"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 15.10.2011 22:46, schrieb Scout:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 15.10.2011 02:05, schrieb Scout:


"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Scout" wrote in
:



"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger:
Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF:
On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote:
Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM,
RHF wrote:
On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote:
Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

--
..



Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans
got ripped off...

TH

TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned}
Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program

one does wonder . . . ~ RHF

Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest
in
the Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that
subject. (Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet,
watching films on YouTube and so forth).

Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one.

About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within
the pictures taken.
My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even
particularly sophisticated.


Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example.
(Only
one)

Look at this picture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg

It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon.
Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from
the landing module 'Eagle'.

But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps,
while
the lander lands.
Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot
take
photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back.

Certainly it can. Depending on the orbits used, the lander can easily
"descend" upon the orbiter. Indeed it is typical after undocking to
go
to a slightly higher orbit to allow the orbiting craft/station to
pass
under you (lower orbit being faster) until it clears the area, and
then when you come up on the point to begin your de-orbit burn the
area is clear, as no matter what you do at that point the other craft
is only going to move further away from you. If you tried to go a
lower orbit move ahead of the orbiting craft and then try to de-orbit
the orbiting craft would be catching up to you as you slowed and if
you accidently "ballooned up" a bit because your angle was slightly
off....you could possibly even run into each other. Not a good thing.
Nor do you want to wait forever for the gap to open up enough as your
time in space is strictly limited. Safer to simply move a bit higher,
let it pass under you and then there is no possibility of that
occurring. And gee, while you're sitting there you snap a picture out
the window and *poof* the planet/moon is in the background. SOB.

So if this is your BEST evidence, then this is really going to blow
your socks off.

"The International Space Station photographed following separation
from the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2001."

http://news.medinfo.ufl.edu/articles...scovery-prompt

s-development-of-space-radiation-sensors/

Damn, is that the EARTH in the background?

"Last August, the Space Shuttle Endeavour crew captured this shot of
the International Space Station (ISS) against the backdrop of Planet
Earth. "

http://www.astronomy-pictures.net/na..._pictures.html

Damn, there it is again.

"International Space Station (ISS), March 2011, taken from the Space
Shuttle Discovery after undocking at the end of its mission to the
ISS"

http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/395325/enlarge

And again. Damn, one might even see this as a theme.

"The international space station, shown here in a photo taken from
the
shuttle Discovery in June"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26441443/

So tell me does this mean the International Space Station is a fraud,
or shall we simply consider the possibility that what you see as
photographic flaws are really just a symptom of your ignorance of the
mechanics of space flight?



Scout....if he lived in the US he would be a 911 truther. He is purely
looking for some conspiracy to believe in.

Actually you can be a 'truther' and live outside the USA.

I did some sort of 'research' on 9-11, too. Actually I have an own
'theory', that circles around flight 93.
There seems to be a plot. This is the picture - or story- that was
intended, but not achieved. Actually Mr.Bush messed it up (in my
assumption).

It goes like this:
I call it a 'dance of planes and falling skyscrapers'.
The original plot was, that north tower gets hit, south tower gets
hit, pentagon gets hit.
South tower falls down, flight 93 hits building 7, north tower falls
down, building 7 falls down. (South tower had to fall first, because
building 7 is behind it).

Instead the flight was delayed and Mr. President so perplexed, that he
had to think about a solution very hard (and for several minutes).
Than he gave order to shoot down the plane, what was promptly done.
Flight 93 was apparently approaching Indean Lake Airpark, but didn't.
make it there and fell in parts into the Indean Lake.
Later on the WTC 7 fell without a hit.

yawn

And naturally you have some evidence to support this supposition?

You can also explain the bulging walls and other sides of structural
collapse noted prior to the building's collapse?

Actually I don't like the term 'truther'. And I don't like the term
'conspiracy theory', but these phrases are commonly used.

I think, if the government does does something illegal, than this
isn't a conspiracy. Its just illegal.


That and showing he has absolutely NO capacity for research,
investigation or critical thought.


I bet I can give him something that will really blow his mind.

In orbit you go faster to slow down, and slow down to go faster.

The decline from orbit is a difficult subject, too. Imagine a space
capsule in Moon orbit. There is no air. To land and to stop the craft
in horizontal movement, you need to fire the engine in reverse thrust
(against flight direction). This is not seen on any of the films or
pictures.

Well, let's see. The people in the lander are going to be strapped down
and all they could take a picture of in any event would be a view out
the front of the lander.

The orbiter meanwhile is now ahead of the lander and the moment you
fired the engines on the lander would rapidly move away. Short of a
really high power telephoto, you couldn't take a meaningful picture of
the lander from the orbiter during the de-orbit burn, nor any particular
reason to do so. After all I doubt some moron may years in the future
would contend the whole thing was faked simply because they didn't take
a picture just for him.

And it is - of course - difficult and fuel consuming.

Yep, which is why weight was such an issue.

The opposite is even more difficult and that is to restart and making
the rendezvous with the orbiter.

No more than any of the other times that spacecraft have met up in
space, and from the moon it would actually be easier since you would
have no air currents to throw you off your course during launch.

This is next to impossible, because there is no assistance from the
ground, helping to correct the flight path (nobody there, on moon
surface).

Don't need it. One craft knows exactly where they are, the other knows
where they are, the rest is just math.


Well, I would agree to 'just math and knowing where things are'.

But that 'just math' is quite challenging, if you have only a handcranked
'computer' with a few k Ram.

And clearly up to the job.

And knowing where everything is is difficult, too. Today they have GPS,
that would help a lot - if installed at the moon.

But without radar and satellite navigation things are VERY difficult.

Not really. Apollo 13 proved that all they needed was one fixed point in
space...and the Earth itself provided that.

Sorry, but the bulk of the work was predone, the only thing they had to deal
with was the final adjustments once they got within visual range.


And completely impossible is, to store the needed fuel in a single
craft. (No gas station there, neither).

Actually with the small gravity well of the moon and no atmosphere it's
quite possible.

See the gravity well of the Earth is some 22 TIMES greater than is the
gravity well of the moon.

Here's a nice video with graphics to explain this to you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBQHtF3WhMw

Further the lander doesn't even have to climb all the way out of that
well. It only has to reach a very low orbit to meet up with the orbiter
which then provides the rest of the thrust needed to return to Earth.

Heck, the orbiter's orbit was generally so low that it would have been
within the atmosphere around the Earth. But since the moon has no
atmosphere you could orbit at almost any height, as shown by the recent
orbits just 13 miles up (ie 69,000 feet) below the service ceiling of
many military aircraft.

So combine a shallow gravity well, with low orbit and what do you have?

Answer - you need very little delta V to land or launch for said orbit
around a body without an atmosphere.

Once again, I will simply note that all you are showing is your
ignorance of the mechanics of space flight, not any flaws in what NASA
did, or didn't do.

Actually the gravity on Moon is very low. Agreed..

Not very low, just low. However, the gravity well is MUCH lower than the
Earth's.


But you make the same mistake as the NASA guys. That is messing up
'inertia' and 'weight'.

Who brought up either term?

oh, that's right, we're into you inventing strawmen.


In Germany we had pounds before, but now use the SI-system of units. With
this it is more easy to see: Weight is measured in Newton (in lbs. in the
US) and mass in kilograms (in lbs. in the US).

To accelerate a mass to a certain speed, the needed energy does not depend
on weight, but on mass and the needed velocity. That velocity is orbital
speed for the moon's gravitational field.

yawn

I haven't said anything else. Are you trying to talk so much that people
will miss when you don't refute the fact pointed out to you?


For Earth orbit you need much faster flight than you would need to stay in
orbit around the moon, but nevertheless it is quite fast. On Earth it took
a Saturn V rocket, to lift the craft into orbit. On the Moon it would take
less fuel, but way more, than the few gallons, they had in the lander.

Ok, let's see your math.

I mean if you know they needed more, then clearly you have calculated all
this out and know exactly how much they would need and whether they could
have that much on the lander.

So let's see your work.

---- Insert mathematical proof here.

Here I will even aid you with the specifications for the mass, amount of
fuel, type of fuel, specific impulse, thrust provided, available delta-V,
and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...Specifications

Am 17.10.2011 07:01, schrieb Scout:


...

For Earth orbit you need much faster flight than you would need to
stay in orbit around the moon, but nevertheless it is quite fast. On
Earth it took a Saturn V rocket, to lift the craft into orbit. On the
Moon it would take less fuel, but way more, than the few gallons, they
had in the lander.

Ok, let's see your math.

I mean if you know they needed more, then clearly you have calculated
all this out and know exactly how much they would need and whether they
could have that much on the lander.

So let's see your work.

---- Insert mathematical proof here.

Here I will even aid you with the specifications for the mass, amount of
fuel, type of fuel, specific impulse, thrust provided, available
delta-V, and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...Specifications


Well, I'm a little too lazy, but a rough calculation is possible:

There is the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation
velocity_final=v_exhaust* ln(mass_start/mass_finish)

V_end= 2200 m/s * ln (4547 kg/(4547-2353) kg)

that is :
v_end approx. 1603 m/s

this is an estimated calculation without gravity.

the final velocity is reduced by
delta v = g_moon * (time of engine running)

Don't know that number (time_ engine)

Maybe 100 seconds (???)

makes:
delta v = 1.6 m/s²*100 s=160 m/s

What gives a rough estimate for the final velocity of the landers
ascending stage of
v_end = 1440 m/s.

Now the orbital velocity had to be compared. But I don't have the data
and actually I'm too lazy to find them out. But usual orbits should be a
little less than escape velocity, what is
v_orbit_escape = 2380 m/s.

V_end is a rough estimate ('thumb times pi'). For better calculations
someone with more experience in rocket science is needed.

I cannot even tell you, if the ascent stage is fast enough or not. But
my intuition tells me, it is not.


Greetings

Thomas

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 17.10.2011 07:01, schrieb Scout:


..

For Earth orbit you need much faster flight than you would need to
stay in orbit around the moon, but nevertheless it is quite fast. On
Earth it took a Saturn V rocket, to lift the craft into orbit. On the
Moon it would take less fuel, but way more, than the few gallons, they
had in the lander.

Ok, let's see your math.

I mean if you know they needed more, then clearly you have calculated
all this out and know exactly how much they would need and whether they
could have that much on the lander.

So let's see your work.

---- Insert mathematical proof here.

Here I will even aid you with the specifications for the mass, amount of
fuel, type of fuel, specific impulse, thrust provided, available
delta-V, and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...Specifications


Well, I'm a little too lazy, but a rough calculation is possible:

There is the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation
velocity_final=v_exhaust* ln(mass_start/mass_finish)

V_end= 2200 m/s * ln (4547 kg/(4547-2353) kg)

that is :
v_end approx. 1603 m/s

this is an estimated calculation without gravity.

the final velocity is reduced by
delta v = g_moon * (time of engine running)

Don't know that number (time_ engine)

Maybe 100 seconds (???)

makes:
delta v = 1.6 m/s²*100 s=160 m/s

What gives a rough estimate for the final velocity of the landers
ascending stage of
v_end = 1440 m/s.

Now the orbital velocity had to be compared. But I don't have the data and
actually I'm too lazy to find them out. But usual orbits should be a
little less than escape velocity, what is
v_orbit_escape = 2380 m/s.

V_end is a rough estimate ('thumb times pi'). For better calculations
someone with more experience in rocket science is needed.

I cannot even tell you, if the ascent stage is fast enough or not. But my
intuition tells me, it is not.


IOW, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and you're too lazy
to do the work needed to find out if what you think actually has merit or is
simply bat **** crazy.

Am 18.10.2011 10:14, schrieb Scout:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 17.10.2011 07:01, schrieb Scout:


..

For Earth orbit you need much faster flight than you would need to
stay in orbit around the moon, but nevertheless it is quite fast. On
Earth it took a Saturn V rocket, to lift the craft into orbit. On the
Moon it would take less fuel, but way more, than the few gallons, they
had in the lander.

Ok, let's see your math.

I mean if you know they needed more, then clearly you have calculated
all this out and know exactly how much they would need and whether they
could have that much on the lander.

So let's see your work.

---- Insert mathematical proof here.

Here I will even aid you with the specifications for the mass, amount of
fuel, type of fuel, specific impulse, thrust provided, available
delta-V, and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...Specifications


Well, I'm a little too lazy, but a rough calculation is possible:

There is the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation
velocity_final=v_exhaust* ln(mass_start/mass_finish)

V_end= 2200 m/s * ln (4547 kg/(4547-2353) kg)

that is :
v_end approx. 1603 m/s

this is an estimated calculation without gravity.

the final velocity is reduced by
delta v = g_moon * (time of engine running)

Don't know that number (time_ engine)

Maybe 100 seconds (???)

makes:
delta v = 1.6 m/s²*100 s=160 m/s

What gives a rough estimate for the final velocity of the landers
ascending stage of
v_end = 1440 m/s.

Now the orbital velocity had to be compared. But I don't have the data
and actually I'm too lazy to find them out. But usual orbits should be
a little less than escape velocity, what is
v_orbit_escape = 2380 m/s.

V_end is a rough estimate ('thumb times pi'). For better calculations
someone with more experience in rocket science is needed.

I cannot even tell you, if the ascent stage is fast enough or not. But
my intuition tells me, it is not.


IOW, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and you're too
lazy to do the work needed to find out if what you think actually has
merit or is simply bat **** crazy.


I haven't claimed to be a rocket scientist. I'm totally happy with an
rough estimate. I could do it better, for sure, but do not want.

The reason is, that to figure this out is not my business - as I have
written.

You gave me that link and demanded to tell, what's wrong with the Apollo
program. I made a few comments to the picture on that page.

Than you wanted a mathematical proof, that the lander could not reach
the orbiter with the fuel in the ascent stage.

I gave you a short version and explained, that better calculations are
certainly possible, but I don't want to provide them. You could do that,
if you like or ask somebody. It is not THAT difficult. (Maybe there are
simulators already or Mathematica packages. )

It is certainly more interesting for American people than for me as a
German. The reason is, that the Apollo program would allow to
understand, how your government actually acts.

Greetings from Berlin

TH

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 18.10.2011 10:14, schrieb Scout:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 17.10.2011 07:01, schrieb Scout:


..

For Earth orbit you need much faster flight than you would need to
stay in orbit around the moon, but nevertheless it is quite fast. On
Earth it took a Saturn V rocket, to lift the craft into orbit. On the
Moon it would take less fuel, but way more, than the few gallons, they
had in the lander.

Ok, let's see your math.

I mean if you know they needed more, then clearly you have calculated
all this out and know exactly how much they would need and whether they
could have that much on the lander.

So let's see your work.

---- Insert mathematical proof here.

Here I will even aid you with the specifications for the mass, amount
of
fuel, type of fuel, specific impulse, thrust provided, available
delta-V, and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...Specifications


Well, I'm a little too lazy, but a rough calculation is possible:

There is the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation
velocity_final=v_exhaust* ln(mass_start/mass_finish)

V_end= 2200 m/s * ln (4547 kg/(4547-2353) kg)

that is :
v_end approx. 1603 m/s

this is an estimated calculation without gravity.

the final velocity is reduced by
delta v = g_moon * (time of engine running)

Don't know that number (time_ engine)

Maybe 100 seconds (???)

makes:
delta v = 1.6 m/s²*100 s=160 m/s

What gives a rough estimate for the final velocity of the landers
ascending stage of
v_end = 1440 m/s.

Now the orbital velocity had to be compared. But I don't have the data
and actually I'm too lazy to find them out. But usual orbits should be
a little less than escape velocity, what is
v_orbit_escape = 2380 m/s.

V_end is a rough estimate ('thumb times pi'). For better calculations
someone with more experience in rocket science is needed.

I cannot even tell you, if the ascent stage is fast enough or not. But
my intuition tells me, it is not.


IOW, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and you're too
lazy to do the work needed to find out if what you think actually has
merit or is simply bat **** crazy.


I haven't claimed to be a rocket scientist. I'm totally happy with an
rough estimate. I could do it better, for sure, but do not want.

What you have isn't even a rought estimate that applies. You simply threw
some stuff up there, came up with some answers, but didn't use the data from
the apollo program, which it should be noted I was even nice enough to lead
you to by the hand, much less show that the results produced proved that a
landing and take-off physically could not occur given those conditions. You
simply flopped around trying to put together an argument.

Free hint: If you're going to say someone else is lying, then you need to
make sure you have your ducks in a row and can PROVE IT.

All you've shown is that you are an empty headed conspiracy theorist, with
lots of notions, but no facts, no proof, and from all evidence absolutely NO
desire to find out what the facts really are.

snip

Am 18.10.2011 19:42, schrieb Scout:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 18.10.2011 10:14, schrieb Scout:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 17.10.2011 07:01, schrieb Scout:


..

For Earth orbit you need much faster flight than you would need to
stay in orbit around the moon, but nevertheless it is quite fast. On
Earth it took a Saturn V rocket, to lift the craft into orbit. On the
Moon it would take less fuel, but way more, than the few gallons,
they
had in the lander.

Ok, let's see your math.

I mean if you know they needed more, then clearly you have calculated
all this out and know exactly how much they would need and whether
they
could have that much on the lander.

So let's see your work.

---- Insert mathematical proof here.

Here I will even aid you with the specifications for the mass,
amount of
fuel, type of fuel, specific impulse, thrust provided, available
delta-V, and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...Specifications


Well, I'm a little too lazy, but a rough calculation is possible:

There is the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation
velocity_final=v_exhaust* ln(mass_start/mass_finish)

V_end= 2200 m/s * ln (4547 kg/(4547-2353) kg)

that is :
v_end approx. 1603 m/s

this is an estimated calculation without gravity.

the final velocity is reduced by
delta v = g_moon * (time of engine running)

Don't know that number (time_ engine)

Maybe 100 seconds (???)

makes:
delta v = 1.6 m/s²*100 s=160 m/s

What gives a rough estimate for the final velocity of the landers
ascending stage of
v_end = 1440 m/s.

Now the orbital velocity had to be compared. But I don't have the data
and actually I'm too lazy to find them out. But usual orbits should be
a little less than escape velocity, what is
v_orbit_escape = 2380 m/s.

V_end is a rough estimate ('thumb times pi'). For better calculations
someone with more experience in rocket science is needed.

I cannot even tell you, if the ascent stage is fast enough or not. But
my intuition tells me, it is not.


IOW, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and you're too
lazy to do the work needed to find out if what you think actually has
merit or is simply bat **** crazy.


I haven't claimed to be a rocket scientist. I'm totally happy with an
rough estimate. I could do it better, for sure, but do not want.

What you have isn't even a rought estimate that applies. You simply
threw some stuff up there, came up with some answers, but didn't use the
data from the apollo program, which it should be noted I was even nice
enough to lead you to by the hand, much less show that the results
produced proved that a landing and take-off physically could not occur
given those conditions. You simply flopped around trying to put together
an argument.

Free hint: If you're going to say someone else is lying, then you need
to make sure you have your ducks in a row and can PROVE IT.

All you've shown is that you are an empty headed conspiracy theorist,
with lots of notions, but no facts, no proof, and from all evidence
absolutely NO desire to find out what the facts really are.

You are absolutely wrong!
The rocket equation is a method to calculate the final velocity of a
single staged rocket.

The ascent stage would fit to 'rocket', even if doesn't look like. It
had - of course - only one stage.

The rocket equation ignores gravity. The moon has low gravity, what
makes this equation even more usable.

The precise orbit of the orbiter I could figure out, but that would be
'work', while typing stuff into the UseNet qualifies as 'leisure'.

So I decided, I don't want to do that. This decision is absolutely my
right and nobody could hold me responsible, because I refuse to
calculate the orbit of the command module of Apollo 11.


TH

On 10/18/2011 11:56 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 18.10.2011 19:42, schrieb Scout:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 18.10.2011 10:14, schrieb Scout:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 17.10.2011 07:01, schrieb Scout:


..

For Earth orbit you need much faster flight than you would need to
stay in orbit around the moon, but nevertheless it is quite fast. On
Earth it took a Saturn V rocket, to lift the craft into orbit. On
the
Moon it would take less fuel, but way more, than the few gallons,
they
had in the lander.

Ok, let's see your math.

I mean if you know they needed more, then clearly you have calculated
all this out and know exactly how much they would need and whether
they
could have that much on the lander.

So let's see your work.

---- Insert mathematical proof here.

Here I will even aid you with the specifications for the mass,
amount of
fuel, type of fuel, specific impulse, thrust provided, available
delta-V, and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...Specifications


Well, I'm a little too lazy, but a rough calculation is possible:

There is the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation
velocity_final=v_exhaust* ln(mass_start/mass_finish)

V_end= 2200 m/s * ln (4547 kg/(4547-2353) kg)

that is :
v_end approx. 1603 m/s

this is an estimated calculation without gravity.

the final velocity is reduced by
delta v = g_moon * (time of engine running)

Don't know that number (time_ engine)

Maybe 100 seconds (???)

makes:
delta v = 1.6 m/s²*100 s=160 m/s

What gives a rough estimate for the final velocity of the landers
ascending stage of
v_end = 1440 m/s.

Now the orbital velocity had to be compared. But I don't have the data
and actually I'm too lazy to find them out. But usual orbits should be
a little less than escape velocity, what is
v_orbit_escape = 2380 m/s.

V_end is a rough estimate ('thumb times pi'). For better calculations
someone with more experience in rocket science is needed.

I cannot even tell you, if the ascent stage is fast enough or not. But
my intuition tells me, it is not.


IOW, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and you're too
lazy to do the work needed to find out if what you think actually has
merit or is simply bat **** crazy.


I haven't claimed to be a rocket scientist. I'm totally happy with an
rough estimate. I could do it better, for sure, but do not want.

What you have isn't even a rought estimate that applies. You simply
threw some stuff up there, came up with some answers, but didn't use the
data from the apollo program, which it should be noted I was even nice
enough to lead you to by the hand, much less show that the results
produced proved that a landing and take-off physically could not occur
given those conditions. You simply flopped around trying to put together
an argument.

Free hint: If you're going to say someone else is lying, then you need
to make sure you have your ducks in a row and can PROVE IT.

All you've shown is that you are an empty headed conspiracy theorist,
with lots of notions, but no facts, no proof, and from all evidence
absolutely NO desire to find out what the facts really are.

You are absolutely wrong!
The rocket equation is a method to calculate the final velocity of a
single staged rocket.

The ascent stage would fit to 'rocket', even if doesn't look like. It
had - of course - only one stage.

The rocket equation ignores gravity. The moon has low gravity, what
makes this equation even more usable.

The precise orbit of the orbiter I could figure out, but that would be
'work', while typing stuff into the UseNet qualifies as 'leisure'.

So I decided, I don't want to do that. This decision is absolutely my
right and nobody could hold me responsible, because I refuse to
calculate the orbit of the command module of Apollo 11.


TH



You need to review the past posts of "the scout", this is just a mental
case attempting to be a troll ... hang it up ... have discussions with
lunatics is never fruitful ... although they might be fruits ...

Regards,
JS

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 18.10.2011 19:42, schrieb Scout:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 18.10.2011 10:14, schrieb Scout:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 17.10.2011 07:01, schrieb Scout:


..

For Earth orbit you need much faster flight than you would need to
stay in orbit around the moon, but nevertheless it is quite fast. On
Earth it took a Saturn V rocket, to lift the craft into orbit. On
the
Moon it would take less fuel, but way more, than the few gallons,
they
had in the lander.

Ok, let's see your math.

I mean if you know they needed more, then clearly you have calculated
all this out and know exactly how much they would need and whether
they
could have that much on the lander.

So let's see your work.

---- Insert mathematical proof here.

Here I will even aid you with the specifications for the mass,
amount of
fuel, type of fuel, specific impulse, thrust provided, available
delta-V, and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...Specifications


Well, I'm a little too lazy, but a rough calculation is possible:

There is the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation
velocity_final=v_exhaust* ln(mass_start/mass_finish)

V_end= 2200 m/s * ln (4547 kg/(4547-2353) kg)

that is :
v_end approx. 1603 m/s

this is an estimated calculation without gravity.

the final velocity is reduced by
delta v = g_moon * (time of engine running)

Don't know that number (time_ engine)

Maybe 100 seconds (???)

makes:
delta v = 1.6 m/s²*100 s=160 m/s

What gives a rough estimate for the final velocity of the landers
ascending stage of
v_end = 1440 m/s.

Now the orbital velocity had to be compared. But I don't have the data
and actually I'm too lazy to find them out. But usual orbits should be
a little less than escape velocity, what is
v_orbit_escape = 2380 m/s.

V_end is a rough estimate ('thumb times pi'). For better calculations
someone with more experience in rocket science is needed.

I cannot even tell you, if the ascent stage is fast enough or not. But
my intuition tells me, it is not.


IOW, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and you're too
lazy to do the work needed to find out if what you think actually has
merit or is simply bat **** crazy.


I haven't claimed to be a rocket scientist. I'm totally happy with an
rough estimate. I could do it better, for sure, but do not want.

What you have isn't even a rought estimate that applies. You simply
threw some stuff up there, came up with some answers, but didn't use the
data from the apollo program, which it should be noted I was even nice
enough to lead you to by the hand, much less show that the results
produced proved that a landing and take-off physically could not occur
given those conditions. You simply flopped around trying to put together
an argument.

Free hint: If you're going to say someone else is lying, then you need
to make sure you have your ducks in a row and can PROVE IT.

All you've shown is that you are an empty headed conspiracy theorist,
with lots of notions, but no facts, no proof, and from all evidence
absolutely NO desire to find out what the facts really are.

You are absolutely wrong!

Then let's see your proof. Not some bull**** hack job you threw together,
but conclusive factual objective mathematical PROOF.....

Otherwise, I'm right.


The rocket equation is a method to calculate the final velocity of a
single staged rocket.

The ascent stage would fit to 'rocket', even if doesn't look like. It
had - of course - only one stage.

The rocket equation ignores gravity. The moon has low gravity, what makes
this equation even more usable.

The precise orbit of the orbiter I could figure out, but that would be
'work', while typing stuff into the UseNet qualifies as 'leisure'.

See what I mean.....no desire to find/figure out the actual facts.

So I decided, I don't want to do that.

IOW, screw figuring out the facts.

This decision is absolutely my right

Absolutely, you have every right to be as stupid and ignorant as you
chose....but don't confuse that with being informed.


and nobody could hold me responsible, because I refuse to calculate the
orbit of the command module of Apollo 11.

So basically, you've got a lot of hot air....but nothing to support it.

Typical conspiracy theorist....long on talk, short on facts.

On 10/18/2011 10:42 AM, Scout wrote:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 18.10.2011 10:14, schrieb Scout:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 17.10.2011 07:01, schrieb Scout:


..

For Earth orbit you need much faster flight than you would need to
stay in orbit around the moon, but nevertheless it is quite fast. On
Earth it took a Saturn V rocket, to lift the craft into orbit. On the
Moon it would take less fuel, but way more, than the few gallons,
they
had in the lander.

Ok, let's see your math.

I mean if you know they needed more, then clearly you have calculated
all this out and know exactly how much they would need and whether
they
could have that much on the lander.

So let's see your work.

---- Insert mathematical proof here.

Here I will even aid you with the specifications for the mass,
amount of
fuel, type of fuel, specific impulse, thrust provided, available
delta-V, and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...Specifications


Well, I'm a little too lazy, but a rough calculation is possible:

There is the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation
velocity_final=v_exhaust* ln(mass_start/mass_finish)

V_end= 2200 m/s * ln (4547 kg/(4547-2353) kg)

that is :
v_end approx. 1603 m/s

this is an estimated calculation without gravity.

the final velocity is reduced by
delta v = g_moon * (time of engine running)

Don't know that number (time_ engine)

Maybe 100 seconds (???)

makes:
delta v = 1.6 m/s²*100 s=160 m/s

What gives a rough estimate for the final velocity of the landers
ascending stage of
v_end = 1440 m/s.

Now the orbital velocity had to be compared. But I don't have the data
and actually I'm too lazy to find them out. But usual orbits should be
a little less than escape velocity, what is
v_orbit_escape = 2380 m/s.

V_end is a rough estimate ('thumb times pi'). For better calculations
someone with more experience in rocket science is needed.

I cannot even tell you, if the ascent stage is fast enough or not. But
my intuition tells me, it is not.


IOW, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and you're too
lazy to do the work needed to find out if what you think actually has
merit or is simply bat **** crazy.


I haven't claimed to be a rocket scientist. I'm totally happy with an
rough estimate. I could do it better, for sure, but do not want.

What you have isn't even a rought estimate that applies. You simply
threw some stuff up there, came up with some answers, but didn't use the
data from the apollo program, which it should be noted I was even nice
enough to lead you to by the hand, much less show that the results
produced proved that a landing and take-off physically could not occur
given those conditions. You simply flopped around trying to put together
an argument.

Free hint: If you're going to say someone else is lying, then you need
to make sure you have your ducks in a row and can PROVE IT.

All you've shown is that you are an empty headed conspiracy theorist,
with lots of notions, but no facts, no proof, and from all evidence
absolutely NO desire to find out what the facts really are.

snip



Since I met you, you were a loon, nothing has gotten better with time ...

Regards,
JS

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 10/18/2011 10:42 AM, Scout wrote:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 18.10.2011 10:14, schrieb Scout:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 17.10.2011 07:01, schrieb Scout:


..

For Earth orbit you need much faster flight than you would need to
stay in orbit around the moon, but nevertheless it is quite fast. On
Earth it took a Saturn V rocket, to lift the craft into orbit. On
the
Moon it would take less fuel, but way more, than the few gallons,
they
had in the lander.

Ok, let's see your math.

I mean if you know they needed more, then clearly you have calculated
all this out and know exactly how much they would need and whether
they
could have that much on the lander.

So let's see your work.

---- Insert mathematical proof here.

Here I will even aid you with the specifications for the mass,
amount of
fuel, type of fuel, specific impulse, thrust provided, available
delta-V, and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...Specifications


Well, I'm a little too lazy, but a rough calculation is possible:

There is the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation
velocity_final=v_exhaust* ln(mass_start/mass_finish)

V_end= 2200 m/s * ln (4547 kg/(4547-2353) kg)

that is :
v_end approx. 1603 m/s

this is an estimated calculation without gravity.

the final velocity is reduced by
delta v = g_moon * (time of engine running)

Don't know that number (time_ engine)

Maybe 100 seconds (???)

makes:
delta v = 1.6 m/s²*100 s=160 m/s

What gives a rough estimate for the final velocity of the landers
ascending stage of
v_end = 1440 m/s.

Now the orbital velocity had to be compared. But I don't have the data
and actually I'm too lazy to find them out. But usual orbits should be
a little less than escape velocity, what is
v_orbit_escape = 2380 m/s.

V_end is a rough estimate ('thumb times pi'). For better calculations
someone with more experience in rocket science is needed.

I cannot even tell you, if the ascent stage is fast enough or not. But
my intuition tells me, it is not.


IOW, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and you're too
lazy to do the work needed to find out if what you think actually has
merit or is simply bat **** crazy.


I haven't claimed to be a rocket scientist. I'm totally happy with an
rough estimate. I could do it better, for sure, but do not want.

What you have isn't even a rought estimate that applies. You simply
threw some stuff up there, came up with some answers, but didn't use the
data from the apollo program, which it should be noted I was even nice
enough to lead you to by the hand, much less show that the results
produced proved that a landing and take-off physically could not occur
given those conditions. You simply flopped around trying to put together
an argument.

Free hint: If you're going to say someone else is lying, then you need
to make sure you have your ducks in a row and can PROVE IT.

All you've shown is that you are an empty headed conspiracy theorist,
with lots of notions, but no facts, no proof, and from all evidence
absolutely NO desire to find out what the facts really are.

snip



Since I met you, you were a loon, nothing has gotten better with time ...

Nope, I simply don't buy his bull**** without proof, just as I wouldn't buy
yours.

If you throw something out there, then you need to be able to back it up
with some support if called on it.

If you can't then expect to be treated in the manner your deserve.