I have to tell you that pretending you're the moderator, or being disrespectful of others, will not be tollerated? Why do you keep doing it?

And the purpose of my serious Challenge - topic here (not started by me) - is not deceive but encourage creative thinking by offering money, e.g. 1. show how the little (weak) top part C of a structure crushes the bigger, stronger bottom part A of same structure (A carries C statically) by gravity due to a failure in interface C/A or

Your 9/11 beliefs are off topic in this section of the forum. If your posts are off topic they may not be allowed.

2. show how any manned space ship manages to visit Moon (or Mars) and get back to Earth in one piece incl. fuel used.

And that has been done repeatedly. Your inability to understand the explanations people have given you is the real problem.

many people also saw 1969 Apollo 11 take off from Earth, some blury B&W footage of people on the Moon and splash down in the Pacific five days later live on TV ... but what happened in between the three events?

Why don't you tell us what you think really happened between the time the Saturn V rocket launched (which millions of people witnessed in person, not just on TV), and the time the Apollo capsule splashed down in the Pacific?

We have footage of the astronauts in zero gravity, with the distant Earth outside their window. The weather patterns on the Earth match the weather forecast maps from the same time, which would be impossible to fake. So that puts the astronauts in space, many thousands of kilometers from Earth. You must provide an alternative explanation before I will discard what NASA has told us.

Those are my two Challenges. No big deal. Plenty of people suggesting I am broke, etc, etc. I am happy to say I am not and live comfortably in southern France with a grand view of the Med. I recommend posters to focus on topic and not divert from it.

And again I will tell you that without proof of the alleged contest money we have no reason to believe you. If you want your contest to be taken seriously you will have to put the money into some kind of escrow and have a third party act as the judge.

[Zakalwe]

I simply didn't agree. The whole world is not wrong. Only Apollo 11 is SF. So why delete my reply?

So you acknowledge that all the other Apollo missions are genuine and the events, as described, happened.
What's particular about 11 that is different?


Also, can you please let us know if you intend to answer this post?

This thread is now 44 pages long with nearly 700 posts in it. During it's course you have repeatedly been shown to have fundamental errors in your understanding and knowledge. You have been given copious examples that demonstrate, sometimes in painful detail, where you have been in error. The post above shows just how thin your understanding is, or alternatively how desperate you appear to be to be wilfully ignorant and a troll.

Do you you accept this?

Do you acknowledge where your understanding has been incorrect and can you state that you have corrected your thinking?

Instead of throwing up another spurious example of your lack of understanding, can you address these issues? Doing so would go a long to showing that you are not deliberately being obtuse and trolling for reaction, but that you are able to learn new things and correct errors in your understanding.

[Glom]

I simply didn't agree. The whole world is not wrong. Only Apollo 11 is SF. So why delete my reply?

So Apollo 12 is real? The Space Shuttle is real? ISS is real? Mars Curiosity is real?

That contradicts everything you've said before where you said all of manned spaceflight is fake as well as at least some of the unmanned spaceflight.