Where's the water ?reply to post by
See what you think of this sputniksteve....
LM descent fuel is Aerozine which is 50% by weight hydrazine and 50% unsymmetrical dimethylhaydrazine. The oxidizer is dinitrogen tetroxide
As best I can tell at this point, the total descent stage propellant mass was alleged to have been 8,200 kg .
From the above I found;
• Height minus landing probes: 8.59 ft (2.62 m)
• Width/depth minus landing gear: 12.83 ft (3.91 m)
• Width/depth including landing gear: 31.0 ft (9.4 m)
• Mass including fuel: 22,783 lb (10,334 kg)
• Water: one 151 kg (330 lb) storage tank
• DPS propellant mass: 18,000 lb (8,200 kg)
• DPS thrust: 10,125 lbf (45,040 N), throttleable between 10% and 60% of full thrust
• DPS propellants: Aerozine 50 / nitrogen tetroxide
• DPS pressurant: one 49-pound (22 kg) supercritical helium tank at 1,555 psi (10.72 MPa)
• DPS specific impulse: 311 s (3,050 N·s/kg)
• DPS delta-V: 8,100 ft/s (2,500 m/s)
• Batteries: four (Apollo 9-14) or five (Apollo 15-17) 28–32 V, 415 A·h silver-zinc batteries; 135 lb (61 kg) each"
So, I will run my first set of numbers using a propellant total weight; Aerozine AND dinitrogen tetroxide oxidizer of 8,200 kg
So 8,200 kg is for BOTH the Aerozine 50 and the nitrogen tetroxide. At least until I turn up better numbers, if iI ever do.
The molecular weight of dinitrogen tetroxide is 92 grams per mole.
The molecular weight of hydrazine is 32 grams per mole.
The molecular weight of unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine is 60 grams per mole.
Our reactions are;
1) 2N2H4 + N2O4 > 3N2 + 4H20
2) (CH3)2N2H2 + 2N2O4 > 2 CO2 + 3N2 + 4H2O
This looks like straightforward stoichiometry. I'll treat it that way until I find a snag somewhere. At first blush, this does not appear like it
will be the case.
For every 120 grams of Aerozine, one would have 1 mole(60 grams by weight) of the unsymmetrical hydrazine and 1.875 moles(60 grams by weight) of the
hydrazine. To react 60 grams/one mole of the unsymmetrical hydrazine would require 2 moles of the dinitrogen tetroxide. This amounts to 184 grams
of the "oxidizer". To react 60 grams/1.875 moles of the hydrazine would require 0.9375 moles of the dintrogen tetroxide, or 86.25 grams of the
So 120 grams of Aerozine requires 270.25 grams of oxidizer for its hypergolic burning. Assuming I was correct in my proposing that the 8,200 kg of
descent propellent is Aerozine and dinitrogen tetroxide in an optimal straightforward stoichiometric ratio, then this 8,200 kg of hypergolic
fuel/oxidizer is 120/(120+270.25)= 31% Aerozine and 69% dinitrogen tetroxide by weight. As best I can determine at this time , were any of this
real, the oxidizer would have weighed a bit more than twice as much as the Aerozine.
So one then has for 8,200 kg of LM descent fuel; 31% by weight that is the Aerozine=2542 kg, and 69% by weight or 5658 kg that is the weight of the
For each 60 grams of unsymmetric hydrazine "burned" one has 4 moles of H2O generated or 4 X 18 = 72 grams of water. For every 60 grams of hydrazine
"burned" there would be 3.75 moles of H2O produced or 3.75 X 18 = 67.5 grams of H2O. Sum it up and one finds for every 120 grams of Aerozine burned
139.5 grams of H20 are created as a product of the hypergolic reaction.
Assuming a LM would begin with 8,200 kg of fuel/oxidizer for descent, and 2542 kg of this were Aerozine, then 2542 X 1.1625 = 2955 kg of H20 would be
created during the descent. That's 2,955 liters or 2,955/3.785 = 780 gallons of water.
Just to work with some numbers to get started, I'll say the LM's engine burned for 13 minutes and 20 seconds. It did not fire evenly the whole way
in the alleged landing scenario, but say it did, just to get a rough sense as to how much water is being produced; 13 X 60 + 20 is 800 seconds of burn
time. 780 gallons of H2O made , so almost a gallon a second, 780/800= 0.976 gallons per second.
So were this real, there would be a fair amount of water being sprayed on the rocks. Why doesn't anyone report this ? Surface water from rocks
collected near the ship ?
Neil Armstrong himself said it was hotter than boiling water in the sun. This is an important point to consider in all of this.
Should we be expected to find traces of exhaust water ? At this point, I honestly do not know ......
But I am suspicious about all this. The walking away from the LM. 16 mm aside, the NOT COLLECTING THE CONTINGENCY SAMPLE RIGHT AWAY, and then
collecting it out of view ??
Is this a reason as to why the Apollo 11 astronauts don't document the sites from where they claimed to have collected the stones ? Might a
thoughtful geologist have busted them ?
WHERE'S THE WATER ???