Most people believe total 18 US astronauts visited the Moon at six different occasions 1969-1972 and that 12 of them actually landed on the Moon at six visits, while the other six had to watch it from orbit around Moon.
People believe it because they were manipulated to believe it by TV, false films, photos, reports and testimonies.
Or as Paul C. Roberts says (about two other events in the USA):
"I never cease to be amazed by the gullibility of Americans, who know nothing about either event, but who confidently dismiss the factual evidence provided by experts and historians on the basis of their naive belief that "the government wouldn't lie about such important events" or "someone would have talked." What good would it do if someone talked when the gullible won't believe hard evidence?"
The picture below right is a good example how to fool people.
Apollo 11 taking off from the Moon! People think it happened because somebody made a picture.
2. You cannot even land on Earth again! The space ship brake system does not work in the atmosphere. Earth gravity is much too strong. You or your mass will just go faster and faster. No way you can brake. Your mass and ass will burn up at re-entry!
3. Any human in a space ship will immediately be fried to death due to heat radiation from the Sun and cosmic radiation. To insulate the space ship against radiation will make it too heavy. A space ship travelling between Earth and Moon is exposed 24/24 and 7/7 to the Sun, as if you were at the Equator of planet Earth but without any filtering, damping, turbulent atmosphere. Same applies to satellites orbiting Earth high above the atmosphere. They all heat up to ~200°C, when exposed to the Sun.
4. The cost to fly to the Moon is evidently prohibitive. Better fake it and pocket the money yourself.
Those are the reasons why USA/NASA faked it six times in the 1960's and 1970's to impress ... and manipulate ... friends and foes.
So "NASA is not going to the Moon with a human as a primary project probably in my lifetime, NASA chief Charles Bolden said" April 5, 2013 is simple propaganda. You cannot go there at all. You have never been there. But the show must go on.
How can we travel faster in space?
Charles Bolden seems also to have forgotten the 2006 NASA web site about getting more powerful rocket engines/brakes.
It is a crazy NASA website! NASA official Dr. Robert M. Starr and editor Sharon Bowers stated July 10, 2006 the following:
"Nuclear thermal propulsion allows a spacecraft to travel faster by providing a more efficient, and light weight system. We would not use nuclear propulsion systems until the spacecraft was far from Earth. Spacecraft would still be launched from Earth with chemical rocket engines or be built and launched in space. A nuclear thermal propulsion system could potentially be over 100 times more powerful than chemical systems of comparable weight."
And what is Nuclear
thermal propulsion? - It heats the
mass of a fluid, usually liquid hydrogen at
minus 240°C, in a high, say, plus
1 200°C temperature nuclear
reactor (so it doesn't melt), so that the
mass is ejected at, say, 10 000 m/s velocity
through a nozzle that creates thrust to accelerate
the mass of the rocket in space to enormous
speed. It seems NASA has not developed the matter
further. If you ask NASA why, they will not reply.
Reason is that you need the same amount of fuel or
mass to brake and to accelerate, but you
need to carry the fuel or mass to brake with
you, when you accelerate, and then ... you get too
heavy. And as soon as you get close to any planet
or moon, the local gravity will accelerate your
mass too and attract your mass, so
you will go faster and faster ... and you'll
And what is Nuclear thermal propulsion? - It heats the mass of a fluid, usually liquid hydrogen at minus 240°C, in a high, say, plus 1 200°C temperature nuclear reactor (so it doesn't melt), so that the mass is ejected at, say, 10 000 m/s velocity through a nozzle that creates thrust to accelerate the mass of the rocket in space to enormous speed. It seems NASA has not developed the matter further. If you ask NASA why, they will not reply. Reason is that you need the same amount of fuel or mass to brake and to accelerate, but you need to carry the fuel or mass to brake with you, when you accelerate, and then ... you get too heavy. And as soon as you get close to any planet or moon, the local gravity will accelerate your mass too and attract your mass, so you will go faster and faster ... and you'll crash.
You cannot even just go to the Moon (or Mars) and land (forgetting about the return) because you need too much fuel/mass just to brake when landing on the Moon (or Mars) and you cannot get this fuel/mass with you off the Earth apart from other safety risks like being fried alive or bombarded by cosmic particles during the trip.
Sorry, you are a victim of the NASA fraud that started around 1961 backed up by media (newspapers, radio, TV, Hollywood) and US flying saucers and UFO observers, etc. And the USSR, of course, that started the fake space race a little earlier. The Russians and the USA had already agreed around 1953 to keep their ...
... alive, and the next step was just to fake a joint, hoax space race. The Russians would never suggest that the US Apollo moon trips were fake so USA could be impressed by Russian male and female and dog fake cosmonauts orbiting Earth in the 1950's and 60's.
NASA (and the Russians) evidently knew they needed 10 times more fuel/energy or 100 times more efficient rocket engines to go to the Moon and as they and US military experts could not produce it ... they faked it (to impress the USSR experts that were laughing all the time).
All of it is fake.
Imagine the amount of money NASA has stolen from US tax payers since 1961 to keep the hoax going. Imagine all the PhD's and rocket engineers being paid to support the NASA hoax!
Physical reason why space travel is impossible
Listen to what experts summarize:
"A significant factor contributing to the difficulty (of space travel) is the energy (read mass) which must be supplied to obtain a reasonable travel time. A lower bound for the required energy is the kinetic energy K = ½ mv², where m is the final mass. If deceleration on arrival is desired and cannot be achieved by any means other than the (rocket) engines of the ship, then the required energy (read mass) at least doubles, because the energy (read mass) needed to halt the ship equals the energy (read mass) needed to accelerate it to travel speed." Etc, etc.
I and my agency Heiwa Co are mainly interested in peaceful, maritime transportation safety and fuel consumed at sea and, therefore, also in space travel. Difference is not big! How to travel in space safely? You need fuel to reach your destination. And let's face it - Apollo 11 finally ended up in water subject to maritime rules and regulations - my specialty. My ships operate in the wavy interface water/air on Earth that offers resistance and limits velocity all the time and make some people sea sick. Space ships operate in space that offers no resistance until you enter a planet's atmosphere. Only gravity forces of the Sun, planets and moons affect vehicles in space apart from the force of the rocket engine to brake and speed up.
The mass of the fuel used by the rocket engines during the first manned Apollo 11 Moon visit July 1969 is of great interest, as you must bring along all fuel from start to accomplish all parts of the trip after getting launched from planet Earth by external rockets. The NASA faked it!
You cannot fill up under way (unless you carry, e.g. solar panels to charge some batteries, etc)!
You need fuel (energy) to brake or reduce speed and to accelerate or increase velocity in space.
Rocket engine function to accelerate and brake in space is very simple. The mass of liquid fuel burns in the rocket engine combustion chamber and becomes hot gas at great volume. That mass is ejected at high velocity in one direction through a rocket engine nozzle, which produces a force applied to the space ship with the engine/nozzle in the other direction that changes the speed as required.
You have to carry the mass of all the fuel with you from start.
It is only
possible to put a satellite in empty space at great
velocity using a rocket, e.g. to orbit Earth. But
you can never stop and recuperate it. It will
always burn up on return to Earth. Just ask very
young Russian Federal Space Agency Roscosmos
president Denis Lyskov about it. Roscosmos is
pretty good at launching satellites but has never
managed to get one back on Earth. Lyskov has a hard
time at Roscosmos. Many fake comsokrauts wanted his
well paid job to promote the Russian space hoax.
Same situation at NASA. According NASA
you need 10 898 kg rocket fuel to slow down
a 32 676 kg space ship (Apollo 11) from 2 400
m/s to 1 500 m/s speed during 357.5 seconds to
get into lunar orbit of a Moon that orbits Earth at
>1 000 m/s speed. These 10 898 kg
fuel was according NASA available to produce the
127 kN thrust consuming 88.73 GJ energy
to slow down the space ship; 1 kg of rocket
fuel thus produced 8.14 MJ brake energy, i.e.
fuel consumption to produce energy for braking
was 8.14 MJ/kg fuel . It corresponds to an SFC
of 0.24 kg/kN s. It sounds possible. One
problem though is that the P-22KS
rocket engine could only
provide 97.4 kN thrust. And I do not believe it is
technically, humanly and physically possible for
the space ship pilots/cosmokrauts to carry out the
braking maneuver flying backwards in 3D. I explain
It is only possible to put a satellite in empty space at great velocity using a rocket, e.g. to orbit Earth. But you can never stop and recuperate it. It will always burn up on return to Earth. Just ask very young Russian Federal Space Agency Roscosmos president Denis Lyskov about it. Roscosmos is pretty good at launching satellites but has never managed to get one back on Earth. Lyskov has a hard time at Roscosmos. Many fake comsokrauts wanted his well paid job to promote the Russian space hoax. Same situation at NASA.
According NASA  you need 10 898 kg rocket fuel to slow down a 32 676 kg space ship (Apollo 11) from 2 400 m/s to 1 500 m/s speed during 357.5 seconds to get into lunar orbit of a Moon that orbits Earth at >1 000 m/s speed. These 10 898 kg fuel was according NASA available to produce the 127 kN thrust consuming 88.73 GJ energy to slow down the space ship; 1 kg of rocket fuel thus produced 8.14 MJ brake energy, i.e. fuel consumption to produce energy for braking was 8.14 MJ/kg fuel . It corresponds to an SFC of 0.24 kg/kN s.
It sounds possible. One problem though is that the P-22KS rocket engine could only provide 97.4 kN thrust. And I do not believe it is technically, humanly and physically possible for the space ship pilots/cosmokrauts to carry out the braking maneuver flying backwards in 3D. I explain more below.
And the 2 603 kg Lunar Module needed 2 285 kg fuel to get back into orbit at 1 500 m/s speed and to dock with the Apollo 11 service module orbiting above at 1 500 m/s speed too. Sounds good, too! I look into it in my presentation below. The time it took is not known. It seems NASA faked it 1969.
Finally  Apollo 11 used 4 676 kg rocket fuel to accelerate the 12 153 kg Apollo 11 from 1 500 m/s to 2 400 m/s or more speed during 150 seconds to get out of lunar orbit towards Earth. It also sounds too good to be true. I do not believe it is possible. Remember that the Moon orbits Earth at >1 000 m/s speed. Imagine if you accelerated too early or late and ended up at Venus! It is not easy to pilot a space ship as training and test flying with rocket modules on Earth is ... not available.
You have to
start and stop at exact the right times with the
rocket aiming in the absolute right direction in
3D. If you go off in the wrong direction, i.e. you
fuck up and waste fuel, you have a
You have to start and stop at exact the right times with the rocket aiming in the absolute right direction in 3D. If you go off in the wrong direction, i.e. you fuck up and waste fuel, you have a problem.
Reason is that too much fuel was required that could be carried and the pilot maneuvers were impossible to carry out ... and that everything was just a hoax 1969. That people believed. It was easy to fool people 1969. Since the 1940's the public had been told that Flying Saucers, UFOs, were regularly visiting Earth and that the USA could easily do space flying too. No rocket engineers would disagree. They are generally military where everything is secret. But ...
This article explains in detail the energy, i.e. fuel, required by (1) the Apollo command/service modules to get into and out of Moon orbit from Earth and (2) the Lunar module to land on Moon and get back into orbit around Moon again. Fuel consumption is given as MJ/kg, i.e. how much effective kinetic energy 1 kg of rocket fuel produces during the various speed changes, when fuel is consumed. Another fuel consumption figure, kg/s, when the SM rocket engine was fired seems to have been constant 30-31 kg/s, like the Specific Fuel Consumption, SFC, around 0.24 kg/kN s.
There are no margins anywhere. Or redundancy. It was and is all Hollywood nonsense.
October 2013 or even before all below nasa
links/photos were not working due to some shutdown
in USA, i.e. NASA cannot pay $ 4 /month to the ISP
to keep them running! It is serious if you cannot
pay $ 4/month! It seems I am right about NASA! It
is just propaganda).
(16 October 2013 or even before all below nasa links/photos were not working due to some shutdown in USA, i.e. NASA cannot pay $ 4 /month to the ISP to keep them running! It is serious if you cannot pay $ 4/month! It seems I am right about NASA! It is just propaganda).
The article also analyses the Apollo re-entry to Earth. No fuel at all was used to decelerate the Apollo 11 descent on Earth. Only friction and turbulence were used ... which is simply impossible. The Apollo command module should have burnt up at re-entry. Recently a mad person with mass 90 kg + 40 kg gear jumped from just 38 000 meters altitude with start velocity 0 m/s. After a minute his velocity was >350 m/s due gravity alone because of little friction and turbulence and it was only due to atmosphere getting denser at <15 000 m altitude that he slowed down and could eject a parachute. Imagine an Apollo module of >5 000 kg coming dropping into Earth's atmosphere with almost horizontal start direction/velocity 11 200 m/s at 100 000 meters altitude. It is suggested friction and turbulence will slow down the space ship but it only happens at <15 000 meters altitude and then the vertical velocity of Apollo 11 has increased to > 350 m/s and total velocity is still >11 205 m/s and there is little time to brake using friction. Try then to brake using friction! US Shuttle pilots say it is easy but applying the same principles to the many NASA Shuttle re-entries and the recent NASA Mars Science Laboratory landing on Mars you find they are other likely hoaxes. A good way to start is using Formal Safety Assessment methods, which are standard in the marine world.
So how is it possible that NASA fakes their activities?
The person to ask is
NASA's Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance.
Terrence heads the Office of Safety and Mission
Assurance (OSMA) that assures the safety and
enhances the success of all NASA activities through
the development, implementation, and oversight of
Agencywide safety, reliability, maintainability,
and quality assurance (SRM&QA) policies and
The person to ask is Terrence W. Wilcutt, NASA's Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance. Terrence heads the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) that assures the safety and enhances the success of all NASA activities through the development, implementation, and oversight of Agencywide safety, reliability, maintainability, and quality assurance (SRM&QA) policies and procedures.
Enjoy reading the article and the links (if they work)!
Comments are always welcome at email@example.com . And if you get hold of Terrence, pls tell me!
If you think I am crazy, I recommend that you emigrate to planet Mars with Terrence and make a fortune there. The space ship is ready! But can you really trust the Mars space travel agent Elon Musk selling the tickets? Elon is performing SpaceX re-entries today apart from selling Tesla S cars that get hot and burn up.
Is anybody really up there in the ISS being re-entered by SpaceX? The ISS is 99% NASA that created the Apollo 11 hoax paid for by US tax payers. I have a feeling the show is just going on.
Show that you are clever and earn €
Prove me wrong! Show that you are clever and earn € 1M!
The spaceship velocities used here are absolute to the center of Earth thus assumed fixed. The planet Earth evidently orbits around the Sun at other velocity. Space travel experts suggest that I should add the velocity of the Earth orbiting the Sun, i.e. use the Sun as fixed center, plus the velocity of the Sun orbiting the Universe, i.e. use the center of Universe as fixed center, to the velocities given here but as I do not know the latter I just use the velocities given by NASA relative the center of Earth ... to calculate the kinetic energies involved.
Just to get a feel of the situation.
It seems Moon travel is pretty easy as the Moon orbits the Earth almost circularly. If you depart from Earth orbit at exactly the right time and speed on a straight, radial course to arrive at the Moon a few days later, you can visually see the Moon ahead of you a little to the side or up/down all the time when getting closer - Earth gravity slows you down though and Sun gravity may affect your straight course - and if you navigate correctly you will after 90% of the trip feel the Moon gravity attracting you and your space ship - velocity increases again - and your concern is then not to crash on the Moon but to enter into orbit around the Moon at the right altitude/velocity. Remember that the Moon has a velocity of 1.023 m/s in orbit around Earth, which you must consider. Of course the Sun radiation will heat up your space ship to >150°C during the trip, so increase the aircon inside not to get fried or boiled inside.
If you miss the Moon, there is no way back because you cannot possibly turn around in space due to lack of fuel.
How much fuel (energy) is required to get to the Moon and back after having left Earth and how much did it cost?
The below presentation is compiled using info from the following internet sources of NASA about the Apollo 11 Moon/Earth 1969 trip:
"The NASA technical reports server will be unavailable for public access while the agency conducts a review of the site's content to ensure that it does not contain technical information that is subject to U.S. export control laws and regulations and that the appropriate reviews were performed. The site will return to service when the review is complete. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause."
The NASA info 1969 is evidently wrong, false or incomplete or under review 2013, e.g. masses of modules and fuel differ from source to source, fuel consumption for various events are unclear and the velocity to orbit the Moon, 3 000 m/s according NASA, cannot be correct and a good reason to doubt that a manned Moon/Earth space trip took place 1969, etc, etc.
This presentation is mainly about i) the energy used to change velocity up or down during the trip and ii) how much fuel is used for each change and iii) if it can be carried along. The Apollo 11 1969 Moon trip went something like this:
The SM engine was obstructed by the lunar module (LM) fitted below it at departure. On the way to the Moon, the CSM was disconnected from the third stage, rotated 180° and reconnected to the LM.
Summary table of Moon trip
Table starts when the Apollo 11 Control, Service Modules, CSM, and Lunar Landing Module, LM, fitted on the full of fuel Saturn V rockets third stage are already on the way at ~7 500 m/s velocity in Earth orbit put there by the Saturn V rocket's first and second stages (Event #1).
The total mass of Apollo 11 + third stage is then 135 699 or 338.692 kg. Nobody seems to know!
At that speed and altitude you go around Earth in about 90 minutes! If you go slower you will soon crash on Earth.
Then the third stage rocket is allegedly fired (Event #3) and the Apollo 11 modules are sent off at ~11 200 m/s velocity in direction Moon about 400 000 km away ... or where the Moon will be three days later. Plenty of fuel was used for getting off the Earth ...3 798 350 liters (or about 4 000 tons) ... but all carried in separate rocket stages.
First rocket stage with steering fins and 1 311 100 liters liquid oxygen + 810 700 liters kerosene (total mass of fuel about 2 169 tons) for 5 F-1 engines with 6.672.000 N thrust each and second rocket stage with no fins - 1.000.000 liters liquid hydrogen (mass 709 tons) + 331 000 liters liquid oxygen (mass 468 tons) for 5 J-2 engines with 889 600 N thrust each were apparently used to get the Apollo 11 (CSM+LM) and the third rocket stage into Low Earth Orbit around planet Earth at 7 500 m/s speed.
The first stage burnt 2 121 800 liters fuel in 161 (or 150) seconds, 13 179 liters/second (or 12 705 liters/second or 12 885 kg/second according Wiki) fuel and brought the second and third stages + Apollo 11 to a height of 68 000 m and a speed of 2 755 m/s. Imagine burning about 2 169 000 kg of fuel in 161 seconds producing 33 360 kN thrust. It would appear that the rocket engine SFC was 0.404 kg/kN s. Quite good for a rocket engine in the atmosphere getting thinner the higher you get.
The second stage burnt 1 331 000 liters hydrogen/oxygen fuel in about 389 seconds - 3 422 liters/second producing the required force and visible exhaust to get the third stage + Apollo 11 into Low Earth Orbit, LEO, at speed 7 500 m/s and altitude about 400 000 m. Imagine burning about 1 177 tons of fuel in 389 seconds producing just 4 448 kN thrust. Then SFC was 0.68 kg/kN s. Sounds bad. According Wiki the weight or mass of the fuel was only 444 tons! Then SFC was 0.256 kg/kN s. Sounds better.
It is always nice to compare old and new space vehicles carrying out maneuvers and the fuel consumed and costs incurred And the conclusions is clear! NASA fakes it. 44 years ago 1969 and today 2013. Only the French Ariane 5 is real! And very expensive.
Imagine if it cost NASA $ 10 000:- to put one kilogram into LEO. We dont' know if Apollo 11 had mass 339 or 136 tons but the cost should then have been of the order $ 3.39-1.36 billions. Not cheap! (Thus easier just to fake it). And the NASA hoax is just going on and on:
Two hours, 44 minutes and one-and-a-half
Earth orbits after launch the third rocket stage with 253
200 liters liquid hydrogen + 92 350 liters liquid oxygen
(total mass 284 890 kg) for 1 J-2 engine with 889 600
N thrust reignited for a burn of 349 seconds, placing
Apollo 11 (CSM+LM) and itself en route to the Moon about 384
000 000 meters away, i.e. where the Moon will be after about
75 hours. The SFC of the J-2 engine was 0.918 kg/kN s. Why
did NASA use such a wasteful engine? Or was three engines
At 75 hours, 41 minutes, 39 seconds into the flight, i.e. 7 minutes, 45 seconds before the lunar orbit insertion burn, the velocity was 2 336 m/s and increasing due to getting closer to the Moon and the space ship mass was 43 550 kg.
Now it gets very interesting!
Events # 5 and 6 - Slowing down very suddenly to get into orbit around the Moon = lunar orbit insertion maneuver
At about 75 hours, 50 minutes into the flight when the space ship had total mass of 43 574 kg (or 96 062 lb) and radial speed ~2 400 m/s straight from Earth, 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. Events # 5 and 6. Ref. [1-Table 8.6-2] states other speeds. The Moon has radius 1 738 000 m. The lunar-orbit has thus radius 1 853 000 m. The lunar-orbit has circumference 11 643 000 m. There is no change in potential energy as you remain at 115 000 m altitude during lunar orbit insertion (forgetting it is a little elliptical). During the 357.5 seconds braking the Moon displaces 365 722 meters sideways.
You apparently need a big, powerful rocket engine of the SM, as it is only used to brake or accelerate in space to get in/out of Moon orbit, where you have little time to maneuver.
It thus took about 73 hours or 262 800 seconds to travel the distance R = 384 000 000 meters to the Moon = the radius R of the Moon orbit around Earth. Average velocity during that trip was ~1 460 m/s. During that time the target - the Moon - moved 262 800x1 023 = 268 844 400 meters in orbit around Earth because the velocity of the Moon is 1 023 m/s. It means that at start of Moon travel the Moon was at bearing 40.11° on the side of Apollo 11 and near 0° or straight ahead on arrival to insert into lunar orbit at 115 000 m altitude.
Of course the bearing changed all the time, like the distance travelled and the local speed, during the 73 hrs passage, but if you got off to a correct start with the Moon at exactly 40.11° on your side and in the horizontal plane of Earth/moon, then no adjustments were required during the trip. It is not easy to navigate in 3-D space when the target - the Moon - is also moving, luckily at constant speed, ahead of you. Imagine starting at 11 200 m/s speed and then slow down to about 800 m/s due Earth gravity during 66 hrs and then speed up again to ~2 400 m/s during 7 hours, when Moon gravity gets hold of you.
And after 262 800 seconds of variable speeds space travel a 357.5 seconds blast to produce 97 400 N thrust, burning 10 898 kg of fuel, brought you suddenly into Moon orbit. Amazing. Imagine burning almost 11 tons of fuel just to brake for 6 minutes and suddenly you are in Moon orbit! And do not forget that the Moon has its own orbital velocity of 1 023 m/s around the Earth, when you were coming in ahead and is pulling you to it. The Moon thus moved 365 722 meters sideways, while Apollo 11 travelled 697.125 meters while braking straight to get into Moon orbit at 115 000 meters altitude. 697 125 m brake distance is 5.99% of the total Moon orbit circumference 11 643 000 m. So you also turn 21.56° while braking and losing 10 898 kg mass. How was this space intercourse done? Apollo 11 braking from 2 400 m/s to 1 500 m/s speed and the Moon at ~1 023 m/s speed luckily didn't collide but the fast moving Apollo 11 magically attached itself to or slid into the orbit of the fast moving Moon. It seems quite easy to enter into orbit of a rather fast moving moon according NASA. Quite sexy, actually!
The Specific Fuel Consumption (kg/(kN*s), SFC, seems to be 10 898 /(97.4x357.5) = 0.313 kg/kN s but it is just a relationship between thrust and fuel burnt and not an indication of work done and energy required to get into orbit of a Moon moving at high - 1.023 - m/s speed.
Space ship mass after this wonderful brake maneuver was 32 676 kg (or 72 038 lb).
The spaceship kinetic energy before braking was 43574*2400²/2 = 125.5 GJ and after braking 32676*1500²/2 = 36.76 GJ, i.e. change in kinetic energy due braking was 88.73 GJ. Self appointed space travel experts suggest that you cannot calculate the kinetic energy in space like I do, as the 'space' is moving at another velocity than the one relative Earth/Moon to be added or subtracted to the ones given but as the latter speed is not known to them, I keep it simple as indicated.
It seems we agree that fuel/energy, in this case 10 898 kg, was used to change the velocity of the space craft from something - 2.400 m/s - to the one orbiting the Moon - 1 500 m/s and that the space craft in the process became 10 898 kg lighter. But maybe I should add the speed of the Moon to the one of Apollo 11?
The amount of fuel on the CSM used for events # 5 and 6 was 10 898 kg that equals the change in space ship mass before/after braking. The 10 898 kg mass of fuel evidently disappeared in space as exhaust fumes.
In order to do a correct braking - reducing speed - in universe of a space ship by retrograde firing of a rocket engine close to the moving Moon, the rocket engine outlet must evidently be positioned in the direction of flight during the 700 000 to 900 000 m braking trajectory ... thus the space ship flips 180° with pilots looking backwards ... not seeing the Moon at all through the space ship windows. The three brave space pilots flew backwards, when suddenly braking to insert into Moon orbit. At start of braking the 43.5 ton space ship velocity was 2 400 m/s. Then you applied the 12.7 ton rocket brake force (127.28 kN) to your 43.5 ton space craft and braking started. At end of braking, 357.5 seconds later space ship velocity was 1 500 m/s and you were in an elliptic Moon orbit after having spent 10.898 kg fuel at rate 30 kg/second. You probably were at same altitude 115 000 m during the maneuver, but who knows and cares? During this time the Moon moved 365 722 meter which you had to consider one way or another. If you had directed your rocket engine in the wrong direction, you would not have been in orbit around the Moon but going astray or crashed. Note that Apollo 11 has no fuel reserves or redundancy. One error and you are finsihed!
The conversation of the asstroholes during the 6 minutes lunar orbit insertion burn between 75 hrs 50 minutes and 75 hrs 56 minutes of the flight does not reveal anything dramatic ... except that they can see the Moon while braking backwards with the LM at the end of the space ship. How was it possible? Were the three (crazy?) assholes aboard piloting the space ship manually with compass/chart pushing the brake button or pedal in the process looking out through the window like on an airplane? How did they know what was up/down/right/left and the directions of velocity and the force. How was the steering done? Assisted by 1969 made computers and instruments? It is suggested that Moon gravity actually caused Apollo 11 to turn 21.56° while speed decreased and that the brake burn started behind the Moon with the pilots looking aft but then they were already in orbit. If the brake force was applied a little too much left or right or up or down, they could easily crash on the Moon or fly off into Universe. NASA seems 2013 unable to provide an answer. You would expect braking to take place ahead of the Moon and that you also had to slow down another 1 023 m/s speed - the speed of the Moon orbiting Earth - who knows? But:
"The steering of the docked (sic) spacecraft was exceptionally smooth, and the control of applied velocity change was extremely accurate, as evidenced by the fact that residuals were only 0.1 ft/sec in all axes." [1-4.6]
Amazingly, Apollo 11 managed to get into Moon orbit 1969 one way or another, we are told to believe, and a little later the LM undocked from the CSM and started its descent towards the Moon. The show (hoax) went on!
According Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky the change in speed of a space craft in space is a function of the mass ratio (space craft mass before and after firing the rocket engine) and the exhaust velocity of gases leaving the space ship rocket nozzle but NASA will not tell us the latter (5 100 m/s?), so here I use the described method.
Events # 8-11 - Eagle undocking, descent and landing on the Moon (and how it was done)
On July 20 at 100 hours, 12 minutes into the flight, the LM Eagle, mass 15 279 kg (or 33 683 lb), undocked and a little later separated from CSM Columbia, mass about 16 623 kg (36 647 lb). Event # 8. Altitude was about 100 000 m.
"Particular care was exercised in the operation of both vehicles throughout the undocking and separation sequences to insure that the lunar module guidance computer maintained an accurate knowledge of position and velocity." [1-4.9]
The undocking took place in full sun light as per below figure from .
At 101 hours, 36 minutes, when the LM was behind the Moon in the cold -150°C shadow on its 13th orbit, the LM descent engine with 46 700 N thrust fired for 30 seconds to provide retrograde, i.e. braking thrust and to commence descent orbit insertion, changing to an orbit of 9 by 67 miles, on a trajectory that was virtually identical to that flown by Apollo 10. It means that the LM was getting lost altitude while initial velocity 1 500 m/s was decreasing. The idea was to land on the Moon sunny side where temperature was a hot 150°C also facing Earth.
So the CSM/LM orbited the Moon with circumference about 11 000 kms 13 times in about 26 hours - average speed thus 1 500 m/s. Relative the Moon of course. The Moon orbits the Earth at 1 023 m/s. Half the orbit time the CSM/LM was cooled down to -150°C in the shade, half the time heated up to +150°C in the sunny side. It was like putting a hot plate in a freezer 13 times. But there were no structural problems with the CSM/LM, e.g. cracking up due to thermal expansion and similar. NASA engineers had thought of everything so the hoax would not be upset by temperature changes.
Descent initiation was performed with the LM rocket engine firing for 756.3 seconds with 46.7 kN thrust. With an SFC of 0.24 kg/kN s then 8 476 kg of fuel was used.
After eight minutes, at 101 hours, 44 minutes, the LM was at "high gate" about 26.000 feet (7 925 meter) (or 7 500 ft - figure below) above the surface and about five miles (8 040 meter) from the landing site. The velocity parallell to the Moon ground is not known but now Mr Aldrin really had to slow down early to avoid crashing and killing Mr Armstrong. With original speed 1 500 m/s you would arrive at the landing site after <5 seconds! And you must change your attitude from parallell to perpendicular. And you need plenty vertical thrust just to keep staying above ground. The Moon gravity a = 1.6 m/s² really pulls you down.
Just prior to powered descent (actually braking all the time!) the LM crew managed the following important manual check on intertial platform (sic) drift at 1 500 m/s speed:
"Just prior to powered descent, the angle between the line of sight to the sun and a selected axis of the inertial platform was compared with the onboard computer prediction of that angle and this provided a check on inertial platform drift." [1-4.10.2]
Imagine that - manually checking the computer calculations using the Sun behind you at 1 500 m/s speed! On the shadow, dark side the asstronuts used stars for navigation. How to steer an LM with only one big rocket engine is described here! It looks as if it is impossible.
The LM descent engine continued to provide constant 46.7 kN braking thrust until about 102 hours, 45 minutes (???) into the mission when the LM Eagle, arrival mass 7 327 kg (16 153 lb) landed in the Sea of Tranquility at 0 degrees, 41 minutes, 15 seconds north latitude and 23 degrees, 26 minutes east longitude.
Did it take one hour to land? Did the rocket descent engine burn for 3 600 seconds? But according to  it was done in 756.3 seconds!
It seems total 7 952 kg fuel was used to land under very confusing circumstances.
You would expect that you could vary the 5 tons thrust to slow down or stop the descent from 1 500 m/s to say 20 m/s and change attitude from parallell to perpendicular - to have a look around - and then slowly descend the last 10 meters, but there is no indication that you could do it.
Imagine manually controlling a powerful rocket engine (thrust and direction) that can provide 5 tons (46.7 kN) thrust onto a 7.4 ton (7 327 kg) space ship in a low gravity 1.6 m/s² field. This Aldrin asstrohole was fantastically clever! An American HERO! Tilting the spaceship from parallell to perpendicular motion relative the Moon in the mean time.
The descent engine worked until the LM Eagle had landed. There is no evidence that the Moon surface was affected beneath the descent engine nozzle a little above producing 46.7 kN thrust ejecting exhaust at 1 400 or 4 000 m/s speed creating, e.g. some disturbance. Event # 11. Maybe there was no dust on the Moon? However:
"The landing gear foot pads had penetrated the surface 2 to 5 centimeters and there was no discernible throwout from the foot pads". [1-11.2.1]
Does anybody believe the Mr Aldrin could pilot and land the LM as per above science fiction horror story? There was no window in the LM. And LM landing had never been practiced on Earth or anywhere! And the only means to maneuver the LM was manually using a powerful rocket engine with 46.7 kN thrust. Evidently Mr Aldrin was lying about it and everything else later. But he was well paid and had no morals what so ever.
all the 534+
many countries claiming having been travelling in
space between 1960 and 2013 are simple liars paid
to keep up the hoax. We are living in a world of
Actually all the 534+ astronuts or kosmocrauts of many countries claiming having been travelling in space between 1960 and 2013 are simple liars paid to keep up the hoax. We are living in a world of liars.
The LM kinetic energy before descent was 15279*1500²/2 = 17.19 GJ and after landing 0 GJ, i.e. change in kinetic energy due braking was 17.19 GJ. The LM potential energy before decent was 15279*100000*1.63= 2.49 GJ (and 0 on the Moon Surface). Total energy change was 19.68 GJ.
As 7 952 kg fuel was used to overcome 19.68 GJ energy, 1 kg of fuel produced 2.47 MJ brake energy; fuel consumption 2.47 MJ/kg. It seems the LM rocket engine used 3.3 times more fuel than the SM.
But the SFC was 7 952/(46.7 x 756.3) = 0.225 kg/kN s, if the engine was just fired 756.3 seconds. But the time is not certain.
Again there were no margins or fuel reserves. Had Aldrin continued flying around and run out of fuel at 20 meters height he would have crashed from 20 meters height.
After landing asstronut Armstrong reported: "Houston, Tranquility Base here - the Eagle has landed."
Armstrong stepped into the 150° C hot lunar surface dust at 02:56:15 UT on 21 July stating,
"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind".
Somebody took a photo of the boot trace in the dust later. His boots didn't melt in the hot Moon dust. Aldrin followed 19 minutes later. The astronauts deployed the flag and instruments, took photographs, and collected very hot - 150° C - lunar rock and soil and dust:
"Collecting the bulk sample required more time than anticipated because the modular equipment stowage assembly table was in deep shadow, and collecting samples in that areas was far less desirable than taking those in the sunlight. It was also desirable to take samples as far from the exhaust plume and propellant contamination as possible." [1-4.12.4]
or ... another version:
"Approximately 20 selected, but unphotographed, grab samples (about 6 kilograms ) were collected in the final minutes of the extravehicular activity. These specimens were collected out to a distance of 0 to 15 meters in the area south of the lunar module and near the east rim of the large double crater. ... During bulk sampling, rock fragments were collected primarily on the northeast rim of the large double crater southwest of the lunar module". [1-11.1.5]
Strangely enough the asstronuts didn't measure the temperature of the samples exposed to the Sun. Maybe they were too hot - 150°C? And you wonder what the temperature was inside the space suits?
No gravity experiments were carried out, e.g. to drop a piece of rock from the LM platform down to ground, distance 3.61 meters, and film it. The drop would take exactly 2 seconds (compared with 0.86 seconds on Earth). But why drop it? Throw it upwards instead. It will really go far! It would have looked nice ... and is difficult to fake.
But they allegedly left an experiment on the lunar surface to prove that they had been there, which (2004) continues to work as well as it did the day it got there, 1969. The Apollo 11 lunar laser ranging reflector consists of 100 fused silica half cubes, called corner cubes, mounted in a 46-centimeter (18-inch) square aluminum panel. Each corner cube is 3.8 centimeters (1.5 inches) in diameter. Corner cubes reflect a beam of light directly back toward its point of origin. Anyone can send a laser signal to it on the Moon and the signal will bounce back - ergo - the cosmokrauts were on the Moon. However, in 1969 they forgot to tell anybody about it. Imagine that! A whole or half silica cube with a diameter that bounces light!
The astronuts traversed a total distance of about 250 meters. The visit ended at 5:11:13 UT when the brave men returned to the LM and closed the hatch. Inside the LM it was now150°C hot. If the asstronuts filled the LM with cool air and get out of their space suits for a nap are not clear ... except that they slept for 10 hours after the hard outside lunar labour. Then it was time to go back to the CSM! But before that they brushed their teeth!
"Oral-B becomes the first toothbrush to go to the moon. Oral-B brushes were on board the Apollo 11 mission, the first moon landing." Source
At later Moon visits the asstronuts took, apart from tooth brushes, a car along so they didn't need to walk.
Evidently the car also heated up to 150°C in the sunshine. It was left behind and is still there today!
The LM ascent stage - mass 4 888 kg - lifted off straight up from the Moon at 17:54:01 UT on 21 July after 21 hours, 36 minutes on the lunar surface. The rocket engine suddenly applied 14.7 kN thrust, while burning about 4.5 kg fuel per second ejecting about 5 m3 exhaust at 1 400 or 4 000 m/s velocity for 508 seconds. Imagine a 1.5 ton force suddenly being applied to a 4.9 ton mass. That is the lift-off from the Moon. It seems 2 285 kg fuel was used to produce 14.7 kN thrust during 508 seconds - SFC = 0.306 kg/kN s. Why not? We do not know how the LM found the CSM. Luckily the LM didn't ascend in the wrong direction but straight up, flipped 90°, where the CSM was flying by ... and connected to the CSM.
Armstrong and Aldrin returned to the CSM with Collins via the hatches in the tops. The LM mass was then 2 603 kg.
2 285 kg (of 2 639 kg) fuel carried in the LM was used for the 100 000 m ascent and increase in speed from 0 m/s to 1 500 m/s.
How much energy was required to get the 4.888/2 603 kg LM ascent unit into orbit again at 100 000 m altitude and 1 500 m/s velocity can be calculated and should be of the order 4-5 GJ
As 2 285 kg fuel was used to overcome 4-5 GJ energy, 1 kg of fuel produced 1.75- 2.2 MJ energy; fuel consumption 1.75-2.2 MJ/kg. It is quite close to the consumption 2.47 MJ/kg for the descent. But still much less efficient than the SM engine.
Total fuel used by the LM for descent and ascent was 10 237 kg according .
The LM was jettisoned into lunar orbit at 00:01:01 UT on 22 July and remained in lunar orbit, where it should still be today as there is no friction stopping it.
Trans-Earth injection of the CSM, mass now 16 829 kg (37 100 lb) began July 21 as the P-22KS rocket engine with 97 400 N thrust fired for two-and-a-half minutes (150 seconds), when Columbia was behind (?) the moon in its 59th hour of lunar orbit. The CSM had flipped back 180° with it's nose now aiming for Earth. The speed increased from 1 500 m/s to 2 400 m/s at average acceleration 6.00 m/s² (!) while the CSM displaced 292 500 m (or 2.51% of the lunar-orbit circumference 11 643 000 m) and placed the CSM into radial course straight back to Earth after a final turn of 9.04° out of the orbit.
Events # 14 and 15. Mass was then 12 153 kg (or 26 793 lb). 4 676 kg of fuel was burnt. The asstronots were now facing forward during the trans-Earth injection. Their conversation between 135 hrs 23 minutes and 135 hrs 27 minutes of the flight when they were subject to 6 m/s² acceleration was quite normal. The radial speed after trans-Earth injection was maybe 2 640 m/s. Everything is unclear. The Moon was at this time still orbiting around the Earth at 1 023 m/s speed, so one way or another the CSM had to reduce that tangential speed in Moon orbit to 0. It would appear they got away from behind or aft side the moon into the radial course towards Earth while the Moon continued its circular, orbital course around Earth. Who knows? Evidently the CSM had to reduce the orbital/circular speed orbiting Earth at Moon altitude to 0 and just get a radial speed away from Moon towards Earth. It is quite complicated to navigate in space when the islands or moons are moving all the time and frankly speaking I do not understand how it is done in detail.
The distance travelled during the 150 seconds trans-Earth injection - you have to get out of orbit around the Moon at exactly the right moment and into a straight radial course to Earth overcoming Moon gravity force - was only 292 500 meter (assuming Moon didn't move but during 150 seconds the Moon evidently displaced 153 450 meters). It looks like you only need an average force of ~57 000 N or 6 ton to do this maneuver, so maybe the rocket engine was not on full blast? Or you put on full blast 97.4 kN during 150 seconds and reached 3 038 m/s start speed (56.1 GJ kinetic energy) getting home? The home leg was apparently faster due to greater speed ... but then the arrival speed will also be greater.
The amount of fuel used on the CSM for acceleration events # 14 and 15 was 4 676 kg or 31 kg/s! Same actually when braking (events #5 and 6).
The CSM kinetic energy before trans-Earth injection was 16829*1500²/2 = 18.93 GJ and after trans-Earth injection 12153*2 640²/2 = 42.35 GJ, i.e. change in kinetic energy due trans-Earth injection was 23.42 GJ. As 4 676 kg fuel was used, 1 kg of fuel produced 5.00 MJ kinetic energy. The SFC was 4676/(97.4*150)=0.32 kg/kN s. Why not?
Using the Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky formula that change in speed of a space craft in space is a function of the mass ratio (space craft mass before and after firing the rocket engine) and the exhaust velocity of gases leaving the space ship rocket nozzle, which should be of the order 4 700 m/s, if full blast was applied (otherwise 2 800 m/s but NASA will not say which).
 has little to say about it:
"The trans Earth injection maneuver, the last service propulsion engine firing of the flight, was nominal". [1-4.17]
Following this nominal maneuver, the asstronuts (!) slept for about 10 hours. An 11.2 second firing of the control engines accomplished the only midcourse correction required on the return flight but not reported in . Event # 16. The correction was made July 22 at about 150 hours, 30 minutes into the mission. Willy forgot to report it. During the return speed increased all the time due to Earth gravity.
The return trip took only 55 hours 20 minutes (or 199 200 seconds) so the average return speed to travel 384 000 000 meters was 1 930 m/s. It seems the asstronots wanted to get back quick. Of course the space ship had less mass on the return trip ... but Earth gravity didn't change for that, but maybe departure speed from Moon orbit was 3 038 m/s (and not 2 640 m/s). Just prior arrival Earth atmosphere the Service Module, mass about 6 667 kg was dumped and burnt up in the atmosphere and was never seen again.
Cosmic particles inside the CM
Cosmic particles were suspected inside the CM on the return trip (but not an the way to the Moon?):
"The theory assumes that numerous heavy and high-energy cosmic particles penetrate the command module structure, causing heavy ionization inside the spacecraft. When liberated electrons recombine with ions, photons in the visible portion of the spectrum are emitted. If a sufficient number of photons are emitted, a dark-adapted observer could detect the photons as a small spot or a streak of light." [1-4.18]
The cosmic particles didn't disturb our asstronut heroes though.
Just dropping one kilogram from one meter height or altitude through Earth's atmosphere of air produces a big bang, when it impacts Earth at 4.43 m/s a fraction of a second later. Do not drop it on - your toes! NASA has not really been able to clarify how the heat shield friction or modulus turbulence braking causing drag really worked. Test runs were apparently done before, e.g. Apollo 4.
The resistance of a body moving in a gas like Earth's atmosphere depends on two parameters - the shape of the object and the area of the object. The shape causes drag, lift and turbulence and the area, both in front and aft, in contact with the air causes friction. Both are then functions of the velocity of the object and the density of the air and the strength of gravity.
In either case (drag) forces develop that are acting on the object and you must be certain that the object is strong enough to absorb these forces. It is like an airplane landing. No big deal. But airplanes do not use heat shields and do not land at 11 200 m/s.
The lift, drag and gravity forces acting on the object/air produce/absorb energy that becomes heat. The turbulent air is heated up and the area used for braking - the heat shield for a spaceship entering a planet with an atmosphere - is getting very hot. NASA has 2012 not been able to explain how braking was done 1969.
As I said above:
Recently a mad person with mass 90 kg + 40 kg gear jumped from just 38 000 meters altitude with start velocity 0 m/s. After a minute his vertical velocity was >350 m/s due gravity alone because of little friction and turbulence and it was only due to atmosphere getting denser at <15 000 m altitude that he slowed down and could eject a parachute.
Imagine an Apollo module of 5 486 kg coming dropping into Earth's atmosphere with almost horizontal start direction/velocity 11 200 m/s at 100 000 meters altitude where the atmosphere is very, very thin producing very little friction and turbulence. It is suggested friction and turbulence will slow down the space ship but it only happens at much, much lower altitude <15 000 meters and then the vertical velocity of Apollo 11 has increased to >350 m/s and total velocity is still >11 205 m/s almost horizontal and there is little time to brake using friction because you will hit ground pretty soon. Of course it is suggested that the CM was bouncing up again after a first entry against the this atmosphere and then, after a Keplerian phase whatever that is dropped down again at lower speed for a second entry but everything is unclear. As usual.
Event #19 - Final braking using a parachute
Parachute deployment occurred at 195 hours, 13 minutes, at low speed, say ~100 m/s. After a flight of 195 hours, 18 minutes, 35 seconds - about 36 minutes longer than planned - Apollo 11 splashed down in the Pacific Ocean, just 13 miles from the recovery ship USS Hornet with US president 'tricky Dick' Nixon aboard south of Hawaii. Event # 18. Conversation with tricky Dick later was nominal.
Event #20 - Splash down
Apollo 11 landed, we are told, at 13 degrees, 19 minutes north latitude and 169 degrees, nine minutes west longitude July 24, 1969. Or was it outside California? Nobody knows! All above is NASA SF fantasy and propaganda = lies! A heat shield reduces speed from 11 200 to 100 m/s in Earth's atmosphere in 18 minutes? Not possible. The re-entry hoax is further discussed below. But first ...
How to turn 180° in space, if you are close to the Moon
How to turn around 180° in space is confusingly described by NASA about the failed Apollo 13 mission. Then the service module, SM, was damaged. A fuel tank had exploded and 18 500 kg of fuel there could not be used. Tough luck. Apollo 13 CSM could apparently not be used to (1) slow down/brake the space ship with lunar module, LM, to get into Moon orbit (Events #5 and 6), (2) to accelerate the space ship without lunar module, LM, to get out of Moon orbit (after the Moon visit by the LM - Events #14 and 15) and back to Earth and (3) provide electricity to the command module, CM, all the time.
The unlucky asstronuts therefore boarded the lunar module as a 'life boat' and stayed there, while the space ship managed to turn around and get back into direction Earth with the LM still attached. One question was could the LM rocket descent engine with 46.7 kN thrust be used to get the 43 802 kg Apollo 13 back to Earth, e.g burn all the descent engine fuel and see what happens. First you evidently drop off the damaged 23 244 kg (or 23 244 kg ) service module (SM).
Then your spaceship CM+LM has mass about 20 500 kg. What is your velocity away from Earth? 1 000 m/s? Can the LM descent stage rocket engines 46.7 kN thrust stop the CM+LM and bring it into direction towards Earth forgetting the Moon? The LM descent stage carried 8 212 kg of fuel. The dry mass of the LM ascent stage was 2 180 kg and it held 2 639 kg (or 2 353 kg) of propellant but it could not be used.
Say that you use all 8 212 kg descent stage fuel and that it produces 1 MJ/kg energy, i.e. you have total 8.212 GJ energy to play with. The 20 500 kg spaceship at 1 000 m/s speed has 20 500x1000²/2 = 10.25 GJ kinetic start energy, so it seems you can hardly stop at all and get a push back towards Earth using the descent stage engine.
NASA therefore suggested that a free return trajectory was used.
A free return trajectory is apparently quite simple, if you happen to be by luck between Earth and Moon and very close to the Moon. Instead of braking to 0 m/s still under Earth gravity control and drop back to Earth by its gravity force that requires a lot of, maybe 10 GJ energy (see above) that you do not carry with you, you just steer your space ship - Apollo 13 - at the right speed to a fair (?) distance ahead of the Moon that moves at 1 023 m/s speed and then swing exactly 180° around the Moon using it's gravity force and then you get away from the Moon, while being under Earth gravity again, i.e. the Moon gravity does increase your velocity while also changes your direction 180°, blah, blah. One question is could the LM descent engine steer the 20 500 kg CM+LM space ship to the right position off the moving Moon. How much fuel was actually used for that maneuver, NASA cannot tell! Imagine your moving space ship - Apollo 13 - is suddenly attracted by moving Moon gravity that swings you around 180° and then Moon gravity stops and Earth gravity takes over again. Magic!
It is the famous problem to calculate the gravitational forces between three objects in space with different masses - Earth, Moon and Apollo 11 or 13 - and to see what happens. To solve it when the three objects are stationary is difficult, to solve it, when two objects - Moon and Apollo 11 or 13 - move relative each other and relative Earth (assumed fix), is impossible. When the Moon's gravity force on Apollo 11 is greater than the Earth's gravity force on Apollo 11, Apollo 11 evidently accelerated towards the Moon and may have crashed unless being steered or braking into orbit around the moving Moon orbiting Earth as originally planned applying a brake force (as outlined above Events #5 and 6). It may work ... if you have enough fuel.
For Apollo 13 it was another maneuver! It was suggested that the momentum of Apollo13 kept Apollo 13 moving away from the moving Moon and that the gravity force of the Moon just permitted Apollo 13 to swing around the moving Moon 180° - at variable speed - and that then, suddenly, Earth gravity force took over and pulled Apollo 13 straight back towards Earth (at increasing speed), while the Moon continued orbiting Earth at 1 023 m/s speed. What a performance. Sitting in the LM doing it! Sorry, I do not believe it was possible. It is a typical NASA SF invention!
Had the spaceship missed to use Moon gravity for a free swing, Apollo 13 would have continued out in space somewhere and stopped taking weeks to drop back on Earth.
Another alternative would thus have been to miss the Moon completely and allow Earth gravity to slow you down until velocity is 0 m/s, when you automatically drop back on Earth. But it may have taken a couple of weeks and you would starve to death in the meantime.
At arrival Earth the lunar (LM) module was dropped off to burn up in Earth's atmosphere we are told, while the Apollo 13 CM landed peacefully similar to Apollo 11 CM described below. I have a distinct feeling the whole Apollo 13 show was another SF fantasy. The incident of the exploding fuel tank and the miraculous free return trajectory was later investigated, by, i.a. Neil Armstrong , the first asstronuthole on the Moon and thus a real clown.
"The Apollo-CM was designed using incorrect pitching moments determined through inaccurate real-gas modeling. The Apollo-CM's trim-angle angle of attack (sic) was higher than originally estimated, resulting in a narrower lunar return entry corridor",
NASA told us later. In spite of this
Apollo 11 CM managed to get down in one piece.
The blunt design produces the
drag necessary to efficiently dissipate the kinetic
energy associated with entry velocitiy of the lunar
return mission. Note that the CM had a little side
window so that the asstronuts could see out. At
entry into Earth atmosphere entry
as follows (and had been tested full-scale before
without pilots) all controlled by a robot or
computer: It sounds easy, doesn't it? The
asstronuts did nothing - just watched out through
the window - while the computer and some roll and
yaw gyros managed to keep the CM on track while
braking. Aerodynamic forces at 130 000 m
altitude? Braking before splash down on
Earth ... is very important! The deceleration and splash
down on Earth is quite strange. The CM with
mass m9 or 5 557 (or 5 960) kg
(the SM has just been dropped off) arrives into the
Earth atmosphere (event #18) at 7/24/69
16.21.14 UT with 11 034 m/s entry speed
(same speed you need to go to the Moon in the first
place!) due to strong Earth gravity during 2 or 3
days or 90% of the distance from Moon and all
potential energy (distance from Earth) is
transformed into kinetic energy and velocity
11 034 m/s. Then only the drag force brakes
the module for 560 seconds, when, after 9 minutes
from entry, the parachutes were deployed at low
speed and the CM splashes down 29 minutes and 21
seconds after entry (7/24/69 16.50.35 UT) in
the Pacific just outside California or Hawaii or
somewhere. The CM down-up-down
trajectory in the atmosphere was maybe something
like shown right (the Apollo 4 test
run). Note that the CM dips into
the atmosphere at 400 000 feet
m) altitude with 11 200 m/s velocity at
~2 400 nautical miles (4 440 km) from final
destination - initial entry phase - and then
gains height again (?) during an upcontrol or
Keplerian phase before final entry phase
ending with a drop straight down very quickly
feet (36 000 m) altitude and create a splash down.
Parachutes are deployed at the last moment. How the
velocity is reduced, how the 'trim angle' is
adjusted, how rotations of the module around itself
is prevented and how the lift force is modified
during the various initial/upcontrol/final entry
phases are not clear at all. The figures seem to be
the NASA's usually confusing, contradictory,
fantasy ones. There are plenty of
those. On Earth the atmosphere is quite
complex with its various layers: The troposphere begins at the
surface and extends to between 9 km at the poles
and 17 km at the equator, with some variation due
to weather. The troposphere is mostly heated by
transfer of energy from the surface, so on average
the lowest part of the troposphere is warmest and
temperature decreases with altitude. The tropopause
is the boundary between the troposphere and
stratosphere. The stratosphere extends from
the tropopause to about 51 km. Temperature
increases with altitude due to increased absorption
of ultraviolet radiation by the ozone layer, which
restricts turbulence and mixing. The stratopause is
the boundary between stratosphere and the
mesosphere. The mesosphere extends from the
stratopause to 8085 km. It is the layer
where most meteors burn up upon entering the very
thin atmosphere. Temperature decreases with
altitude in the mesosphere. Above the mesosphere is
the ionospehere extending 400 km above Earth where
air is very rare, etc.
The blunt design produces the drag necessary to efficiently dissipate the kinetic energy associated with entry velocitiy of the lunar return mission. Note that the CM had a little side window so that the asstronuts could see out. At entry into Earth atmosphere entry control was as follows (and had been tested full-scale before without pilots) all controlled by a robot or computer:
It sounds easy, doesn't it? The asstronuts did nothing - just watched out through the window - while the computer and some roll and yaw gyros managed to keep the CM on track while braking. Aerodynamic forces at 130 000 m altitude?
Braking before splash down on Earth ... is very important!
The deceleration and splash down on Earth is quite strange. The CM with mass m9 or 5 557 (or 5 960) kg (the SM has just been dropped off) arrives into the Earth atmosphere (event #18) at 7/24/69 16.21.14 UT with 11 034 m/s entry speed (same speed you need to go to the Moon in the first place!) due to strong Earth gravity during 2 or 3 days or 90% of the distance from Moon and all potential energy (distance from Earth) is transformed into kinetic energy and velocity 11 034 m/s. Then only the drag force brakes the module for 560 seconds, when, after 9 minutes from entry, the parachutes were deployed at low speed and the CM splashes down 29 minutes and 21 seconds after entry (7/24/69 16.50.35 UT) in the Pacific just outside California or Hawaii or somewhere.
The CM down-up-down trajectory in the atmosphere was maybe something like shown right (the Apollo 4 test run).
Note that the CM dips into the atmosphere at 400 000 feet (~120.000 m) altitude with 11 200 m/s velocity at ~2 400 nautical miles (4 440 km) from final destination - initial entry phase - and then gains height again (?) during an upcontrol or Keplerian phase before final entry phase ending with a drop straight down very quickly from 120.000 feet (36 000 m) altitude and create a splash down. Parachutes are deployed at the last moment. How the velocity is reduced, how the 'trim angle' is adjusted, how rotations of the module around itself is prevented and how the lift force is modified during the various initial/upcontrol/final entry phases are not clear at all. The figures seem to be the NASA's usually confusing, contradictory, fantasy ones. There are plenty of those.
On Earth the atmosphere is quite complex with its various layers:
The troposphere begins at the surface and extends to between 9 km at the poles and 17 km at the equator, with some variation due to weather. The troposphere is mostly heated by transfer of energy from the surface, so on average the lowest part of the troposphere is warmest and temperature decreases with altitude. The tropopause is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere.
The stratosphere extends from the tropopause to about 51 km. Temperature increases with altitude due to increased absorption of ultraviolet radiation by the ozone layer, which restricts turbulence and mixing. The stratopause is the boundary between stratosphere and the mesosphere.
The mesosphere extends from the stratopause to 8085 km. It is the layer where most meteors burn up upon entering the very thin atmosphere. Temperature decreases with altitude in the mesosphere. Above the mesosphere is the ionospehere extending 400 km above Earth where air is very rare, etc.
The unit kinetic energy (J/kg) at 11 031 m/s is 60.84 MJ/kg! It is a lot! It - the energy of one kilogram moving at 11 031 m/s - is sufficient to raise temperature of 1 kg concrete (C = 880 J/kg°C) 69 138°C.
Actually anything entering Earth atmosphere at ~11 000 m/s immediately burns up and becomes gas, smoke ... nothing but atoms unless the forces acting on the object breaks it into small pieces ... that burn up. Except an Apollo 11 Command Module with three asstronots + a little heat shield wanting to have a shower or swim in the ocean, chat with president Nixon and tell the world about it at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifx0Yx8vlrY and http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BI_ZehPOMwl . It looks as if they are not telling the truth.
But God must have assisted or as Lt. Comdr. John A. Piirto, USN Chaplain concluded:
"Let us pray. Lord, God, our Heavenly Father. Our minds are staggered and our spirit exalted with the magnitude and precision of this entire Apollo 11 mission. We have spent the past week in communal anxiety and hope as our astronauts sped through the glories and dangers of the heavens. As we try to understand and analyze the scope of this achievement for human life, our reason is overwhelmed with abounding gratitude and joy, even as we realize the increasing challenges of the future. This magnificent event illustrates anew what man can accomplish when purpose is firm and intent corporate. A man on the Moon was promised in this decade. And, though some were unconvinced, the reality is with us this morning, in the persons of astronauts Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins. We applaud their splendid exploits and we pour out our thanksgiving for their safe return to us, to their families, to all mankind. From our inmost beings, we sing humble, yet exuberant praise. May the great effort and commitment seen in this project, Apollo, inspire our lives to move similarly in other areas of need. May we the people by our enthusiasm and devotion and insight move to new landings in brotherhood, human concern, and mutual respect. May our country, afire with inventive leadership and backed by a committed followership, blaze new trails into all areas of human cares. See our enthusiasm and bless our joy with dedicated purpose for the many needs at hand. Link us in friendship with peoples throughout the world as we strive together to better the human condition. Grant us peace, beginning in our own hearts, and a mind attuned with good will toward our neighbor. All this we pray as our thanksgiving rings out to Thee. In the name of our Lord, amen."
What a stupid show! And people believe it!
Reason why human Moon (or future Mars) travel is not possible as per the NASA Apollo fairy tale is that, with given heavy, great mass m (kg) of various modules and inefficient rocket engines, sufficient rocket fuel to enter/brake into Moon orbit (event #6), to get/accelerate out of Moon orbit (event #15) and to brake in Earth's atmosphere before splash down (event #19) on Earth cannot be carried along.
Actually only way to go to Moon and back is using very light weight robots and modules and to chose a long, slow velocity path through space using Sun's gravity, so that arrival speeds and energy requirements are minimum to reduce fuel consumption for braking and accelerating. Prove me wrong and earn € 1 000 000:-. Only fools believe human space travel is possible at all ... and there are many such persons, incl. PhDs of all kind and rocket scientists all paid for by the military, etc, etc. But the hoax show must go on. The ISS and the Shuttle for example! Read on:
The International Space Station, ISS, is, we are told, in a low Earth elliptical orbit that varies from 320 000 m to 400 000 m above the Earth's surface. The speed needed to achieve a stable low Earth orbit is about 7 800 m/s, but reduces with (higher) altitude. The Shuttle below allegedly visited the ISS 25 times before being phased out 2011 and sent to the California Science Center museum as an exhibition piece of a heap of scrap:
How to get away from the ISS down to Earth alive since the US Shuttle flights were cancelled 2011 is not really clear.
The above Shuttle has done it 25 times, we are told! To return to Earth the Shuttle must evidently slow down a lot after undocking. Or speed up?
How Capt. Mark Kelly (video is a fake) landed the last Shuttle on Earth
The Shuttle return flights, in the old days, were something as follows as NASA can provide very little how the Shuttle returns and lands on Earth:
To slow the Shuttle down from its extreme orbit tangential speed, 7 800 m/s, (same as the ISS) we are told the Shuttle flipped around and actually flow backwards for a period of time.
(fake) photo is of US Air Force captain Mark Kelly
floating in space of the ISS (or in an airplane
against a green screen!) just prior to return to
Earth in the last Shuttle. It is very simple to
return to Earth from the ISS! Jump into the
Shuttle, speed away from the ISS and then step on
the brakes all the way down. But easier to trick
film it at Hollywood. Then remember to kiss your
wife Gaby Giffords on her head on arrival; the head
that was hit by a bullet earlier. How to play
guitar in the ISS swimmingpool =
here! The orbital maneuvering engines
(OMS) then thrust the Shuttle out of orbit
and toward Earth. Due to loss of potential energy
the Shuttle total speed now increases to
about 9 000 m/s at an altitude of 130 000
m. Reason being things drop faster the longer
they drop due gravity. The vertical speed is of the
order 1 800 m/s and increasing and you would
expect the Shuttle to crash in 60 seconds.
The horizontal/tangential speed is of the order 8
800 m/s However, during reentry and
landing, the Shuttle then was not powered by
engines or gravity, NASA announces. Instead, it
flow like a high-tech glider, relying first on its
steering jets and then its aero surfaces, i.e.
the small wings with flaps at back edges to
control the airflow around it. Note that no
Apollo 11 type heat shield is
used. NASA must have done model tests
in a wind tunnel or full scale tests to establish
wind forces acting on the high-tech Shuttle
glider, as no wind tunnel exists that provides
9 000 m/s winds ... of different densities and
very low pressures.
Above (fake) photo is of US Air Force captain Mark Kelly floating in space of the ISS (or in an airplane against a green screen!) just prior to return to Earth in the last Shuttle. It is very simple to return to Earth from the ISS! Jump into the Shuttle, speed away from the ISS and then step on the brakes all the way down. But easier to trick film it at Hollywood. Then remember to kiss your wife Gaby Giffords on her head on arrival; the head that was hit by a bullet earlier. How to play guitar in the ISS swimmingpool = here!
The orbital maneuvering engines (OMS) then thrust the Shuttle out of orbit and toward Earth. Due to loss of potential energy the Shuttle total speed now increases to about 9 000 m/s at an altitude of 130 000 m. Reason being things drop faster the longer they drop due gravity. The vertical speed is of the order 1 800 m/s and increasing and you would expect the Shuttle to crash in 60 seconds. The horizontal/tangential speed is of the order 8 800 m/s
However, during reentry and landing, the Shuttle then was not powered by engines or gravity, NASA announces. Instead, it flow like a high-tech glider, relying first on its steering jets and then its aero surfaces, i.e. the small wings with flaps at back edges to control the airflow around it. Note that no Apollo 11 type heat shield is used.
NASA must have done model tests in a wind tunnel or full scale tests to establish wind forces acting on the high-tech Shuttle glider, as no wind tunnel exists that provides 9 000 m/s winds ... of different densities and very low pressures.
Average external force acting on the 78 ton Shuttle while braking during 1 800 seconds is 390 000 N or about 39.7 ton, i.e. friction and wing flaps turbulence produce that force, ~50% of the Shuttle's own weight! Realistically that force would rip apart the Shuttle. Or at least brake the windows in the cockpit.
Maneuvering of the Shuttle for re-entry
Early in reentry, the Shuttle's
orientation was controlled by the aft steering jets,
part of the reaction control (?) system. When it is moving
at about 9 000 m/s, the Shuttle starts hitting
air molecules in the atmosphere and builds up heat from
friction, approximately 1 650°C, according some
If 40.5 MJ/KG energy would be applied to concrete, it
would heat up 46 000°C, though! The
is covered with ceramic insulating materials designed to
protect it from this heat. The materials include reinforced
carbon-carbon (RCC) on the wing surfaces and underside,
high-temperature (sic) black surface insulation tiles on the
upper forward fuselage and around the windows, white Nomex
blankets on the upper payload bay doors, portions of the
upper wing and mid/aft fuselage and low-temperature (sic)
white surface tiles on the remaining areas. These materials
are designed to absorb large quantities of heat without
increasing their temperature very much, we are told. In
other words, they have a high heat capacity
It is of course very well! Nobody wants to burn up at
How the high- and
low-temperature tiles manage to reduce the speed of
the Shuttle is; however, not clear. And why
they are not simply ripped off the surface, they
are attached to. We do not know how they were
attached. Glue? Cement? What we know is that the
whole Shuttle was a joke! During re-entry, the aft
steering jets help to keep the Shuttle at
its 40 degree attitude, we are told. The hot
ionized gases of the atmosphere that surround the
Shuttle prevent radio communication with the
ground for about 12 minutes (i.e., ionization
blackout). After this phase of the re-entry
is successful, the Shuttle finally
encounters the main air of the atmosphere and is
able to fly like an airplane. The velocity is
reduced as per figure right during the 5 000
km landing trajectory.
How the high- and low-temperature tiles manage to reduce the speed of the Shuttle is; however, not clear. And why they are not simply ripped off the surface, they are attached to. We do not know how they were attached. Glue? Cement? What we know is that the whole Shuttle was a joke!
During re-entry, the aft steering jets help to keep the Shuttle at its 40 degree attitude, we are told. The hot ionized gases of the atmosphere that surround the Shuttle prevent radio communication with the ground for about 12 minutes (i.e., ionization blackout).
After this phase of the re-entry is successful, the Shuttle finally encounters the main air of the atmosphere and is able to fly like an airplane. The velocity is reduced as per figure right during the 5 000 km landing trajectory.
Above NASA "long (1 second) exposure" photo (http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/573233main_image_2014_946-710.jpg) shows the space shuttle Atlantis, appearing like a bean sprout against clouds and city lights, on its way home braking through the atmosphere, as outlined above and below. It was allegedly long exposured taken by the Expedition 28 crew of the International Space Station. Airglow over Earth can be seen in the background if you have sharp eyes. I can just see clouds. The photo does not look real in my view, i.e. it is another NASA fake.
One of my ex NASA PR-agents Daggerstab wonders "Ever heard of "long exposure", Björkman?" He is another stupid NASA SF writer trying to make ends meet in Arizona! Try to make a long exposure of Earth below photo from a space vehicle at 7 800 m/s speed? Thanks for the PR!
Zakalwe is another Apollohoax fool, ex NASA, believing that taking 6 hrs exposure photos from Earth through a, probably stabilized, telescope (if the photo is real) is same as clicking one second faked photos from a non-existing ISS. Back to subject. Any high speed, 7 800 m/s, ISS photographer must come back on Earth and stop at 0 m/s and show his photos ... how is it done?
To use up excess energy whilst braking from 9 000 m/s to below 300 m/s velocity, for which Apollo 11 needed a heat shield, the Shuttle performed a series of four steep banks, rolling over as much as 80 degrees to one side or the other, to slow down, NASA suggests. The series of banks gives the Shuttle's track toward landing an appearance similar to an elongated letter "S." How that produce brake force is not clear.
Here are three (100% fake) videos, 1, 2 ,3 of what happens inside the dark Shuttle cockpit at re-entries. It seems they fly forwards while looking out through the windows that don't melt due to friction or is pushed in due to high external pressure, etc. The cockpit is probably a simple mock-up fixed on the ground in a NASA studio as part of the cheap hoax.
The last US pilot allegedly doing these remarkable, impossible maneuvers 2011 was US super hero Capt. Mark Kelly, whose wife US Congress woman Gaby Giffords had been shot in the head some time earlier at a Tucson, AZ, supermarket. Crazy world, to say the least, isn't it? Actually the pilot Mark Kelly did nothing at this stage but watched the show strapped in his seat with 0.51g acting on him. The Shuttle was on auto-pilot. If the pilot was not strapped, he would fly through the windows in front of him. See Mark Kelly at the ISS in a fake video prior re-entry!
As the Shuttle sliced through the atmosphere faster than the speed of sound (say 340 m/s), the sonic boom -- really, two distinct claps less than a second apart -- could be heard across parts of Florida, depending on the flight path, we are told.
Yes, we could, according NASA, both see (at least from above if you were on the ISS!) and hear (a double sonic boom!!) when a space ship was re-entering Earth atmosphere from space, e.g. a shuttle from the ISS:
"Although it is possible to view a spacecraft reentry with the unaided eye, it is not possible to see the Shuttle reentry if the reentry flight path is in broad daylight since the plasma trail created as the Shuttle passes through the atmosphere is not bright enough to contrast with the sky. Naked eye viewing of the reentry itself is best when the observer's site has very clear skies, and the observer is in complete darkness or very close to local sunrise or sunset if you know precisely where to look.
OK, a plasma trail, whatever it is, can maybe not be seen - what is it?, and of course, that clouds, rain and fog will make seeing difficult is obvious. But hearing?
As noise cannot propagate in vacuum and propagates extremely slow in a thin atmosphere, e.g. 1 000 times slower than a landing space ship itself at 130 000 m altitude, how can a sonic boom or two claps (?) from a shuttle propagate from space to ground?
A sonic boom only occurs when a jet plane, close to ground, accelerates and pushes air waves ahead of it that cannot escape and then the air produces a sonic boom, when the plane accelerates beyond the local speed of sound.
Typical sonic boom overpressure of a space Shuttle is only 1.25 pounds at speed of Mach 1.5, i.e. abt. 450 m/s at 18 000 m (60,000 feet) altitude at landing approach, NASA tells us. You wonder of course what the overpressure was at 9 000 m/s speed? Wouldn't it tear the Shuttle apart? Or at least break the front window?
No! The Shuttle's original velocity of 9 000 m/s then eased, we are happy to be told, below the speed of sound (340 m/s at sea level and 20°C) about 25 statute miles (40 000 m) from the runway. As the Shuttle nears the Shuttle Landing Facility, SLF, the commander, i.e. the pilot, e.g. super hero Kelly, finally takes manual control, piloting the vehicle to touchdown on one of two ends of the SLF.
The above apparently applies to the Shuttle getting back in one piece from the ISS to Earth using very advanced, impossible (?) braking maneuvers using friction and air turbulence, believe it or not. It seems very complicated compared with Apollo 11's heat shield ... and equally impossible. Maybe the Shuttle was just launched from an airplane at 10 000 meter altitude, made a short supersonic flight to produce a sonic boom and then landed on the SLF with cameras recording the show 30 minutes later? It never went to the ISS. Somebody should ask Capt. Kelly (retired) about it.
Nowadays you allegedly fly to the ISS and back (re-entry!) using a Russian Soyuz space capsule. How it manages to get down on Earth undamaged is not clear:
"There are 3 different types of descent profiles (sic) for the Soyuz. The normal type of landing is a controlled descent, where the automation software constantly orients the descent vehicle (i.e. the Soyuz space capsule) by its flat lower part to the Earth, ensuring lift due to the incidental airflow, and also inflicting minimum overloads on the crew up to 4 gravities. If for whatever reason the automation fails (as has happened in the TMA series to date with Soyuz TMA-1, TMA-10 and TMA-11) a backup program prompts the capsule to enter on a shorter and more severe ballistic trajectory. The capsule is rotated around its axis to mimimize the g-forces on the crew (it would otherwise fall like a stone and possibly kill them), though they still experience up to 8.5 gs."
It sound easy Automatic or
using a back-up! Another Soyuz
is: Early Soyuz spacecraft
would then have the service and orbital modules
detach simultaneously. As they are connected by
tubing and electrical cables to the descent
module, this would aid in their separation and
avoid having the descent module alter its
orientation. Later Soyuz spacecraft detach the
orbital module before firing the main engine,
which saves even more propellant, enabling the
descent module to return more payload. In no
case can the orbital module remain in orbit as
an addition to a space station, for the hatch
enabling it to function as an airlock is part of
the descent module. Re-entry firing is done on
the "dawn" side of the Earth, so that the
spacecraft can be seen by recovery helicopters
as it descends in the evening twilight,
illuminated by the sun when it is above the
shadow of the Earth.
It sound easy Automatic or using a back-up! Another Soyuz re-entry description is:
Early Soyuz spacecraft would then have the service and orbital modules detach simultaneously. As they are connected by tubing and electrical cables to the descent module, this would aid in their separation and avoid having the descent module alter its orientation. Later Soyuz spacecraft detach the orbital module before firing the main engine, which saves even more propellant, enabling the descent module to return more payload. In no case can the orbital module remain in orbit as an addition to a space station, for the hatch enabling it to function as an airlock is part of the descent module.
Re-entry firing is done on the "dawn" side of the Earth, so that the spacecraft can be seen by recovery helicopters as it descends in the evening twilight, illuminated by the sun when it is above the shadow of the Earth.
... contains the system that is used to perform any maneuvers while in orbit, including rendezvous and docking with the Space Station and the deorbit burns necessary to return to Earth. The propellants are nitrogen tetroxide and unsymmetric-dimethylhydrazine. The main propulsion system and the smaller reaction control system, used for attitude changes while in space, share the same propellant tanks.
How much fuel is carried and how much fuel is used to de-orbit are not clear anywhere (of course)!
A Soyuz space capsule return from
the ISS takes only 3 hours 23 minutes, we are told. For a
small body orbiting another, very much larger body (such as
a satellite orbiting the earth), the total energy of the
orbiting body, i.e. the Soyuz capsule, is the sum of its
kinetic energy and potential energy. The Soyuz capsule may
have a mass of
kg and an initial speed of
m altitude and probably
m altitude (the total energy remains same in spite of the
de-orbit burn) ... i.e. orbital speed increases at lower
altitude, when you
re-enter. When Apollo 11 re-entered from
the Moon in 1969 it went straight into the
atmosphere at 11 400 m/s speed, then up again and
then down again and landed. The Soyuz space capsule
apparently takes it easier using its rocket engine
to de-orbit Hohmann style during three hours 15
minutes and get down to a lower altitude ... but
then is goes into the atmosphere at say
m/s speed and 8 minutes later parachutes are
deployed. The Soyuz spacecraft is thus
released from the ISS at a suitable time and 3
hours 15 minutes later, after a de-orbit burn ,it
reaches atmosphere Entry Interface at 121 920 m
altitude and probably 7 850 m/s velocity and
Russian re-entry starts. Only 8
minutes later parachutes are deployed, probably at
230 m/s velocity and 15 minutes later the space
craft lands. But how is it done? The deceleration during re-entry
and parachute deployment is
= 15.88 m/s² and with average velocity 4 040
m/s during 480 s, the trajectory during re-entry is
1 939 200 m. You should of course wonder what kind
of Russian heat shield can perform such a
deceleration without burning up?
When Apollo 11 re-entered from the Moon in 1969 it went straight into the atmosphere at 11 400 m/s speed, then up again and then down again and landed. The Soyuz space capsule apparently takes it easier using its rocket engine to de-orbit Hohmann style during three hours 15 minutes and get down to a lower altitude ... but then is goes into the atmosphere at say 7.850 m/s speed and 8 minutes later parachutes are deployed.
The Soyuz spacecraft is thus released from the ISS at a suitable time and 3 hours 15 minutes later, after a de-orbit burn ,it reaches atmosphere Entry Interface at 121 920 m altitude and probably 7 850 m/s velocity and Russian re-entry starts. Only 8 minutes later parachutes are deployed, probably at 230 m/s velocity and 15 minutes later the space craft lands. But how is it done?
The deceleration during re-entry and parachute deployment is 7.620/480 = 15.88 m/s² and with average velocity 4 040 m/s during 480 s, the trajectory during re-entry is 1 939 200 m. You should of course wonder what kind of Russian heat shield can perform such a deceleration without burning up?
The private US SpaceX space ship Dragon has done the same, impossible, thing starting October 28, 2012, when the Dragon capsule dropped into the Pacific just outside Los Angeles. Its PICA-X heat shield is private property, i.e. no details are available. I evidently assume the SpaceX Dragon was dropped into the Pacific from a plane having taken off from a nearby airport ... Hollywood style ... and never visited the ISS .
PICA stands for Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator. Like all the other ablative heat shields, PICA-X is salvageable rather than truly reusable, SpaceX tells us. The improved and easier to manufacture version called PICA-X was developed by SpaceX in 2006-2010 for the Dragon space capsule.
The first re-entry test of a PICA-X heat shield was on the Dragon C1 mission on 8 December 2010. The PICA-X heat shield was designed, developed and fully qualified by a small team of only a dozen engineers and technicians in less than four years. PICA-X is ten times less expensive to manufacture than the NASA PICA heat shield material. Imagine that - 10 times less expensive to manufacture! But does it really work? There is no evidence available anywhere.
So what idiots are up there at the ISS using heat shields getting down that have not been tested, you should ask?
Answer is probably nobody. The whole thing is a stupid joke, i.e. a hoax, mainly paid for by US tax payers with the Russians chipping in some kopeks or rubels. It is interesting to note that the same asskosmonites are now going back up there to the ISS ... to keep the number of people in the know to a minimum.
The Mars Science Laboratory, MSL, space craft is described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory and the landing on Mars (?) at http://www.bis-space.com/2012/08/03/642 ... pdate-no-4.
The Mars Science Laboratory, MSL, spacecraft had an entry-descent-landing (EDL) system (2 401 kg + 390 kg of propellant) and an 899 kg (1,980 lb) mobile rover with an integrated instrument package, total weight 3 690 kg. It had been dispatched from Earth at great velocity months earlier direction Mars. During trip to Mars the start velocity was slowed down by Sun gravity. The MSL apparently was approaching planet Mars at velocity about 6 000 m/s due to Mars gravity working on it for some time prior arrival and no braking was taking place, so the kinetic energy involved was 66.42 GJ (which is quite a lot - 18 450 kWh) at entry Mars atmosphere.
On 5-6 August 2012 the Mars Science Laboratory (watch the stupid video) space ship allegedly landed on Mars according NASA/JPL (watch the stupid reportage). The below figure (based on info from links above) of the parabolic descent is evidently not to scale. The spacecraft enters the Mars atmosphere at a very small angle of inclination and then travels over 1 200 kilometers in the Mars atmosphere before reaching the Touchdown area:
When the Mars atmosphere was reached a parachute was reportedly deployed to start braking the space craft at 125 000 meter altitude ... at speed 6 000 m/s. You really wonder what magic parachute can do that! The parachute, allegedly built by Pioneer Aerospace, South Windsor, Connecticut, had 80 suspension lines, measured more than 50 meters in length, and opened to a diameter of nearly 17 meters. It is the largest disk-gap-band parachute ever built. If it really worked in the thin Mars atmosphere is not proven anywhere. Mars' atmosphere is 100 times thinner than Earth's and I have doubts that a parachute will work there.
7 minutes of terror
The space craft rover landed 420 seconds later at virtually 0 m/s speed. Imagine that! The MSL space craft landed 4 times quicker on Mars than Apollo 11 on Earth 43 years earlier. There is progress. JPL called it seven minutes of terror. You wonder why? It was all automatic.
The Mars atmosphere is pretty thin and light; atmospheric pressure on the Mars ground is only 10 hPa compared with a pressure of 1 000 hPa on Earth. In spite of this, we are told the parachute worked. The last 20 seconds rockets assisted the braking. Mars gravity is also much weaker than Earth gravity.
The entry velocity was 6 000 m/s. How NASA knows the velocity of its space crafts is not explained anywhere (but it was by another sputnik orbiting Mars). Time from Entry into Mars atmosphere until Touchdown at Ground Zero was then 420 seconds.
The average speed in Mars atmosphere was thus 3 000 m/s during 420 seconds. It means that the MSL space craft travelled 1 260 000 meter in the Mars atmosphere or 1.260 kilometers hanging in a parachute that was slowing down the descent.
The vertical travel down was only 125 000 meter through the Mars atmosphere. The average vertical velocity during the 420 seconds decent was thus 125000/420 = 297.62 m/s.
The angle of entry into the thin top Mars atmosphere must have been something like 5.67°or close to horizontal.
The average horizontal velocity during decent was 2 985.2 m/s and the horizontal displacement during decent was of the order 1 253 754 meter!
Imagine if the one and only parachute had been deployed 15 seconds too late and that braking had started 15 seconds late. What would be the result? Right - the space craft would have landed 90 kilometers away from the planned Touchdown position in the 150 kilometers diameter Gale crater! Only 90 kilometers. It might have hit the side of the 5 000 meters high mountains around the Gale crater then.
Imagine if the parachute was less effective than expected (as it had never been tested in a thin atmosphere) and the average vertical velocity was 10% greater or 330 m/s during decent. What would be the result? Right - the space craft would touch ground after 379 seconds at high absolute velocity. The space craft would probably crash.
On the other hand imagine, if the average vertical decent speed was 10% less, you would stop high above ground and drop down vertically below the parachutes at the end. No rockets would be required at all!
NASA/JPL cannot use average velocities to predict the location of Touchdown. They must use an algorithm that calculates absolute positions and velocities in 3-D all the time, while the spaceship is decelerated by the parachute ... and adjust if something goes wrong!
Let's face it. There is no way that a parachute of any kind can be used to stop a space craft with 3 690 kg mass and 6 000 m/s entry velocity after a 1 260 kilometer ride through thin Mars atmosphere at a given, pre-planned spot on Mars. It only happens in SF fairy tales. Prove me wrong and earn €1M!
As above was not possible, JPL has published another scenario:
Sources: http://www.futura-sciences.com/uploads/RTEmagicP_curiosity_detailDescente_mex_nasa_txdam31215_386971.jpg and http://www.futura-sciences.com/fr/news/t/astronautique/d/curiosity-la-nasa-et-lesa-preparent-larrivee-du-robot-sur-mars_40302/
Above is another fantastic suggestion how the Mars Science Laboratory spaceship landed on Mars during seven minutes (and 12 seconds) of terror.
Time of Event Occurrence at Mars (PDT) http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/news/edl20120809.html
[10:10:45.7 PM] Atmospheric Entry
[10:15:04.9 PM] Parachute Deploy (259.2 seconds later! at 11 000 meters altitude)
[10:15:24.6 PM] Heat Shield Separation (seen from the Rover - http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?collection_id=14661 + clicking)
[10:17:38.6 PM] Rover Separation (from Descent Stage) (2 minutes 14 seconds later)
[10:17:57.3 PM] Touchdown (18.7 seconds later) (Scrap around the Curiosity Rover - http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?collection_id=14661 + clicking)
Time Event Occurrence Received on Earth (PDT) i.e. 13 minutes and 48.5 seconds later:
[10:24:33.8 PM] Atmospheric Entry
[10:28:53.0 PM] Parachute Deploy
[10:29:12.7 PM] Heat Shield Separation
[10:31:26.7 PM] Rover Separation (from Descent Stage)
[10:31:45.4 PM] Touchdown
Let Mars atmosphere slow down the spaceship!
Here the MSL spaceship arrives into Mars carbon dioxide atmosphere at altitude 125 000 m at 5 900 m/s velocity at time 0 sec and doesn't brake at all and no parachute is deployed! JPL has no idea at what angle the spaceship must arrive at ... and how to adjust it. If the angle is 90°, the spaceship will hit ground after only 25 seconds or so or burn up before and that is not funny. No, the space ship must arrive at a small angle, ~5°, and decelerate due friction, while Mars gravity pulls it down to ground. It is the very thin Mars atmosphere that manages to reduce the speed of the spaceship by friction (!) and when velocity is only 405 m/s 259.2 (or 454?) seconds later, the famous parachute is deployed at only 11 000 meter altitude.
The speed is reduced from 5 900 to 405 m/s in only 259.2 seconds ... and only by friction and turbulence between spaceship's Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator (PICA) heat shield and the 125 000 meter or 125 km deep but very light Mars carbon dioxide atmosphere.
Of course the spaceship must have travelled a 817 128 meters trajectory or 817 km (and descending 114 km) then through the Mars atmosphere ... like a bullet ... during that time ... all predicted by the spaceship board computer and at JPL control center 14 light minutes away.
Isn't it strange? There are four basic physical models of a gas that are important to aeronautical engineers who design heat shields ... but none can be used to explain the MSL deceleration entering Mars' mostly carbon dioxide atmosphere.
Or from the JPL press kit pp 28.
"During EDL, more than nine-tenths of the deceleration before landing results from friction with the Mars atmosphere before the parachute opens. Peak heating occurs about 75 seconds after atmospheric entry, when the temperature at the external surface of the heat shield will reach about 3,800 degrees Fahrenheit (about 2,100 degrees Celsius). Peak deceleration occurs about 10 seconds later. Deceleration could reach 15 g, but a peak in the range of 10 g to 11 g is more likely."
The unit kinetic energy transformed into heat in 259.2 seconds is 17.32 MJ/kg and if the space ship's heat shield is of concrete with C = 880 J/kg °K, its temperature will rise by 19.685°K. JPL thinks it only heats up 2 100°C. Evidently it will burn up and disappear long before that or the brake forces rip apart the heat shield. But on film above it drops off undamaged at 10:29:12.7 PM or 13 minutes and 48.5 seconds earlier on Mars. Just behind the heat shield is the Rover! JPL suggests it is unaffected by the heat and forces of the heat shield.
Mean values of various parameters are as already stated above very useful to get a feel of what is supposed to have happened.
Such strong braking force due friction and turbulence in thin Mars atmosphere is not possible and a clear evidence of a hoax. Because you should really wonder why the parachute then was used on Mars? To reduce speed further from 405 to 80 m/s during 110 seconds? Mars atmosphere friction would do it much faster - actually in (405-80)/21.2 = 15.3 seconds just going the extra time and distance through the atmosphere! But the spaceship has burnt up long before. JPL thinks the parachute can only decelerate the spacecraft to 200 mph or ~80 m/s and then rockets are needed. So this happens:
The parachute ride
#1. The parachute was allegedly deployed at 11 000 m altitude 254 (or 259.2) seconds after entry into Mars atmosphere. Space craft velocity was then 405 m/s at an unknown angle of inclination. There is no means to control the parachute. The spaceship just hangs on to it. It is filmed by a US sputnik that happens to pass (sic) in orbit around Mars.
#2. The heat shield was dropped off automatically at 8 000 m altitude 278 seconds after entry into Mars atmosphere, i.e. 24 seconds after parachute was deployed. The Rover is now exposed. Velocity was then 125 m/s. Average speed during these 24 seconds (events #1 and #2) was 265 m/s, average deceleration was 11.67 m/s² and total distance travelled 6 360 m. Vertical drop was about 3 000 m. Average vertical velocity was 3 000/24 = 125 m/s. Average inclination was about 28°. The 50 kg parachute was apparently subject to 43 000 N shock load after event #1 lasting 24 seconds.
#3. Back shell separation and end of parachute travel took place at 1 600 m altitude 364 seconds after entry into Mars atmosphere, i.e. 86 seconds after heat shield was dropped off. Velocity was then 80 m/s. Average speed during these 86 seconds (events #2 and #3) was 102.5 m/s, average deceleration was 0.52 m/s² and total distance travelled 8 815 m. Vertical drop was about 6 400 m. Average vertical velocity was 6 400/86 = 74 m/s. Average inclination was about 47°.
#1-#3 are just JPL science fiction fantasies.
The Sky Crane
The last stage of the Rover trip to Mars was via a Sky Crane designed by a certain Marc Rober of Team-X. No details are really available about the magic Sky Crane from JPL management and NASA because they are secret at the request of the Missile Defense Agency (sic) of the US Department of Defense, who has "a substantial interest" in the NASA records.
Another simple analysis of the alleged NASA/JPL Mars Rover landing
Below figure shows planet Mars with radius r = 3 386 km and its atmosphere with depth a = 125 km (not to scale or proportion). The Mars Science Lab spaceship was said to arrive at top of the Mars atmosphere at 5 900 m/s velocity and, if the approach angle is15.34°, the Mars horizon is d = 929 km straight away, because the Mars ground is curved (like Earth!). Can the MSL space ship stop and land within that distance on the curved Mars?
With average speed 2 950 m/s during landing it takes 929 000/2950 = 315 seconds (6 minutes, 15 seconds) to displace 929 km on a straight line, but during that time Mars gravity will pull the MSL towards ground and you will apparently land or touch ground earlier following a curved trajectory.
The course will follow something like the green line, and the approach angle then was much less than 15.34°. It would appear safe to approach Mars at an intermediate approach angle - the red line - and decelerate slower in the Mars atmosphere - like Apollo 11 - but then you will land far beyond the horizon and no other NASA/JPL satellite orbiting Mars can follow the show from above as happened with the MSL landing.
The MSL speed was reduced from 5 900 to 405 m/s in only 259.2 seconds in the Mars atmosphere due friction/turbulence we are told by JPL and then the green trajectory seems to have been used. The total distance passed should be of the order 817 km. Then most of the trajectory is in the very, very thin Mars atmosphere top layer that cannot possible reduce the speed of the MSL space ship. NASA/JPL staff suggest they, or the computers, can predict and calculate the curved trajectory from entry into the Mars atmosphere at 125 000 m altitude and landing on ground after 7 minutes of terror, i.e. by choosing the position of entry at 125 000 m altitude they can pinpoint the landing area ~800 000 m away, but there is no evidence for this suggestion.
Compare the Apollo 11 re-entry by NASA 1969 that during 1 761 seconds Apollo 11 Control Module speed was reduced from 11 200 m/s to 50 m/s only due to turbulence and friction (sic) in the Earth's atmosphere ... and then parachutes were opened. Apollo was decelerating for almost 10 000 km or 1/4 of Earth circumference ... and we know it was a hoax. The MSL stopped much, much faster in much, much thinner atmosphere, according to NASA/JPL. But it is fantasy. It is impossible to land on any planet using the NASA/JPL method.
I would therefore conclude that the NASA/JPL story of the MSL landing is a hoax - like the Apollo 11 one 43 years earlier - and that the responsible NASA/JPL people involved are simple crooks stealing money from the US tax payers (assisted by various other US agencies). I always invite the public to prove me wrong and earn €1 000 000:- at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm .
Atmospheric friction deceleration on Mars was average 21.20 m/s² and could apparently reduce speed to 405 m/s according NASA/JPL, when a parachute was required, which initially decelerated the spaceship at 11.67 m/s² to 125 m/s velocity, later becoming average only 0.52 m/s² deceleration and only 80 m/s final velocity at 1 600 m altitude but still too much to land according JPL.
At 1 600 m altitude apparently the parachute was suddenly no longer effective as speed was too high and rockets had to be used to bring velocity to 0 while flying around a little to avoid getting entangled in the parachute and for show - all automatically while the Rover filmed the decent into the Gale crater and added some video game instruments for JPL to enjoy 14 minutes later.
Common sense overlooked ... as usual
It would evidently have been much better to use a little bigger parachute that decelerates the spaceship a little faster, so that absolute velocity had been say only 20 m/s in lieu of 80 m/s at 1 600 m altitude, so that, with final deceleration, say 0.125 m/s², you land at 0 speed 160 seconds later ... with the parachute. Or something like it. No need for rockets (!) that just complicate things. A well designed parachute should have done the job alone! But, sorry - the show must go on! Rockets add to the drama - that never took place.
It seems the JPL/NASA SF writers lack imagination. They make believe that the very fast MSL spaceship managed to decelerate from 5 900 to 80 m/s velocity in 6 minutes 4 seconds first by very thin Mars atmosphere friction and a heat shield, never tested in any wind tunnel lab or anywhere, and then by a big parachute that had never been tested in so thin atmosphere and that it can be predicted and controlled by 500 000 lines of software and a board computer! JPL/NASA failed to realize that they had to brake to 20 m/s in lieu of 80 m/s because then the parachute would also finish the job.
Sorry, it is physically impossible to stop a spaceship with speed 5 900 m/s as suggested. As impossible as a weak top of a tower crushes the stronger bottom by gravity.
The Mars spaceship + equipment burn up in the atmosphere after already 100-120 seconds due to friction regardless of entry angle. No heat shield can prevent it. So all footage of the MSL landing above and celebrations at JPL/Pasadena control center by clowns in blue T-shirts are just Hollywood propaganda ... as usual. And all pictures of Mars crater surface ... and old lake? ... sent later are fake, fake, fake. And the faking cannot stop! US tax payers pay. Soon there will be more fake pictures of Mars. I look forward to them. They will no doubt show traces of some sort of life on Mars 3 billion years ago. God also created life on Mars! Jesus! And towers that crushed themselves from top. What a joke! But US of A trust in God. Why not? If a country wants to waste its money, go ahead.
Summary of three US and one Russian space ship re-entries:
The Shuttle is the heaviest space ship - 78 000 kg - managing a re-entry. Apollo 11 had the highest re-entry speed - 11 200 m/s and therefore most kinetic energy (MJ) per mass (kg) - 62.72, but the Shuttle's total kinetic energy to transform into friction heat is the biggest - 3 159 (GJ). Those energies would increase the temperature of any space ship and the surroundings >19 000°C due friction and turbulence! Manned Apollo 11 and Shuttle do a re-entry in about 30 minutes with a mean deceleration of 0.64-51g and distances travelled in atmosphere are very long 8 000 - 10 000 km (1/4 of the Earth's circumference), while the unmanned MSL does a total re-entry at Mars in 'seven minutes of terror' at mean deceleration 2.15g and travelling only 817 km, which is quite long too.
Apollo 11 and MSL use a heat shield to absorb the kinetic energy as friction of the order 200-250 MJ/s or less (depending on the turbulence), while Shuttle is doing acrobatic flying causing turbulence to absorb 1 755 MJ/s energy. Little footage exists from the cockpit of a Shuttle during manual (!) re-entry maneuvering (how can you film with deceleration 0.5g during 30 minutes with all crew strapped to their seats and the pilot trying to fly the Shuttle?). Existing footage seems a joke.
The Shuttle was subject to a mean brake force (due friction and turbulence) of 390 000 N during re-entry or more than 10 times Apollo 11. The MSL mean brake force at Mars was 78 228 N or more than double Apollo 11 and you wonder how it is possible in the thin Mars atmosphere. Can a heat shield produce such big brake forces? It seems NASA/JPL cannot provide any scientific evidence for it.
The Mars' atmosphere is 100 times less dense than Earth's with a ground pressure 60 times lower, but Mars' atmosphere seems to be able to slow down re-entry for MSL twice quicker than for Apollo 11. NASA/JPL cannot provide any scientific evidence for it.
I have a distinct feeling that all types of known US space ship re-entry to any planet are hoaxes. The US space ships would just burn up or break up like a meteorite. Prove me wrong and earn € 1 000 000:-.