Since he doesn't have the money anyway it doesn't really matter.
The money is there. I check it daily. It is neither green nor golden but black on white.
then prove it. You have repeated avoided requests to prove it.
You just have to calculate the amount of fuel (kg) required for a simple, manned space trip, and it is yours. I do not ask for more.
I cannot understand why all these experts of space travel cannot calculate the fuel required for a simple trip to the Moon.
You were given the answer multiple times on multiple forums (most notably on apollohoax.net), proved you didn't understand the basic concepts involved and then got caught changing the rules.
Noone has been able to tell me the fuel (kg) required to go to the Moon. It is a simple question. Is it 1 kg or 1 000 000 kg or 123456789 kg? Whatever it is, you must explain how you added it up or down. If you can add. 1 + 1 = ?.
I have a feeling you haven't got a clue? You just believe. You are a dreamer. Live in fantasy. Don't know anything. But it is not your fault. Blame someone else!
You have been given the proper formula and errors in yours have been pointed out previously.
You: The problem is to change direction and velocity, particularly to change velocity from, e.g. 2400 to 1500 m/s at arrival the Moon. According my calculations you need >46 000 kg of fuel to do it.
Answer given: And your calculations are dead wrong. The actual figures are as follows for Apollo 11 LOI #1 (first lunar orbit insertion burn):
Mass of CSM/LM at ignition: 96,061.6 lbm
Mass of CSM/LM at shutdown: 72,037.6 lbm
Propellant used: 96,061.6 - 72,037.6 = 24,024 lbm = 10,897.1 kg
Velocity at ignition: 8250 ft/s = 2514.6 m/s
Velocity at shutdown: 5479 ft/s = 1670 m/s
Velocity change = abs(8250 - 5479) = 2771 ft/s = 844.6 m/s
Now consider the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation:
delta-V = Ve * ln(mass_at_ignition/mass_at_shutdown)
We want to know if these numbers are reasonable for the rocket engine in use, so let's solve for Ve, the effective exhaust velocity of the rocket engine:
Ve = delta-V / ln(mass_at_ignition/mass_at_shutdown)
= 844.6 m/s / ln(1.33349)
= 2934.7 m/s
This corresponds to an Isp of 2934.7 / 9.80665 = 299 seconds. This is just under the nominal Isp for a large hypergolic rocket engine burning these propellants. (I expected a very small discrepancy because the altitude of the CSM/LM was not precisely constant during the burn.)
Note that the kinetic energy (in any coordinate frame) of the spacecraft doesn't even enter into it. Only the change in velocity matters, and it'll be the same in any inertial reference frame you choose. The kinetic energy won't be, and that alone should tell you that you've made a mistake by thinking it's important.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg7976#msg7976You have been given the proper equations, shown where your calculations are wrong, given links to the information you say NASA does not make available.
Why not share with us why the current understanding of orbital mechanics, aerodynamics, thermodynamics, Newton's laws, Kepler's laws or anything regarding space flight is wrong?
Why not show us why any of the below is wrong:
1.delta v= effective exhaust velocity * In (initial mass/mass after engine shut down)
2. The vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object: F = ma.
3. When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.
4. How about pick one thing from the link provided below and show us where it is wrong:
http://www.braeunig.us/space/propuls.htmYou seem not to like to back up your argument beyond calling people names, saying something can not be done, claiming information is not available and not recalling people answering your questions. Well I am giving you a simple challenge to prove any of the above wrong in the same manner as it is provided in the link just above. Which uses things like Newton's and Kepler's laws. Which are called laws because they have been rigorously tested and validated over generations numerous times prior to the existence of NASA.