i still don't see how a lunar module the size of a backyard tool shed has enough fuel to launch itself into orbit

No stars...That means filmed in a location not from a location.

Lets not talk about what they would need to run life support systems in the jiffy pop for a few days. They had room for that cool rover thing though. Camera equipment and golf clubs.

The ascent propulsion system or lunar module ascent engine is a fixed-thrust hypergolic rocket engine developed by Bell Aerosystems for use in the Apollo lunar module ascent stage. It used Aerozine 50 fuel, and N ₂O ₄ oxidizer. Wikipedia
Propellant: N; 2O; 4 / Aerozine 50
Thrust-to-weight ratio: 19.44
Thrust (vac.): 3,500 pounds-force (16 kN)
Dry weight: 180 pounds (82 kg)
Chamber: 1
Diameter: 34 inches (86 cm)

THAT'S ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW THRUST: 3,500 LBS OF FORCE


"NO STARS" HAS BEEN EXPLAINED:Over a hundred times here.

If you knew anything about cameras. You would understand why a camera set for a broad daylight exposure would not register starlight.

The entirety of human knowledge is available to you for FREE at your fingertips.

Willful ignorance is just pathetic.

They couldn't fake position of the stars either.
No serious computing power for accurate star placement of each scene filmed.

That's why we don't give you any mentally taxing jobs.

Please explain how they ran life support -
Maybe they lost that information too.
Some GS3 threw it in the trash.

if that propellant is so efficient, why did they not use it to lift off from earth?

why risk putting the capsule on top of a 300 ft tall hydrogen gas bomb?

It used a lightweight sparkler drive


[link to youtu.be (secure)]

not everyone is capable of critical thinking and pointing out obvious contradictions in the mainstream narrative

why do those radio transmissions have no lag time?

All they had to get off the Moon was the 10,000 pound ascent stage. From the Earth, they had to launch the ascent stage, the descent stage, the command module they lived in on the way to and from the Moon, the service module containing the provisions needed to keep the command module going, and the third stage that fired to send them from Earth orbit to the Moon. That makes a big difference without even going into the 6x gravity and having to push through the atmosphere.

The only lag time would be between Mission Control saying something and the astronauts responding, of which there are no examples in this video.

They don't need as much fuel to get off the moon.. how long was the burn? How big the flame? I am sure someone can do the math and guestimate how much fuel would have been required

Who said it was efficient? It's actually not particular efficient - the advantage of Aerozine-50 is that it's stable and hypergolic (it starts burning as soon as it contacts an oxidizer), unlike hydrogen, which tends to boil off - the reason there are those white plumes coming off a Saturn V about to be launched - and needs to be started. Hydrogen and oxygen together are the most efficient fuel-oxidizer combination there is, with a specific impulse around 450. Aerozine-50 is more like 250.

Part of the reason is that energy required to reach a particular velocity is a function of mass times velocity SQUARED.

To reach a velocity of 3 km/sec (approx. Lunar escape velocity) vs. escape velocity from Earth's gravity (approx. 10 km./sec) takes less than 10% of the energy.

In addition, the Lunar module that they left the surface in was basically a sheet metal box, incredibly light. Everything not needed was left on the surface.

I don't have time or motivation to explain everything, but remember mass times velocity squared.

Have you taken a basic course in physics? Orbital mechanics?

Its the 21st century. The average Joe cannot begin to understand what is going on without the science and math education required.

I was an aerospace engineer for decades. When I needed an expert I would call the Propulsion Dept. or whatever to find out what I needed.

BTW, when I was at Rockwell in Downey working on the Space Shuttle in the 80s, I was responding to a government Request for Proposal to study "cryogenic calorimetry" which was the study of heat transfer from cryogenic (very cold) vessels.

They directed me to George in the Lab&Test Dept. I went to George who had retired and returned to work as a consultant.

When I asked about the subject he said, "Oh yeah, I wrote the book on that in 1943". He reached into a desk drawer and pulled out the book he had written.

He had been working for North American Rockwell for over 60 years.

We had some incredibly smart men like that who made Apollo and Shuttle possible.

So?

Considering it has been 50 years don't you think you could have fixed that ignorance by now?

remember mythbusters made exact copies of all the moon pictures and movies, right here on earth! this proves that the original movies and pictures must of been taken on the moon! for some reason!

Who was left behind to film the lift off?

it didn't, and it was scientifically proved as early as 1972 by numerous University physics departments, most who were actually trying to dispel critics..

the dimensions of the spherical fuel and oxidizer tanks allowed for researchers to calculate an exact volume ,and the mass of the scent stage was known to within few kilograms

it wasn't even close, the ascent stage of the lunar module was incapable of reaching orbit and would have required at least 34% and as much s 70% more fuel/oxidizer to do so, that according to three separate conclusions.

i dont have time to be sidetracked by this nonsense any longer as i have bigger fish to fry at the moment

fuck off you disgusting piece of lying shit

tell us about the efficiency of the hypergolic rocket engine, please

what i determined is if you give the engine an efficiency of 100% in the calculation (which re despite what most believe really very simple) the lem can reach orbital velocity with a little to spare..I actually went through these calculations on on glp with noted NASA propagandist jay windly before but dr astro removed the thread, long with another that proved the video/data uplink live from the moon broadcast was impossible within the nasa given bandwidth/rf energy parameters, again with a top nasa propagandist and expert..

No.
If you had been paying attention you would know that it proves that the hoaxtard CLAIM that these images could not have been made under the given circumstances is FALSE.

Like all hoaxtard claims...




Why are you a fekking retard?

Oh, you're a hoaxtard.
Never mind, retracting the question.




Why do you lie all the time?
WTF is wrong with you?


Show us your "calculation."
For once in your fucking life SHOW, don't TELL.



Such an eloquent and well reasoned rebuttal.
/s

You've only demonstrated that you can't form a an actual rebuttal, prolly because you're an ignorant idiot.

Like all hoaxtards...

Maybe, but how does that make the extra space for all of their other crap, you know, the cool car and the golf clubs?

No resistance. You can navigate around with puffs of air. It's no launching something on earth. It's also bigger than most sheds. Two car garage no.

I don’t see how a piece of semtex the size of a dime can blow your hand clear off.

They left all that stuff on the Moon.

The theoretical velocity needed by the LEM to return to lunar orbit is just a bit over a mile a second - easy enough to do with one stage in a vacuum and a fairly good bipropellant like aerozine and NTO.

Let alone hook back up to the module in space going over a thousand miles an hour....lol

Moon trips never happened, period.

Maybe because they weren't lifting a few hundred thousand tons to earths' ESCAPE VELOCITY" in "earth gravity"????

You gotta' be playing me.
Who ties your shoes?
I'm out.

Fake
Filmed on earth before the faked event took place.

We have NEVER walk-on the moon.

Wake up SHEEP they lie to us about EVERYTHING and always have.