Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 121 to 150 of 150

Thread: Apollo 11 Hoax

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by NGCHunter View Post
    In motion, of course. Polaris has a proper motion relative to our solar system of about 44.48 and -11.85 milliarcseconds per year in right ascension and declination:
    http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/si...=SIMBAD+search


    0.001 arcsecond = 1/3600000 degree--------------By the way, what telescope are you using and what is the measurement uncertainty in determining the position of the Polaris Star?

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by NGCHunter View Post
    In motion, of course. Polaris has a proper motion relative to our solar system of about 44.48 and -11.85 milliarcseconds per year in right ascension and declination:
    http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/si...=SIMBAD+search

    Also, what is the diameter of the Star Polaris in milliarcseconds?

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    46,142
    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu View Post
    Correction:

    Are the stars (with an s) that composed of stellar universe stationary or in motion?
    All,

    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.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    All,

    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 replies regarding the stars of the stationary celestial universe to:

    [ATM link redacted]
    Last edited by PetersCreek; 2017-Apr-07 at 08:05 PM. Reason: redacted ATM link

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    637
    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu View Post
    0.001 arcsecond = 1/3600000 degree--------------By the way, what telescope are you using and what is the measurement uncertainty in determining the position of the Polaris Star?
    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu View Post
    Also, what is the diameter of the Star Polaris in milliarcseconds?
    This has what to do with Apollo?

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    46,142
    Quote Originally Posted by Abaddon View Post
    This has what to do with Apollo?
    It has nothing to do with Apollo. I've ended that side topic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post

    Everyone else - please drop the questions about these side topics. I'm sorry if that leaves your question unanswered.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    67
    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

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    67
    "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.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,860
    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu View Post
    "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.
    If you are talking about the numbers and spurious comparison you provided in your opening post, I strenuously disagree that you have shown anything "beyond a reason of doubt".

    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.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by AGN Fuel View Post
    If you are talking about the numbers and spurious comparison you provided in your opening post, I strenuously disagree that you have shown anything "beyond a reason of doubt".

    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.
    I have completely forgot what you posted. Could you be so kind as to repost it.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,860
    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu View Post
    I have completely forgot what you posted. Could you be so kind as to repost it.
    The post number is shown in the top right corner of each post. Please refer to Post #30 on page 1 of this thread.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    46,142
    That will all have to wait a week, till bentsutomu comes off of his suspension.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    67

    Apollo fuel catastrophe

    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.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    11,371
    bentsutomo,

    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.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    67
    dfdf
    Last edited by bentsutomu; 2017-Apr-20 at 03:02 AM.

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    67
    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.

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    67
    1,999,000 pounds of fuel is aloott of fuel to be carrying around the space, yes no,?

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    11,371
    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu View Post
    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.
    You will answer all of the questions asked of you and you will stop the snarky insults. Otherwise, this thread will be closed, you will receive another infraction, and you will be suspended for two weeks.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,860
    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu View Post
    1,999,000 pounds of fuel is aloott of fuel to be carrying around the space, yes no,?
    Yes, that is a lot of fuel. However the Apollo 11 lander did not require anything like that much fuel.

    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! :(

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu View Post
    The Apollo 11 lunar lander produces a fuel catastrophe....
    The catastrophe is really in repeating an irrelevant comparison. You need to do calculations using real rocket science where it is not just spacecraft weight that determines whether a spacecraft can land safely. For example the weight of the craft changes during the descent because it burns fuel; different engines have different efficiency; different fuels give different forces; the engines do not run at full throttle all of the time. This makes a comparison between a modern, North Korean spacecraft based on a ballistic missile totally irrelevant to the documented and witnessed landing of the Apollo 11 on July 20, 1969, at 20:18 UTC.

    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.

  21. #141
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,860
    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu View Post
    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.

    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.

  22. #142
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu View Post
    The Apollo 11 lunar lander produces a fuel catastrophe...
    What is the speed of a circular lunar orbit at ~110 km altitude?

    What is the speed of a circular earth orbit at ~200 km altitude?

  23. #143
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    569
    [QUOTE=bentsutomu;2402503]...
    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.
    To land and ascent the lunar lander onto the surface of the moon would require a total fuel load of 1,800,000 lb.
    Another direct question, show your calculations
    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.
    Please answer my two direct questions

  24. #144
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    12,268
    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.

  25. #145
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    67
    The calculation are in post 133

  26. #146
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    67
    The calculation are based on the potential energy and the calculation are in post 133.

  27. #147
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    11,371
    bentsutomu,

    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.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  28. #148
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    637
    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu View Post
    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.
    Why do you think Lunar orbit is remotely the same as earth orbit?

    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?

  29. #149
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu View Post
    The calculation are in post 133
    There are no calculations in post 133. "1 + 1 = 2 " is a calculation but "2" is a result, not a calculation.
    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.

  30. #150
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    11,371
    bentsutomu has been banned for another rule violation of many. Thread closed.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •