It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 221
377
<< 218  219  220    222  223  224 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


your argument ad hominem is so apparent that it is humorous to read

i don't care what you say about me personally

my points stand and no one has yet to refute these points

the only thing that anyone
mostly yourself

has done is attack me personally
call me names
call into question my degree
insult my personal situation with my current computer

but yet you provide NOT ONE SHRED of evidence disproving my points

cheers




posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 



but yet you provide NOT ONE SHRED of evidence disproving my points


What points? I lost you when you claimed there is no gravity in deep space man.

Seriously, get with the program and read the thread, nothing you said is new here.



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 



SHOW ME THE NUMBERS


Try looking here or here. You can easily determine if the fuel is sufficient to boost the craft into orbit, and if the SIV-B has sufficient thrust to place the payload into trans-lunar orbit. This may require some math, and an understanding of basic astronautical principles. If you do not wish to learn the principles involved or do the math, I can assure you that everyone who has agrees that it checks out.



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


What on Earth are you on about? You've made no points
This is a discussion of a scientific nature and as such can be proven easily one way or another using scientific reasoning, the laws of physics and publicly available information.
Please provide YOUR workings using the common laws of physics and the data showing the weights of the modules, fuel loads, forces involved, gravitational pull of bodies, etc to prove that they did not have enough fuel.
Typical HB, whining about how it doesn't 'sound right' or 'look right' just because your brain isn't capable of processing the information. Go on, use your vast brain and knowledge of mathematics and physics to prove everyone wrong and show us how they couldn't have escaped Earths orbit to travel to the Moon and then come back.. You won't be able to, for two reasons :

1) The calculations clearly show they could have gone and there are countless people that do have brains that would have noticed if they couldn't have.
2) You are clearly incapable thinking at the complex level required

Why is it every single HB is either a USA hater extreme, stupid or both?
edit on 17-10-2010 by AgentSmith because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


What utter nonsense!! Before coming into a discussion, you'd think a person would have done at least the barest of research, first.


more argument ad hominem without producing the intel that i said was lost


I would start (if I were you) with the actual definition of ad hominem......


As to "intel", as I (and many others) have mentioned, it IS OUT THERE on the Web, if only one would care to look. I think many, here, are growing weary of countering the specious "arguments" put forth by the various HBs, and bringing the data to light, when it's readily available....just, it's ignored. As is knowledge and learning, too.


you all rely on the same tactics
and they are failing horribly


NO, FoosM's tactics are evident, and the same each time...and FAIL miserably. Others, on the other hand, bring up subjects that they have apparently misunderstood (by citing sources incorrectly interpreted) or post incoherent ramblings that make it difficult to follow exactly where the discussion is going.

Speaking of miscomprehension:


Wenher Von Braun said that the amount of fuel needed to go to the moon and back was not possible


Bull. You cite a link, but it says no such thing, in the very link you sourced!!

But wait....even your grasp of historical facts is weak, and shows an appalling lack of research, or understanding:


and that is blown up several astronauts and spacecraft
just trying to get into low earth orbit


The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster is the ONLY instance of a fatal mishap during launch. (Before that, in the heyday of the "Race to the Moon", only Apollo vehicle-related fatalities were during the test phase, on the ground...Apollo 1). Other astronauts in the program DID suffer fatal injuries, in tragic accidents not directly involving any spacecraft equipment, or hardware.

The other (and tragic Shuttle accident) was Columbia, of course...on ENTRY. Damage inflicted AT launch, and sadly, NASA control and culture that existed at the time meant that what COULD have been avoidable slipped through the cracks, and went unrecognized before it was too late. Challenger, also, suffered disaster for similar reasons. All this proves is that space flight is very dangerous, and unforgiving. So is aviation, though. Accidents happen, and Apollo was no exception.

Now, this has already been explained to death ---- suggest further COMPREHENSIVE reading, for a more thorough understanding:


even though the amount of DEADLY RADIATION on the surface of the moon was not known
and is still not known


Bull-oney!! More hand-waving nonsense....aren't your arms getting tired yet?


cherry picking what you think validates your argument and forgetting the others


Unfortunately for the HBs (especially "JW" and now, here...FoosM) that is EXACTLY what they do!!! Despite the enormous and unassailable amounts of evidence, they IGNORE that, and rant off on tangents, to confuse and muddy the issues. It seems to work, on the weak-minded (at least, until education gets in the way).

Now, again to reading comprehension.....someone failed to properly read their SOURCE!!:


Just recently NASA released an article stating that the only way to build a craft that could go
to the moon
was to make it out of concrete so as to protect the astronauts from radiation


People can read that source for themselves, to see how bogus your sentence was.


YOU SHOW ME THE NUMBERS


They are freely available, as mentioned. Some people just seem to be incapable, or don't put forward the effort, I guess, to find the info for themselves....

This next snippet is getting ahead of itself....AFTER the first two stages of the Saturn V are expended, the third stage (the S-IVB) with the entire remainder of the spacecraft stack are in a "parking orbit", then the J-2 engine (the one powering the S-IVB) is fired for TLI. That stage, once this is accomplished, is abandoned. The CSM SPS engine is used for the remainder of the mission, for minor course corrections, deceleration for Lunar orbit, and eventually, TEI to come home:


Service Propulsion System
The 20,500-pound-force (91,000 N) SPS engine was used to place the Apollo spacecraft into and out of lunar orbit, and for mid-course corrections between the Earth and Moon. The engine used was an AJ10-137 engine using Aerozine 50 as fuel and nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) as oxidizer. The propellants were pressure-fed to the engine by 39.2 cubic feet (1.11 m3) of gaseous helium at 3600 psia, carried in two 40-inch (1.0 m) diameter spherical tanks.

The engine measured 152.82 inches (3.882 m) long and 98.48 inches (2.501 m) wide at the base. It was mounted on two gimbals to provide pitch and yaw control in lieu of the RCS during SPS firings. The combustion chamber and pressurant tanks were housed in the central tunnel.

[The thrust level was actually twice what was needed to accomplish the lunar orbit rendezvous (LOR) mission mode, because the engine was originally sized to lift the CM with a much larger SM off of the lunar surface in the direct ascent mode assumed in original planning. A contract was signed in April 1962 for the Aerojet-General company to start developing the engine, before the LOR mode was officially chosen in July of that year.


Link to section.

Complete Wiki article here.

That's just in Wiki....Google (or your favorite search engine of choice) can find many, many, many other sources. It's called "research".

Ah...and "numbers"???


Referring to this DIAGRAM link:

Components labelled "Service propulsion tanks (4)" are shown, in the cut-away line drawing. Four SPS propellant tanks, in total, to contain the fuels. Here, the "numbers":


Service Module sectors
The Service Module was divided into six sectors:

Sector 1 was usually filled with ballast to maintain the SM's center-of gravity. On Apollo 15-17, it housed a Scientific Instrument Module (SIM) for lunar study. The equipment included a panoramic camera, gamma ray spectrometer, mapping camera, laser altimeter, mass spectrometer, and lunar sub-satellite.

Sector 2 contained the oxidizer sump tank, from which oxidizer was fed to the engine. It was 51 inches (1.3 m) wide, 153.8 inches (3.9 m) wide, and contained 6,315 kilograms of oxidizer.

Sector 3 held the main oxidizer storage tank, which was 154.47 inches (3.924 m) high, 45 inches (1.14 m) wide, and held 5,118 kilograms (11,283 lb) of oxidizer.

Sector 4 contained most of the electrical power subsystem. Two oxygen tanks contained 290 kilograms of liquid oxygen, and two hydrogen tanks 25 kilograms of hydrogen. The oxygen tanks supplied the environmental control system and fuel cells, and the hydrogen tanks the fuel cells only. The fuel cells combine the two elements to generate electrical power for the spacecraft, along with a small amount of drinking water. Each fuel cell weighed 112 kilograms.

Sector 5 housed the fuel sump tank. It was the same size as the oxidizer tank and held 3,950 kilograms of propellant. Feed lines connected the tank to the SPS.

Sector 6 contained the main fuel tank, also the same size as the oxidizer tank. It held3,201 kilograms of fuel.


en.citizendium.org...

Now....I've done a little work FOR you....and was easy to find, online. Why can't YOU find it, too?

(Or, prefer to cherry-pick and hand-wave?? Repeating demonstrably FALSE assertions, each and every time??)

Like "radiation"....


Hint: The "radiation" issue ONLY becomes a concern, and a problem, for LONG MISSIONS outside of earth's protective magnetosphere. For missions/voyages of MONTHS --- not a mere two weeks.



edit on 17 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: Tags, source.



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by theability
 

has done is attack me personally
call me names
call into question my degree
insult my personal situation with my current computer


Some informations about fuel and command module: en.wikipedia.org...

Some informations about fuel cells used by NASA: en.wikipedia.org...

Some pop culture thing about stats and apollo: www.apollosaturn.com...

I did search for Sputnik fuel for a bit, and it was easier to find the Apollo amounts for the CM. Which is odd considering Jarrah White says that Sputnik was real.

I have to apologize for my unhappy skeptical friends a little ... they are a little on edge today. It's likely because this is how most hoax persons approach the argument. Instead of wandering up and saying, hey I have this question that I have no facts about does anyone have an answer??? ... The person comes and says "prove this to me!"

You may not appreciate but the lack of research you've done makes your question take 10 seconds to ask and 30 minutes to an hour of research to respond to. You could have at least demonstrated some things you've looked up perhaps, or asked if there is a place you could find such figures. The article I've posted above has some figures and I found plenty of resources for information on the fuel cells.

To be honest I think both sides of the debate feel the same way about each other. I've been subject to some unfair criticism too since I joined in this thread ... Likely you think people who believe in the moon landing are totally devoid of critical thinking and complete boneheads and no one is going to change your mind. In fact likely many of your friends online agree with you.

Point am making is I don't think you're going to convince anyone here the moon landing didn't happen, and we're likely not going to convince you even with the figures regarding the fuel. Hell, clearly a lot of persons are losing patience constantly having to provide grass roots information ...

Likely the best thing that could happen in this thread is that people stop posting in it.

ARGH! Edit: Weedwhacker beat me to the info ... Damn your eyes Weedwhacker! Damn them being quicker at the googlings! ...
edit on 17-10-2010 by Pinke because: Weedwhacker won


edit on 17-10-2010 by Pinke because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 



Damn your eyes Weedwhacker!!
]

"Too late!"







posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


my statement about no gravity in deep space was a sarcastic statement
that was intended to show that fuel would be needed after the TLI (trans lunar injection)
in order to reach "the moon"

but the burn on the rocketdyne J-2 rocket lasted about two minutes
and that was the only burn that was used to get people to the moon
since we both know that deep space both has gravity
and is awash with radiation

then my question was where did they keep all of the fuel for this mission

people want ME to provide them with the EVIDENCE
but yet not one person has provided evidence to refute me

and you keep relying on an argument about deep space gravity
and you are simply wrong concerning your interpretation
of my statement

A LOT OF FUEL WOULD BE NEEDED TO GO TO THE MOON AND BACK
after landing on the moon and then returning to the lunar orbiter
SIX TIMES

please stop with the argument ad hominem
non-sequiturs

PLEASE

they are logical fallacies and do not prove point

I am asking questions that no one can answer
But yet the tactic is to try and force me to answer my own questions

I refuse to engage in any name calling
It would be oh so easy
but oh so immature

My points prove as they stand until PROVEN WRONG

Cheers






posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Ok I'll bite. How much is alot of fuel? Numbers and burn times would be nice. You make the claim the burden of proof is on you.



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001



I apologize for the length and quality of the video. There are probably better ones at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website, but they're in RealPlayer format.

Sorry if I sound cranky, but I just had three wisdom teeth extracted the other day and feel like someone literally busted my chop. And the vicadin ran out yesterday.


I kid you not.
When I saw that video my jaw was like on the floor.
Unfreakingbelievable.

Did you guys see that?
Did you guys just watch that video?
Please everyone do so.

Ok, at about 06:00 one if the astronauts begin to climb up the LM.
He is not carrying anything, thus using both hands.
The process does not go smooth.

For some reason the camera is shaking, I have no idea why.

At about 08:00 the other astronaut grabs what looks like a shiny toolbox
to bring up the LM.

Now anyone following my recent post, I wondered how difficult it would be to carry objects into the LM without the use of the LEC.

At about 08:25, the astronaut with the shiny box steps on the LM and appears to want climb up.
Now at this point, watching the video, Im not sure if he plans to go up by himself or use the LEC.
At any rate, WE DONT GET TO SEE IT because some idiot at mission control decides to tilt the camera up to take a picture of the Earth, and its not even centered! And he stays there for remaining two minutes of the video. All we do is get to hear whats going on, but WE DONT GET TO SEE IT!

So Im like, what the hell. I notice this is only the second video of the series, so maybe the next video will show something. About a minute later the camera tilts back down to reveal the astronaut on the ground near the camera!



Finally at around 01:00, we get to see the conveyor belt work, except the astronaut is OFF SCREEN!

just like this video that DJ posted


Now the doofus in control of the camera decides to pan at around 02:50, but not to where the astronaut is, working the conveyor, he pans the opposite direction! Again, WE DONT GE TO SEE IT! All we can do is hear them say what they are bringing on board till the camera gets turned off. What a SHAM!

By the way, thanks DJ for showing this video.
But you will agree, there is no proof that even the conveyor belts works as it should have, let alone
if it was possible to bring samples up without it as stated by NASA!



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


the information provided simply states how much fuel was used

it does not IN ANY WAY show that it was sufficient

the only thing that any of your links show is people saying that it was sufficient

so what you are doing is saying that the same entity that I am questioning

is giving you proof by saying (fill in the blank) was used as a fuel supply

and it was adequate

without ever once stating the actual physics concerning how it was possible with this amount of fuel

i could make yet another point with the petrified wood moon rock

but that would be overkill

i am asking to see the physics concerning gravity and the control thrusters
i am asking to see the physics concerning the amount of fuel necessary to escape
and control the orbiter on the way to the moon

i am asking to see the physics concerning the amount of fuel necessary to land on the moon
SIX TIMES
and then make it back up to the orbiter and then escape the gravity of the moon
and make it back to earth

I am also asking about the radiation on the surface of the moon

the only thing that ANYONE has shown me is "official" NASA stats that tell you how much was used
and then they tell you that it was sufficient

NOT ONE PROVES THAT IT WAS SUFFICIENT

I thank you for your calm demeanor
I thank you for apologizing for the rude behavior of the other posters

But for everything asked of me
I have seen nothing that VALIDATES your claim that it was sufficient

Only websites that merely say that it was sufficient

If this was 1980 I could point to several government sources that say that the Gulf of Tonkin was legit

But we all know that was a big fat lie

Just like the "moon landings"



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Wait a minute....based on your comments so far about needing a "lot" of fuel....is it possible that you're laboring under the gross misconception that the spacecraft would have to burn its engine the ENTIRE time, during the TLI journey???? If THAT is what you think, then I see your problem. Tell me, this is NOT the case --- this basic lack of understanding of space flight (as it exists with our current technology) and orbital mechanics, and physics of motion.



then my question was where did they keep all of the fuel for this mission


I've provided that info, with sources.


people want ME to provide them with the EVIDENCE
but yet not one person has provided evidence to refute me


I'm a person. I'm only one person.
I've provided that info, with sources.


and you keep relying on an argument about deep space gravity
and you are simply wrong concerning your interpretation
of my statement


There you go, with "deep space gravity" again? It is incomprehensible.

Perhaps a lesson or two on GRAVITATIONAL FIELDS (as it relates to celestial bodies) might be helpful?


A LOT OF FUEL WOULD BE NEEDED TO GO TO THE MOON AND BACK


Again, as I stated at the outset in this post, we might be zeroing in on your basic miscomprehensions....


after landing on the moon and then returning to the lunar orbiter
SIX TIMES


What do you mean, "SIX TIMES"?? There were SIX landings, all in separate missions, of course.

AND....now this is truly appalling, sorry....you DID realize that the entire landing, and departure from the surface was ANOTHER VEHICLE, correct? It contained its own engines (2--one for descent, and one for ascent) with dedicated fuel supplies. It was the LUNAR MODULE (LM).

(I thought you said you did some "research"??)


I am asking questions that no one can answer


NO, the answers are all forth-coming. You choose to embrace ignorance, and reject the facts and information that is so kindly being offered.


the tactic is to try and force me to answer my own questions


"force"?? Um...the path to true learning and understanding is more reliable when one discovers the information for oneself. Guidance (spoon feeding) is only part of the journey....the information is retained better, once learned on one's own.



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


OK let me humor you post here in the bets way possible.

my statement about no gravity in deep space was a sarcastic statement
that was intended to show that fuel would be needed after the TLI (trans lunar injection)
in order to reach "the moon"


Fuel after TLI was only needed to to mid-course corrections [MCC] and also for the Lunar Orbit Insertion Burn [LOI]. Otherwise it was Sir Issac Newton in the driver seat. In fact the free-return trajectory needed no fuel at all to bring the spacecraft around the Moon and back to earth despite what you believe.

Hence the term FREE-RETURN!


but the burn on the rocketdyne J-2 rocket lasted about two minutes
and that was the only burn that was used to get people to the moon


The Apollo 11 TLI Burn lasted ~5 minutes 44 secs Source

A little bit longer than the 2 minutes that you claim.


since we both know that deep space both has gravity
and is awash with radiation


Gravity has nothing to do with radiation.


then my question was where did they keep all of the fuel for this mission


You seriously have to be kidding me? They are referred to as Pressure Vessels. Or Tanks, fuel tanks, whatever, this statement shows you have done absolutely nothing in terms of research. [ Are you sure you do research for a living?]


people want ME to provide them with the EVIDENCE
but yet not one person has provided evidence to refute me


Refute is what I will continue to do, to the incredibly poor questions that you ask.


and you keep relying on an argument about deep space gravity
and you are simply wrong concerning your interpretation
of my statement


Yet you ask where they stored fuel?



A LOT OF FUEL WOULD BE NEEDED TO GO TO THE MOON AND BACK
after landing on the moon and then returning to the lunar orbiter
SIX TIMES


Again is that one question or many?? I still can't decipher what you are asking here...


please stop with the argument ad hominem
non-sequiturs



The ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.
Source


A non sequitur (English: It does not follow; pronounced /ˌnɒnˈsɛkwɨtər/) is a Latin term for a conversational and literary device, often used for comedic purposes. It is a comment that, because of its apparent lack of meaning relative to what it follows,[1] seems absurd to the point of being humorous or confusing..
Source

Both the above are valid uses in this discussion as far as I can tell.

Again, do you research anything?


PLEASE
they are logical fallacies and do not prove point

I am asking questions that no one can answer
But yet the tactic is to try and force me to answer my own questions

I refuse to engage in any name calling
It would be oh so easy
but oh so immature

My points prove as they stand until PROVEN WRONG


I don't need to prove you wrong, you haven't been correct yet.



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Here is a discussion about Apollo 15's outward TLI journey...."coast".... (I edited it down, to the barest essentials):


Two hours, 50 minutes and 2.6 seconds after launch the S-IVB reignited and burned for 5 minutes and 49 seconds. The burn would increase the spacecraft's speed from 25,620 feet per second (7,809 m/s) to 35,522 feet per second (10,827 m/s). The altitude had been raised to 167.4 nautical miles (310.0 km).


That is the THIRD stage, recall. The S-IVB. They haven't yet, activated the CSM's SPS.


Engine problems
The next major task for the crew was Transposition, Docking and Extraction. The Lunar Module sat below the Command/Service Module, head-to-tail. As such, it was required for the CSM to separate from the S-IVB, travel a short distance, turn 180 degrees and then dock with and extract the Lunar Module. First the CSM separated, taking ten minutes to turn, come back and hard dock. About half an hour later, after pressurizing the Lunar Module and checking the integrity of the docking latches, the crew extracted Falcon from the S-IVB. The S-IVB would be put on a trajectory so that it would impact the lunar surface at 3°39'S, 7°35'W.


Starting with Apollo 13 (since seismology equipment had been left on the Lunar surface by Apollo 11 and 12) the S-IVBs were sent to impact the Moon. Previously, they were vectored into a Solar orbit where ( one presumes ) they still remain today.

Anyway, the article goes on to describe some engine indication faults, that they corrected (with help and consultation from ground control). Every mission experienced some sort of niggling problem, but designs were such that sufficient redundancy meant eventual success....barring the horrible explosion on Apollo 13, of course.


....One of the reasons for the success of the Apollo program was the redundancy of critical systems — in the case of the SPS, there were two independent valve systems for the engine. The short in the switch only affected one of these sets of valves and as such it was still possible to fire the engine. But instead of having both sets of valves open at the start of each ignition, only the trouble-free valves would be used. For long burns, the valves affected by the short would be opened only after ten seconds, and closed before the end of the burn.


SO, they devised a work-around procedure, on the "fly", to deal with the short circuiting and indication problem.


Day 2
The second day of Apollo 15 centered around the second planned mid-course correction and a preliminary check of the Lunar Module, Falcon. Mission Control first got the crew to perform 0.7 second burn of the SPS engine before the planned second course correction. This was designed to isolate the location of the short in the Delta-V Thrust switch. The burn allowed Mission Control to confirm that the SPS would only be ignited accidentally if the faulty switch was armed. It was found after the flight that a 0.06 inch (1.4 mm) length of wire had found its way into the switch, and had shorted it. The engine burn itself was good enough, adding 5.3 ft/s (1.62 m/s) to their speed, that Mission Control cancelled the planned second and third course corrections.

(skip)

Day 3
The crew entered Falcon for a second time. ...... During this period, the spacecraft passed the point when the lunar gravity becomes stronger than that of the Earth's as felt by Apollo 15.

(skip)

Day 4 and LOI
The fourth day saw fourth planned mid-course correction, although it was only the second actually performed on the mission. The burn lasted 0.91 seconds, adding 5.4 ft/s (1.65 m/s) to their speed. The crew then put on their space suits for the jettisoning of the SIM bay door........ The major event of day 4 was Lunar Orbit Insertion (LOI). Occurring behind the Moon, out of contact with the Earth, this engine burn put the spacecraft into orbit around the Moon. It was the first test of the new procedures for using both SPS during a long burn.

Loss of Signal (LOS) was at 78 hours, 23 minutes and 31 seconds GET as the spacecraft went behind the Moon as seen from the Earth. This was about 8 minutes before LOI. As with all the LOI performed during Project Apollo it was perfect, the SPS burned for 6 minutes and 38 seconds, placing them into a 169 by 59 nautical miles (313 by 109.3 km) orbit.

(skip)

The Descent Orbit Insertion (DOI) burn was performed behind the Moon on the second orbit. This burn placed them into a 58.8 by 9.5 nautical mile (108.9 by 17.6 km) orbit, with the low point over Hadley Rille landing site. On Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 this burn was done by the Lunar Module after it had undocked from the Command/Service Module. From Apollo 14 onwards it was done by the CSM as a way of conserving fuel on the LM, allowing it to land with more equipment and consumables onboard.


No figure given for the length of this burn, but since, as mentioned, was done on earlier missions by the LM engine, and still had enough fuel to land, then it was likely very brief.

Further research (if any who are truly interested would do so) will find that the required burns for Earth journey home, the TEI, would be similar, but shorter since the Delta V needed, in the lesser Lunar gravity well (and the fact that the entire vehicle now has less mass, since the LM is no longer attached) ...the Delta V to escape from Lunar orbit is FAR less, and therefore, lesser burns needed....once committed in that direction, eventually Earth's gravitational field takes over, and it's all "downhill" form there. Occasional brief mid-course corrections, all that were needed......

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 17 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: Text



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by theability
 


my statement about no gravity in deep space was a sarcastic statement
that was intended to show that fuel would be needed after the TLI (trans lunar injection)
in order to reach "the moon"

but the burn on the rocketdyne J-2 rocket lasted about two minutes
and that was the only burn that was used to get people to the moon
since we both know that deep space both has gravity
and is awash with radiation



You seem to be very confused. The TLI burn is specifically mean to impart upon the vehicle enough delta-v to get it to the gravity well of the moon (that is leaving aside quick correction burns).

But once the spacecraft finishes its TLI, it coasts to the moon. And the numbers are fairly straightforward.

As an aside, you may want to have someone explain the term ad hominem to you. If I call you an idiot, I am merely calling you a name, if I say in a post "Josephus is an idiot, so you cannot believe what he just posted", that is an ad hom.



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


the rest is not up to sir isaac newton

the gravitational field of the earth and moon would be in constant conflict

slight alterations to the course is an understatement

the only mission that supposedly used the moon's gravity to "slingshot" the astronauts back to earth
was the apollo whatever tom hanks propaganda movie

i am glad that you have harped on the gravity in deep space thing

because after the two minute burn of the TLI

more burn would be needed
more than just "correctional burn"

because you have two competing forces with gravitational pull

the only information that ANYONE has provided me is information from NASA sources

the same entity that I am calling into question

got it

thanks

for all readers who can see the validity of my argument
please research this on your own
do not rely on NASA official data
because it is roughshod and full of speculative holes

i bid you a fine adieu
cheers


(i must say that i feel that much more validated considering that 4 people have tried to attack my point)
desperate times calls for desperate measures



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by theability
 


the rest is not up to sir isaac newton

the gravitational field of the earth and moon would be in constant conflict

slight alterations to the course is an understatement

the only mission that supposedly used the moon's gravity to "slingshot" the astronauts back to earth
was the apollo whatever tom hanks propaganda movie

i am glad that you have harped on the gravity in deep space thing

because after the two minute burn of the TLI

more burn would be needed
more than just "correctional burn"

because you have two competing forces with gravitational pull


Do you have any sources that support your point?

You have a very misguided understanding of gravity. The initial TLI would push the spacecraft against the Earth's gravity well, allowing it to climb out of it, about 48-72 hours following, the Earth's gravity would lessen (the craft would "climb out" of the gravity well) enough for the Moon's to take over, and at that point it is pulled into the Moon by its gravity.

This is all very basic physics.



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by theability
 




the only information that ANYONE has provided me is information from NASA sources

the same entity that I am calling into question

got it

thanks



Here is the same information from Russia.

en.academic.ru...



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Oh, for cripe's sake!!!!

You haven't a clue as to what you are talking about!!! Read up on gravity, gravitational fields, as pertains to spaceflight and orbital mechanics, especially. Sources OTHER than from NASA abound on the Web!!!! ( ...since you have a bug up your nose about NASA, it seems....
)

While you're on about it, realize (and recall) the Inverse-Square Law as it applies to gravity, too. You DID remember learning about that in school....yes??

Do you understand it's implications? And importance?? Regarding space flight (orbital paths) between bodies.

According to what you've written, so far....NONE of the various spacecraft that have been sent on interplanetary voyages have occurred. Spacecraft sent by not only the USA, but the USSR/Russia, China and Japan (to name three others).

Based on your flawed "perceptions" of gravity and motion.....you're almost making the claim that the Earth itself needs a "rocket engine" to stay in orbit about the Sun!!! Or, had you not realized the "gravity" of your errors in thinking, yet???

Sorry, but continuing in that direction is beyond ignorant.


edit on 17 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: Spell



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 




the rest is not up to sir isaac newton

the gravitational field of the earth and moon would be in constant conflict

slight alterations to the course is an understatement


Ok man you have proven that without fail you do not possess a graduate degree. Anyone with masters level education would understand that the Earth Moon system is in balance hence them being together for billions of years.

And yes Sir Issac Newton was in the driver seat, again refuting that you have 'the ability' to comprehend basic physics. IE conservation of momentum, or inertia in space. What do you think goes on, tele-portation?




the only mission that supposedly used the moon's gravity to "slingshot" the astronauts back to earth
was the apollo whatever tom hanks propaganda movie


That statement is clearly typed out of ignorance Here is the reason why....It only takes 10 seconds to find out that your comment is unwise
Free Return Trajectory

A free return trajectory is one of a very small sub-class of trajectories in which the trajectory of a satellite traveling away from a primary body (for example, the Earth) is modified by the presence of a secondary body (for example, the Moon) causing the satellite to return to the primary body.[1] This method has been used by several spacecraft, most notably the Apollo 8, Apollo 10, and Apollo 11 lunar missions.

More illogical fallacies from you as usual. :shk:


i am glad that you have harped on the gravity in deep space thing

because after the two minute burn of the TLI

more burn would be needed
more than just "correctional burn"


Ok again I ask you how can you be an graduate research person and yet exhibit no ability to comprehend research?
You have no idea what you are talking about at all.


because you have two competing forces with gravitational pull
The only force that is competing is earths gravity leaving. Hence the fuel needed for TLI. Now when you get to the moon, you have to MUCH INERTIA to just go into orbit, hence the need for Lunar Orbit Insertion Burn to slow down. Then repeat the burns to leave, IE Trans earth injection burn to speed up your inertia to leave the Lunar gravity and reach earths gravity.


the only information that ANYONE has provided me is information from NASA sources

the same entity that I am calling into question

got it

thanks

for all readers who can see the validity of my argument
please research this on your own
do not rely on NASA official data
because it is roughshod and full of speculative holes

i bid you a fine adieu
cheers

(i must say that i feel that much more validated considering that 4 people have tried to attack my point)
desperate times calls for desperate measures


Four people have stated posts that refute you because you are WRONG, not attacks against you.

Here is an Ad hominen statement. If you had a graduate degree you'd know the difference between an attack and the truth.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 218  219  220    222  223  224 >>

log in

join