Gene Cernan (Apollo 17)?????????????

As most of you will know, Gene Cernan was allegedly one of the last men on the moon on his Apollo 17 school project contraption made from cereal boxes.

Anyway, back to the issue at hand.
Cernan said that they took off from Earth, then got into orbit, the circled the Earth (about) one and a half times before heading to the moon.

I have a few issues with this that maybe some of you moon boffins can clear up.
We are told that satellites and the space station, are orbiting the Earth at speeds of 17,000 mph and such like and that Earth's gravity supposeldy tries to pull them back to Earth but their speed keeps them from doing so, as if they are on an invisible rope.

If that rope snaps, we know that on Earth, as in a swing ball tennis ball snapping from a string in circular motion, it will take a straight line trajectory. Fair enough I say, it's what does actually happen, on Earth. We know this as centripetal force, right?

Anyway, if Apollo 17 circled the Earth about one and a half times under the influence of this magical gravity and centripetal force, who cut the  magical string to allow this craft to change from a 17,000 mph orbit to sling shot out to the moon?

What possible force was applied to snap this invisible string?

Just to clarify, the invisible string has to snap. How does the craft manage this?

As most of you will know, Gene Cernan was allegedly one of the last men on the moon on his Apollo 17 school project contraption made from cereal boxes.

Anyway, back to the issue at hand.
Cernan said that they took off from Earth, then got into orbit, the circled the Earth (about) one and a half times before heading to the moon.

I have a few issues with this that maybe some of you moon boffins can clear up.
We are told that satellites and the space station, are orbiting the Earth at speeds of 17,000 mph and such like and that Earth's gravity supposeldy tries to pull them back to Earth but their speed keeps them from doing so, as if they are on an invisible rope.

If that rope snaps, we know that on Earth, as in a swing ball tennis ball snapping from a string in circular motion, it will take a straight line trajectory. Fair enough I say, it's what does actually happen, on Earth. We know this as centripetal force, right?

Anyway, if Apollo 17 circled the Earth about one and a half times under the influence of this magical gravity and centripetal force, who cut the  magical string to allow this craft to change from a 17,000 mph orbit to sling shot out to the moon?

What possible force was applied to snap this invisible string?

Just to clarify, the invisible string has to snap. How does the craft manage this?

It doesn't need to, and as far as we know, cannot, snap.

As the orbiting velocity is changed by burning fuel, you are kind of "catapulted" into a new orbit of a different shape. If you burn "forward" from a circular orbit(increasing the orbiting velocity), like they most likely did, you would get an elongated orbit with the closest point roughly where in space the burn happened, and the most distant point on the opposite side of orbit from where the burn happened.

It burns its engines away from the earth and towards the moon.   

Come on people you can do better than this.

Which bit don't you understand? All of it?

Well septic this is how the currie eaters sent their probe to mars, for less money than us lot spend one air strike in arab land. And good on them.

Several orbit raising operations were conducted from the Spacecraft Control Centre (SCC) at ISRO Telemetry, Tracking and Command Network (ISTRAC) at Peenya, Bangalore on 6, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 16 November by using the spacecraft's on-board propulsion system and a series of perigee burns. The aim was to gradually build up the necessary escape velocity (11.2 km/s) to break free from Earth's gravitational pull while minimising propellant use. The first three of the five planned orbit raising manoeuvres were completed with nominal results, while the fourth was only partially successful. However, a subsequent supplementary manoeuvre raised the orbit to the intended altitude aimed for in the original fourth manoeuvre. A total of six burns were completed while the spacecraft remained in Earth orbit, with a seventh burn conducted on 30 November to insert MOM into a heliocentric orbit for its transit to Mars.

Basic orbital mechanics that you cant understand.

It burns its engines away from the earth and towards the moon.   

Not really, if we assume a roughly circular starting orbit, then the burn is almost exactly horizontal(I mean perpendicular to the "down" direction to the ground). What you proposed would be incredibly fuel inefficient compared to tangent burn.

Come on people you can do better than this.

What do you mean? What in my description looks wrong to you? An honest question.

Well septic this is how the currie eaters sent their probe to mars, for less money than us lot spend one air strike in arab land. And good on them.

Several orbit raising operations were conducted from the Spacecraft Control Centre (SCC) at ISRO Telemetry, Tracking and Command Network (ISTRAC) at Peenya, Bangalore on 6, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 16 November by using the spacecraft's on-board propulsion system and a series of perigee burns. The aim was to gradually build up the necessary escape velocity (11.2 km/s) to break free from Earth's gravitational pull while minimising propellant use. The first three of the five planned orbit raising manoeuvres were completed with nominal results, while the fourth was only partially successful. However, a subsequent supplementary manoeuvre raised the orbit to the intended altitude aimed for in the original fourth manoeuvre. A total of six burns were completed while the spacecraft remained in Earth orbit, with a seventh burn conducted on 30 November to insert MOM into a heliocentric orbit for its transit to Mars.

Basic orbital mechanics that you cant understand.

Of course its basic orbital mechanics that we can't understand. It's meant to be like that for thet very reason. It stops the average Joe of questioning it all.

That being said, how about you explain it to me as if you are explaining it to a child, so you know that child grasps your every word. Try it and let's see where we get.
Make it your goal to stop me calling bullshit, let's see if you can do it.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on October 12, 2014, 03:31:28 AM

It burns its engines away from the earth and towards the moon.   

Not really, if we assume a roughly circular starting orbit, then the burn is almost exactly horizontal(I mean perpendicular to the "down" direction to the ground). What you proposed would be incredibly fuel inefficient compared to tangent burn.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 12, 2014, 03:39:55 AM

Come on people you can do better than this.

What do you mean? What in my description looks wrong to you? An honest question.

I'm willing to observe your explanation if you take me through it bit by bit in an easy to understand child like way.
This is for two reasons. It can allow me to not get bored with silly made up calculations and also allows those looking in to get a grasp of it.
That is no dig at you or anything, it's a serious ask of you.

The questions are as above in my OP.

Recon most kids would get this.

Orbit Altitude Changes

The most common type of in-plane maneuver changes the size and energy of an orbit, usually from a low-altitude parking orbit to a higher-altitude mission orbit such as a geosynchronous orbit. Because the initial and final orbits do not intersect, the maneuver requires a transfer orbit. Figure 4.11 represents a Hohmann transfer orbit. In this case, the transfer orbit's ellipse is tangent to both the initial and final orbits at the transfer orbit's perigee and apogee respectively. The orbits are tangential, so the velocity vectors are collinear, and the Hohmann transfer represents the most fuel-efficient transfer between two circular, coplanar orbits. When transferring from a smaller orbit to a larger orbit, the change in velocity is applied in the direction of motion; when transferring from a larger orbit to a smaller, the change of velocity is opposite to the direction of motion.

The total change in velocity required for the orbit transfer is the sum of the velocity changes at perigee and apogee of the transfer ellipse. Since the velocity vectors are collinear, the velocity changes are just the differences in magnitudes of the velocities in each orbit. If we know the initial and final orbits, rA and rB, we can calculate the total velocity change using the following equations:



Note that equations (4.59) and (4.60) are the same as equation (4.6), and equations (4.61) and (4.62) are the same as equation (4.45).

Click here for example problem #4.19
 Ordinarily we want to transfer a space vehicle using the smallest amount of energy, which usually leads to using a Hohmann transfer orbit. However, sometimes we may need to transfer a satellite between orbits in less time than that required to complete the Hohmann transfer. Figure 4.12 shows a faster transfer called the One-Tangent Burn. In this instance the transfer orbit is tangential to the initial orbit. It intersects the final orbit at an angle equal to the flight path angle of the transfer orbit at the point of intersection. An infinite number of transfer orbits are tangential to the initial orbit and intersect the final orbit at some angle. Thus, we may choose the transfer orbit by specifying the size of the transfer orbit, the angular change of the transfer, or the time required to complete the transfer. We can then define the transfer orbit and calculate the required velocities.

For example, we may specify the size of the transfer orbit, choosing any semi-major axis that is greater than the semi-major axis of the Hohmann transfer ellipse. Once we know the semi-major axis of the ellipse, atx, we can calculate the eccentricity, angular distance traveled in the transfer, the velocity change required for the transfer, and the time required to complete the transfer. We do this using equations (4.59) through (4.63) and (4.65) above, and the following equations:



Click here for example problem #4.20
Another option for changing the size of an orbit is to use electric propulsion to produce a constant low-thrust burn, which results in a spiral transfer. We can approximate the velocity change for this type of orbit transfer by



where the velocities are the circular velocities of the two orbits.

Orbit Plane Changes

To change the orientation of a satellite's orbital plane, typically the inclination, we must change the direction of the velocity vector. This maneuver requires a component of V to be perpendicular to the orbital plane and, therefore, perpendicular to the initial velocity vector. If the size of the orbit remains constant, the maneuver is called a simple plane change. We can find the required change in velocity by using the law of cosines. For the case in which Vf is equal to Vi, this expression reduces to



where Vi is the velocity before and after the burn, and  is the angle change required.

Click here for example problem #4.21
From equation (4.73) we see that if the angular change is equal to 60 degrees, the required change in velocity is equal to the current velocity. Plane changes are very expensive in terms of the required change in velocity and resulting propellant consumption. To minimize this, we should change the plane at a point where the velocity of the satellite is a minimum: at apogee for an elliptical orbit. In some cases, it may even be cheaper to boost the satellite into a higher orbit, change the orbit plane at apogee, and return the satellite to its original orbit.

Typically, orbital transfers require changes in both the size and the plane of the orbit, such as transferring from an inclined parking orbit at low altitude to a zero-inclination orbit at geosynchronous altitude. We can do this transfer in two steps: a Hohmann transfer to change the size of the orbit and a simple plane change to make the orbit equatorial. A more efficient method (less total change in velocity) would be to combine the plane change with the tangential burn at apogee of the transfer orbit. As we must change both the magnitude and direction of the velocity vector, we can find the required change in velocity using the law of cosines,



where Vi is the initial velocity, Vf is the final velocity, and  is the angle change required. Note that equation (4.74) is in the same form as equation (4.69).

Click here for example problem #4.22
As can be seen from equation (4.74), a small plane change can be combined with an altitude change for almost no cost in V or propellant. Consequently, in practice, geosynchronous transfer is done with a small plane change at perigee and most of the plane change at apogee.

Another option is to complete the maneuver using three burns. The first burn is a coplanar maneuver placing the satellite into a transfer orbit with an apogee much higher than the final orbit. When the satellite reaches apogee of the transfer orbit, a combined plane change maneuver is done. This places the satellite in a second transfer orbit that is coplanar with the final orbit and has a perigee altitude equal to the altitude of the final orbit. Finally, when the satellite reaches perigee of the second transfer orbit, another coplanar maneuver places the satellite into the final orbit. This three-burn maneuver may save propellant, but the propellant savings comes at the expense of the total time required to complete the maneuver.

When a plane change is used to modify inclination only, the magnitude of the angle change is simply the difference between the initial and final inclinations. In this case, the initial and final orbits share the same ascending and descending nodes. The plane change maneuver takes places when the space vehicle passes through one of these two nodes.

In some instances, however, a plane change is used to alter an orbit's longitude of ascending node in addition to the inclination. An example might be a maneuver to correct out-of-plane errors to make the orbits of two space vehicles coplanar in preparation for a rendezvous. If the orbital elements of the initial and final orbits are known, the plane change angle is determined by the vector dot product. If ii and i are the inclination and longitude of ascending node of the initial orbit, and if and f are the inclination and longitude of ascending node of the final orbit, then the angle between the orbital planes, , is given by



Click here for example problem #4.23
The plane change maneuver takes place at one of two nodes where the initial and final orbits intersect. The latitude and longitude of these nodes are determined by the vector cross product. The position of one of the two nodes is given by



Knowing the position of one node, the second node is simply



Click here for example problem #4.24
Orbit Rendezvous

Orbital transfer becomes more complicated when the object is to rendezvous with or intercept another object in space: both the interceptor and the target must arrive at the rendezvous point at the same time. This precision demands a phasing orbit to accomplish the maneuver. A phasing orbit is any orbit that results in the interceptor achieving the desired geometry relative to the target to initiate a Hohmann transfer. If the initial and final orbits are circular, coplanar, and of different sizes, then the phasing orbit is simply the initial interceptor orbit. The interceptor remains in the initial orbit until the relative motion between the interceptor and target results in the desired geometry. At that point, we would inject the interceptor into a Hohmann transfer orbit.

Launch Windows

Similar to the rendezvous problem is the launch-window problem, or determining the appropriate time to launch from the surface of the Earth into the desired orbital plane. Because the orbital plane is fixed in inertial space, the launch window is the time when the launch site on the surface of the Earth rotates through the orbital plane. The time of the launch depends on the launch site's latitude and longitude and the satellite orbit's inclination and longitude of ascending node.

Orbit Maintenance

Once in their mission orbits, many satellites need no additional orbit adjustment. On the other hand, mission requirements may demand that we maneuver the satellite to correct the orbital elements when perturbing forces have changed them. Two particular cases of note are satellites with repeating ground tracks and geostationary satellites.

After the mission of a satellite is complete, several options exist, depending on the orbit. We may allow low-altitude orbits to decay and reenter the atmosphere or use a velocity change to speed up the process. We may also boost satellites at all altitudes into benign orbits to reduce the probability of collision with active payloads, especially at synchronous altitudes.

V Budget

To an orbit designer, a space mission is a series of different orbits. For example, a satellite might be released in a low-Earth parking orbit, transferred to some mission orbit, go through a series of resphasings or alternate mission orbits, and then move to some final orbit at the end of its useful life. Each of these orbit changes requires energy. The V budget is traditionally used to account for this energy. It sums all the velocity changes required throughout the space mission life. In a broad sense the V budget represents the cost for each mission orbit scenario.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on October 12, 2014, 03:31:28 AM

It burns its engines away from the earth and towards the moon.   

Not really, if we assume a roughly circular starting orbit,

I'm keeping it as simple as possible so even a moron (scepti) can grasp it.

Nice try, Guv. Now read my questions again about Gene Cernan and how they sling shot to the moon, not change orbit from parking and all the rest of the shite.

Also, don't come out with a copy and paste lump of crap and pretend that kids can understand it, you're talking to me who doesn't take no shit, so either explain what I asked in terms a child ...an ordinary child...one that does not have a high foreheaded father or mother...one who is just an ordinary child at school that want to know the simplest form of explanation from your mind, not a copy and paste heap of utter rubbish.

If you can't manage this or refuse to try and use easy explanations, or decide you feel like going into a rage, don't bother, just let someone else have a go, if they so wish.

Now, my questions are at the top of the topic. Read them and explain how Gene Cernan managed to get his craft out of this one and a half times orbit around your rotating globe, to slingshot towards the moon, 240,000 miles away, allegedly.

The command module had a nozzle on it's arse end and a few little retro booster things, so tell me how this was achieved to break this centripetal string breaking slingshot.

Quote from: Macpie on October 12, 2014, 04:32:32 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on October 12, 2014, 03:31:28 AM

It burns its engines away from the earth and towards the moon.   

Not really, if we assume a roughly circular starting orbit,

I'm keeping it as simple as possible so even a moron (scepti) can grasp it.

What's the matter, are you sweating? 

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on October 12, 2014, 05:12:19 AM

Quote from: Macpie on October 12, 2014, 04:32:32 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on October 12, 2014, 03:31:28 AM

It burns its engines away from the earth and towards the moon.   

Not really, if we assume a roughly circular starting orbit,

I'm keeping it as simple as possible so even a moron (scepti) can grasp it.

What's the matter, are you sweating? 

I think you are confusing us with people who give a fuck.

scepti, you do realise that you are the forum village idiot, don't you?  People like to watch you mess around making a fool of yourself, but eventually get bored and go back to doing more worthwhile things.

pretend that kids can understand it

Kids can understand it, you can't.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 12, 2014, 05:19:31 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on October 12, 2014, 05:12:19 AM

Quote from: Macpie on October 12, 2014, 04:32:32 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on October 12, 2014, 03:31:28 AM

It burns its engines away from the earth and towards the moon.   

Not really, if we assume a roughly circular starting orbit,

I'm keeping it as simple as possible so even a moron (scepti) can grasp it.

What's the matter, are you sweating? 

I think you are confusing us with people who give a fuck.

scepti, you do realise that you are the forum village idiot, don't you?  People like to watch you mess around making a fool of yourself, but eventually get bored and go back to doing more worthwhile things.

Quote

pretend that kids can understand it

Kids can understand it, you can't.

Ok , Crabby, do you have anything else to add? 

That was a real good explanation of how to move from an earth orbit to a trans lunar orbit. Did you not get it. That is dead easy stuff to understand as in if you go round a corner too fast you go straight ahead, break more than a string. Orbital motion is not hard to get your head around if you think about it. Shit load better to read a bit than to freeze your tits off near the south pole as you have done. Did the roaring forties try to blow off too south america. Brave people like you that explore down there have my total respect. Back on subject if you stir your coffee too fast some of it will escape the cup. Is that simple enough for you.   

That was a real good explanation of how to move from an earth orbit to a trans lunar orbit. Did you not get it. That is dead easy stuff to understand as in if you go round a corner too fast you go straight ahead, break more than a string. Orbital motion is not hard to get your head around if you think about it. Shit load better to read a bit than to freeze your tits off near the south pole as you have done. Did the roaring forties try to blow off too south america. Brave people like you that explore down there have my total respect. Back on subject if you stir your coffee too fast some of it will escape the cup. Is that simple enough for you.   

Yes that's fine but it doesn't answer the real question. I may have to diagram this to let you undersstand it - but first, let's grasp a little bit of stuff.

Let's use your coffee analogy for Gene Cernan and crew.

Ok, they are orbiting around the coffee cup with a normal stir and now they want out of that cup so they know the only way to do that is for them to crank that spoon up a bit so it stirs faster to throw them out of the cup, right?

The issue from here on is, what happens after they are thrown out of the coffee cup?
Well, if we use the tiled wall as the trajectory of them flying out of the coffee cup, we will notice they are smacked into it, which is fair enough.

The thing is, they have broke free from the coffee holding them in that cup but in space (assuming we go by mainstream), it means that some kind of power has to catapult them to do the same thing. Now when I say catapult, I mean catapult - or sling shot, whichever way you want it.
The problem is they are in space being whirled around under no propulsion, meaning they do not have a spoon to stir them into the catapulted coffee from the coffee cup as their engines are switched off because they are already in orbit doing 17,000 mph.

Now, assuming they re-fire those engines, those engines have to create enough kick to wallop them into further space or basically into a straight path towards the moon which means they do not orbit anymore, as they are heading towards the so called moon.

Not only that but the minor problem of the Earth moving away from them at 67,000 mph as it ventures around the sun as they are heading towards the moon which is also moving at a few thousand mph.

Are we asked to believe that it's engines can not only work in firing it forward but can also keep it orbiting the Earth as it does so, plus catch the moons trajectory, whilst also still trying to overcome Earth's gravitational pull but also sauntering through space, effortlessly, then managing to also slow down enough (somehow) to actually orbit the moon with supposed 1/6th gravity and replaying the centripetal game again, except this time, somehow it just happens to have the right speed around the moon so as not to be dragged in or slingshot away - then to undock a contraption which then has to slow down so it can about turn and drop down to the moon, throttling down from 10,000 lbs of pressure to 3000lbs of pressure for a smooth landing, whilst this command module just keeps on orbiting the moon.

Then 72 hours later when Cernan and sidekick are ready to leave, they ignite another engine which is allegedly hypergolic fuel, meaning it's a two fuel mix that ignites upon mixing, which somehow manages to eject it's thrusting hot gases onto the descent engine below it, then pops off into the moon none existant atmosphere, some 60 miles up, then somehow manages to propel itself into a perfect orbit with the command module, about turn itself and connect with it, to then slingshot once more onto a trajectory towards Earth - to then hit Earth's atmosphere at an angle, fly through it whilst buring like a bastard and somehow slowing down enough to release parachutes that allow it to drop in the ocean just half a mile or so from waiting ships and helicopters.

You see, there's many problems with all of this and I've added many in and will add some more - but think of this.

Even after getting through this atmospheric window at an angle, it starts to burn up, or shall I say, it's bottom of it's cone, glows like an ember.
Weirdly though - and I wonder if anyone can explain this. Felix Baumgartner supposedly managed to free fall in a near vacuum at allegedly 28 miles, at 800 mph (approx - allegedly) and yet above this we have a cone coming in that somehow starts to glow whilst Felix id just falling through the vacuum.

Oh, I know - Felix isn't falling through the vacuum at thousands of mph...fair enough but it's a vacuum at 28 miles up, apparently, so where's the friction above that? where's the friction at 28 miles up?

How can the cone deploy a parachute after slowing down enough. How did it brake?
How did the cone manage to not only be stable whilst hitting some kind of atmosphere in a vacuum to slow it down enough to allow those parachutes to arrest the weight of it without the para-cord just disintegrating?

I've asked a lot of questions there. They're mainly for reference as this topic goes on, so feel free to stick to one at a time of you want or attempt to answer all if you feel you can.


It should be blatantly obvious as to why people ask questions on this stuff, so anyone that comes out with the old, " oh you're a moron" or whatever, save your typing fingers, it doesn't work and never will. I just thought I'd get that in. 

You don't understand, we get it.

You don't understand, we get it.

Of course you get it. You're plugged into the grid and programmed. It's just 1's and 0's to you, in patterns ready for recital without thought.
Carry on though, crabby.

Here is a simplified video on how to get to the moon. Hope this helps.
Skip to 7 minutes if you want.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Nah, that doesn't help at all.

Don't ask question if you don't want answers.

Don't ask question if you don't want answers.

Well don't put up silly cartoons that don't explain anything other than clap trap.

Quote from: sokarul on October 12, 2014, 10:01:10 AM

Don't ask question if you don't want answers.

Well don't put up silly cartoons that don't explain anything other than clap trap.

Claptrap is from Boarderlands, the video is from Kerbal Space Program.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 12, 2014, 10:07:04 AM

Quote from: sokarul on October 12, 2014, 10:01:10 AM

Don't ask question if you don't want answers.

Well don't put up silly cartoons that don't explain anything other than clap trap.

Claptrap is from Boarderlands, the video is from Kerbal Space Program.

Well it's a good little cartoon for the fantasists but the kermit space program doesn't explain what I'm after.

Quote from: sokarul on October 12, 2014, 10:09:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 12, 2014, 10:07:04 AM

Quote from: sokarul on October 12, 2014, 10:01:10 AM

Don't ask question if you don't want answers.

Well don't put up silly cartoons that don't explain anything other than clap trap.

Claptrap is from Boarderlands, the video is from Kerbal Space Program.

Well it's a good little cartoon for the fantasists but the kermit space program doesn't explain what I'm after.

The answer you are looking for is retrograde and prograde. To make your orbit smaller you fire your engines in retrograde to slow you down. To make your orbit bigger you fire your engines in prograde. If you make your velocity fast enough you will hit escape velocity. Then you can slow your velocity down to be recaptured, in this case, by the moon. Quite a simple concept.

Just to clarify, the invisible string has to snap. How does the craft manage this?

Scepti, I think that you're taking the string analogy too literally. 

Quote from: sokarul on October 12, 2014, 10:09:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 12, 2014, 10:07:04 AM

Quote from: sokarul on October 12, 2014, 10:01:10 AM

Don't ask question if you don't want answers.

Well don't put up silly cartoons that don't explain anything other than clap trap.

Claptrap is from Boarderlands, the video is from Kerbal Space Program.

Well it's a good little cartoon for the fantasists but the kermit space program doesn't explain what I'm after.

What is it you don't understand about rockets, satellites and space travel?  Just because you don't understand something does not mean it does not exist.

Of course its basic orbital mechanics that we can't understand.

He said "you", not "we". 

What is it you don't understand about rockets, satellites and space travel? 

In Septic's case, all of it.  He can't, won't, or does, but pretends he doesn't.

Yes that's fine but it doesn't answer the real question. I may have to diagram this to let you undersstand it - but first, let's grasp a little bit of stuff.

I'm sure we'd like to see your diagram.

Now, assuming they re-fire those engines, those engines have to create enough kick to wallop them into further space or basically into a straight path towards the moon which means they do not orbit anymore, as they are heading towards the so called moon.

Not only that but the minor problem of the Earth moving away from them at 67,000 mph as it ventures around the sun as they are heading towards the moon which is also moving at a few thousand mph.

Are we asked to believe that it's engines can not only work in firing it forward but can also keep it orbiting the Earth as it does so, plus catch the moons trajectory, whilst also still trying to overcome Earth's gravitational pull but also sauntering through space, effortlessly, then managing to also slow down enough (somehow) to actually orbit the moon with supposed 1/6th gravity and replaying the centripetal game again, except this time, somehow it just happens to have the right speed around the moon so as not to be dragged in or slingshot away - then to undock a contraption which then has to slow down so it can about turn and drop down to the moon, throttling down from 10,000 lbs of pressure to 3000lbs of pressure for a smooth landing, whilst this command module just keeps on orbiting the moon.

Then 72 hours later when Cernan and sidekick are ready to leave, they ignite another engine which is allegedly hypergolic fuel, meaning it's a two fuel mix that ignites upon mixing, which somehow manages to eject it's thrusting hot gases onto the descent engine below it, then pops off into the moon none existant atmosphere, some 60 miles up, then somehow manages to propel itself into a perfect orbit with the command module, about turn itself and connect with it, to then slingshot once more onto a trajectory towards Earth - to then hit Earth's atmosphere at an angle, fly through it whilst buring like a bastard and somehow slowing down enough to release parachutes that allow it to drop in the ocean just half a mile or so from waiting ships and helicopters.

Taking these in manageable chunks...

"Now, assuming they re-fire those engines, those engines have to create enough kick to wallop them into further space"

They're designed to produce the thrust needed to do the job. Rocket design, while not trivial, is well understood. This is an engineering problem that can be solved.

"or basically into a straight path towards the moon"

It isn't a straight path; it's a very elongated ellipse.

"which means they do not orbit anymore, as they are heading towards the so called moon."

No, they are still on orbit around the Earth, just a different orbit - one with a much higher apogee (farthest point from earth)  than before the engine burn.

"Not only that but the minor problem of the Earth moving away from them at 67,000 mph as it ventures around the sun as they are heading towards the moon which is also moving at a few thousand mph."

No, they are still in orbit around the Earth (see above), so the Earth isn't "moving away from them" at its orbital velocity about the Sun.

The new orbit has been designed so that it passes near where the Moon will be at the time they approach apogee of the long ellipse. It works like "leading" a moving target; you aim where the target is going to be at the time your shot gets there, not where the target is when you shoot. Since the motions of the spacecraft and moon are predictable, this can be done.

"Are we asked to believe that it's engines can not only work in firing it forward but can also keep it orbiting the Earth as it does so, plus catch the moons trajectory, whilst also still trying to overcome Earth's gravitational pull but also sauntering through space, effortlessly, then managing to also slow down enough (somehow) to actually orbit the moon with supposed 1/6th gravity and replaying the centripetal game again, except this time, somehow it just happens to have the right speed around the moon so as not to be dragged in or slingshot away - then to undock a contraption which then has to slow down so it can about turn and drop down to the moon, throttling down from 10,000 lbs of pressure to 3000lbs of pressure for a smooth landing, whilst this command module just keeps on orbiting the moon."

Break this long run-on sentence into things that can be answered. 144 words, lots of commas, one period. Whew!

Are we asked to believe:
 1) that it's engines can not only work in firing it forward but can also keep it orbiting the Earth as it does so
A) As described above, yes.
 2) plus catch the moons trajectory
A) See the part about "leading a moving target" above.
 3) whilst also still trying to overcome Earth's gravitational pull
A) Enough energy has been added to the trajectory to put its apogee near the Moon's orbit. If the Moon weren't there and nothing else was done, they would "fall back" toward the Earth in their highly-eccentric elliptical orbit.
 4) but also sauntering through space, effortlessly
A) Basically, yes. Sometimes there was a need for a "mid-course correction" because the initial burn to get into the trans-lunar orbit may not have been perfect, and to correct for small perturbations due to things that couldn't be predicted perfectly, but these were just small "nudges" needed to correct for small differences in the actual and desired trajectories. Otherwise, since it's a ballistic trajectory it requires no additional energy to maintain it.
 5) then managing to also slow down enough (somehow) to actually orbit the moon with supposed 1/6th gravity
A) They fire the engine again, this time in a direction that opposes the trajectory, by a carefully calculated amount so they become "captured" into lunar orbit. The gravitational field of the Moon was well-enough known that the required burn could be determined.
 6) replaying the centripetal game again, except this time, somehow it just happens to have the right speed around the moon so as not to be dragged in or slingshot away
A) See the answer to 5) above.
 7) then to undock a contraption
A) This had been done many times before then. Using snarky words like "contraption" make you look like a troll, BTW.
 8 ) which then has to slow down so it can about turn and drop down to the moon
A) The LM has its own rocket engines and steering jets (actually small rocket engines) and is designed to do exactly this.
 9) throttling down from 10,000 lbs of pressure to 3000lbs of pressure
A) It's actually "thrust", not "pressure", but sure, why not? The LM Descent Stage motor was designed so it could be controlled.
10) for a smooth landing
A) Why would they plan for any other kind if they had the equipment and training to accomplish a smooth one?
11) whilst this command module just keeps on orbiting the moon
A) It's still in lunar orbit. Why wouldn't it continue to do so. Ronald E. Evans was the Command Module pilot.

"Then 72 hours later when Cernan and sidekick are ready to leave, they ignite another engine which is allegedly hypergolic fuel, meaning it's a two fuel mix that ignites upon mixing, which somehow manages to eject it's thrusting hot gases onto the descent engine below it, then pops off into the moon none existant atmosphere, some 60 miles up, then somehow manages to propel itself into a perfect orbit with the command module, about turn itself and connect with it, to then slingshot once more onto a trajectory towards Earth - to then hit Earth's atmosphere at an angle, fly through it whilst buring like a bastard and somehow slowing down enough to release parachutes that allow it to drop in the ocean just half a mile or so from waiting ships and helicopters."

Only 134 words in one sentence this time.

12) Then 72 hours later when Cernan and sidekick are ready to leave, they ignite another engine
A) Yes. The LM Ascent Stage was designed with an engine that could lift it off the Moon. The "sidekick" was Harrison Schmitt, a geologist.
13) which is allegedly hypergolic fuel, meaning it's a two fuel mix that ignites upon mixing,
A) Yes. By doing this, they don't need a separate ignition system. It makes the design simpler, and simpler is better if it can do the job.
14) which somehow manages to eject it's thrusting hot gases onto the descent engine below it,
A) The hot gases are already in the engine, but rocket engine design is well understood, so this is nothing more than an engineering problem.
15) then pops off into the moon none existant atmosphere, some 60 miles up,
A) Yes. Lack of an atmosphere makes this part easier. The ascent system was designed to take the LM Ascent Stage to the needed altitude.
16) then somehow manages to propel itself into a perfect orbit with the command module,
A) Yes. The LM Ascent Stage has steering thrusters to adjust the trajectory as needed. The system was carefully designed to do exactly that.
17) about turn itself and connect with it,
A) Yes. The LM Ascent Stage can be maneuvered. This type of maneuver had been accomplished many times and was practiced many more times.
18 ) to then slingshot once more onto a trajectory towards Earth -
A) Yes. Same principle as the earlier orbit change to intersect with the Moon.
19) to then hit Earth's atmosphere at an angle,
A) Yes. They don't want to come in too steeply or too shallow. The "window" of acceptable angles was carefully determined in advance.
20) fly through it whilst buring like a bastard
A) Yes. The heat shield was designed to 'ablate' (technically, not "burn") at a controlled rate, removing energy from the falling spacecraft in the process.
21) and somehow slowing down enough to release parachutes
A) Yes. Most of the energy was used in ablating the heat shield and heating the atmosphere, causing the speed to drop.
22) that allow it to drop in the ocean just half a mile or so from waiting ships and helicopters.
A) I'll take your word for it that they landed that close to the recovery ship. Apollo re-entries weren't always that close, but close enough that the waiting ships and helicopters could reach them quickly.

Each of the issues raised was broken down into systems of solvable engineering and astrodynamic problems, so the short answer to the overall question is "yes". This is how enormously complex projects are approached in the real world; break each big problem (and this certainly qualifies) into smaller problems (and those into smaller problems yet, etc.) that can be solved. No one said this was easy, but NASA hired very competent scientists and engineers who were able to tackle the myriad of small problems needed to accomplish the big one.

"You see, there's many problems with all of this and I've added many in and will add some more - but think of this."

I hope the above helped.

"Even after getting through this atmospheric window at an angle, it starts to burn up, or shall I say, it's bottom of it's cone, glows like an ember.
Weirdly though - and I wonder if anyone can explain this. Felix Baumgartner supposedly managed to free fall in a near vacuum at allegedly 28 miles, at 800 mph (approx - allegedly) and yet above this we have a cone coming in that somehow starts to glow whilst Felix id just falling through the vacuum."

You had the answer all along...  a "near vacuum" isn't a vacuum. There obviously was enough air up there to buoy his balloon, right?

"Oh, I know - Felix isn't falling through the vacuum at thousands of mph...fair enough but it's a vacuum at 28 miles up, apparently, so where's the friction above that? where's the friction at 28 miles up?"

As before, it's not a vacuum, and the friction is there. It's really there - and has to be carefully managed - if you're moving fast enough, like in a re-entering spacecraft .

"How can the cone deploy a parachute after slowing down enough. How did it brake?"

The parachute system was designed so it could be deployed; this is simply another engineering problem among many. Ablation and heating the thin air, as already answered.

"How did the cone manage to not only be stable whilst hitting some kind of atmosphere in a vacuum to slow it down enough to allow those parachutes to arrest the weight of it without the para-cord just disintegrating?"

"Hitting [an] atmosphere" is not a really accurate description of what actually happens. The atmosphere never really "ends" or "begins" at some defined distance; it just gets thinner and thinner until it becomes indistinguishable from the solar wind and other sparse particles in the inner solar system. The question about how it slowed down enough to deploy parachutes has already been asked and answered several times.

I've asked a lot of questions there. They're mainly for reference as this topic goes on, so feel free to stick to one at a time of you want or attempt to answer all if you feel you can.

It should be blatantly obvious as to why people ask questions on this stuff, so anyone that comes out with the old, " oh you're a moron" or whatever, save your typing fingers, it doesn't work and never will. I just thought I'd get that in. 

Asking questions about this stuff is a good thing. Simply ignoring the answers given if they aren't what you want to hear is not.

Are you willing to consider any answers given, or are you going to simply blow them off as "claptrap" and "bullshit" without even considering what they say? If it's the latter, then, yes, you're a moron, no matter what you want to think.

I think most of us enjoy answering the questions asked here because it gives a chance to put counter information on a site that's devoted to the (to us, impractical) idea that the Earth is flat. When someone cruises by, they have a chance to evaluate the shortcomings of the arguments put forth (either way) rather than seeing things like "We've never been in space. It's impossible." with no rebuttal. What you do with the answers is, of course, entirely up to you. Ideally, if you think an answer an answer is wrong, you'll point out why you think so and, if possible, explain what you think is right. If your only response is the old "that's bullshit", then save your typing fingers. It doesn't work and only makes you look ignorant.  Fair enough?