>

 

The Human Space Travel Hoaxes 1959-2017

The NAXA Apollo 11 space trip hoax 1969. No humans ever visited the Moon ... as they could never return to Earth ... the re-entry is impossible ... so it was done by/at/in Hollywood

Home

About us

Services

Contact info

News

Order books

Assbook


Warning!

Media and readers of my web pages about atomic bombs 1945, moon trips 1969, M/S Estonia ferry incident 1994 and 911 tower top down terrorist collapses 2001 are warned. You probably suffer from cognitive dissonance and cannot handle my information without getting mentally disturbed with serious consequences.

My proven facts are simple and correct and good news. A-bombs do not work. Human beings cannot travel to the Moon (as explained below). M/S Estonia didn't lose her bow visor. Skyscrapers do not collapse from top down. All information to the contrary is pseudoscience, propaganda lies or fantasies promoted by media and taught at universities. And if you do not agree with the official lies, you will not be allowed at the university boat race* and other silly events, etc. Your position in society is at risk.

If you suffer from cognitive dissonance, you no doubt find my info disturbing and get upset, angry, anxious or worried. What to believe and write? Old lies or truth?

Media incl. newspaper chief editors are kindly requested to get psychological assistance to get rid of their cognitive dissonance. Why not cure yourself? And publish the result as a scoop.

*Safety at sea is my business

Summary:

The US/NAXA Moon trips 1969-1972 were simple propaganda shows created in Hollywood studios to entertain us using useless, alchoholic US navy/air force pilots as actors, etc., like all NAXA Mercury and Gemini trips just around the Earth a little earlier. The Moon trips were 100% created on Earth.

Reason is simple; it is not possible to get away from planet Earth, land on and take off from the Moon and later make a re-entry and land on Earth again using a capsule or any type of technology - you are too heavy to start with and going too fast and you will simply crash as you cannot brake or reduce speed in the strong gravity fields of Earth and Moon pulling you down at arrivals.

The fake NAXA Apollo 11 Moon trip 1969 is used as an example. Dr. Buzz Aldrin is still around to confirm the magic. Buy him a drink and he will tell you more. It is quite fun! Imagine how easy it was to fool the world 1969.


The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is an independent agency of the executive branch of the United States federal government. The main purpose of it - I call it NAXA below - is to invent pure lies about US space programs and aeronautics and aerospace research.

Welcome to the second part of my space travel hoaxes article about the space fantasies of the Nationax Aeronautix and Xpace Administratiox. Here I analyze the NAXA Apollo 11 manned spacecraft 1969 fantasy trip to the Moon.

Manned space trips differ from simple one-way satellite launches into orbits that, apart from just speeding up, you also turn, brake, dock, land and re-start in space and re-enter on Earth that apparently were very easy 1969! Every step of a manned trip should be pre-programmed and checked several times beforehand and should be executed at exact times, locations, speeds in space, etc. No errors can be allowed. So it should be very easy to verify any trip - study the plan made beforehand and how it was executed. However - it is impossible to do. NAXA has produced so many reports with different numbers of speeds, locations and fuel consumption of e.g. Apollo 11, so it is impossible to verify anything. Reason? It was all invented fiction from the beginning.

NAXA cannot since 1969 really explain how their heros went to the toilet in Apollo 11! When in space or in orbit the astronuts are floating around inside the spacecraft. They are weightless. When they have to shit or piss, they act like rockets ... inside the spacecraft! The piss/shit is ejected one way and the astronut moves the other way. They have to hold on to something ... and the shit/piss must end up in some container or similar. How do you do it? In your space suit? When holding on to something? NAXA have no ideas how it was done on Apollo 11, unless you believe this piss and this shit. Main Stream Media have never investigated the matter. Since 50+ years! Here it is:

According the US National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 you should know:

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Sec. 303. Information obtained or developed by the Administrator in the performance of his functions under the Act shall be made available for public inspection, except (A) information authorized or required by Federal statute to be withheld, and (B) information classified to protect the national security: Provided, That nothing in this Act shall authorize the withholding of information by the Administrator from the duly authorized committees of the Congress.

Don't ask me what above means. Just to make things clear from the beginning.

I am convinced that the POTUS already 1958 ordered the falsifications of future manned space trips and that the fakery should be kept secret forever by a secret Executive order or similar to this effect backed up by laws like above to prevent any whistle blowers to tell the truth as described below ... after having seen this Soviet 1957 movie. Actually NAXA copy/pasted most of the Russian fantasies 100%.

Here and below I just describe how human space travel Apollo 11 style is not possible. You cannot carry the fuel with you to produce the rocket engine forces in space at correct directions and times! You do not have the control and navigation system to apply the forces at the right locations, times, directions, durations and amplitudes during the high speed trajectory. You are moving too fast and you do not know where you are. These facts apparently affect US national security, which is why it has been withheld and you have to read about it here.

Already 1966 NAXA spent 4.5% (!) of the total US federal budget to fake the Apollo human Moon trip program.

The US Human Spaceflight Plans Committee 2009 has described the hoax.

"The U.S. human spaceflight program appears [2009] to be on an unsustainable trajectory. It is perpetuating the perilous practice of pursuing goals that do not match allocated resources. Space operations are among the most demanding and unforgiving pursuits ever undertaken by humans. It really is rocket science. Space operations become all the more difficult when means do not match aspirations. Such is the case today."

People wonder how much fuel a manned spacecraft requires to fly to the Moon, land on the Moon, take off again from the Moon and return to planet Earth. These people assume it is possible for humans to fly to the Moon and then return to planet Earth. So I have to repeat: Human space travel is not possible. It is only possible to send satellites one-way orbiting Earth.


According NAXA a human space trip - Apollo 11 - took place 1969.

Apollo 11 or rather a Saturn V rocket consumed 3 346 tons fuel just to get off the Earth ground and into high speed/low altitude parking orbit around Earth, from where it would continue to the Moon by firing another rocket engine at the right moment.


According http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnv.htm only 2.603 tons of fuel was used to get into orbit, but who cares about a difference of 743 tons of fuel for a trip to go to piss on the Moon?

The Germans? Ja, 2017! Der APOLLO-11-Elefant - eine deutsche Premiere.

Die Vergleichsrechnung ergibt: APOLLO-CM hat bei seiner Rückkehr eine kinetische Energie von 345 ICE-Zügen der Deutschen Bahn bei Höchstgeschwindigkeit - und befindet sich bis auf 50 km Höhe noch im freien Fall. Welche Kraft sollte ihn aufhalten?

What does it mean? Well, a
German friend of mine suggests that it means that, when the little Apollo 11 CM returned to Earth 1969, as described below, it was similar to 345 German ICE-trains dropping from 50 000 m altitude at top speed down on Earth ... and then just stopped and parked at the Berlin Hauptbahnhof (railway station) due to air friction. Evidently it could not happen. So everything about Apollo 11 is false! Science stupid fiction. Let's return to 1969:

Say that Apollo 11 then had 7.500 m/s tangential velocity in orbit around Earth. The change of direction was about 4°/minute.

Another 285 tons of fuel was then used to get away from the high speed/altitude parking orbit around Earth, EPO, at the right moment/time/location/duration/direction and off to the Moon via a location X in space, where Earth and Moon gravity forces are equal - 0.0035 m/s². How you get 285 tons of fuel into orbit is not possible. The rocket could only lift 130 tons into orbit!

The 285 tons of fuel was used to provide a force that accelerated the spacecraft from 7.500 m/s tangential velocity in orbit to a certain departure velocity in the right direction (you must change it from 4°/minute to zero) to get away from orbit - 11 200 m/s - to arrive at location X in space with sufficient speed - say only 790 m/s - which will then increase again when dropping down on the Moon. If your final start speed is too low, you will never reach location X but stop and drop back on Earth. If it is too high, you will arrive at location X too early and probably miss the Moon.

Imagine that! 285 tons of fuel was used to get Apollo 11 out of orbit into a new trajectory ... to the Moon ... via location X. We do not know if the force was applied in the right direction ... at the right location ... at the right time. NAXA refuses to provide any details.

That trajectory is not straight! No ...

Earth gravity slowed down the spacecraft from 11 200 m/s to 790 m/s and changed its direction of travel all the way to location X and then Moon gravity increased the spacecraft velocity again and changed the direction.

If you had too low departure speed, say only 10.500 m/s, you would never reach location X but drop back on Earth and crash. It is extremely difficult to calculate the location and arrival time at location X. If you miss location X, you really have a problem.

After passing location X the velocity increased again and the direction changed towards the centre of gravity of the Moon orbiting Earth in front of you at tangential speed about 1.000 m/s and change of direction 360° every four weeks or 28 days!

NAXA has not been able to describe the Apollo 11 trajectory 1969 out of orbit to location X and on to the Moon.

Reason is that it is impossible rocket science.

The main reason why you cannot fly to the Moon (or Mars) is that you cannot get enough fuel with you up in orbit later to get away from the orbit and reach the target, be it Moon or Mars.

About another 30 tons of fuel was then used to brake or slow down the Apollo 11 spacecraft into high speed/altitude orbit around the Moon from which another spacecraft (the Lunar Module) was used to put two men on the Moon and later back in orbit around the Moon and finally out of orbit in direction to location X (you have to speed up) to get back to Earth. When you reach location X on the return, no more fuel is required. You will just go faster and faster until dropping vertically down on Earth at about 11 200 m/s speed.

Plenty NAXA people on ground assisted Apollo 11 to the Moon 1969! What they were doing looking at the screens on ground, no one knows

But watch it. You must arrive at location B 120 000 m above above the rotating Earth at exactly the right time, speed (11.200 m/s) and direction (~3° down - almost horizontally - and towards the waiting boats with the POTUS in the water) to start the re-entry. If you miss location B, you will drop down somewhere else 10 minutes later and not be found by assisting ships and helicopters.

Actually to return from the Moon surface and back to Earth less than 7 tons of fuel was used. But it had been carried all the way from Earth as there are no gas stations on the Moon to fill up.

All this fuel became 3 661 tons of exhaust gases - most of it ejected into the Earth's atmosphere - as water steam.

Plenty people on the ground (left) assisted the Apollo 11 crew not to run out of fuel during the trip. You should really wonder what each of them did.

NAXA suggests that there will be a permanent base with humans on the Moon by 2037.


The European Space Agency ESA says it will start building a
village on the Moon already 2024!

It is all propaganda of course to keep the Apollo 11 myth alive. No Americans or humans have ever been on or will ever be on the Moon.

 oo0oo

Fake photos are part of standard propaganda! There are many photos taken by the asstronuts when they were outside the spacecraft, EVA, and available at NAXA web sites. Here is an actual count of EVA photos of the six missions:

Apollo 11.. 121, Apollo 12.. 504, Apollo 14.. 374, Apollo 15.. 1021, Apollo 16.. 1765, Apollo 17.. 1986 !

So 12 astronauts while on the Moon's surface took a TOTAL of 5771 exposures using standard, silver colored Hasselblad cameras not adapted for space. It would appear that all photos were taken in studios on Earth. Why is that?

There is no atmosphere on the Moon to diffuse the light and heat. Everything directly exposed to the Sun light from above or from the side including cameras should be clearly lit and heated up to say 150C during 12-14 days of exposure. And everything not directly exposed to the Sun - in the shade - should be pitch black = no light, no heat. All photos should be brightly lit with pitch black shady areas. But they aren't. You get the impression that all Moon photos are lit by ... spotlights ... in an atmosphere.

Light on Earth is diffused by the atmosphere making any shades gray and also diverting heat energy while passing the atmosphere! You may suggest that the light is reflected on the Moon. It is ... back to Earth, so you can see the Moon. You may wonder what color is the Moon? Probably ash gray ... but nobody knows.

I pay since September 2012 anyone 1.000.000:- that can describe, without any photos, a manned space trip à la Apollo 11 but no one has managed my Challenge. It seems the experts cannot handle the fact Earth's gravity acceleration (m/s²) is reduced as a function of the altitude or distance from Earth. If the gravity acceleration is 9.8 m/s² on Earth, it is only about 0.0035 m/s² or about 3 000 times smaller at location X about 345 000 kilometers from Earth, etc, etc.

My really funny article about the Apollo 11 human space trip hoax 1969 and fuel consumed is in 16 chapters for easy reference:

2.1 How much fuel (energy) is required to get to the Moon and back after having left Earth and how much did it cost 1969?

2.2 Summary table of Apollo 11 Moon trip

2.3 Event # 1 - Into orbit around Earth - (Low Earth Orbit - LEO) - How much did it cost?

2.4 Events # 2 and 3 - Out of orbit - trans-lunar injection - and en route to the Moon at 40.11° on your side

2.5 Events # 5 and 6 - Slowing down very suddenly to get into orbit around the Moon = lunar orbit insertion maneuver

2.6 Events # 8-10 - Eagle undocking, descent and landing on the Moon (and how it was done)

2.7 Event # 11 - On the Moon. Communion! Planting the flag. Brushing your teeth

2.8 Events # 12 and 13 - Departure and Lunar Module ascent stage lift-off from the Moon and docking LM/CSM

2.9 Events # 14 and 15 - Speeding up to get out of orbit around the Moon at location A and to get home = trans-Earth injection - Arriving at location B in Earth orbit

2.10 How to turn 180° in space, if you are close to the Moon - a gravity assist kick turn

2.11 Cosmic particles inside the CM

2.12 Events # 17-18 - re-entry - landing on Earth (or dropping into the Pacific) - skip re-entry

2.13 Braking using a heat shield

2.14 Event #19 - Final braking using a parachute

2.15 Event #20 - Splash down

2.16 Toilet facilities

2.17 Conclusions about the Apollo 11 Moon visit

If you find anything wrong, please tell me at anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr and I will correct it.

 

 

2.1 How much fuel (energy) is required to get to the Moon and back after having left Earth and how much did it cost 1969?

According http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnv.htm the Saturn V rocket (out of production since 1973) that carried humans to the Moon had three stages + the Apollo 11 spacecraft with humans on top.

Stage 1 had gross mass 2 286 217 kg and empty mass 135 218 kg and therefore a fuel mass 2 150 999 kg.

Stage 2 had gross mass 490 778 kg and empty mass 39 048 kg and therefore a fuel mass 451 730 kg.

Stage 3 had gross mass 119 900 kg and empty mass 13 300 kg and therefore a fuel mass 106 600 kg.

Adding up the above you get total 2 896 895 kg gross rocket mass with 2 709 329 kg fuel mass or about 2 709 tons of fuel of which 2 603 tons were burnt in stages 1 and 2. Thus the fuel was 93.53% of the total rocket. Imagine that. On top of it there was this 43 802 kg three-part spacecraft with more fuel and three humans - Apollo 11 - described below.

As already said above according NAXA Apollo 11 or rather a Saturn V rocket consumed 3 346 tons fuel just to get off the Earth ground.

The rocket was built at the Michoud Assembly Facility and tested at the John C. Stennis Space Center. The installations were and are parts of the hoax creating employment for poor people and making local business people rich so that everybody shuts up.

Or with other words (using the smaller figures):

Stage 1 used 2 151 tons of fuel to lift 654 tons of stages 2 and 3 and Apollo 11 to a certain altitude and speed - location Z, while 135.tons of scrap dropped back down on Earth or was vaporized.

Then stage 2 used 452 tons of fuel to further lift 203 tons of stage 3, Apollo 11 and empty stage 2 into orbit at a certain altitude and speed probably around 7 500 m/s - orbit Y. The empty 39 tons stage 2 then dropped off somewhere in orbit and may still orbit Earth today or burnt up at re-entry.

And finally, at a given time and exact position Y1 in orbit Y, stage 3 uses 107 tons kg of fuel to accelerate 57 tons of Apollo 11 to a very high speed probably around 11 200 m/s and empty stage 3 away from Earth towards a location X in space, where then Moon gravity pulled it (and the empty stage) towards the target.

According NAXA (http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/saturn_apollo/documents/First_Stage.pdf) stage 1 had gross mass 2 214 022 kg and empty mass 137 441 kg and therefore a fuel mass 2.076.581 kg or about only 635.040 kg RP-1 and 1.441.541 kg LOX or 74.418 kg less fuel than announced above. But who cares about 3.5% less fuel?

According NAXA (http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/saturn_apollo/documents/Second_Stage.pdf) stage 2 had only 69.400 kg LH2 and 357.890 kg LOX or total 427.290 kg fuel or 24.440 kg less fuel than announced above. But who cares about 5.4% less fuel?

According NAXA (http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/saturn_apollo/documents/Third_Stage.pdf) stage 3 had only 18.031 kg LH2 and 87.205 kg LOX or total 105.236 kg fuel or 1.364 kg less fuel than announced above. But who cares about 1.3% less fuel? With an empty mass 13 300 kg the total mass of the third stage was 118 536 (or 119 900) kg.

The Apollo 11 spacecraft had mass 43 802 kg. So the third stage and the spacecraft had mass 162 338 kg! Such a big mass has never been orbiting Earth ever. How could the 1st and 2nd stage get it off the ground?

The total difference in fuel available/used by different sources is 100 222 kg or more than 100 tons!

The below presentation is generally compiled using info from the following internet sources of NAXA about the Apollo 11 Earth/Moon/Earth 1969 trip, where there are different masses of all kind:

(16 October 2013 or even before all below NAXA links/photos were not working due to some shutdown in USA, i.e. NAXA 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 NAXA! It is just propaganda that has gone bankrupt).

[1] http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11MIssionReport_1971015566.pdf, summary report of the fake Apollo 11 trip approved by George M (or Wilhelm or Willy) Low, 1969. George M. Low, was according NAXA dedicated to quality and excellence and a fantastic person that died at age 58 in 1984 in cancer. George M. Low's career and achievements of fakery spanned many fields: space science, aeronautics, technology, and education. In the space program, he provided management and direction for the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and advanced manned missions programs. NAXA has named an award after George - George M. Low Award - NASA's Quality and Excellence Award. One thing is probably certain - I would never get that award. Poor Willy, got involved with the Apollo nonsense/hoax at his best years. Not funny ...

[2] http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1969-059A ,


[3] http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1969-059C,

[4] http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/apollo11.html and

[5] SATURN V LAUNCH VEHICLE FLIGHT EVALUATION REPORT-AS-.506 APOLLO 11 MISSION (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900066485_1990066485.pdf) with completely other fuel figures - 3 346 tons - and not signed by anybody and probably written by some free-lance science fiction writer 1969 and - no longer available after I made the link.

The server is unavailable:

"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."

Later the 284 pages (some upside down) document has re-appeared (!) at https://archive.org/details/nasa_techdoc_19900066485. If it is the same document I cannot guarantee.

The NAXA info 1969 is evidently wrong, false or incomplete or under review 2015, 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 NAXA, cannot be correct and a good reason that a manned Moon/Earth space trip never took place 1969, etc, etc.

Wikipedia also uses above references to compile a description of the science fiction trip but evidently forgets to mention that you need fuel for it ... and that the spacecraft could not carry the required fuel.

This presentation is mainly about i) the energy used to change velocity or momentum up or down during the trip, and ii) how much fuel is used for each change, and iii) if it can be carried along. It seems you are too heavy to get off the ground at start and then you lack knowledge how to get from waypoint to waypoint applying new forces in the right directions at the right locations/times/durations during the voyage. The end is that you drop from the Moon, location A, onto the centre of Earth without fuel but misses ... so you arrive parallel with the upper atmosphere at location B to perform an impossible re-entry.

The 1969 fantasy trip looked like:

 

It was done 48 years ago and many people still believe it really happened because they are told so from above. The picture above is of course misleading. Earth and Moon are much smaller and the distance in between is much, much longer. To avoid hitting Earth Bull eye and arriving a little off, e.g. at 120 000 m altitude on top of the atmosphere, the angle of approach differs minimally. You know it yourself. You can see the Moon from Earth any time, when it is in sight. It is in sight <50% of the time. Rest of the time it is out of sight. And what you see is not big. And it moves. Like you. Earth rotates and if you are in high speed orbit around Earth you really must concentrate to fire your rocket engine at the right time/location/direction to get off to location X outside the Moon. Space 3D travel is not easy.

To minimize fuel/energy consumption and maximize safety and to impress the public NAXA used a three spacecrafts system; a Service Module, SM, a Command Module, CM, and a Lunar Module, LM. It looked very professional.

The three spacecrafts or modules and a launch rocket third stage, S.IVB, were therefore launched into an Earth Parking Orbit, EPO, by one powerful three stages Saturn V rocket (that we have not seen since 1973) and then, at the right time and location in EPO, they were launched, at high initial speed, out of the orbit towards the Moon by the third stage rocket, S/IV.B, (right) at even higher speed.

Such a great mass of spacecrafts and (third stage) launch rocket has never been seen in orbit since. How it could be launched at the right location, time, duration and direction towards the Moon is a mystery. The steering fins are useless! There is no air in EPO and space!

3rd stage rocket (S.IVB), Lunar Module, Service Module and Command Module in EPO prior trans-lunar injection

Note that the Lunar Module is stored below the Service Module rocket engine exhaust nozzle at departure and in EPO. After trans-lunar injection (left), the 3rd stage rocket, S.IVB, and the LM are being disconnected from the Service/Command Module, the Service/Command Module flips 180° and the Lunar Module is connected to the top of the Command Module. The 3rd stage rocket, S.IVB, is then disconnected from the CSM/LM. Later you can open the hatch between the CM and the LM.


Everyone knows that comets go around the Sun in a highly elliptical orbit. Comets can spend hundreds and thousands of years out in the depths of the solar system before they return to Sun at their perihelion. Like all orbiting bodies, comets follow Kepler's Laws - the closer they are to the Sun, the faster they move. At the aphelion at the other end of the comet's orbit the speed is minimal. Also Earth orbit the Sun like a comet but it takes only one year. Earth came closest to the Sun on January 4, 2017 at around 14 UTC. This event is called Earth’s perihelion because Earth orbits the Sun in an ellipse. But this ellipse is more or less a circle. The aphelion on the other side is not much further away from Earth than the perihelion.

NAXA suggests the trajectory of the Apollo 11 trip to Moon was like an elliptical orbit.

The terms for perihelion and aphelion for any orbit, e.g. one around Earth by a spacecraft, are periapsis or pericenter and apoapsis or apocenter.

Question remains how to put a spacecraft like Apollo 11 in an elliptical orbit around Earth with a period of say 6 days with its apoapsis or apocenter close to the Moon 384 400 km away. The periapsis or pericenter is of course Earth at 300 km away. If you just go away from Earth at lower start speed, your actual speed will be reduced until it is 0 and you start to drop back.

If Apollo 11 travelled like a comet around Earth and didn't stop at the Moon, it would return every 6 days to the periapsis or pericenter at high speed and then back to the apoapsis or apocenter, where the speed was minimal ... unless it would crash on Earth.

During the trip to the Moon the velocity away from Earth of the Apollo 11 spacecraft was reduced >90% and the direction changed, as Earth's gravity force pulled the three CSLM spacecrafts back but after about 90% of the trajectory - at the Lagrangian point X - Moon gravity was stronger and the three spacecrafts were pulled towards the centre of the Moon at >200% increased velocity. The empty third stage launch rocket had been dropped off and missed the Moon.

Earth's gravity acceleration (m/s²) is reduced as a function of the altitude or distance from Earth. If the gravity acceleration is 9.8 m/s² on Earth, it is only about 0.0035 m/s² or about 3 000 times smaller at location X about 345 000 kilometers from Earth. Thus Moon or Earth gravity force is extremely small, where Apollo CSLM starts to deviate towards the Moon.

Below it is shown how it is not possible to reach location X with fuel reportedly used.

One way or other the three CSLM spacecrafts then arrived more or less horizontally above the Moon at 115.000 m altitude (!) - the spacecrafts didn't miss the Moon completely or crashed vertically or was gravity kicked away - and an SM rocket engine was fired to reduce the speed and change the direction a lot, so they, the three spacecrafts, dropped (!) into stable orbit around the Moon at reduced speed but in the right direction. So far so good. Do you enjoy it? Isn't it a joke?

After some Moon orbits the lightest module, the Lunar Module, LM, disconnected from the Command Module and landed on the Moon and part of it took off again later, to re-connect with the others. In the meantime the two others, the Command Module, CM, and Service Module, SM, stayed in Moon orbit. On return in Moon orbit and re-connection, the LM was dropped off in Moon orbit, where it still is today. Plenty work, don't you agree?

Finally the SM rocket engine was fired again and the two spacecrafts, SM and CM, were launched out of Moon orbit at a location A in direction back towards location X and from there to planet Earth at increased speed. NAXA has not been able to explain how the asstronuts managed to find location A at the right time and fired the rocket engine in the right direction towards location X, but some way it was done and off they went.

The spacecraft changed direction at location X - the Lagrangian point - on the way back towards Earth due to strong Earth gravity and the speed increased >10 times. The CM finally arrived Earth upper atmosphere at location B in almost horizontal (!) direction (to plunge into the atmosphere for re-entry) at an exact time later. Not too early, not too late.

To get out of Moon orbit a big rocket force was applied at a precise location A, time, duration, direction and initial departure speed and then they were on their way home but Moon gravity pulled them back, so the velocity was reduced >70% and direction changed. The Moon orbits the Earth all the time. It takes 27.322 days.

After a while, however, Earth gravity attracted the CSM spacecraft at location X and the direction now changed towards the centre of Earth, while velocity increased >10 times.

As already stated above the Moon's (or Earth) gravity acceleration (m/s²) is reduced as a function of the altitude or distance from the Moon (or Earth). If the gravity acceleration is 1.6 m/s on the Moon, it is only about 0.0035 m/s² or about 500 times smaller at location X about 34 500 kilometers from the Moon. Thus Moon or Earth gravity force is extremely small, where Apollo CSM starts to deviate back towards Earth.

Many interested parties wonder how it actually took place. It was simple.

The trajectory AX was governed by initial speed/direction at location A and by Moon gravity (pulling Apollo 11 SM and CM back to the Moon) getting weaker all the time, while the trajectory XB was governed by speed/direction at X and by Earth gravity (pulling Apollo 11 SM and CM forward to Earth) getting stronger all the time.

In order to calculate the complete trajectory AXB NAXA evidently had calculated the location of X and the time passing X and the speed and direction at X. However, there is no trace of X in any NAXA documentation of the trip.

I have not managed to redo the trajectory AXB in my simulations. My spacecraft always arrives almost vertically at B (Earth upper atmosphere) and crashes after 10 seconds. Or it misses Earth all together going too high. A gravity kick never takes place!

Before re-entry into the atmosphere and landing on Earth, the SM was dropped off.

Only the CM arrived almost horizontally at the upper Earth atmosphere at about 120.000 m altitude - location B - and plunged into the atmosphere, deployed parachutes after 565 seconds and landed a little later on Earth (or actually in the Pacific). The CM did not miss Earth all together or did not arrive vertically and crash after 10 seconds. No, the CM arrived exactly at location B at exactly the right time and direction. However NAXA has not been able to say where location B was and how the asstronots found it in the first place arriving there at >11 000 m/s speed and unknown direction.

During re-entry from passing location B and deploying parachutes, the capsule was flying more or less horizontally >85% of the time above 50 000 m altitude, i.e. about 480 seconds, where there is virtually no air and where no airplanes can fly.

How friction and lift (!) can develop in such thin air remain a mystery unless, of course, the whole thing is a fraud (which it is in my honest opinion). I describe it in more detail below.


This method, i.e. stopping in orbits here and there, also brought, we were told, an added safety measure to the lunar mission; it provided the astronuts with stopping points
(!) in Earth orbit as well as in Moon orbit (well in Earth orbit your speed is >7 500 m/s and in Moon orbit >1 500 m/s so you haven't really stopped) and at location X (where you can actually stop but which you pass at about 800 m/s speed!).

With more places to pause during a mission, there was more leeway to catch up on late maneuvers as well as a safe (!) place to double check the mission profile, we were told, la, la, la. What a funny music! If any problems were detected, the crew could be brought home from Earth or Moon orbit much more easily (!) than they could be from a variable speed lunar transit. But it was just propaganda. As shown below, even using the described method, there was no extra fuel available on the LM and SM to correct any mistakes that were not possible to correct anyway for physical reasons. Nobody or nothing can be brought home from space, when anything goes wrong.

The Apollo 11 1969 manned Moon trip, read hoax, went something like:

Apollo 11 (right) was an about 43 802 kg three-part spacecraft: the about 5 557 kg Command Module (CM) in the middle with crew's quarters but no toilet (!) and flight control section; the about 23 244 kg (or 23 244 kg [2]) Service Module (SM) right with one P-22KS propulsion rocket engine with 97 400 N thrust and tanks with 7 127 kg (15.712 lb) fuel and 11 381 kg (25 091 lb) oxidizer, total 18 508 kg of propellant N2O4/Aerozine 50 (UDMH/N2H4) and spacecraft support systems. [1-8.11.1] When together, the two modules were called (CSM) Columbia. On top of the CSM was the Lunar Module (LM).

The about 15 102 kg (or 33 294 lb) Lunar Module, Eagle, fitted below the Service Module rocket engine exhaust nozzle at departure, carried 3 800 liters nitrogen tetroxide + 4 500 liters hydrazine fuel for 1 descent engine with 46.700 N thrust and 1 ascent engine with 15 700 N thrust. The dry mass of the ascent stage was 2 180 kg and it held 2 639 kg (or 2.353 kg) of propellant. The descent stage dry mass was 2 034 kg and 8 212 kg of propellant were onboard initially.

Apollo 11 on way to the Moon; the lunar module (LM) was then connected to the top of the command module (CM). At departure from Earth the lunar module (LM) was connected to the bottom of the service module (SM). After translunar injection the CSM was disconnected from the LM, rotated 180° and CM top re-connected to the LM.

Total fuel aboard the LM was thus 10 851 kg. LM and SM used same fuel. The LM had no toilet!

The Service Module engine was thus obstructed by the Lunar Module (LM) fitted below it at departure. On the way to the Moon, the CSM was therefore disconnected from the LM, rotated 180° in vacuum space and reconnected to the LM.

The LM would later take two asstronuts to the lunar surface, support them on the Moon, and return them to the CSM in lunar orbit.

Module and fuel masses are not certain. Numbers vary. I generally use masses given in [1].

Apollo 11 with three asstronuts aboard launched from Cape Kennedy on July 16, 09.32 local time, 1969 fitted on top of a huge, 100 + meter tall three stages, Saturn V, rocket or fireworks launch vehicle looking like something right. The original drawings and records how it all worked are conveniently lost! Three minutes later the launch escape three motors system on top the CM was jettisoned ... one way or another.

Here is a photo of the lift-off of the Apollo 11 modules on top of the powerful three stages, >3 600 tons heavy Saturn V rocket.

Doesn't it look impressive?

What happened afterwards ... nobody really knows.

It could just be an empty mock-up with no people at the top ... just to impress and fool any observer!

Three stages launch vehicle Saturn V with Apollo 11 Command, Service and Lunar landing modules on top. The Apollo CSM had mass 43.8 tons incl. fuel to stop at the Moon and get back to Earth again.

The Saturn V rocket had mass >3 600 tons, most of it fuel. It seems NAXA needed >80 tons of fuel, etc, to get 1 ton of spacecraft with humans to the Moon 1969. It was VERY good. 2015 you need 50 tons of fuel to put 1 ton just in orbit around the Earth. The last use of a Saturn V rocket was the 14 May 1973 launch of Skylab.

Imagine a rocket that 1969 could lift >3 600 tons off the ground and miles into the sky and on to the Moon! Today the rockets are much smaller just putting much smaller satellites into orbit around Earth.

All records how Saturn V worked and all drawings what it looked like were then conveniently lost and some people wonder, if they ever existed ... or if Apollo V was just one empty Hollywood mock-up with some jet engines at bottom and trick film! Then came another strange launch vehicle - the Shuttle - that could not really land on Earth after visiting space! What you saw landing was just another light weight Hollywood mock-up.


Imagine - you need a rocket like this to send three persons to piss on the Moon 1969:

I really wonder how anyone can believe it 2017! 

 

2.2 Summary table of Apollo 11 Moon trip

Table starts when the Apollo 11 Control, Service Modules, CSM, and Lunar 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) ... at about 190 000 m altitude.

At that speed and altitude you go around Earth in about 90 minutes! If you go slower you will soon crash on Earth.

The total mass of Apollo 11 CSM + third stage was then 135 699, 162 338 or 338.692 kg (the heaviest figure from [5]. Nobody seems to know!!! Many other, different figures exist. Everywhere I look I get different numbers. This is the first anomaly of the description of the impossible trip ... ending in a magic nine minutes re-entry!

Then the third stage rocket engine is allegedly fired (Event #3) and the Apollo 11 modules are sent off at ~11 200 m/s velocity in direction Moon about 380 000 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 3 400+ tons) ... but all carried in separate rocket stages.

Event #

Time

Location

Unit(s)

Velocity (m/s)

Total weight/mass incl. fuel (kg) of unit(s)

Unit kinetic energy change (MJ/kg)

Kintetic energy used to accelerate (+) or brake (-) (MJ)

Fuel used (kg) from previous event

1

7/16/69 13.32UT

Earth orbit

CSM+LM (still attached to S-IVB third stage)

~7 500

135 699 or

338.692 (!!)

+28.13 by rocket's first and second stages

-

N.A.

2

7/16/69 16.22 UT

5 minutes, 49 seconds of Trans-Lunar injection

CSM+LM (still attached to S-IVB third stage)

~11 200

43 802 (+10.000 or 13.000)

+34.59 (?) by rocket's third stage

-

-.64 198 or ~107.000 or ~284.890 See 2.4 below

3

7/16/69 17.37 UT

On course for location X and the Moon

CSM+LM (+ third stage disconnected)

slowing down

-

-

-

4.1

7/17/69 noon

Mid-course Earth/Moon

CSM+LM

-

-

-

-

97?

4.2

n.a

Passing location X

CSM+LM

~790

-

-

-

-

5

7/19/69 17.15.45 UT

End of trip to Moon & start braking to reduce speed!

CSM+LM

~2 400

m1 = 43 802

-56.96 by Earth gravity

-

-.

6

7/19/69 17.21.50 UT

Moon orbit (elliptic)

CSM+LM

~1 500

m2 = 32 676

-1.775 (braking by SM!)

-(2.88m1 - 1.125m2)

10 898

7

A little later

Moon orbit (circular)

CSM+LM

~1 500

?

.-

.-

.-

8

7/19/69 18.11.53 UT

Moon orbit

LM (separated from CSM)

~1 500

m3 = 15 279

.-

.-

.-

9

7/19/69 19.08 UT

Into decent orbit

LM

-

-

-

.

.

10

7/19/69 20.05 UT

Starting decent

LM

~1 500

m3 = 15 279

.-

.-

.-

11

7/19/69 20.17.40 UT

On the Moon

LM

0

m4 = 7 327

-1.125 (braking by LM

-

7 952

12

7/21/69 17.54.01 UT or 124 hrs 22 minutes after start

Lift off the Moon

LM

0

m5 = 4 888

some parts incl. the descent engine (1 000 kg!) of LM were left on the Moon

-.

-.

-.

13

7/21/69 21.34 UT or 128 hrs 02 minutes after start

Docking with CSM (LM later dumped from CSM)

LM

~1 500

m6 = 2 603

+1.125

-

2 285

14

7/22/69 04.52.42 UT

Moon orbit

CSM

~1 500

m7 = 16 829

0

.-

.-

15

7/22/69 04.55.12 UT

On course for location X and the Earth leaving location A

CSM

~2 400 m/s

(or ~3 038 m/s)

m8 = 12 153

+1.775 (acceleration by CSM P-22KS propulsion rocket engine)

~(2.88m8-1.125m7)

4 676

16.1

n.a.

Passing location X

CSM

~790

-

-

-

-

16.2

7/22 /69?

Mid-course correction

CSM

-

m8 =

?

.-

Not known!

17

7/24/69 16.21.13 UT

Arrival Earth atmosphere prior separation CM/SM

CSM

~11 200 m/s !!! It is fast!

m8 =

+60.34 (by Earth gravity - no fuel required)

.-

None!

18

7/24/69 16.21.14 UT or 194 hrs 55 minutes after start

Arrival Earth atmosphere exactly at loction B after separation CM/SM

CM

~11 200 m/s ~3° down-wards

m9 = 5 486

-

349 GJ by friction/turbu-lence alone during 9 (or 18) minutes re-entry

None!

19

At 195 hours, 13 minutes after start

Parachutes were deployed

CM

100

 

m9 = 5 486

-62.72

-62.72 m8 or 349 GJ

None!

20

7/24/69 16.50.35 UT or 195 hrs 34 minutes (?) after start

CM splashed down! The CM spacecraft is now a boat!

0

-

-

-

-

 

2.3 Event # 1 - Into orbit around Earth - (Low Earth Orbit - LEO) - How much did it cost?

Event #1 had been done for Apollo10 before by people on the ground. The asstronuts aboard Apollo 11 just had to hope for the best.

The Saturn V 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 five 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 five 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 Earth Parking Orbit or 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 - location Z.

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.

Thus:

Stage 1 used 2 151 (or 2 169) tons of fuel to lift 654 tons of stages 2 and 3 and Apollo 11 to 68 000 m altitude and 2.755 m/s speed - location Z, while 135.tons of scrap dropped back down on Earth and crashed or was blown up (it was probably just a mock-up).

According http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnv.htm the Saturn V rocket stage 1 had gross mass 2 286 217 kg and empty mass 135 218 kg and therefore a fuel mass 2 150 999 kg.

The second stage [5] 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 (and empty stage 2!) into Earth Parking Orbit, EPO, or Low Earth Orbit, LEO, location Y - at speed 7 500 m/s (or 6 848 m/s ?)and only 185.900 m altitude.

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.

According http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnv.htm the Saturn V rocket stage 2 had gross mass 490 778 kg and empty mass 39 048 kg and therefore a fuel mass 451 730 kg or 452 tons.

There is a difference of 752 tons (!!) of fuel or 38% to get into EPO.

I find it strange. Let's just accept that stage 2 mass/fuel weights and orbit altitude are uncertain (and that also stage 2 was mock-up).

You should of course also wonder what kind of fuel pumps, compressors, turbines or whatever - over pressurized fuel tanks? - could deliver such great amounts of fuel so fast to the five F-1 and five J-1 engines and the size of the fuel pipes and the velocity of the fuel inside the pipes. Unfortunately all drawings and specifications of the Saturn V rocket are lost.

As explained above the Apollo 11 spacecraft start mass itself was only 43 802 (or 45 743) kg.

The fully loaded mass of the 3rd stage rocket (height 18.8 m, diameter 6.6 m) was 294 890 kg (empty mass 10 000 kg + 253 200 liters liquid hydrogen (mass 179 520 kg) + 92.350 liters liquid oxygen (mass 105 370 kg) as fuel) according Wikipedia (but the values change or are updated all the time. Imagine correcting 1969 Apollo 11 data 2015!)

According http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnv.htm the Saturn V 3rd stage rocket had gross mass only 119 900 kg and empty mass 13 300 kg and therefore a fuel mass 106 600 kg. Here the gross difference is 174 990 kg or 54%.

According [5] there are other figures.

Nobody knows the mass of the 3rd stage rocket and the Command, Service and Lunar Modules. If it were 166 608 kg (20-7 of [5], then it could not be lifted into orbit.

It would appear that total mass of CSM + LM + third stage with fuel should be an impressive 338
.692 kg or 163.702 or 166.608 kg. Isn't it heavy? Reason is that the trip never took place!

This enormous mass is now in Kepler orbit at a certain altitude and speed - Earth Parking Orbit, EPO - around Earth, where the gravity force equals the centrifugal force. At a certain, exact time and location in EPO you must now apply a new force in a certain exact direction and duration so that CSM + LM + third stage departs versus the Moon or a location X, where Moon gravity will pull the spacecraft to the target. Location X is moving all the time, when the Moon orbits Earth.

Imagine putting 339 or 167 tons into LEO 1969! And using only 3 346 tons of fuel to do it. To put 1 kg of Apollo 11 + third stage in LEO you needed only about 10 kg fuel in 1969! Fantastic!

Total mass of CSM + LM + third stage with fuel was only 135 699 kg or about 136 tons according [5]. Confusing, isn't it? Everywhere you look the masses differ. A lot!

For comparison French space launch vehicle Ariane 5 has start weight 770 tons (most of it fuel of course) to put only 16 tons pay load in Low Earth Orbit, LEO, 2015. Assuming you need 564 GJ energy to put 16 tons in LEO (at 7 500 m/s speed, 400 000 m altitude + 10% friction during ascent) and that you use say 740.000 kg fuel for it, the Ariane 5 fuel consumption is 0.76 MJ/kg! Not bad! But still far away from the 8.13 MJ/kg used by the Apollo 11 CSM+LM to brake into Moon orbit 1969. Or to put 1 kg pay load in LEO Ariane 5 need 46.25 kg fuel! Not bad actually! But Saturn V/Apollo 11 was 4-5 times better. 1969! Why is France using such wasteful launch vehicles 2015?

To launch an Ariane 5 and put 16 tons in LEO costs average 150 000 000:- or 9.375/kg.

What about the Shuttle?

The space Shuttle orbiters are the largest man-made satellites so far placed in orbit with a single launch vehicle. For example, on NASA mission STS-82 in February 1997, the orbiter Discovery rendezvoused with the Hubble space telescope to repair and refurbish it. The altitude of the nearly circular orbit was 580 km.

Discovery's orbital mass was 106 000 kg. How was it put in orbit?


106 000 kg was only 6 percent of the total mass of the Shuttle prior to launch (comprising the orbiter's dry mass, plus that of its payload and fuel, plus the two solid rocket boosters, plus the external fuel tank filled with liquid hydrogen and oxygen), we are told. This mass of about 2 000 000 kg was lifted off the launch pad by a total thrust in the vicinity of 35 000 kN. Repetition:

To put a loaded standard Shuttle - mass about 100 tons -into LEO the launch vehicle could maybe have start weight of 2 040 tons incl. 1 738 tons of fuel! See photo right! It is quite good! Only 1.738 tons of fuel puts 100 tons into LEO. It is 17.38 kg fuel per kg or 2.7 times better than Ariane 5.

What kind of NAXA launch vehicle was used for the Shuttle and how much did it cost?

Eighty-five percent of the thrust was furnished by the two solid rocket boosters (SRBs), which were depleted and jettisoned about two minutes into the flight. The remaining thrust came from the three liquid rockets (space shuttle main engines, or SSMEs) on the orbiter. These were fueled by the big external tank which was jettisoned just after the SSMEs were shut down at MECO (main engine cut off), about eight and a half minutes after lift-off.

It seem 100% SF fantasy/propaganda to me!

Imagine if it cost NAXA $ 10 000:- to put one kilogram into LEO. We don't know if Apollo 11 + third stage had mass 339 or 136 tons in Earth orbit but the cost should then have been of the order $ 3.39-1.36 billions. Not cheap! (Thus easier just to fake it).

It is always nice to compare old and new spacecrafts carrying out maneuvers and the fuel consumed and costs incurred. And the conclusions are clear! NAXA fakes it. 47 years ago 1969 and today 2017. NAXA could never have sent Apollo 11 + third stage into low Earth orbit 1969!

Only the French Ariane 5 is real! And very expensive. As a happy share holder of Airbus NV that produces the Ariane 5 rockets I am happy to hear that an improved version, Ariane 6, is on its way 2015.

Above photo shows a small NAXA Shuttle with x tons payload (or is it a 5 tons empty mock-up?) being sent into space to reach the ISS by a very big 2 040 tons NAXA launch vehicle - two SRBs, three SSMEs, external fuel tank - full of fuel. The ~100 tons Shuttle is connected to the launch vehicle via one little bolt that is removed, when the Shuttle and launch vehicle separate.
Shouldn't the NAXA launch vehicle be a little bigger than the little NAXA Shuttle?
Anyway - never believe what you see on a photo type above. It is a FAKE!

The Ariane 62 uses two booster rockets to put 3 tons in LEO and the Ariane 64 uses four booster rockets at put 10 tons in LEO at much reduced costs. No rocket will be available to put 150-300 tons in LEO, though, to enable manned trips to the Moon or planet Mars ... ever! Any human in space will be fried to death there and cannot ever return as re-entries are not possible.

But the NAXA hoax is just going on and on:

On September 14, 2011, NAXA announced its design selection for the new launch system, declaring that it would take the agency's astronauts farther into space than ever before and provide the cornerstone for future US human space exploration efforts. Since the announcement, four versions of the launch vehicle have been revealed – Blocks 0, I, IA and II. Each configuration utilizes different core stages, boosters and upper stages, with some components deriving directly from Space Shuttle hardware and others being developed specifically for the SLS. Later versions will use five RS-25E engines with upgraded boosters and an 8.4-meter diameter upper stage with 3 J-2X engines. A 5-meter class fairing with a length of 10 m or greater is being considered for allowing heavy payloads for deep space missions. NAXA had selected five rocket configurations for testing, described in three Low Earth Orbit classes; 70 metric tons, 95 metric tons, and 140 metric tons (picture right).

NAXA's latest fantasy spacecraft putting 130 tons in LEO at little cost in 2017

 

2.4 Events # 2 and 3 - Out of orbit - trans-lunar injection - and en route to the Moon at 40.11° on your side

Event #2 had also been executed remotely from ground - Apollo 10 - so the asstronuts aboard didn't have to do anything ... if they were aboard?

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 or 105 235 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. It is called trans-lunar injection, TLI. Speed was reportedly increased from 7 500 to 11 200 m/s.

Or the third stage was fired twice? First 165 seconds to reach 7 823 m/s speed and then 312 seconds to speed up to 10 952 m/s speed. And much less fuel used?

The idea was to change the more or less circular orbit 200-300 km around Earth to an elliptical orbit with its apoapsis or apocenter 330.000 km >11 00 times further away from Earth at location "X". At the apoapsis or apocenter you should one way or other enter into orbit around Moon, which itselfs orbits Earth. If Moon wasn't there - no problem - you would just return to Earth by gravity in your elliptic orbit.

There are in fact many ways to go to the Moon. More or less straight. Curved. Or very curved. All depends on how, when and where you start in orbit around Earth and the force applied! All trajectories have different distances, variable speeds and directions and will take different times to execute ... while the Moon is moving at constant speed far away.

There are many possible spacecraft trajectories between Earth orbiting the Sun and Moon orbiting Earth, if you manage to get out of orbit around Earth - more or less straight, curved or very curved in the same plane. Regardless, the spacecraft speed is reduced all the time and the direction relative Earth towards Moon is reduced all the time going to location "X" due to gravity, i.e. arrival times differ depending on trajectory chosen. At location "X" Moon gravity pulls the spacecraft towards the Moon at increased speed

The first question to solve is how much fuel is required to increase speed from 7 500 to, e.g. 11 200 m/s to get out of orbit around Earth in any start direction towards Moon.

If Apollo 11 + third stage mass before m0 was 338 695 kg and mass after m1 was 53 802 kg and velocity before was 7 500 m/s and velocity after was 11.200 m/s, delta-V is 3 700 m/s, then the exhaust ve was 2 011 m/s according Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky. It does not sound right. But maybe the total mass before was only 118 000 kg (as some people suggest - because it is all a Saturn V can lift into LEO) and only 64 198 kg of fuel was used. Then the exhaust ve was 4 711 m/s. But let's face! You cannot use Tsiolkovsky in a strong gravity field (only in space away from other masses). You must use other methods to calculate force and fuel used to get away from orbit around Earth towards the Moon.

Therefore, whatever fuel Apollo 11 could carry with it in LEO was not sufficient to increase speed to got to Moon using any trajectory. End of trip!

The second question to solve is how to put a spacecraft in an elliptical orbit around Earth with a period of say 6 days with its apoapsis or apocenter at the Moon orbit 330 000 km away. The periapsis or pericenter is always Earth at 300 km away. Do you start in low, circular orbit around Earth, LEO, and then apply a rocket engine force there for 5/6 minutes and your orbit becomes elliptical? Is it really possible? So what force was required? How much fuel did you need? How much was the momentum increased during the TLI? Say you apply a force of 889 600 N as proposed by NAXA for Apollo 11.

The 889 600 N thrust must also be applied at exactly the right time and location in Earth orbit and in exactly the right direction in 3D space to ensure you will arrive at the Moon one way or another.

Details how it was done 1969 are not available. It supports the suspicion that it never happened. You didn't have the fuel for it.

Furthermore you cannot establish the time, location, direction and amplitude of the force to apply to reach location X in space, where Moon gravity becomes stronger than Earth gravity, i.e. Earth gravity will no longer slow you down and change your direction towards Earth but Moon gravity will take over and pull you towards the centre of the Moon. It is assumed that the ecliptic coordinate system was used in which the Moon orbit is inclined 5.1° to the ecliptic but rotates around itself at another inclination and you should wonder how the Apollo 11 crew could handle it all. Sorry, all was remote control checked by 100's of experts at Houston.

990 liters H2 + 02 fuel per second (816 kg/s) was burnt becoming water to get out of low Earth orbit. At the end of the 349 seconds burn the spacecraft pilots could maybe see the Moon at bearing 40.11° on the side!

So by applying, at the right time, 889 600 N force for 349 seconds in a certain (absolute right!) direction, the velocity of the CSM+LM, mass 43.802 kg (or 96 567 lb) and the empty third stage with mass 10 000 kg (or 13.000!) velocity increased from 7 500 m/s to 11 200 m/s (or 10 834.3 m/s) - events # 2 and 3 - and the course changed from Kepler orbital around Earth to an about 40.11° elliptical trajectory (not straight!) relative to the Moon at that time and according Newton ... or something like it. This invented 5 minutes 49 seconds trans-lunar injection rocket engine burn maybe took place behind Earth with the Moon hidden behind Earth = the Moon had not yet risen! But maybe it was done with the Moon in full view. Nobody really knows (as it never happened!)

The tangential speed should be 1 023 m/s, i.e. same as the one of the Moon.

However - already 10 minutes later the speed was only 9 532.0 m/s - Earth gravity was immediately slowing down the trip 1.302.3 m/s during 600 seconds or by 2.17 m/s² while travelling 1 929 796 m at average speed about 3 216 m/s according Braeunig trying to calculate the elliptical trajectory. In space distances and speeds are always funny! 15 minutes later the speed was reduced to 6 646.2 m/s after having travelled another 4 676 952 m ... at average speed 5 196.6 m/s. I assume Braeunig just makes up numbers going along like most space science fiction writers.

Say that you used 284 890 kg of fuel to accelerate 53 802 kg spacecraft from 7 500 to 11 200 m/s requiring 1 861 GJ, then the fuel consumption was 0.65 MJ/kg. On the other hand if you only use 64 198 kg the fuel consumption is 4.44 times smaller. Will we ever know? But how to get 285 tons of fuel into orbit? The max payload of the Saturn V rocket was only 130 tons.

15 minutes after trans-lunar injection, the three astronuts aboard carried out the following, unbelievable stunt:

The Command and Service Modules, total mass 28 801 kgs, disconnected from the Lunar Module and the empty 3rd stage rocket, total mass 25 102 - 28 402 kgs. The Command and Service Modules then flipped 180° and reconnected to the top of the Lunar Module and started the flight towards location X and from there to the leading edge of the Moon. And then the third stage was dumped!

Quite impressive! Imagine doing this at 11 200 or 9 532 m/s speed. Of course you do it in empty space but while you do it, the Lunar Module and the Command/Service Modules are not connected.

Masses used hereafter are from [1] page A11. Other NAXA sources confusingly indicate other masses, info, etc, as expected. The 3rd stage rocket was dumped but evidently also went on to the location X and the trailing edge of the Moon ... but missed the Moon by 1 825 miles and continued into Eternity [1 15.0] or started orbit the Sun (!) according NAXA report MPR-SAT-FE-69-9 SATURN V LAUNCH VEHICLE FLIGHT EVALUATION REPORT - AS-506 APOLLO II MISSION:  

"The launch vehicle successfully placed the manned spacecraft (i.e. SCM/LM), in the planned translunar injection coast mode. The S-IVB/IU, (i.e. the empty third stage) was placed in a Solar orbit with a period of 342 days by a combination of continuous LH2 vent, a LOX dump and APS ullage burn." 

I always wonder why the third stage didn't crash on the Moon. Or a gravity assisted kick took place?

No, the third stage was slowed down to miss the Moon. It was also flipped 180°, so the 3rd stage rocket engine could make a final brake burn! Maybe it used 3 000 kg fuel to brake?

After trans-lunar injection the 3rd stage rocket stage and the Lunar Module were disconnected from the Service/Command Modules one way or other. The Service/Command Modules were then flipped 180° and the Lunar Module was reconnected to the top of the Command Module! A hatch in the Command Module was opened to check the result and a photo was taken some way or other by some NAXA photographer in space. The photo is of course a fake! No modules were ever in space. Note Earth and black sky/no stars in background

After final LM separation, [the 3rd stage rocket] was placed on a lunar slingshot trajectory. This trajectory was accomplished by slowing down [the 3rd stage rocket] to make it pass by the trailing edge of the moon and obtain sufficient energy to continue to a solar orbit.

4.3.5 [The 3rd stage rocket] S-IVB/IU Post Separation Trajectory of [5]

On July 17, a scheduled midcourse correction programmed for the flight took place. If it were up/down/left/right is not clear. The launch, i.e. the trans-lunar injection, had been so successful, we are told, that the other three (sic) scheduled course corrections were not needed. Event # 4.1 97 kg fuel was used. According [1] two corrections took place.

During the lunar trajectory the external surface of the CSM/LM exposed perpendicular to the Sun was heated up to 120C. Compare event #11 and the temperature on the Moon exposed to the Sun. Planet Earth surfaces perpendicular to the Sun should also be heated up to 120C by the Sun unless protected by an atmosphere and subject to rotation.

During the lunar trajectory the velocity was reduced from 10 834.3 m/s at 2.15.13 hms to 790.7 m/s at (about?) 75.00.00 hms influenced by Earth gravity pulling you back towards the centre of Earth according Newton and Robert A. Braeunig. The direction of flight was clearly influenced as Earth tried to pull the CSM back. At about 90% of the distance between Earth/Moon - location X - the Moon gravity became stronger and the CSM/LM started to accelerate now towards the centre of the Moon. The direction also started to change as Moon gravity force is directed to the centre of the Moon and not towards a point 115.000 metres above Moon surface in the horizontal/tangential direction.

The CSM/LM trajectory was not straight as planet Earth continued in its steady orbit around the Sun applying its gravity force on the CSM/LM, while it was going to location X and the Moon.

At 75 hours, 41 minutes, 39 seconds (75.41.39 hms) into the flight, i.e. 7 minutes, 45 seconds before the lunar-orbit insertion burn, the velocity was 2.336 m/s (the times are really confusing) and increasing due to getting closer to the Moon and the spacecraft mass was 43 550 kg (or something like it?)

Now it gets very interesting!

 

2.5 Events # 5 and 6 - Slowing down very suddenly to drop into orbit around the Moon = lunar orbit insertion maneuver

At about 75 hours, 50 minutes into the flight the spacecraft had total mass of 43 574 kg (or 96.062 lb) and an increased speed ~2 400 m/s from location X but in a new direction horizontally (sic) at 115 000 m altitude above the Moon.

Since about five hours (not more,) the Apollo 11 spacecraft was subject to Moon gravity and was accelerated towards the centre of the Moon moving ahead sideways in front of you. The tangential speed is assumed to be 1.023 m/s, i.e. Apollo 11 is moving tangentially sideways at same speed of the Moon.

We are told that a retrograde firing of the service module, SM, P-22KS rocket engine with 97 400 N thrust for 357.5 seconds at exactly the right time and in exactly the right direction 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. Maybe 10 898 kg of fuel was used.

If mass before m0 was 43 574 kg and mass after m1 was 32 676 kg and velocity before was 2 400 m/s and velocity after was 1.500 m/s, delta-v is 900 m/s, then the exhaust ve was 3 127 m/s according Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky. Why not? But you cannot ignore the Moon gravity pulling you down all the time, though.

That's all! A Lunar Orbit Insertion, LOI, took place! Details how it was done are not available.

How the CSM could arrive at that position in space with the correct direction/velocity to fire the rocket engine is a mystery.

Thus by applying a brake force of 97 400 N during 357.5 seconds to the CSM/LM in a certain direction, the CSM/LM was afterwards subject only to the centrifugal force at a certain orbital altitude around the Moon. Magic!

The Moon orbits planet Earth at a velocity of 1 023 m/s in another direction. And not in the ecliptic!

In order for the Apollo 11 spacecraft to 'drop' into lunar orbit you must evidently change the radial velocity away from Earth, whatever it is, to the one orbiting the Moon. But the spacecraft prior this maneuver is also directed towards the centre of the Moon according Newton. It is very complicated.

The Moon has radius 1 738 000 m. The lunar-orbit has thus radius 1 853 000 m. The lunar-orbit has circumference about 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 ... like Apollo 11.

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 towards location X 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 - but in 90° the other direction.

Imagine starting at 11 200 m/s speed in a certain direction and then slow down to about 800 m/s in another direction due Earth gravity during 66 (or 75 - see Robert A. Braeunig above) hrs and then speed up again to ~2 400 m/s in a new direction during 7 hours (or whatever?), 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, dropped 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! In 1969. Details how it was done are evidently not available.

But do not forget that the Moon and Apollo 11 have their own orbital (sideways) velocities of 1 023 m/s around the Earth, when you were coming in ahead and is pulling you to it. Those velocities must remain constant.

The Moon and Apollo 11 thus moved 365 722 meters sideways, while Apollo 11 travelled 697.125 meters in another direction 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. Hm? It does not sound right!

How was this space intercourse actually done? Apollo 11 just braking at the right time/location from 2 400 m/s to 1 500 m/s speed in one direction and magically attached itself to or slid into the orbit of the moving Moon? It seems quite easy to enter into orbit of a rather fast moving moon according NAXA. Quite sexy, actually! You just drop in. It was not a gravity assisted kick!

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 drop into orbit of a Moon moving at high - 1.023 - m/s speed in orbit around Earth.

The three spacecrafts mass after this wonderful brake/drop in maneuver was 32 676 kg (or 72 038 lb).

The 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 pre-drop-in velocity of the spacecraft from something - 2.400 m/s - to the one orbiting the Moon - 1 500 m/s and that the spacecraft in the process became 10 898 kg lighter. But maybe I should add the tangential 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 spacecraft mass before/after braking. The 10 898 kg mass of fuel evidently disappeared in space as exhaust fumes.

As 10 898 kg fuel was used to produce 88.73 GJ energy to slow down the spacecraft, 1 kg of fuel produced 8.13 MJ brake energy, i.e. fuel consumption was 8.142 MJ/kg fuel. It would appear that the SFC is then 0.24 kg/kN s.

In order to do a correct braking - reducing speed - in universe of a spacecraft by retrograde firing of a rocket engine close to the moving Moon in orbit of Earth, the rocket engine outlet must evidently be at the right location and be positioned in right direction of flight during the 700 000 to 900 000 m braking trajectory ... thus the spacecraft flips 180° with pilots looking backwards ... not seeing the Moon at all through the spacecraft windows.

The three brave space pilots flew backwards, when suddenly - at exactly the correct time and location - they were braking to drop into Moon orbit. At start of braking the 43.5 ton spacecraft velocity was 2 400 m/s. Then you applied the 12.7 (or 9.74) ton rocket engine brake force (127.28 kN or 97.4 kN according other sources) to your 43.5 ton spacecraft and braking started. At end of braking, 357.5 seconds later spacecraft 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 and Apollo 11 moved 365 722 meter sideways 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 finished!

The conversation of the asstroholes during the 6 minutes lunar orbit insertion, LOI, 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 spacecraft. How was it possible? Were the three (crazy?) assholes aboard piloting the spacecraft 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. NAXA seems 2015 unable to provide an answer. But:

"The steering of the docked spacecraft was exceptionally smooth, and the control of applied velocity change (sic - thrust?) 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 leave its trajectory to get into Moon orbit 1969 one unbelievable 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! 

If you ask Google 2015 how it was done there is no answer.

According Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky the change in speed/direction of a spacecraft in space is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before and after firing the rocket engine) and the exhaust velocity of gases leaving the spacecraft rocket engine nozzle but NAXA will not tell us the latter (5 100 m/s?), so here I use the described method. Note that you need plenty fuel just to change direction in 3D space! First you have to stop in one direction requiring fuel and then accelerate in the new direction requiring more fuel. Otherwise you just continue in the original direction, etc, etc.

 

2.6 Events # 8-10 - 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 [1].

The descent trajectory is very simple; a the right time and location in Moon orbit, the LM Eagle undocks from CSM Columbia and starts to slow down/brake so altitude and speed is reduced. As you brake with one engine, you have to change the pitch all the time (from 0° to 90°) until you touch down at ground zero with zero speed.

At 101 hours, 36 minutes, when the LM was behind the Moon in the cold -150C 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 losing 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 120C 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 -150C in the shade, half the time heated up to +120C 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. NAXA engineers had thought of everything, so the hoax would not be upset by temperature changes.

To land on the Moon is very complicated according to Floyd V. Bennett.

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 parallel 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 parallel 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. What drama!

Just prior to powered descent (actually braking all the time!) the LM crew managed the following important manual check on inertial platform 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] blah, blah! LOL!

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 bottom part of the LM - the descent stage looks like this:

The LM descent engine continued to provide constant 46.7 kN (? - probably reduced) 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.

It seems total 7 952 kg fuel was used to land under very confusing and dangerous circumstances.

You would expect that you could vary the 5 tons thrust to slow down or stop the descent from very fast 1 500 m/s to say quite slow 20 m/s and change attitude from parallel 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.

The complete LM looks like this:

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) spacecraft in a low gravity 1.6 m/s² field ... while standing up! This Aldrin asstrohole was fantastically clever! An American HERO! Tilting the spacecraft from parallel 1 500 m/s speed to perpendicular motion 20 m/s relative the Moon in the mean time.

Another, slightly better, description of the LM landing is NAXA TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TM X - 58040 March 1970 written a little later by the engineers that planned the whole thing starting already 1961. If it happened in reality is evidently another story. It sounds like science fiction to me. Here the landing is in two stages. First you brake and change the altitude from 100 000 meters (62~58 nautical miles) to 15 000 meters (50 000 feet). The LM speed then increases (!) to about 1 700 m/s (5 560 fps) at the lower 15 000 m altitude and then (Table 7) after 26 seconds there is full thrust (46.7 kN) in the exactly correct direction during 5 minutes and 58 seconds, when the speed is reduced to about 440 m/s (1 456 fps) at about 7 500 m (24 639 feet) altitude.

If the rocket engine was directed in the wrong way, you would evidently go off course now. With average speed 1 070 m/s during 358 seconds braking you travelled 383 060 m, but we do not know, if the course/direction was right. The pilots probably had no maps to follow and they were still high above ground and magnetic compasses do not work on the Moon. But the LM was on autopilot then, we are supposed to believe, and it knew exactly speed and course. The astro clowns were just looking out the window admiring the scenery flashing by at high speed and chatting with Houston ... as if they were on a slow airplane landing.

Then during 5 and a half minutes the rocket engine was throttled automatically (but we do not know how much and how - except it was automatic). After 2 minutes 2 seconds they were at High gate (what a stupid name!) - speed now only 150 m/s (506 fps), which is quite a lot, and altitude 2 300 m (7 515 feet) and another 1 minute 40 seconds at Low gate - speed 19 m/s (55-68 fps) and altitude 150 m (512 feet) - maybe now Aldrin starts to pilot manually - and after another 1 minute 48 seconds they landed.

Note the change in altitude from 2 300 to 150 m or 2 150 m during 100 seconds. The vertical drop speed was then 21.5 m/s, but a little later the rocket engine was directed straight down and you slowed down to <2 m/s vertical speed to land!

Maybe they travelled another 35 990 m to reach High Gate and another 8 500 m to reach Low Gate. Regardless, the LM landed virtually spot on the planned location or less than 5 000 m. A miracle!

We do not know the fuel used for the various maneuvers, just the total. To assist the pilot there were radars, autopilot, gyros, speed log, a computer, a compass, fuel gauges, all sorts of warning lights and other useful, 1960's models equipment to use and look at. The attitudes, times, the tilting of the LM differ in the two descriptions. How much thrust was required to keep the LM virtually hovering over the Moon is not known. It seems - (Table II) that 8 070 kg (17 934.6 lb) of fuel was available to carry out the braking and that almost all was used. There were no margins at all. The probability of failure and crash was 1! But with Keith Glennan, ex- studio manager of Paramount Pictures and the Samuel Goldwyn Studios and later NAXA boss, it became 0. James E. Webb just ensured it. What a show! Poh. 1000% fantasy. And they got away with it. The Americans are really not very bright.

However, 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 shirt a little above ground producing unknown thrust ejecting exhaust at high 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]

However, just walking on the Moon later produced deep footprints (right).

Does anybody believe the Mr. Aldrin could pilot and land the LM as per above science fiction horror stories? An 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 unless you believe the magic autopilot story. One minute you travel at 1 500 m/s speed in one direction and a little later at 20 m/s in another. Evidently Mr. Aldrin was lying about it and everything else later. But he was well paid and had no morals what so ever. But a drinking problem!

Actually all the 534+ astronuts or kosmocrauts of many countries claiming having been travelling in space between 1960 and 2015 are simple liars paid to keep up the hoax. We are living in a world of liars.

7 952 kg (of 8 212 kg) fuel carried in the LM descent stage was used for the 100 000 m descent and decrease in speed from 1 500 m/s to 0 m/s taking any time from 756.3 to 3 600 seconds while turning the LM 90°.

Source: page 135 of [1]

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 (17 227 lb of 18 184 lb available aboard [1]) 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 or less fuel was used when throttling.

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.

 

2.7 Event # 11 - On the Moon. Communion! Planting the flag. Brushing your teeth

After landing asstronut Armstrong reported:

"Houston, Tranquility Base here - the Eagle has landed."

Two and a half hours after landing, before preparations began for the promenade on the Moon, Buzz Aldrin radioed to Earth:

"This is the LM pilot. I'd like to take this opportunity to ask every person listening in, whoever and wherever they may be, to pause for a moment and contemplate the events of the past few hours and to give thanks in his or her own way."

Buzz then took communion privately. Aldrin was an elder at the Webster Presbyterian Church, and his communion kit was prepared by the pastor of the church, the Rev. Dean Woodruff. Buzz described communion on the Moon (or where ever he was? - Las Vegas?) and the involvement of his church and pastor in the October 1970 edition of Guideposts magazine and in his book Return to Earth. Webster Presbyterian possesses the chalice used on the Moon and commemorates the event each year on the Sunday closest to July 20.

In order to open the hatch and step down on the Moon, the Lunar Module had to be depressurized. The one bar air pressure inside the LM cabin had to be reduced to the no air vacuum on the Moon. The asstronuts had to dress in space suits with its own PLSS air supply, etc. Page 22 of [1] reports:

"Depressurization of the lunar module was one aspect of the mission that had never been completely performed on the ground. In the various altitude chamber tests of the spacecraft and the extravehicular mobility unit, a complete set of authentic conditions was never present. The depressurization of the lunar module through the bacteria filter took much longer than had been anticipated. The indicated cabin pressure did not go below 0.1 psi, and some concern was experienced in opening the forward hatch against this residual pressure. The hatch appeared to bend on initial opening, and small particles appeared to be blown out around the hatch when the seal was broken."

It seems depressurization worked. How repressurization, i.e. filling the LM with air, was done later is not clear.

Armstrong, in his space suit + PLSS, stepped into the 120C hot lunar surface dust (when subject to perpendicular radiation of the Sun) 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 120C hot Moon dust. Aldrin followed 19 minutes later. The astronauts deployed the flag (Buzz was prevented planting a cross) and instruments, took photographs, and collected very hot - 120C - 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]

Source: page 163 of [1]

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 - 120C? And you wonder what the temperature was inside the space suits? Evidently the temperature was less in shadow areas.

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.

On the other hand they allegedly left an experiment on the lunar surface to prove that they had been there, which (2004 or 2017) continues to work as well as it did the day it got there, 1969.

The Apollo 11 lunar laser retro 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. It is further described here.

However, in 1969 they forgot to tell anybody about it. Imagine that! A whole or half silica cube with a diameter that bounces light!

retro reflector

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 and repressurized the LM, i.e. filled it with fresh, cool air again. Inside the LM it was now also 120C hot as the hatch had been open and many areas of the LM was subject to perpendicular sun shine. How the asstronuts filled the LM with cool, fresh air and got out of their space suits for a nap later are not clear ... except that they slept for 10 hours after the hard outside lunar labor in the sun. Then it was time to fly 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

Back of Earth main stream media reported, as if they were on the spot, wellcoming the heros:

This is how propaganda works.

At later Moon visits the asstronuts took, apart from tooth brushes, a car along so they didn't need to walk. Then they had to depressurize and repressurize the LM every time between driving around on the Moon.

Evidently the car also heated up to 120C in the sunshine when subject to perpendicular radiation. It was left behind and is still there today! What a joke!

 

2.8 Events # 12 and 13 - Departure and Lunar Module ascent stage lift-off from the Moon and docking LM/CSM

To take off from the Moon and to dock with CSM Columbia are very complicated according to Floyd V. Bennett.

The ascent trajectory is however very simple; a the right time and location at ground zero on the Moon and with the CSM Columbia in the right location above, the LM Eagle ascent stage lifts off at 90° perpendicular pitch. Then altitude and speed are increased and pitch is reduced to 0° in orbit at the correct altitude. As you accelerate with one engine, you have to change the pitch all the time (from 90 to 0°) until you arrive just adjacent to CSM Columbia for docking in orbit at an altitude about 100.000 m As CSM Columbia has speed 1 500 m/s you must ensure your start at the right time! If you start a minute too late you will arrive 90 kilometers behind the CSM Columbia and docking is difficult.

The ascent stage is the upper part of the LM:

At departure from the Moon Buzz is standing up to pilot the thing while Armstrong is sitting on the rocket engine!

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 (1) in picture right.

The rocket engine suddenly applied 14.7 kN constant 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 initial mass. It means the initial acceleration was a small 0.3 m/s² at the beginning slowly getting faster. That is the lift-off from the Moon. It seems 2 285 kg fuel (4 966 lb of total 5 328 lb aboard [1]) was used to produce 14.7 kN thrust during 508 seconds - SFC = 0.306 kg/kN s. Why not? But where was it stored? It was about half the mass of the whole LM ascent stage.

After lift-off the the LM turned around the Moon looking for the CSM high above.

We do not know how the LM found the CSM at an altitude of about 100 000 m to be able to dock with it.

Luckily the LM didn't ascend in the wrong direction but straight up, and flow 560° around the Moon finding the CSM flying by at 1 500 m/s at 100 000 m altitude ... and connected to or docked with the CSM at 1 500 m/s speed. Quite impressive. This Buzz pilot was very clever! Of course he was never on the Moon.


There exists a film/TV broadcast but no real photos of the lift-off. No exhaust fumes are seen, they are apparently colorless or invisible, and the dust, loose soil and objects on the Moon surface remain untouched, when the exhaust mass is ejected at 1 400 or 4 000 m/s velocity close to ground from the rocket engine. The lift-off looks really strange, much faster than 0.3 m/s² acceleration provided by the engine and the film is probably of a model, made at Hollywood.

Nose to nose LM/CSM docking occurred on the CSM's 27th revolution at 128 hours, three minutes into the mission.

The CSM had thus orbited the Moon 27 times and been cooled down to -150C in the Moon shadow and heated up to 120C on the Moon sunny side and had then flipped 180° to receive the LM.

Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin returned to the CSM with Collins via the hatches in the tops. The LM mass was then 2 603 kg.

Source: http://www.alanbeangallery.com/eaglelaunch.jpg - Animation of LM ascent module Eagle lift-off

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 vertical 0 m/s at ground to 1 500 m/s in orbit.

How the ascending LM managed to find the CSM in orbit at the right altitude - 100 000 m - and speed and to arrive at the CSM at the same speed and to dock with the CSM is better forgotten. Such a fantastic operation was not possible 1969. Floyd V. Bennett didn't really explain it at all.

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 [1].

The LM ascent stage was jettisoned into lunar orbit at 00:01:01 UT on 22 July and remained in lunar orbit, where it (and five others jettisoned later) should still be today as there is no friction stopping it.

 

2.9 Events # 14 and 15 - Speeding up to get out of orbit around the Moon at location A to get home = trans-Earth injection - Arriving at location B in Earth orbit

Trans-Earth injection of the CSM, mass now 16 829 kg (37 100 lb) in Moon orbit 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 its nose now aiming for location X and later Earth and its upper atmosphere/thermosphere.

The picture below is of course misleading. Earth and Moon are much smaller and the trajectory in between is much, much longer. To avoid hitting Earth Bull eye and arriving a little off, e.g. at 120 000 m altitude of the thermosphere, the angle of approach differs minimally. But it is not easy to hit Earth at all. If you leave the Moon too early or late you will never reach location X and will never reach location B in Earth orbit.

The asstronots were thus facing forward during the trans-Earth injection leaving location A. 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 or nominal.

At the exact right time/location A/direction in Kepler Moon orbit 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 after a final turn of 9.04° out of the Moon orbit) and placed the CSM into a course, first to the location X in space and from there, back to Earth upper, very thin atmosphere/thermosphere and location B. Details how it was done are evidently not available. X is where Earth and Moon gravity forces are equal.

The speed, direction and total momentum after trans-Earth injection must be perfect, so that the CSM gets away from Moon gravity and is attracted by Earth gravity at the right time/location X, so it will arrive tangentially at the Earth upper atmosphere/thermosphere a couple of days later at location B for re-entry.

If not you may miss Earth completely or arrive at too steep an arrival angle at location B and crash on Earth.

The orbit of the Moon is also inclined about 5° to the ecliptic so the probably parabolic trajectory A-X-B is really in 3-D, while the speed and direction changes more and more all the time when approaching Earth. The speed is minimum at X and the direction then changes all the time towards Earth (and its centre of gravity).

How this complex maneuvre and trajectory took place is not really clear. Earth gravity force pulls you towards the centre of Earth and not towards a location B at 120.000 m altitude above ground in a horizontal direction. How can you calculate the arrival time at B with so many variables (Moon pulling you back, Earth pulling you forward and Sun pulling you towards the Sun) involved? And how can you identify the location of B, so you arrive there at the right time in the right directions left/right and up/down? B is at the same time rotating around the Earth poles 360° every 24 hours!

After Events # 14 and 15 CSM mass was 12 153 kg (or 26 793 lb) because 4 676 kg of fuel was burnt to get away from location A in Moon orbit to location X in space.

The speed after trans-Earth injection was maybe 2 640 m/s. But in what directions? 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 location X in space and location B in orbit around 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. Only 3D velocity records using Sun (fixed) as base and none are available.

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 location A and into a radial trajectory towards location X and then 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 departure speed ... but then the arrival speed at location B will also be greater. So you arrive too early. In the wrong place!

The amount of fuel used on the CSM for acceleration events # 14 and 15 was 4 676 kg or 31 kg/s! Same consumption actually when braking (events #5 and 6), i.e. same thrust was used for shorter duration as the mass was smaller.

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?

If you ask Google 2015 how it was done, there is no answer.

[1] 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 (while passing location X). They were tired!

An 11.2 second firing of the control engines accomplished the only midcourse correction required on the return flight but not reported in [1] - 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 from location X speed increased all the time due to Earth gravity. Earth gravity pulls you all the time towards the centre of Earth (and not a location B 120 000 m above a rotating Earth).

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 1.928 m/s. It seems the asstronots wanted to get back quick. Of course the spacecraft 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 or whatever). Just prior arrival Earth upper atmosphere the Service Module, mass about 6 667 kg was dumped and burnt up in the atmosphere and was never seen again. There are no further details about the Service Module.

The objective was now to arrive at the Earth upper atmosphere almost horizontally or parallel with ground below and find location B to plunge into the atmosphere and start the final part of the trip - re-entry at exactly the right moment. You must arrive at location B at the exact time because location B moves 360° during 24 hrs. If you arrive early or late, Earth below is not in the expected position.

But before that something else: 

 

2.10 How to turn 180° in space, if you are close to the Moon - a gravity assist kick turn

How to turn around 180° in space is confusingly described by NAXA about the failed Apollo 13 mission. Then the service module, SM, was damaged on way to the Moon. A fuel tank 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 spacecraft with lunar module, LM, to get into Moon orbit (Events #5 and 6), (2) to accelerate the spacecraft 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 asstronuts were not informed that they didn't have to worry at all. They were in an elliptic orbit with apoapsis or apocenter 384 000 km from Earth and would return from there automatically by gravity.

The unlucky asstronuts therefore boarded the lunar module as a 'life boat' and stayed there, while the spacecraft managed to turn 180° 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 [2]) service module (SM).

Then your spacecraft 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 spacecraft 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.

NAXA therefore suggested that a free 180° 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 to location X 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 spacecraft - 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° or more around the Moon using its gravity force - a gravity assisted kick - 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 spacecraft to the right position off the moving Moon. How much fuel was actually used for that maneuver, NAXA cannot tell! Imagine your moving spacecraft - 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 four objects in space with different masses - Sun, Earth, Moon and Apollo 11 or 13 - and to see what happens. To solve it when the four 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 (forget location X) 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 NAXA SF invention! See also above how the ESA spacecraft Rosetta managed to do it 2005-2009.

Had the spacecraft missed to use Moon gravity for a free +180° 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.  

 

2.11 Cosmic particles inside the CM

Cosmic particles were suspected inside the CM on the return trip (but not on 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. They were ready for re-entry. 

 

2.12 Events #17-19 - Re-entry - landing on Earth (or dropping into the Pacific) - skip re-entry

If a spacecraft like Apollo 11 was elliptically orbiting Earth like a comet, it would arrive at the perihon at Earth at 300 km altitude and swing around there at 11 200 m/s speed and fly back to the apihon 384 000 km away. But it didn't happen.

Re-entry procedures were initiated July 24, 44 hours after leaving lunar orbit. That re-entry is not possible at all was already explained in section 1.7 above but here follows the NAXA description of the Apollo 11 re-entry. It is pure propaganda based on pseudoscience:

Command Module Entry - The best-estimate trajectory for the command module during entry was obtained from a digital post-flight reconstruction. The onboard telemetry recorder was inoperative during re-entry, and, because the spacecraft experienced communications blackout during the first portion of entry, complete telemetry information was not recorded … Table 7-VII [1] presents the actual conditions at entry' interface. Entry interface at 400 000-foot altitude was reached at 195:03:05.7 at longitude 171.96°E and latitude 3.19°S [location B]. The re-entry took 9 minutes and 1.2 seconds. Entry speed was 36 277.4 ft/s or 11.057 m/s. The trajectory was about 3.000 km (at average speed 5.500 m/s). The spacecraft landed in the Pacific Ocean at longitude 169.15°W and latitude 13.30°N about 1.800 km from Honolulu, HI. Parachutes were deployed at time 195:12:06.9. (Note - there are other figures provided below)


Apollo 11 thus arrived at 120 000 m altitude above Earth with speed 11 057 m/s.

The SM - event #17 - was dumped from the CM, which continued alone at speed about 11 200 m/s or 11 045 m/s (or about 36.200 ft/s [1]) and was re-oriented to a heat-shield-forward position

Now the Apollo 11 CM was ready to enter the upper atmosphere of planet Earth 120 000 m further down more or less parallel at location B with the ground below - event #18 and to descend down through the atmosphere - re-entry - and deploy parachutes about nine minutes later and land in the water. If you arrive too steep say >4° you will hit ground or the ocean too early.

How this change of altitude in space only due to influence of Earth gravity really took place and how to locate the latitude and longitude of location B and arrive there at speed >11 000 m/s at the exact time have never been explained by NAXA. Of course.

No fuel was used since the 'course correction' event #16.

But how can you change altitude in orbit around Earth at perihon without reducing speed by firing a rocket engine to slow down?

My friend Balthasar Schmitt has pointed out the following maneuvers:

Nach NASA-Angaben hatte das Command Module (CM) eine Masse (Gewicht) von 5 486 kg und eine Geschwindigkeit von 11.200 m/sec. Daraus errechnet sich seine kinetische Energie nach der Formel Newtons: E (in Joule) = 0,5 x Masse (in kg) x Quadrat der Geschwindigkeit (in m/sec), E = 0,5 x 5 486 x 11 200² = 345 GigaJoule

...

ICE der Deutschen Bahn : 8 Wagen, 200 m lang: 450 t = 450 000 kg ; Geschwindigkeit: 250 km/Stunde, E = 1,0 GigaJoule

...

Das angeblich vom Mondflug zurückkehrende Command Module würde also das „Re-entry“ mit der kinetischen Energie von 345 ICE-Zügen der Deutschen Bahn beginnen. Die NASA hat nie erklärt, wie das CM diese ungeheure Energie von 345 GigaJoule während der angeblich 29 Minuten des Rückflugs zur Erde abgeben konnte. Da auch die NASA rechnen kann, hat sie es natürlich nie fliegen lassen.

So the kinetic energy of Apollo 11 CM at Re-entry at location B corresponds to 345 ICE trains driving around on the German railways at only 250 km/hr speed. And now air friction is supposed to stop the CM during 9 minutes!

It is suggested that Earth gravity just increased the speed >14 times (!) and direction of the CSM during the return trajectory from departure the Moon gravity influence at location X - speed say 790 m/s - until arriving almost horizontally at the Earth thermosphere at location B at speed >11.000 m/s. But Earth gravity was attracting the CSM straight towards the centre of Earth all the time ... and not horizontally towards the upper part of the atmosphere! And at the same time planet Earth was rotating.

If you arrive a minute too early or to late at location B, you are >660.000 m off target. And how do you find location B at 120.000 m altitude?

It must be repeated! The picture below is of course misleading. Earth and Moon are much smaller and the distance in between is much, much longer. To avoid hitting Earth Bull eye and arriving a little off, e.g. at 120 000 m altitude of the thermosphere, the angle of approach differs minimally. But I would expect that location B is on top of the Earth and not hidden behind Earth, etc, etc. 

If Apollo 11 with mass 5 486 kg would start its re-entry as shown left with a speed of about 11.000 m/s, when arriving in and dipping into the upper atmosphere at say 120 000 m altitude and a certain angle and, if you intend to slow down at a constant 18.0 m/s² deceleration during about 9 minutes, you must apart from the brake force in the opposite direction of travel also counter the 9.8 m/s² vertical downwards pull of gravity. It would appear that the total force suddenly applied to re-enter and land must be of the order 130.900 N (that corresponds to 23.8 m/s²) during 9 minutes and you should of course wonder where it comes from. Can a constant force of 130.900 N (or 13 tons) just suddenly appear out of the blue? It is suggested that this constant brake force consists of aerodynamic drag and lift, but there is no air at 120.000 m altitude to provide any drag and lift.

So what can it be?


There are many different descriptions of re-entry or how spacecrafts arriving from outer space are supposed to brake after arriving at the right time at location B before landing on Earth itself, e.g. a nonsensical Wiki attempt or this, even worse nonsense.

One proposal is that a skip entry trajectory is used (see right), i.e. that the CM enters the very thin thermosphere almost horizontally or tangentially at small angle at 120 000 m altitude and location B and slows down for some reason and then exits (!) the mesosphere again (into a Keplerian phase!), while slowing down more and then makes a 2nd re-entry at some lower speed at a new location Bbis, why and how it should be necessary?

The Apollo 11 command module, CM, was essentially a blunted cone with a spherical-segment base as per figure right below. On the homeward leg of the journey through space, immediately prior to reaching the entry interface (400.000 feet ~120 000 m - location B), the spacecraft was oriented at a predicted aerodynamic trim attitude with the blunt base with heat shield forward (!), NAXA told us.

"The Apollo-CM was designed using incorrect pitching moments determined through inaccurate real-gas modeling. The Apollo-CM's trim-angle angle of attack (!) was higher than originally estimated, resulting in a narrower lunar return entry corridor",

NAXA told us later. In spite of this Apollo 11 CM managed to get down in one piece. If forward was towards ground or towards the horizon is conveniently forgotten, but to make the rest possible, it was towards the horizon.

The blunt design produces the drag necessary to efficiently dissipate the kinetic energy associated with entry velocity of the lunar return mission, we are told. Note that the CM had a little side window so that the asstronuts could see out. At entry into Earth atmosphere entry control (an amazing NAXA document - 100% science fiction) was as follows (and had been tested full-scale before without pilots) all controlled by a robot or computer:

"… After the CM separated from the SM and prior to reaching the entry interface (location B) at 120.000 m altitude and an entry velocity of 11 200 m/s (or 36 545 ft/sec), the spacecraft was oriented in pitch with its stability axis along the AGC-estimated relative wind-velocity vector with a bank-angle attitude of 0°, or lift up …. The spacecraft attitude was then maintained by aerodynamic lift forces and moments. Control of the rotational rates was retained in the rate damping mode. The roll rate gyro was coupled to the yaw electronics to give coordinated roll control about the velocity vector rather than about the spacecraft body X-axis. At the entry interface (location B), the initial roll program of the INITIAL ENTRY phase was in command …"

Apollo CM with side window. Heat shield was fitted on rounded right spherical side

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 from location B until drogue parachutes were deployed 9 minutes later. Constant aerodynamic force at 120
.000 m altitude and 11.000 m/s velocity?


But there is no air there!
 The thermosphere and mesosphere are virtually vacuum.

Or right: you enter at 400.000 ft (~120.000 m) altitude and 2.200 n.mi. (~4.000.000 m) from BET at location B and plunge down to 180.000 ft (~55.000 m) altitude and 1.750 n.mi. (~3.240.000 m) from BET at unknown time. The angle down is thus about 4.6° and the vertical speed vector is originally 885 m/s. If you plunge about 67.000 m at that speed, the plunge takes 75 seconds. But apparently you slow down so maybe the initial plunge takes longer? Say 80-90 seconds. Then you bounce up (!!) about 60.000 ft (~18.000 m), while travelling another about 800 n.mi. (~1.500.000 m) towards BET. The angle up is thus about 0.7°. Etc., etc. You never bounce up into space again. You are just bouncing in the upper atmosphere. But what do you bounce against?

The CM down-up-down trajectory in the thermo- and mesosphere was maybe something like shown right (the 1967 Apollo 4 test run).

Typical entry trajectory (Apollo 4)

Note that the 5 557 kg CM dips into the thermosphere at 400 000 feet (~120.000 m) altitude with 11 034 m/s velocity at location B, which is ~2 200 nautical miles (~4 000.000 m) from final destination - initial entry phase - and then at about 180.000 ft (~55.000 m) altitude in the mesosphere gains height again to 240.000 ft (~73.000 m) altitude during an upcontrol or Keplerian phase before final entry phase ending with a drop straight down very quickly from 150.000 feet (~46.000 m) altitude into the stratosphere and finally the troposphere and create a splash down. Parachutes are deployed at the last moment.

Dropping anything from 46 000 m with vertical start speed 0 will result in vertical speed >700 m/s at 20 000 m altitude 73 seconds later (ignoring friction) due to 9.82 m/s² gravity. No parachute can stop something dropping at >700 m/s speed. It is more than twice the speed of sound!

How the velocity is reduced due to friction and how a lift force is developed to lift the CM 180.000 ft (~55.000 m) after only 80-90 seconds in the very thin thermo- and mesosphere at speeds >6.000 m/s, 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 NAXA's usually confusing, contradictory, fantasy ones.

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 at location B and plunges into the Earth very thin thermosphere (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 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 at location B.

The direction is not known, but it is not vertical, because then you crash after ~10 seconds. No, you arrive almost horizontally. It seems Apollo 4 plunged in at 4.6° and then bounced up at 0.7°. Only the drag force brakes the module for 560 seconds, when, after 9 minutes from entry at location B, first the drag and then the main 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. You are heading straight ahead all the time toward the awaiting aircraft carrier with the POTUS aboard.

Let's assume that parachutes were deployed when the speed was only 134 m/s.

It means total speed reduction was 10 900 m/s during 560 seconds. The CM thus decelerated at average a = 18.93 m/s² or about 2g while bouncing down/up/down in the mesosphere. The drag force acting on the CM was thus 105 106 Newton or about 10.7 tons.

The average speed of the CM during braking was 5 450 m/s and the distance from starting braking at location B and deploying parachutes was 2.100 n.mi. or 3.900.000 meters - see above. After travelling >3.900 kms mostly through the mesosphere, the CM dropped down just in front of a US warship with Dick Nixon aboard. Hole in one! It sounds magic.

Typical re-entry

According [1] http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11MIssionReport_1971015566.pdf Apollo 11 entered the atmosphere at latitude 3.19°S, longitude 171.96°E (location B) at 195:03:05 h/m/s with speed ~11.000 m/s and deployed the drogue parachute at latitude 13.25°S, longitude 169.16°W at 195:12:06 h/m/s, i.e. 9 minutes and 1 second later total 541 seconds). The distance travelled was then only 2.287.000 meters, i.e. the average speed was only 4.227 m/s. Who cares? Imagine travelling so long so fast and braking all the time by some magic force - probably variable - of the mean order about 1.6 g (15.62 m/s²).

According http://history.NAXA.gov/ap11fj/26day9-re-entry.htm the Apollo 11 CM lost contact with Houston at 195:03:06 h/m/s (after start), when speed was 10 970 m/s and re-established contact at 195:12:31 h/m/s, i.e. 565 seconds less than 10 minutes later, when the chutes were up and speed was nominal <30 m/s.


It would appear that the CM travelled about 3.107.500 meters from location B in that time, while decelerating at 19.36 m/s². Splash down was at 195:18:18 hrs.

The CM dropped down just in front of the reception team. Magic! Hole in one! Ask any golfer of the probability of several holes in one in a row!

An interesting but really stupid 2013 M.Sc. thesis of the 1967 Apollo 4 re-entry is the following: NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS OF THE APOLLO 4 RE-ENTRY TRAJECTORY. It is a thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Mechanical engineering by Ermioni Papadopoulou, who correctly says:  

The most dangerous phase of an Earth return mission is the atmospheric re-entry stage, in which immense velocities along with extensive interaction with the gaseous atmosphere create an environment that changes the flow state around the probe. The atmospheric re-entry (at location B) is associated with velocities up to 12 km/s, thus, the recorded flight Mach numbers can be as high as 30 and more.

Apollo 4 was not a real Earth return mission. Apollo 4 was just sent up into very low Earth orbit for a couple of orbits, then it was first sent 17.218.000 m and later 18.092.000 m up into space to drop down for a re-entry at 122 000 m altitude at 11 139 m/s velocity (if you believe the NAXA fantasies?) and a landing 10 (!) minutes later:  

The launch placed the S-IVB and CSM into a nearly circular 100-nautical-mile (190 km) orbit, a nominal parking orbit that would be used on the actual lunar missions. After two orbits, the S-IVB reignited for the first time, putting the spacecraft into an elliptical orbit with an apogee of 9,297 nautical miles (17,218 km) and a perigee that would deliberately take it 45.7 nautical miles (84.6 km) below the Earth's surface; this would ensure both a high-speed re-entry of the Command Module, and atmospheric re-entry and destruction of the S-IVB. The CSM then separated from the S-IVB and fired its Service Module engine to raise the apogee to 9,769 nautical miles (18,092 km) and a perigee of ~40 nautical miles (~74 km). After passing apogee, the Service Module engine fired again for 281 seconds to increase re-entry speed to 36,545 feet per second (11,139 m/s), at an altitude of 400,000 feet (122 km) and a flight path angle of -6.93 degrees (?), simulating a return from the Moon. 

Then Apollo 4 arrived exactly at location B and a few minutes later Apollo 4 had landed. Magic.

Apollo 8 took totally 29 minutes from entering atmosphere at 11 040 m/s velocity at location B until splash down hole in one at 0 m/s velocity just beside a recovery ship!

Separation of the command module, or CM, from the SM occurred at 146 hours, 31 minutes. A double-skip maneuver conducted during the re-entry steering phase (starting at location B) resulted in an altitude gain of 25,000 to 30,000 feet. The re-entry velocity was 24,696 mph (11 040 m/s), with heat shield temperatures reaching 5,000 degrees F (2 760C). Parachute deployment and other re-entry events were nominal. Apollo 8 splashed down in the Pacific Ocean at 10:51 a.m. EST Dec. 27. The splashdown was about 5,100 yards from the recovery ship USS Yorktown, 147 hours after launch and precisely on time. 

Here the bounce up (double-skip) was only 9.000 m but it didn't affect the end result. Magic! Nominal magic! Hole in one!

Ermioni Papadopoulou shows how easy it is. The CM just slows down very quickly by friction and turbulence drag forces applied on the CM in the atmosphere. He, sadly and unfortunately, believes any NAXA fairy tale.

Apollo 11 CM went also straight down and landed! If it took 10 or 18 minutes between arriving location B and deploying parachutes is not known. Contact was lost, blah, blah.

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 50 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 85 km. It is the layer where most meteors burn up upon entering the very thin low pressure atmosphere and lack of mass/atoms.


Temperature decreases with altitude in the mesosphere. Above the mesosphere is the iono- or thermospehere extending 400-600 km above Earth where air/atoms are very rare and vacuum space starts, etc.

Note that the air pressure differs >1 000 times between location B and 50 000 m altitude - the area where 90% of the Apollo 11 braking/flying/bouncing took place. I have a distinct feeling drag and lift forces differ too due to it ... or do not exist there.

It is thus suggested by NAXA [ ref [1] table 7-VII] that during 540 seconds Apollo 11 CM velocity was reduced from 11 200 m/s at location B to 100 m/s only due to turbulence and friction drag (!) mainly in the Earth's very thin thermo- and mesospheres ... and then parachutes were opened ... as seen right (Apollo 4).

With mean speed 5 565 m/s during this down-up-down braking (!) the CM travelled 3.005.000 meters or 3 005 kms down-up-down through Earth mesosphere, which is only 130 kms deep, before splashdown in the Pacific outside California or Hawaii. Mean values of various parameters are very useful to get a feel of what is supposed to have happened.

(Apollo 4 (figure right) - in a test run - apparently slowed down from 11.200 (or 10 777) to 100 m/s in 710 seconds at average 15.6 m/s² deceleration or little slower than Apollo 11, i.e. brake trajectory distance starting from location B was 4 440 km): 

The Apollo-4 (AS-501) command module which re-entered the Earth's atmosphere at a velocity of 10.77 km/s (atmosphere relative speed at 121.9 km altitude) experienced a peak total heat flux (??) of 497 W/cm². 

The mean deceleration of Apollo 11 (velocity change divided by time elapsed) during travel through Earth atmosphere was 10 931/540 = 20.25 m/s² or 2.06g and the mean drag force due friction acting on the 5 557 kg CM was 112.53 kN or about 11.5 ton. The actual maximum drag force during the 80 first seconds must have been 5-10 times higher crushing the CM!

Typical re-entry (Apollo 4)

Such braking is evidently not possible. You have to first, like the fantasy Shuttle or the ISS return modules (see below) be in orbit around the Earth or braking for it (using fuel) and then slowly decelerate/brake again using force for several days to stop at all without burning to Hell like a meteor ... or the SM due to friction. Basic. It doesn't matter what angle you re-enter the atmosphere. Friction heat will burn you into smoke and gas like all meteors dropping down on Earth as already explained in the part 0.7 of this article.

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/kgC) 69 138C.

Regardless, NAXA has never been able to define the latitude and longitude of location B and how it can establish the final trajectory through the atmosphere to determine the location, where parachutes are deployed. A small error in arrival time and initial direction always results in you dropping down far away from the target area.

 

2.13 Braking using a heat shield

The only means to brake the Apollo CM, mass 5 486 kg (12 095 lb), to low speed before parachutes deployment was the drag force of (i) the heat shield friction and (ii) module turbulence in the atmosphere around it explained in part 1 of this article.

How it worked nobody really knows in spite of numerous scientific papers about the problem! According basic calculations the heat shield and surroundings would heat up >70.000° C due molecule collisions and burn up or break up - like the Service Module!

Year 2015 the details of the heat shield have finally been revealed. It was previous a military national security secret. The shield consists just of 25-50 mm resin in a fiber glass honeycomb structure. It will easily melt/burn at a few 100's C! It is a joke!


How to stop a mass of 5 486 kg dropping on Earth all the way from Moon and still accelerated by the gravity force?

The vehicle encounters such severe heating that a significant part of the design and development effort is concerned with providing sufficient protection of the payload without using all payload capacity for doing this! 

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! NAXA 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. It is important to arrive almost tangentially at the Earth upper atmosphere (at location B) and in the right direction to allow the atmosphere to slow you down one way or another.

The resistance of a body moving in a gas like Earth's atmosphere depends on four parameters - the shape and the area of the object, the speed of the object and the density of the gas. The resistance is then due to the pressures acting on it.

As seen right (from Etude de l'´ecoulement autour des capsules spatiales by Axelle Viré, 2005) the pressure is positive at the blunt forward end and negative behind the capsule and the pressures produce forces acting on it.

The shape causes drag, lift and turbulence and the area, both in front and aft, in contact with the air causes friction. Both are functions of the velocity of the object and the density of the air and the strength of gravity.

In either case variable drag /collision forces develop that are acting on the object and you must be certain that the object is structurally strong enough to absorb these forces. It is not like an airplane landing. Airplanes do not use heat shields and do not land at 11.200 m/s velocity at 100.000 m altitude.

Pressure distribution around the Apollo CM

I have a feeling that the pressures acting on the Apollo CM (thin aluminium plates/stiffeners) during re-entry would crush or compress it while heating, so it would be destroyed and all persons inside would be boiled minced meat.

If you tilt the module as seen right, the pressures behind the module differ due to the turbulence and I have a feeling that the Apollo CM would start to rotate around itself, which is not good for anybody inside.

The lift, drag and gravity forces acting on the object/air also produce/absorb energy that becomes heat.

The heat shield front but also the structure behind is heated up due to contact with the air and the main area used for braking - the heat shield for a spacecraft entering a planet with an atmosphere - is getting very hot. NAXA has 2012 not been able to explain how braking was actually done 1969 without the module being crushed, starting rotating around itself and simply catching fire and burning up.

As I said above:

Turbulence around an inclined Apollo CM

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 from the Moon dropping into Earth's atmosphere (at location B) with almost vertical start direction/velocity 11.200 m/s at 120 000 m altitude, where the atmosphere is very, very thin producing very little friction and turbulence. Planet Earth gravity has attracted the module since it left the Moon. The module would then hit ground after only 10 seconds!

As this didn't happen we are told that the Apollo module, one way or another, entered the atmosphere at 120 000 m altitude almost horizontally/tangentially or with little (4-5°) inclination downwards and also in the right direction forward and time at location B. How this could happen is not clear. You would expect Earth gravity to attract the CM to the centre of Earth, so it arrives more vertically at the upper atmosphere. But it didn't happen. The CM arrived more or less horizontally to skim on the upper atmosphere.

During re-entry the capsule spent >85% of the time above 50 000 m altitude in the thermo- and mesospheres, where there was virtually no air and where no airplanes can fly. How friction and lift (!) can develop in such thin air remains a mystery unless, of course, the whole thing is a fraud (which it is in my honest opinion).

It is thus suggested that air friction and turbulence will slow down the spacecraft, but it only happens at much, much lower altitude <15
.000 meters in the lower stratosphere and the troposphere 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 strong enough to withstand the forces and was bouncing up (!) again after a first entry against the atmosphere and then, after a Keplerian phase, whatever that is (a 10.000 to 20.000 m bounce upwards?), dropped down again at lower speed for a second entry but everything is unclear. As usual. How you can maintain the heat shield forward position of your spacecraft is also completely unclear. It is not easy to invent an impossible re-entry!

The potential and kinetic energy of a 5 486 kg Apollo module at 100 000 m altitude and 11 200 m/s velocity is 5 486*(100 000*9.8 + (11 200)²/2) = 349 458 200 kJ.

The potential and kinetic energy of the same 5 486 kg Apollo module at say 15 000 m altitude and 350 m/s velocity is 5 486*(15.000*9.8 + (350)²/2) = 1 142 560 kJ.

The difference 348 315 640 kJ has been absorbed one way or another by the heat shield AVCOAT.

If such AVCOAT can absorb 418 680.0 kJ/kg before getting vaporized, it seems you need 832 kg of AVCOAT in the Apollo heat shield. To be on the safe side, you need say 2 400 kg, but then 44% of the module is AVCOAT and there is no space for any human heroes.

Question is - how can anything absorb 418 680.0 kJ/kg heat up in thin thermo-mesosphere/space?

It seems the specific heat of AVCOAT plastic is 1.67 kJ/kgK. Say that the AVCOAT melts at about 520 ºK but that it has temperature say -3C (270 K) in space at re-entry. It means that it will melt at temperature 250C. It means that 1 kg of AVCOAT can only absorb 418 kJ before it starts to melt (and flow away), i.e. 1/1000 of amount for it to be vaporized!

It seems the Apollo heat shield will melt very easily and then become useless. In my opinion any "heat shield" is just part of the human space travel hoax.

Furthermore, there is really no evidence that you can slow down a spacecraft totally 10 850 m/s during say 1 000 seconds (10.85 m/s² !) in the very thin thermo-mesosphere between 100 000 and 50 000 m altitude, where meteors are vaporized.

According http://history.NAXA.gov/ap11fj/26day9-re-entry.htm the re-entry went even faster: the Apollo 11 CM lost contact with Houston at 195:03:06 hrs (after start), when speed was 10 970 m/s and re-established contact at 195:12:31 hrs, i.e. 565 seconds less than 10 minutes later, when the chutes were up and speed was nominal <30 m/s. It would appear that the CM travelled about 3.107.500 meters from location B in that time, while decelerating at 19.36 m/s². Splash down was at 195:18:18 hrs. The CM dropped down just in front of the reception team. Magic! Hole in one! Let's repeat: 
During re-entry the capsule was, more or less horizontally, cruising >85% of the time above 50.000 m altitude, where there is virtually no air and where no airplanes can fly. How friction and lift (!) can develop in such thin air remain a mystery unless, of course, the whole thing is a fraud (which it is in my honest opinion).

 

2.14 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.

Actually anything entering Earth atmosphere at ~11 000 m/s in any direction 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.

And in 36 minutes planet Earth rotates 9° around itself and location B is shifted far away.

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."

Hallelujah!

What a stupid show! And people believe it! There were total six Apollo CM re-entries and later three Skylab (left) re-entries using Apollo CMs. All fake of course.  

 

2.15 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! NAXA says they were 36 minutes late! All above is NAXA SF fantasy and propaganda = lies! A heat shield reduces speed from 11 200 to 100 m/s in Earth's atmosphere in 10 minutes? Not possible. It is worse than the 1961 Gagarin hoax by the USSR.  

 

2.16 Toilet facilities

Neither the CM nor the LM had any toilet facilities during the 195+ hours trip. We are supposed to believe that the crew pissed and shit in a pot, content of which then was thrown into a bag after each use, unless they shit in the space suits when on the Moon. However, when the CM was recovered in the water, there was no trace of any bag of shit and piss in it.

 

Asstronots eating fake breakfast in Skylab before re-entry

2.17 Conclusions about the Apollo 11 Moon visit

From a simple fuel (energy) analysis point of view it seems the Apollo 11 modules, SM, CM and LM, could never stop at the Moon in the first place and therefore could never return. It is a clear indication that the whole NAXA Apollo program was a hoax by stupid science fiction writers paid by NAXA ... to impress people 1969. Maybe only an empty CM was launched into Earth orbit (event #1) by a Saturn rocket at 7.500 m/s velocity and then the empty CM was orbiting Earth say 93-98 times to keep some NAXA engineers happy, while the false Moon trip was broadcasted live on TV. The false CM then burnt up at re-entry. The real CM was simply dropped from an airplane at low altitude and never was in space or at location B at all ... .

Footage and sound from Moon of LM and asstronots stepping down into 120C hot Moon soil, planting flag and fooling around were just a Hollywood 911 style propaganda movie broadcasted to confuse people. It is very easy to fake photos and voices for similar events.


The Apollo 11 CM displayed at a Washington, DC, museum, never orbited the Moon and never arrived at Earth upper atmosphere at location B. Imagine that! It was never orbiting the Moon at all. Everything, incl. LM + flag on the Moon and SM (with CM) orbiting above, was just theater props or never existed. Imagine how easy it is to fool people with some films!

Reason why human Moon (or future Mars) travel is not possible as per the NAXA 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), arrive at location B at the right time and direction 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 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. Very complicated, though. And any return to planet Earth is impossible.

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, science doctors and rocket scientists all paid for by the military, etc, etc. But the hoax show must go on. Plenty people make plenty money to keep the old comedy going. The ISS and the Shuttle for example! And they also lack toilet facilities!

Lying asstronut dr Buzz - source

Go to Part 3 - The Shuttle and International Space Station hoaxes

Back to Heiwa Co start page