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.

Hand cranked Calculator, you said?

http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?...ide+Calculator

http://www.ddaymuseum.org

When World War Two was over, America sent some big machines to
Germany/Europe.The machines were used for grinding up that rubble, the
ground up rubble was mixed into new concrete/rebuilding.

I have a Curta hand crank Calculator.I bought it for $88.00 at an Indian
(India) store in Saigon,Vietnam in 1964.
cuhulin

On Oct 19, 1:44*am, "Scout"
wrote:
"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.

Says Who ?
My Assertion...
Can Out Assert Your Assertion !
-and that's proof enough [.]