If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?

sheeeesh. i'm going back to my Pussy Riot thread.

What has to go wrong in one's life to come to such a disconnect with reality?

Okay, so the brightest ones on this planet don't have (real) clue, you understand it right? Go on.

It's 1/6 the gravity, and why are you asking me? Why don't you do the calculations?

It either works or not, so I don't know how people like yourself could just say it's impossible without looking into it and just basing it off their imagination. I imagine people like that to be of the lowest IQ.

Further more, we have video of the thing flying perfectly fine during flight tests here on earth. How could such a tiny thing fly so high here on earth. Suck retards.

Just because you haven't accomplished anything in life doesn't automatically mean that others are as incompetent as you.

Apart from this: You are no car engineer, nor do you know how to build roads, bridges, tunnels, highway crossings. You manage to drive nevertheless.

I love the posts wherein people say the moon landings were fake, but we still went to the moon...that what we saw was the conspiracy part, and that we really went to the moon using secret technology.

When you read stuff like this, it's as if the person is trying to reconcile the obvious fake moon landings with his desire to believe we actually went to the moon.

It's like saying, "Santa Claus doesn't really live in the North Pole, that's for kids. The real Santa lives under ground as has rockets to deliver presents, yeah!"

In other words, they can see what we're shown is fake, but they still want to BELIEVE it's true, so they make up even more off the wall theories.

Now and then, Human nature requires a pat on the back to think that they have accomplished something great.

In the end it is all vain and futile. There is absolutely nothing great at all about humanity other than a parasite on the planet.

Willfully Stupid People.

The Apollo Lunar Module (LM), also known as the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM), was the lander portion of the Apollo spacecraft built for the US Apollo program by Grumman to carry a crew of two from lunar orbit to the surface and back. Six such craft successfully landed on the Moon between 1969–1972.

The LM, consisting of an Ascent stage and Descent stage, was ferried to lunar orbit by its companion Command/Service Module (CSM), a separate spacecraft of approximately twice its mass, which also took the astronauts home to Earth. After completing its mission, the LM was discarded. In one sense it was the world's first true spacecraft in that it was capable of operation only in outer space, structurally and aerodynamically incapable of flight through the Earth's atmosphere.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

All the usual shills in this thread. Lol.

Where have YOU been? Bastard!

Indeed.
Who is paying all these morans to promote the "never learn anything for your self, just trust idiots with garish websites" agenda?

The fishing has royally sucked, so I have been shooting a lot...

In Sept, I have to drag in the winter wood...Then I can start to hunt ducks and geese...Then I can start fishing Salmon again about the end of October...After fishing is done in late January, I'll have time to come and play more often...Then I can start sugaring in late Feb....

A very valid question, and one that has been much on my mind in recent months...

I think they work for Soros...

Or maybe the Bush cabal...

When I recomputed the problem in metric units I realized a number of things.
1. The original was a simple trajectory - perhaps too simple.
2 . The force of gravity is reduced by the 11.25 lbs/s fuel consumption. This effect is linear
3. The force of gravity is reduced by centripetal force - which varies with speed and is exponential (1/2 speed = 3/4 weight, orbital speed = 0 weight).
We really should be solving for a two dimensional path and perhaps using polar coordinates, however for a simple scalar solution:
Vc is current speed.
Rm is radius of the moon
T is time

A = (Th - Mo*LG( 1 - (Vc*Vc)/Rm -5.1 T))/Mo

Integrate with respect to time and orbital velocity. Solve for Velocity = Command Module speed.
If you try approximate this you get a number in the range of 441 seconds the same as they did. Fuel exhaustion occurs at 461 seconds so they have 20 seconds to spare.

No adjustments 900 seconds.
Adjustment for fuel burn reduces burn time to 600 seconds.
Adding adjustment for centripetal force makes the burn time right around 440.

As to how they flew it - they had cheat sheets for angles and burn times that were precomputed by the engineering staff.

Quantify this "murderous solar radiation". Then show why you are right even though EVERY scientist that works in the field disagrees with you.

Lol. A shill will never admit to being a shill.

The upper part of the LEM that "took off" from the Moon supposedly contained two astronauts, standing upright and close together.

How was this craft stabilised during its ascent, and why wasn't thunderous noise from the powerful rocket engine heard inside this sardine can craft?

ATTENTION ATTENTION all numbnuts that think we didnt go to the moon and that ancient spacecrafts dont exist watch this video of actual footage...the most compelling there is that we have been lied to and there is much more to the moon then crators of nothin. Dont be an idiot watch the movie my friends! I was AMAZED!

The attitude of the Ascent Module was controlled with reaction control thrusters mounted on the corners of the craft. The ascent was flown on autopilot following programmed guidance commands.

Rocket noise on Earth is created by high speed exhaust interacting with atmosphere. Moon has no air, so any noise would be from flowing fuel and the combustion chamber. There was mechanical insulation between the pressurized crew cabin and the engine to reduce vibration.

God DAMN the stupid in this thread is fucking strong. It's like a great wave of dumbening.

There are NUMEROUS posts ITT which clearly explain with varying degrees of complexity the actual physics of the actual moon landing in 69 yet still people are all like herp-de-fuckin-derp moon landing conspiracy.

Didnt they say that they only had 30 seconds worth of fuel or something like that. Sounds weird to me

They had 461 seconds of fuel.

They had about 5175 lbs and burned 11.25 lbs/second.

They used a small space craft since the gravity is much less on the moon they didn't need as much fuel nor thrust to break the moons gravitational pull.


I sincerely hope you are joking about this.

Wait, what?

First, use the ideal rocket equation to figure out your delta-V. That puts the changing mass due to depleted fuel in there. That also sidesteps any need to take on trust anything but the bound chemical energy of the fuel (the design of the engines basically gets left out since you are never solving for Newtons in the first place).

At the apogee of the orbit the attraction of gravity from the Moon is going to be close enough to the starting point I wouldn't worry about it. However; if you assume the final orbit is circular (it is not) most of the velocity needed is tangential to the gravity vector. So how to work out the actual gravitational drag is a little messier.

As an approximation, when I did this I took the described mission profile and counted seconds of roughly vertical flight, and multiplied by 1/6 G to get an idea of the gravitational drag.

Doing it with centripetal -- basically, you are adding a imaginary positive force to counter-act too large of a value for gravitational force -- is cute, though, and I don't see why it wouldn't be close enough for the cocktail napkin.




And, yeah. The primary guidance was that both the LM and the CSM knew where they were in a shared coordinate system, and NASA could easily calculate the necessary burns to get from one to the other. Inertia nav plus radar tracking plus star sighting (the later mostly to check alignment of the platform). And when they got closer, approach radar, plus visual.

I do not actually know if there was the equivalent of a LORAN on the CSM but I see no reason why something like that couldn't be used, too. Orbital link-up is hardly an insolvable problem.

Scientists, space engineers, austronats, NASA, physics, labs, researchers, billion dollar tests and experiements... VS your stupid opinion... I rather believe them... And if they are lying then I really don't give a shit, I got to pay my rent...

That would be descent stage. Descent stage and Ascent stage had different engines, different tanks.

the germans solved the problems and got it done, leading to many dull witted americans and over jealous brits to scream fake.....

Wasn't the OP. Just pointing out that your degree from Google University isn't worth the ASCII it's smattered with.

The fuel requirements of a Saturn V were to boost a fully fueled and manned Apollo spacecraft stack to a speed of 25,000mph against Earth's gravity. That entails boosting a 363' tall rocket weighing over 6.5 million pounds off the pad. The requirements of the lunar module ascent stage were to boost itself and two crewmen (12,000 lbs) to a speed of less than 4000mph against lunar gravity. Why do you think that boosting a much smaller craft to a much lower speed against much lower gravity requires so much fuel?

The ascent stage used about 5,187 pounds of fuel(about half the weight of the ascent module) to take off and return to lunar orbit, then the Apollo CSM used around 18,000 pounds of fuel to break out of lunar orbit and head back to Earth.

[link to answers.yahoo.com]

Last Edited by MuzzleBreak on 08/26/2012 10:43 PM