I'm quoting bentsutomu's post, but this is aimed at everyone and both sides of this topic. bentsutomu's apparent ideas about the nature of the cosmos, the motion of the stars, the Eagle Nebula, and related topics are obviously very non-mainstream. But there is already enough in this thread to discuss with regard to Moon landings. I ask that this entire side topic be dropped. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the central theme of the thread.
bentsutomu - do not bring up any of your other ideas about astronomy in this thread unless they directly relate to the landings on the moon. This also means you should not answer questions that have been put to you about them. If you wish to discuss them, please start a new thread in the Against The Mainstream (ATM) forum.
Everyone else - please drop the questions about these side topics. I'm sorry if that leaves your question unanswered.
Now... on with the Moon landing discussion.
Please redirect your replies regarding stationary stellar universe to Against-the-Mainstream section:
[ATM link redacted]
Do not promote your ATM thread.
Last edited by PetersCreek; 2017-Apr-07 at 08:04 PM. Reason: redacted ATM link
"The RCS system had many engines with accelerometers to monitor the position and correct for any misalignment." This was posted by bknight @ https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...Apollo-11-Hoax
where Mr. bknight is discussing the merits of the lunar lander propagating in the horizontal direction during the descent to the surface of the moon but as my calculation have confirmed beyond a reason of doubt that the fuel load require in the said descent is not enough to allow the lander to land safely onto the surface of the moon which is more than 200,000 miles from the surface of the earth and has a gravity of approximately .16 g. Thank you for the email agreeing with this fact which I thank you profusely.
I asked you you back in post 30 what the mass of the lunar lander was at touchdown and for you to provide your calculations to account for the changing parameters during descent. I note that you have not yet responded to this. Until you do, simply repeating this claim is of no value.
That will all have to wait a week, till bentsutomu comes off of his suspension.
The Apollo 11 lunar lander produces a fuel catastrophe since the lunar lander does not contain the amount of fuel required in landing the lunar lander on the surface of the moon. The total weight of the Apollo 11 lunar lander without fuel is 15,000 lbs. Using the moon gravity of .166 g the lunar lander weight would be comparable to descending a 2,500 lb payload onto the earth's surface from the earth's orbit, using a rocket descent. Using the extrapolation that the fuel load required in descending a payload onto the surface of the earth is equal to the total amount of rocket fuel required to accent a payload into the earth's orbit, based on the potential energy. The Taep'o-dong 2 rocket has a maximum payload weight of 1,000 lbs and uses 114,913 lb of fuel to reach the earth's orbit; consequently, the moon's gravity of .166 g forms the weight of the lunar lander comparable to 2,500 lb landing onto the surface of the earth from the earth's orbit, using only a rocket descent; consequently, more than 200,000 lb of fuel would be required to decent the 15,000 lbs lander from the moon's orbit to the surface of the moon yet the total weight of the lunar lander including the fuel is 33,000 lb. Plus, in the accent stage of the lunar mission, the mass of the accent module is 4,740 lb and the fuel weight is 5,187 lb. At a gravity of .166 g, the accent module would be equivalent to the weight of 790 lb that is accented from the surface of the earth that would require approximately 100,000 lb of fuel yet the accent module contains only 5,167 lb of fuel. A fuel catastrophe occurs since the 100,000 lb of fuel for the accent is part of the descent payload; consequently, the descent module would require an additional 1,600,000 lb of fuel. To land and ascent the lunar lander onto the surface of the moon would require a total fuel load of 1,800,000 lb. The weight and thrust energy ratio of rocket fuel is not sufficient enough to allow for the landing onto the surface of the moon and the ascent back into the moon's orbit. The Space Shuttle is used to justify that the lunar lander landed on the surface of the moon but the Space Shuttle cannot land on the surface of the moon since the moon does not contain an atmosphere that is required in utilizing the Space Shuttle's wings and the ceramic tiles used to slow the descent velocity of the Space Shuttle when landing on the surface of the earth.
You have been warned repeatedly about following our rules. Do not post your conspiracy claims outside of the Conspiracy Theories forum again. I have reopened this thread so you can answer the questions put to you...which you must begin doing in your next post.
Last edited by bentsutomu; 2017-Apr-20 at 03:02 AM.
All the other stuff is trivily compared to the fuel catatestphe; herneforth, I am only going to use the fuel in this post because is its so important that I just have to say that it is and I hope that you understand, Einsteins.
1,999,000 pounds of fuel is aloott of fuel to be carrying around the space, yes no,?
Firstly, forget the idea of making some spurious comparison with a North Korean ICBM. You are comparing apples and oranges, and in any event it is completely unnecessary. All you need to work out is whether the amount of fuel available in the descent stage of Apollo landers was sufficient to get from lunar orbit to the lunar surface.
To do this, you need to know the velocity of the LM in relation to the lunar surface, the mass of the LM (which of course changes as the fuel is used), the height of the LM above the surface when it started its powered descent, the force being applied to the LM by the lunar gravity, the descent engine thrust at the varying stages of the descent and the rate of fuel use at the varying throttle settings used during that time (contrary to your previous posts, the LM descent engine could be throttled - in fact, it had to be throttled as the maximum thrust of the engine was far too great for the last phase of the landing).
Of these parameters, the one that may surprise you most is the height above the lunar surface when powered descent commenced. It was less than 12 kilometres. Powered descent took roughly 12.5 minutes during which time the descent engine was not always going full bore. Now, I want you to explain to us why you believe there was not enough fuel being carried by the LM for a 12 minute powered descent in a low gravity field.
Last edited by AGN Fuel; 2017-Apr-20 at 05:18 AM. Reason: Missed a parameter! :(
ETA: From last week: Please cite the actual images that you looked at to see that the "blast crater and scorched moon surface" were missing.
This may be a bit hard because the only images of the surface under Surveyor 3 were taken by Apollo astronauts - who you claim never went to the Moon!
Last edited by Reality Check; 2017-Apr-20 at 04:35 AM.
By the way, could you please clarify this statement? Why on Earth would anyone say that the Space Shuttle is used to justify the Apollo landings? How would it do this?
No-one who knows anything about space flight would ever suggest that a Space Shuttle has landed on the moon. I don't understand what your argument here is supposed to be.
A fuel catastrophe occurs since the 100,000 lb of fuel for the accent is part of the descent payload; consequently, the descent module would require an additional 1,600,000 lb of fuel.
Here is a direct question, please show your calculations.
Another direct question, show your calculationsTo land and ascent the lunar lander onto the surface of the moon would require a total fuel load of 1,800,000 lb.
Please answer my two direct questionsThe weight and thrust energy ratio of rocket fuel is not sufficient enough to allow for the landing onto the surface of the moon and the ascent back into the moon's orbit. The Space Shuttle is used to justify that the lunar lander landed on the surface of the moon but the Space Shuttle cannot land on the surface of the moon since the moon does not contain an atmosphere that is required in utilizing the Space Shuttle's wings and the ceramic tiles used to slow the descent velocity of the Space Shuttle when landing on the surface of the earth.
Bentsutomu: In case you find yourself unable to post here, you may wish to visit the Apollo Hoax thread at the International Skeptics Forum. There you will find at least one fellow Hoax Believer, as well as JayUtah, probably the world's foremost hoax debunker. If you're going to argue in favor of a hoax, you may as well argue with the best. The rules are less stringent there as well.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.
The calculation are in post 133
The calculation are based on the potential energy and the calculation are in post 133.
While there are several figures given in post #133, you provided no calculations. Provide them in your next post. If you don't know how, please say so.
Do you understand that we can soft land a man on earth from 40 km with no fuel at all?
Do you understand that the Saturn V had just short of 5,000,000 lbs of fuel and oxidiser?
Do you understand that this does not actually matter? That achieving earth orbit is irrelevant to landing on the moon?
Do you understand that the various engines used were not firing continuously throughout? That they were mostly switched off for the majority of the time?
There is a totally irrelevant comparison between a modern, North Korean, partially known technology, two stage, unmanned, launching from the Earth rocket and the 1960's, American, known technology, single stage, manned, actually landed on the Moon Apollo 11 lander.
Last edited by Reality Check; 2017-Apr-20 at 11:24 PM.
bentsutomu has been banned for another rule violation of many. Thread closed.