# I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge

• 13156 Replies
• 823743 Views

#### Heiwa

• 8880
• I have been around a long time.
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11220 on: November 19, 2019, 07:24:30 AM »
When something drops down on Earth, it is straight vertically down like an apple dropping from a tree. That is gravity. Just drop something yourself, and you understand. But do not drop it on your toes.
But not when a NASA spacecraft drops down on Earth from the Moon.
What happens if you throw an apple? 🤔
Thanks for asking. If you throw it straight up, it will drop straight down due gravity, so step aside to avoid getting hit. If you through it sideways, it will hit ground away from you due to gravity.

So a NASA spacecraft dropping down from the Moon will not drop straight down! No, it will pass the Earth at the top of the atmosphere - horizontal with ground but at high altitude - and then turn sideways - gravity.

Reason is that gravity only starts to work at the top of the atmosphere according NASA. And MIT. But it will cost you \$1M to become a PhD at MIT.

?

#### frenat

• 3628
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11221 on: November 19, 2019, 09:19:50 AM »
Anything dropping from the Moon down on the Earth has entry angle 90°, i.e. straight down and cannot bounce on thin air. The orbit is a straight line!
My analysis of the Apollo11 hoax is at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm , i.e. it was a film made at Hollywood.

This is my incorrectual (!) opinion
hm.
As this didn't happen we are told that the Apollo module, one way or another, entered the atmosphere at 120 000 m altitude almost horizontally/tangentially or with little (4-5°) inclination downwards and also in the right direction forward and time at location B. How this could happen is not clear. You would expect Earth gravity to attract the CM to the centre of Earth, so it arrives more vertically at the upper atmosphere. But it didn't happen. The CM arrived more or less horizontally to skim on the upper atmosphere.

What am I supposed to make of this?  Is this your explanation of why return trip had to be a 90° straight down drop?  Because you don't realize that that even within gravity you are allowed to travel horizontally?  Please explain what you mean by this.
Thanks for asking. When something drops down on Earth, it is straight vertically down like an apple dropping from a tree. That is gravity. Just drop something yourself, and you understand. But do not drop it on your toes.
But not when a NASA spacecraft drops down on Earth from the Moon. Then it misses the Earth completely - no gravity attraction - and only touches, tangentially, the outer side of the Earth thin atmosphere and then - gravity? - turns down/inwards gliding sideways, almost horizontally through it to land - like ain airplane. Very strange but it is astro/aeronautics - a science of traveling in the interface atmosphere/vacuum space.
If your religion includes angels flying around a heaven, maybe your religious leader can enlighten you better?
Heiwa proving AGAIN he doesn't understand how orbits work or how objects can have horizontal velocity AND vertical velocity.

#### Yes

• 604
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11222 on: November 19, 2019, 09:21:46 AM »
If you through it sideways, it will hit ground away from you due to gravity.
So it won't come 90° straight down? 🤔
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

#### Heiwa

• 8880
• I have been around a long time.
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11223 on: November 19, 2019, 09:42:43 AM »
If you through it sideways, it will hit ground away from you due to gravity.
So it won't come 90° straight down? 🤔
Yes, NASA spacecrafts come straight 0° down from the Moon at the top of Earth's atmosphere, i.e. just touching it, ... and then they turn 90° at 11 000 m/s speed and land in the water.

#### NotSoSkeptical

• 6407
• HAL 9000 is my friend.
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11224 on: November 19, 2019, 10:18:25 AM »
If you through it sideways, it will hit ground away from you due to gravity.
So it won't come 90° straight down? 🤔
Yes, NASA spacecrafts come straight 0° down from the Moon at the top of Earth's atmosphere, i.e. just touching it, ... and then they turn 90° at 11 000 m/s speed and land in the water.

You act like you can't make a 90° turn at speed.  The faster you are moving the larger the turn radius.  Still makes a 90° turn.
Eternal rest grant to him, O Lord; and let light perpetual shine upon him. May his soul, and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.

RAB.

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 40879
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11225 on: November 19, 2019, 10:47:39 AM »
When something drops down on Earth, it is straight vertically down like an apple dropping from a tree. That is gravity. Just drop something yourself, and you understand. But do not drop it on your toes.
But not when a NASA spacecraft drops down on Earth from the Moon. Then it misses the Earth completely - no gravity attraction - and only touches, tangentially, the outer side of the Earth thin atmosphere and then - gravity? - turns down/inwards gliding sideways, almost horizontally through it to land - like ain airplane. Very strange but it is astro/aeronautics - a science of traveling in the interface atmosphere/vacuum space.

Anders, I think that you need a refresher on how gravity works:
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

#### Heiwa

• 8880
• I have been around a long time.
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11226 on: November 19, 2019, 11:03:11 AM »
When something drops down on Earth, it is straight vertically down like an apple dropping from a tree. That is gravity. Just drop something yourself, and you understand. But do not drop it on your toes.
But not when a NASA spacecraft drops down on Earth from the Moon. Then it misses the Earth completely - no gravity attraction - and only touches, tangentially, the outer side of the Earth thin atmosphere and then - gravity? - turns down/inwards gliding sideways, almost horizontally through it to land - like ain airplane. Very strange but it is astro/aeronautics - a science of traveling in the interface atmosphere/vacuum space.

Anders, I think that you need a refresher on how gravity works:

LOL
http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm is much better.

#### Yes

• 604
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11227 on: November 19, 2019, 11:10:41 AM »
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

#### Shifter

• 16399
• Blind to the truth
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11228 on: November 19, 2019, 11:33:06 AM »

Your self portrait is wrong. Your head should be stuck up someplace else. Try to guess where
A Future Is Not Given To You. It Is Something You Must Take For Yourself

#### NotSoSkeptical

• 6407
• HAL 9000 is my friend.
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11229 on: November 19, 2019, 11:40:11 AM »

Your self portrait is wrong. Your head should be stuck up someplace else. Try to guess where

Up his ASI?
Eternal rest grant to him, O Lord; and let light perpetual shine upon him. May his soul, and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.

RAB.

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11230 on: November 19, 2019, 12:48:18 PM »
Yes, NASA spacecrafts come straight 0° down from the Moon at the top of Earth's atmosphere, i.e. just touching it, ... and then they turn 90° at 11 000 m/s speed and land in the water.
What total utter trash and YOU know it! A ship might turn through 90° at speed (but not very well) but a spacecraft does not!

Have you forgotten this:
The return orbit is NOT a straight line! Whatever gave you that idea.

Why would any spacecraft drop "from the Moon down on the Earth" with an "entry angle 90°, i.e. straight down"? when it can just as easily follow a hear elliptical trajectory as in here:

From the source of all wisdom on space thingos NASA !
Does that look like coming "straight 0° down from the Moon at the top of Earth's atmosphere, i.e. just touching it, ... and then they turn 90°"?

Mind you, if you and Shifter are typical of Lunar Landing Deniers I'm more than ever convinced that they really happened - not that I had any doubts.
If either of you showed the slightest understanding of the issues involved it might be different. This, of course, goes for most but not all Lunar Landing Deniers.

Trying to debate anything with you is like playing Pigeon chess..

#### Shifter

• 16399
• Blind to the truth
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11231 on: November 19, 2019, 02:38:26 PM »
Looks like an inefficient way to get there. If fuel is such a precious commodity and weighs so much why do loops around the earth AND Moon? Makes more sense to go from point A to point B.that is an angle directly to where you want to land. No fuss.

A Future Is Not Given To You. It Is Something You Must Take For Yourself

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11232 on: November 19, 2019, 02:53:50 PM »
Looks like an inefficient way to get there.
In other words, like Heiwa you know nothing about orbital mechanics, got that!
Though I suspect that in reality you understand this stuff but pretend not to so you prop up your ignorant mates .

Quote from: Shifter
If fuel is such a precious commodity and weighs so much why do loops around the earth AND Moon? Makes more sense to go from point A to point B.that is an angle directly to where you want to land. No fuss.
Fuel is "a precious commodity and weighs so much" and that is "why they do loops around the earth AND Moon"!
"Freefall trajectories" as those almost are (apart from minor mid-course corrections) use no fuel.

How much fuel would have to be expended to drop a 100 kg concrete block on your head? (Pity the poor concret-block - it would crumble on hitting that!)

#### Shifter

• 16399
• Blind to the truth
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11233 on: November 19, 2019, 03:10:46 PM »
Looks like an inefficient way to get there.
In other words, like Heiwa you know nothing about orbital mechanics, got that!
Though I suspect that in reality you understand this stuff but pretend not to so you prop up your ignorant mates .

Quote from: Shifter
If fuel is such a precious commodity and weighs so much why do loops around the earth AND Moon? Makes more sense to go from point A to point B.that is an angle directly to where you want to land. No fuss.
Fuel is "a precious commodity and weighs so much" and that is "why they do loops around the earth AND Moon"!
"Freefall trajectories" as those almost are (apart from minor mid-course corrections) use no fuel.

How much fuel would have to be expended to drop a 100 kg concrete block on your head? (Pity the poor concret-block - it would crumble on hitting that!)

It would take a few joules of energy that's for sure. 100kg of concrete weighs a tonne!
A Future Is Not Given To You. It Is Something You Must Take For Yourself

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 40879
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11234 on: November 19, 2019, 03:35:07 PM »
Looks like an inefficient way to get there. If fuel is such a precious commodity and weighs so much why do loops around the earth AND Moon? Makes more sense to go from point A to point B.that is an angle directly to where you want to land. No fuss.
You seem to be under the bizarre impression that space flight should make sense to average people.  As I've said a number of times before, there's a reason why the term "rocket science" is used to describe something that's very difficult or complicated.

The mechanics behind space flight is quite counterintuitive and doesn't make sense to most people.  However, that doesn't make it wrong or inefficient.  It just means that it's a lot harder than it looks and many of your preconceptions are wrong.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11235 on: November 19, 2019, 04:41:04 PM »
It would take a few joules of energy that's for sure. 100kg of concrete weighs a tonne!
But if one poor Shifter were standing near the wall
and one big boulder were to accidentally fall
there'd be one less Shifter standing in the Mall!

Insignificant energy needed.
I'm innocent! I didn't push it, honest .

#### Shifter

• 16399
• Blind to the truth
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11236 on: November 19, 2019, 08:07:00 PM »
It would take a few joules of energy that's for sure. 100kg of concrete weighs a tonne!
But if one poor Shifter were standing near the wall
and one big boulder were to accidentally fall
there'd be one less Shifter standing in the Mall!

Insignificant energy needed.
I'm innocent! I didn't push it, honest .

Can we please not expend unnecessary energy? It has a measurable albiet infinitesimal impact on on the timing of the heat death of the universe. Thanks
A Future Is Not Given To You. It Is Something You Must Take For Yourself

#### Heiwa

• 8880
• I have been around a long time.
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11237 on: November 19, 2019, 09:44:47 PM »

The mechanics behind space flight is quite counterintuitive and doesn't make sense to most people.  However, that doesn't make it wrong or inefficient.  It just means that it's a lot harder than it looks and many of your preconceptions are wrong.

So it may be, but topic is how much fuel is needed for a trip to the Moon and back to Earth and how to do it, i.e. the use of the fuel.
It seems all agree that you do not need any fuel at all for the return leg from out of Moon orbit/gravity dropping straight back on Earth, i.e. you just go faster and faster while dropping straight back. So part of the Challenge is to explain how to land on Earth after arriving at the top of the atmosphere at >11 000 m/s speed and 110 000 m altitude. It seems it takes 10 seconds if you go vertically straight ... and do not brake.
AHA - you don't go straight down, you glide into the atmosphere sideways, almost horizontally while braking. But how do you that? And how do you then brake? Air resistance? But there is no air at the top of the atmosphere at 110 000 m altitude. And even at 11 000 m altitude the air is quite thin and does not provide much friction. People die at 11 000 m altitude of suffocation. Sorry Markjo - I believe you don't know anything about astro/aeronautics taught at MIT selling PhD's at \$1M.

#### Shifter

• 16399
• Blind to the truth
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11238 on: November 19, 2019, 10:39:51 PM »

The mechanics behind space flight is quite counterintuitive and doesn't make sense to most people.  However, that doesn't make it wrong or inefficient.  It just means that it's a lot harder than it looks and many of your preconceptions are wrong.

So it may be, but topic is how much fuel is needed for a trip to the Moon and back to Earth and how to do it, i.e. the use of the fuel.
It seems all agree that you do not need any fuel at all for the return leg from out of Moon orbit/gravity dropping straight back on Earth, i.e. you just go faster and faster while dropping straight back. So part of the Challenge is to explain how to land on Earth after arriving at the top of the atmosphere at >11 000 m/s speed and 110 000 m altitude. It seems it takes 10 seconds if you go vertically straight ... and do not brake.
AHA - you don't go straight down, you glide into the atmosphere sideways, almost horizontally while braking. But how do you that? And how do you then brake? Air resistance? But there is no air at the top of the atmosphere at 110 000 m altitude. And even at 11 000 m altitude the air is quite thin and does not provide much friction. People die at 11 000 m altitude of suffocation. Sorry Markjo - I believe you don't know anything about astro/aeronautics taught at MIT selling PhD's at \$1M.

Thd only way to brake would be by using more fuel. Fuel you couldn't possibly have due to the sheer weight required to make over half a million kilometre round trip at velocities high enough to escape the gravitational pull of the planet.

So the argument is moot. Until we come up with more efficient fuels such as anti matter mankihd will never step foot on another celestial body let alone return from such an adventure.
A Future Is Not Given To You. It Is Something You Must Take For Yourself

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11239 on: November 20, 2019, 12:36:37 AM »

The mechanics behind space flight is quite counterintuitive and doesn't make sense to most people.  However, that doesn't make it wrong or inefficient.  It just means that it's a lot harder than it looks and many of your preconceptions are wrong.

So it may be, but topic is how much fuel is needed for a trip to the Moon and back to Earth and how to do it, i.e. the use of the fuel.
It seems all agree that you do not need any fuel at all for the return leg from out of Moon orbit/gravity dropping straight back on Earth, i.e. you just go faster and faster while dropping straight back. So part of the Challenge is to explain how to land on Earth after arriving at the top of the atmosphere at >11 000 m/s speed and 110 000 m altitude. It seems it takes 10 seconds if you go vertically straight ... and do not brake.
Only one totally ignorant of atmospheric re-entry would mack such a suggestion!

Quote from: Heiwa
AHA - you don't go straight down, you glide into the atmosphere sideways, almost horizontally while braking. But how do you that? And how do you then brake? Air resistance?
Yes, are resistance!

Quote from: Heiwa
But there is no air at the top of the atmosphere at 110 000 m altitude.
Who said that there is no air? There is very little air but even at 200 km there is enough atmosphere to cause satellites to de-orbit in a relatively short time.

Quote from: Heiwa
And even at 11 000 m altitude the air is quite thin and does not provide much friction.
Quote from: Heiwa
Ask aircraft designer how much friction there is at 11,000 m? And aircraft fly at under 1000 km/hr or 278 m/s! Try moving at 11,000 m/s at 11,000 m !
The Lockheed A-12. the CIA's Oxcart flew at up to 3,560 km/h (989 m/s) at altitudes possibly as high as 90,000 feet (over 27,000 m).
And the speed limitation was atmospheric heating more than engine power.

People die at 11 000 m altitude of suffocation.
So what? That has nothing to do with the case. Look at the altitude for re-entry (this one is the Apollo 8 flight plan):

Most of the heating is from 300,000 feet (about 90,000 m) down to 180,000 feet (about 55,000 m).

You really haven't a clue about this sort of thing have you? ANd you pretend that your famous website has all the answers - what a joke!

#### Heiwa

• 8880
• I have been around a long time.
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11240 on: November 20, 2019, 04:32:59 AM »
You really haven't a clue about this sort of thing have you? ANd you pretend that your famous website has all the answers - what a joke!
Topic is my Challenge about visiting the Moon + return Earth. Let's look at the latter.

You are in Moon orbit and want to get back to Earth. So you fire your rocket engine and enter a new orbit around Earth, i.e. your new orbit will arrive almost parallel with Earth ground at top of Earth atmosphere a few days later at great speed. Your last fuel is used for this de-orbiting Moon to get into orbit Earth.
So just explain it in detail! When, where, in what direction and duration and with what thrust in Moon orbit do you fire your rocket engine, so you will arrive almost horizontally safely at the top of atmosphere on Earth a few days later in a new orbit around Earth ... and how much fuel is used?
It seems due to Earth gravity you will go faster all the time and your direction will also change all the time. How do you steer?
And then you arrive at the top of the atmosphere at > 11 000 m/s speed and dip into it and ... 10-15 minutes later your speed is >100 m/s and you release a parachute. You really have to explain what happens during these 10-15 minutes. How do you ensure you will arrive at ground zero landing zone in calm water and sunny weather and not hit a mountain on an island before that.
You see - if you start your re-entry dip into the atmosphere 10 seconds late you will miss ground zero landing zone by 110 000 m! Etc, etc.

Yes, my famous web site does not have the answers. It is one reason for the Challenge. Tell me.

#### Yes

• 604
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11241 on: November 20, 2019, 05:22:34 AM »
You are in Moon orbit and want to get back to Earth. So you fire your rocket engine and enter a new orbit around Earth, i.e. your new orbit will arrive almost parallel with Earth ground at top of Earth atmosphere a few days later at great speed. Your last fuel is used for this de-orbiting Moon to get into orbit Earth.
So just explain it in detail! When, where, in what direction and duration and with what thrust in Moon orbit do you fire your rocket engine, so you will arrive almost horizontally safely at the top of atmosphere on Earth a few days later in a new orbit around Earth ... and how much fuel is used?
My Challenge is for you to read this entire page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11242 on: November 20, 2019, 01:45:01 PM »
You really haven't a clue about this sort of thing have you? And you pretend that your famous website has all the answers - what a joke!
Topic is my Challenge about visiting the Moon + return Earth. Let's look at the latter.
I couldn't care less about you stupid unwinnable challenge! NASA used dozens of experts with data that I don't have.
Some, such as ephemeris data could easily be found and the rest could be dug up but the calculations of precisely where the Earth and Moon are and their velocities is outside my capabilities. Plenty of people would know and most competent astronomers could handle it and have the appropriate applications.

Nobody could prove it unless it was flown and YOU know that, so YOU will always wriggle out of paying anyway so toss you silly challenge in the bin!

Quote from: Heiwa
You are in Moon orbit and want to get back to Earth. So you fire your rocket engine and enter a new orbit around Earth, i.e. your new orbit will arrive almost parallel with Earth ground at top of Earth atmosphere a few days later at great speed. Your last fuel is used for this de-orbiting Moon to get into orbit Earth.
Only an idiot like you would use your last fuel to de-orbit from Lunar Orbit. You will need some for mid-course corrections.

Quote from: Heiwa
So just explain it in detail! When, where, in what direction and duration and with what thrust in Moon orbit do you fire your rocket engine, so you will arrive almost horizontally safely at the top of atmosphere on Earth a few days later in a new orbit around Earth ... and how much fuel is used?
But if you "arrive almost horizontally safely at the top of the atmosphere on Earth" at, say 200 km or less, you will re-enter in a short time, like it or not - so you plan for a suitable altitude and enter the re-entry phase.

I'm not going to waste time with the burns needed for the actual trajectory flown. Just look up NASA records and find out every last detail.

But a simple case is for a standard transfer orbit at the Lunar orbital radius back to one at the point for atmospheric re-entry.
A satellite in orbit at 200 km has a lifetime, dependent on shape, of only about one day and at 180 km it will re-enter in less than one orbit.
As for "how much fuel is used" - enough for a deltaV of only 826.5 m/s for the bare CM+SM, far less than needed for the insertion into the transfer orbit to get to the moon.

So, just as an example, choose a transfer orbit to change the capsule's (and service module) orbit from 384,400 km (approx) to 180 km.

Quote from: Heiwa
It seems due to Earth gravity you will go faster all the time and your direction will also change all the time. How do you steer?
And then you arrive at the top of the atmosphere at > 11 000 m/s speed and dip into it
Why do you say "It seems . . . "? Do the sums (or use an online orbital app), even the simpler sums and get a better idea than just saying "It seems . . . "!

In orbit at 384.400 km, for example, the velocity of the CM+SM is about 1010 m/s.
Apply a de-orbit reverse thrust with deltaV = 826.5 m/s to bring the tangential velocity down to 183.50 m/s.
After about 122 hours and 24 minutes, with a bit of luck and a few mid-course corrections, the CM-SM should be down to 180 km at a bit under 10,934 m/s.
The SM would have been discarded no more major mid-course corrections were needed.

As for steering attitude control was via:
the CM had 12 Reaction Control Thrusters each with 410 N thrust and a total impulse of 257 kNs, for attitude control after discarding the SM
and the SM had 16 Reaction Control Thrusters each with 445 N thrust and a total impulse of 3,517 kNs.

Near the end, after detailed instructions from the command centre, use the RCS to orient the CM and jettison the SM just before re-entry.

At this point trust that the CM's Inertial Control System keeps the CM at the correct orientation by altering CofG and using the RCS - don't forget to cross fingers !

Quote from: Heiwa
and ... 10-15 minutes later your speed is >100 m/s and you release a parachute. You really have to explain what happens during these 10-15 minutes.
Don't be lazy - go and read it for yourself!

Quote from: Heiwa
How do you ensure you will arrive at ground zero landing zone in calm water and sunny weather and not hit a mountain on an island before that.
You see - if you start your re-entry dip into the atmosphere 10 seconds late you will miss ground zero landing zone by 110 000 m! Etc, etc.
• You trust that those who designed the system got their sums right but there were numerous similar re-entries but uncrewed for test and with crews from the Mercury, Gemini and earlier Apollo test flights!

• The  CM's Inertial Control System, which would have been carefully aligned before loss of signal, can control the pitch of the CM and hence the velocity and rate of descent.
Don't forget that NASA used an aerodynamic re-entry, unlike the Russian near ballistic re-entry. The CM was a lousy glider with a lift to drag ration of only 0.3 but the rate of descent could be controlled in real-time.

Quote from: Heiwa
Yes, my famous web site does not have the answers. It is one reason for the Challenge. Tell me.
Yes, we know that the reason for your ridiculous Challenge is to con people into visiting you useless website that "does not have any answers".
It might be OK on maritime safety, I couldn't judge that, but it's a hopeless mishmash on disinformation on anything to do with space!

#### Shifter

• 16399
• Blind to the truth
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11243 on: November 20, 2019, 02:39:16 PM »
You really haven't a clue about this sort of thing have you? And you pretend that your famous website has all the answers - what a joke!
Topic is my Challenge about visiting the Moon + return Earth. Let's look at the latter.
I couldn't care less about you stupid unwinnable challenge! NASA used dozens of experts with data that I don't have.
Some, such as ephemeris data could easily be found and the rest could be dug up but the calculations of precisely where the Earth and Moon are and their velocities is outside my capabilities. Plenty of people would know and most competent astronomers could handle it and have the appropriate applications.

Nobody could prove it unless it was flown and YOU know that, so YOU will always wriggle out of paying anyway so toss you silly challenge in the bin!

Quote from: Heiwa
You are in Moon orbit and want to get back to Earth. So you fire your rocket engine and enter a new orbit around Earth, i.e. your new orbit will arrive almost parallel with Earth ground at top of Earth atmosphere a few days later at great speed. Your last fuel is used for this de-orbiting Moon to get into orbit Earth.
Only an idiot like you would use your last fuel to de-orbit from Lunar Orbit. You will need some for mid-course corrections.

Quote from: Heiwa
So just explain it in detail! When, where, in what direction and duration and with what thrust in Moon orbit do you fire your rocket engine, so you will arrive almost horizontally safely at the top of atmosphere on Earth a few days later in a new orbit around Earth ... and how much fuel is used?
But if you "arrive almost horizontally safely at the top of the atmosphere on Earth" at, say 200 km or less, you will re-enter in a short time, like it or not - so you plan for a suitable altitude and enter the re-entry phase.

I'm not going to waste time with the burns needed for the actual trajectory flown. Just look up NASA records and find out every last detail.

But a simple case is for a standard transfer orbit at the Lunar orbital radius back to one at the point for atmospheric re-entry.
A satellite in orbit at 200 km has a lifetime, dependent on shape, of only about one day and at 180 km it will re-enter in less than one orbit.
As for "how much fuel is used" - enough for a deltaV of only 826.5 m/s for the bare CM+SM, far less than needed for the insertion into the transfer orbit to get to the moon.

So, just as an example, choose a transfer orbit to change the capsule's (and service module) orbit from 384,400 km (approx) to 180 km.

Quote from: Heiwa
It seems due to Earth gravity you will go faster all the time and your direction will also change all the time. How do you steer?
And then you arrive at the top of the atmosphere at > 11 000 m/s speed and dip into it
Why do you say "It seems . . . "? Do the sums (or use an online orbital app), even the simpler sums and get a better idea than just saying "It seems . . . "!

In orbit at 384.400 km, for example, the velocity of the CM+SM is about 1010 m/s.
Apply a de-orbit reverse thrust with deltaV = 826.5 m/s to bring the tangential velocity down to 183.50 m/s.
After about 122 hours and 24 minutes, with a bit of luck and a few mid-course corrections, the CM-SM should be down to 180 km at a bit under 10,934 m/s.
The SM would have been discarded no more major mid-course corrections were needed.

As for steering attitude control was via:
the CM had 12 Reaction Control Thrusters each with 410 N thrust and a total impulse of 257 kNs, for attitude control after discarding the SM
and the SM had 16 Reaction Control Thrusters each with 445 N thrust and a total impulse of 3,517 kNs.

Near the end, after detailed instructions from the command centre, use the RCS to orient the CM and jettison the SM just before re-entry.

At this point trust that the CM's Inertial Control System keeps the CM at the correct orientation by altering CofG and using the RCS - don't forget to cross fingers !

Quote from: Heiwa
and ... 10-15 minutes later your speed is >100 m/s and you release a parachute. You really have to explain what happens during these 10-15 minutes.
Don't be lazy - go and read it for yourself!

Quote from: Heiwa
How do you ensure you will arrive at ground zero landing zone in calm water and sunny weather and not hit a mountain on an island before that.
You see - if you start your re-entry dip into the atmosphere 10 seconds late you will miss ground zero landing zone by 110 000 m! Etc, etc.
• You trust that those who designed the system got their sums right but there were numerous similar re-entries but uncrewed for test and with crews from the Mercury, Gemini and earlier Apollo test flights!

• The  CM's Inertial Control System, which would have been carefully aligned before loss of signal, can control the pitch of the CM and hence the velocity and rate of descent.
Don't forget that NASA used an aerodynamic re-entry, unlike the Russian near ballistic re-entry. The CM was a lousy glider with a lift to drag ration of only 0.3 but the rate of descent could be controlled in real-time.

Quote from: Heiwa
Yes, my famous web site does not have the answers. It is one reason for the Challenge. Tell me.
Yes, we know that the reason for your ridiculous Challenge is to con people into visiting you useless website that "does not have any answers".
It might be OK on maritime safety, I couldn't judge that, but it's a hopeless mishmash on disinformation on anything to do with space!

You start off with 'I couldn't care less' and then proceed to spend what must have taken quite a while rabbing on and on as you have done so many times before

I think you do care. Certainly more about Heiwa and his challenges then you do your own family.

Go spend more time with your family and less time being a gutter snipe
A Future Is Not Given To You. It Is Something You Must Take For Yourself

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11244 on: November 20, 2019, 04:14:53 PM »

You start off with 'I couldn't care less' and then proceed to spend what must have taken quite a while rabbing on and on as you have done so many times before

I think you do care. Certainly more about Heiwa and his challenges then you do your own family.

No I didn't start out with simply 'I couldn't care less'!
I started out with "I couldn't care less about you stupid unwinnable challenge! NASA used dozens of experts with data that I don't have."
That has a rather different connotation but you never were too crash-hot at understanding what you read - there are courses to help there.

Heiwa asked some questions and I did my best to answer him. What is there to bitch about in that?

But, never fear, Shifter will always find something to bitch about - it's all you excel at.

Now either make some sensible posts that are not forever critical of other people or just bug out!
But I guess you are what you are and are simply unable to do otherwise.

Go spend less time being a gutter snipe.

#### Shifter

• 16399
• Blind to the truth
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11245 on: November 20, 2019, 08:32:48 PM »

You start off with 'I couldn't care less' and then proceed to spend what must have taken quite a while rabbing on and on as you have done so many times before

I think you do care. Certainly more about Heiwa and his challenges then you do your own family.

No I didn't start out with simply 'I couldn't care less'!
I started out with "I couldn't care less about you stupid unwinnable challenge! NASA used dozens of experts with data that I don't have."
That has a rather different connotation but you never were too crash-hot at understanding what you read - there are courses to help there.

Heiwa asked some questions and I did my best to answer him. What is there to bitch about in that?

But, never fear, Shifter will always find something to bitch about - it's all you excel at.

Now either make some sensible posts that are not forever critical of other people or just bug out!
But I guess you are what you are and are simply unable to do otherwise.

Go spend less time being a gutter snipe.

Rab cares
A Future Is Not Given To You. It Is Something You Must Take For Yourself

#### Heiwa

• 8880
• I have been around a long time.
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11246 on: November 20, 2019, 08:40:37 PM »
You really haven't a clue about this sort of thing have you? And you pretend that your famous website has all the answers - what a joke!
Topic is my Challenge about visiting the Moon + return Earth. Let's look at the latter.
I couldn't care less about your stupid unwinnable challenge! NASA used dozens of experts with data that I don't have.
Some, such as ephemeris data could easily be found and the rest could be dug up but the calculations of precisely where the Earth and Moon are and their velocities is outside my capabilities. Plenty of people would know and most competent astronomers could handle it and have the appropriate applications.

Nobody could prove it unless it was flown and YOU know that, so YOU will always wriggle out of paying anyway so toss you silly challenge in the bin!

Hm, if the NASA data is easy to find, find it and win my Challenge. But let's face it. All NASA data is just fantasies, lies, propaganda and nonsense to fool people. It is big business. But just Fake News!

#### Stash

• 6644
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11247 on: November 20, 2019, 09:30:39 PM »
You really haven't a clue about this sort of thing have you? And you pretend that your famous website has all the answers - what a joke!
Topic is my Challenge about visiting the Moon + return Earth. Let's look at the latter.
I couldn't care less about your stupid unwinnable challenge! NASA used dozens of experts with data that I don't have.
Some, such as ephemeris data could easily be found and the rest could be dug up but the calculations of precisely where the Earth and Moon are and their velocities is outside my capabilities. Plenty of people would know and most competent astronomers could handle it and have the appropriate applications.

Nobody could prove it unless it was flown and YOU know that, so YOU will always wriggle out of paying anyway so toss you silly challenge in the bin!

Hm, if the NASA data is easy to find, find it and win my Challenge. But let's face it. All NASA data is just fantasies, lies, propaganda and nonsense to fool people. It is big business. But just Fake News!

It's all in here:

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029.pdf

Just start scrolling through the Statistical Tables starting on page 260 or so.

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11248 on: November 20, 2019, 09:39:45 PM »
Hm, if the NASA data is easy to find, find it and win my Challenge. But let's face it. All NASA data is just fantasies, lies, propaganda and nonsense to fool people. It is big business. But just Fake News!
You, who haven't the capability of understanding a word of it claim "All NASA data is just fantasies, lies, propaganda and nonsense to fool people."

Are you joking? You haven't made one logical claim against it - just empty fatuous words - what a joke!

It's all just are just a big bag of hot air with no substance. Had you any logical objection you would point out what is wrong with the simplified version that I presented - but you don't!

#### Bullwinkle

• The Elder Ones
• 19446
• Standard Idiot
##### Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #11249 on: November 20, 2019, 11:45:16 PM »
First you all learned to shake hands.
Then you learned to heel.
Then you learned to roll over.
Then you learned to retrieve.
Then you learned to jump through hoops.
Then you learned to jump through flaming hoops.

It's fun to watch.

*psssst, Hiawa is fucking with you*