can somebody explain to me exactly what technology was supposedly used to bring man to the moon and back ?
i don't want to listen to either the conspiracists or the debunkers on this subject because they will both use kindergarten argumentation with no actual science at any point entering the equation.
getting to space and back is easy. just shoot the capsule and it falls back. it can parachute or it can glide down - same difference. bottom line is it requires no energy to get back.
now if you're going to the moon first of all you can't parachute or glide to the moon - there is no air. you will need additional energy just to make sure you don't slam into it vaporizing yourself on contact.
and then you need more energy to escape the moon's gravitation. now it may only be 1/6th of earth's but that's still a ******** of energy ! where would it come from ?
i want to see the pictures of the equipment that supposedly accomplished all this.
i don't want to listen to either the conspiracists or the debunkers on this subject because they will both use kindergarten argumentation with no actual science at any point entering the equation.
getting to space and back is easy. just shoot the capsule and it falls back. it can parachute or it can glide down - same difference. bottom line is it requires no energy to get back.
now if you're going to the moon first of all you can't parachute or glide to the moon - there is no air. you will need additional energy just to make sure you don't slam into it vaporizing yourself on contact.
and then you need more energy to escape the moon's gravitation. now it may only be 1/6th of earth's but that's still a ******** of energy ! where would it come from ?
i want to see the pictures of the equipment that supposedly accomplished all this.
Last edited:
Moon Fact Sheet
Potential energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
so energy to escape gravitational field:
G*M*M/R
where:
M(moon) = 0.012
R(moon) = 0.27
so energy to escape moon = 0.0444... that of earth.
only you have to do it TWICE. first when you land on the moon and then when you take off so 0.0444 x 2 so 0.09
so it would take roughly about 1/10th as much energy to land the lunar module and get it back up from the moon as it would to get it into space in the first place.
show me where that energy was stored.
Potential energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
so energy to escape gravitational field:
G*M*M/R
where:
M(moon) = 0.012
R(moon) = 0.27
so energy to escape moon = 0.0444... that of earth.
only you have to do it TWICE. first when you land on the moon and then when you take off so 0.0444 x 2 so 0.09
so it would take roughly about 1/10th as much energy to land the lunar module and get it back up from the moon as it would to get it into space in the first place.
show me where that energy was stored.
well i never cared about the moon c4ap until i heard all the talk about faking it. this is the first time i am looking at it. before i look at any arguments of the conspiracists i want to first make sure that the official story line doesn't contradict physics.
since i grew up in Soviet Union i hope you can understand why we didn't care about your stinky American moon
Last edited:
Despite the propensity to actually de-evolve where energy storage is concerned (latest run-your-car-on-battery power trend) there is the storage potential of liquid fuel. Don't underrate how much energy is released during its combustion.
Watch the movie Apollo 13 or one of the many documentaries.
i don't watch mass media programming.
perhaps you can briefly summarize the relevant parts here ?
so post them !
Last edited:
right. i want to see the container for that fuel and eye-ball it. see if the numbers add up.
there is some subjective evidence that the whole thing was faked. what i am trying to determine is, if it was faked, whether it was faked professionally or not.
since you guys are all so convinced it was real surely you must have the evidence to prove it on hand. i just want to see it.
Last edited:
Here are some of the specifications of the LM, but can you trust them to tell you the truth?
Apollo Lunar Module - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.answers.com/topic/escape-velocity
Apollo Lunar Module - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.answers.com/topic/escape-velocity
Last edited:
since i grew up in Soviet Union i hope you can understand why we didn't care about your stinky American moon
Americans don't seem to care about that stinky moon anymore either. We went a couple of decades ago, found out the real estate is a wee bit overpriced (unlike when Columbus sailed to the New World). So we haven't been back lately.
nice.
how about videos. is there a video of it taking off the moon surface ?
i'm sure it was possible to fit a camera with a transmitter and leave it on the surface - did they ever do that ?
I watched it on TV, I was studying physics, chemistry and maths at the time, I'm a pretty reasonable estimator, none of it struck me as unlikely at the time and what sure as hell is unlikely is that the USSR would have stood by and let the USA perpetrate a fraud. We did a lot of orbital energy calculations in school, never mind university, it's just not that difficult. Just because these things are currently a mystery to you, you forget that much of the basic science is over a century old. Probably well over a million people worldwide are capable of calculating the rough hydrogen + oxygen capacity of a Saturn 5, the energy evolved from it's combustion etc., etc., which I'd do myself if it wasn't for the effort involved because I'm rusty and anyway I don't need convincing.
Where do you imagine those things go when they fire them up there into the sky? Learn the mechanics, sure. That makes you a student. Doubt that it all adds up? That just makes you a flake.
w
Where do you imagine those things go when they fire them up there into the sky? Learn the mechanics, sure. That makes you a student. Doubt that it all adds up? That just makes you a flake.
w
The rocket equation is not hard, and actually you don't even need to make escape velocity as the ship will be captured by the targets gravitational field long before it reaches the functional edge of the field implied by the mass in question.
There are only really two numbers that matter for space propulsion: propellant mass fraction and engine exhaust velocity, know those and you can calculate available delta V, know the required delta V and the engine exhaust velocity and you can calculate the propellant mass fraction, and thus the vehicle mass.
dV = Ve *Ln(Mr)
It is worth noting that the Apollo missions very deliberately left as much as possible behind at each stage (The lander left the decent engine and tankage behind when it took off from the moon to reduce total mass, and left the bulk of the ship that had carried the crew from earth in lunar orbit, thereby minimising the mass transferred to and from the surface), the mass fractions are typically large enough that carrying as little payload mass as possible pays big dividends when landing and boosting back to orbital velocity (even lunar orbital velocity).
Earth orbit is **HARD** (Right on the edge of the specific impulse available with non nuclear propulsion), once you can put mass into earth orbit, the moon is easy in comparison.
Actually, the really hard target is Mars (even for unmanned missions), for superficially the stupidest of reasons - Landing!
Unlike the moon it has enough surface gravity to make a rocket controlled decent fuel prohibitive, but the atmosphere is too thin to make parachute landing practical, and even aerodynamic braking from orbital velocity (shuttle reentry style) is hard.
BTW Saturn 5 was kerosene / Lox, not hydrogen (picky detail that does not change the basic point).
Regards, Dan.
There are only really two numbers that matter for space propulsion: propellant mass fraction and engine exhaust velocity, know those and you can calculate available delta V, know the required delta V and the engine exhaust velocity and you can calculate the propellant mass fraction, and thus the vehicle mass.
dV = Ve *Ln(Mr)
It is worth noting that the Apollo missions very deliberately left as much as possible behind at each stage (The lander left the decent engine and tankage behind when it took off from the moon to reduce total mass, and left the bulk of the ship that had carried the crew from earth in lunar orbit, thereby minimising the mass transferred to and from the surface), the mass fractions are typically large enough that carrying as little payload mass as possible pays big dividends when landing and boosting back to orbital velocity (even lunar orbital velocity).
Earth orbit is **HARD** (Right on the edge of the specific impulse available with non nuclear propulsion), once you can put mass into earth orbit, the moon is easy in comparison.
Actually, the really hard target is Mars (even for unmanned missions), for superficially the stupidest of reasons - Landing!
Unlike the moon it has enough surface gravity to make a rocket controlled decent fuel prohibitive, but the atmosphere is too thin to make parachute landing practical, and even aerodynamic braking from orbital velocity (shuttle reentry style) is hard.
BTW Saturn 5 was kerosene / Lox, not hydrogen (picky detail that does not change the basic point).
Regards, Dan.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.