How much fuel was used by the Service and Lunar modules during the July 1969 Apollo

11 Moon trip? How did Apollo 11 land on Earth afterwards? How did Capt. Mark Kelly land the US Shuttle on Earth after visiting the International Space Station? Did the Mars Science Laboratory really land on Mars 5-6 August 2012? Answers are here:
Home About us Services Contact info News Order books

I and my agency Heiwa Co are interested in maritime transportation safety and fuel consumed at sea and, therefore, also in space travel. Difference is not big! How to travel in space safely? You need fuel to reach your destination. And let's face it - Apollo 11 finally ended up in water subject to maritime rules and regulations - my speciality. My ships operate in the interface water/air on Earth that offers resistance and limits velocity all the time. Space ships operate in space that offers no resistance until you enter a planet's atmosphere. The fuel used during the first manned Apollo 11 Moon visit July 1969 is of great interest, as you must bring along all fuel from start to accomplish all parts of the trip after getting ejected away from Earth by external rockets. You cannot fill up underway! You need fuel to brake or reduce speed and to accelerate or increse velocity in space. The light weight Apollo Lunar Module Eagle reportedly used 8 212 kg of fuel just to descend from orbit around Moon and to land on and to get off the Moon and back into orbit again. However, NASA, the US space agency and Dr. David R. Williams, are not willing to tell neither how much fuel was actually required and used by the service and command modules to get into and out of orbit around Moon from Earth and to brake upon arrival Earth again nor how and where to store it during the trip! Reason is that too much fuel was required that could be carried ... and that everything was just a hoax. This article explains in detail the energy, i.e. fuel, required by (1) the Apollo command/service modules to get into and out of Moon orbit from Earth and (2) the Lunar module to land on Moon and get back into orbit around Moon again. The conclusion is that the modules could not carry the required fuel. The article also analyses the Apollo re-entry to Earth. No fuel at all was used to decelerate the Apollo 11 descent on Earth. Only friction and turbulence were used ... which is simply impossible. The Apollo command module should have burnt up at reentry. Applying the same principles to the many Shuttle re-entries and the recent Mars Science Laboratory descent on Mars you find they are other likely hoaxes. Enjoy reading the article! Comments are always welcome at anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr .
The spaceship velocities used here are relative to the planets or Moon in question. The planets evidently rotate around themselves and orbit around the Sun at other velocities.
The below table is compiled using info from the following sources about the Apollo 11 Moon/Earth trip: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1969-059A , http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do? id=1969-059C and http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/apollo11.html. The info is evidently incomplete or wrong, e.g. weights of modules differ and the velocity to orbit the Moon (3 000 m/s according NASA) and a good reason to doubt that a manned Moon/Earth space trip took place at all 1969. I am only interested in i) the energy used to change velocity up or down during the trip and ii) how much fuel is used for each change and iii) if it can be carried along. The science fantasy Apollo 11 1969 Moon trip went something like this:

Apollo 11 was a 46 678 kg three-part spacecraft: the 5.960 kg command module (CM) on top with crew's quarters and flight control section;
the 24 360 kg service module (SM) just below with one P-22KS propulsion rocket engine 97 400 N thrust and fuel tanks with 9 500 liters nitrogen tetroxide + 8 000 liters hydrazine fuel capacity and spacecraft support systems. When together, the two modules were called (CSM) Coulombia.

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

The 16 448 kg lunar module (LM), Eagle, fitted below the CSM, carried 3 800 liters nitrogen tetroxide + 4 500 liters hydrazine fuel for 1 descent engine 46 700 N and 1 ascent engine 15 700 N. The LM would take two of the asstronots to the lunar surface, support them on the Moon, and return them to the CSM in lunar orbit. Module weights are not certain. Numbers vary.

Apollo 11 launched from Cape Kennedy on July

16, 1969 fitted on top of a hugh, 100 + meter tall three stages rocket or fire works looking like something right.

Here is a photo of the liftoff of the Apollo Three stages rocket with Apollo 11 modules on top. Note the amount of force and 11 modules on top of the powerful three energy that were required to first put the Apollo 11 modules in orbit around Earth and stages rocket. Doesn't it look impressive? then to send them off to the Moon. W hat happened afterwards ... nobody really knows. First stage with steering fins and 1 311 100 liters liquid oxygen + 810 700 liters kerosene for 5 F-1 engines 6 672 000 N and second stage with no fins - 1.000.000 liters liquid hydrogen + 331 000 liters liquid oxygen for 5 J-2 engines 889 600 N were apparently used to get Apollo 11 (CSM+LM) into orbit around planet Earth at 7 500 m/s speed. Two hours, 44 minutes and one-and-a-half Earth orbits after launch, third stage with 253 200 liters liquid hydrogen + 92 350 liters liquid oxygen for 1 J-2 engines 889 600 N reignited for a second burn of five minutes, 48 seconds, placing Apollo 11 (CSM+LM) en route to the Moon. The CSM+LM, mass 43 866 (or 46 678) kg, velocity increased from 7 500 m/s to 11 200 m/s - events # 1, 2 and 3. It seems 3 798 350 litres of fuel was used to get CSM+LM velocity up to 11 200 m/s velocity towards the Moon. 0n July 17, a scheduled midcourse correction programmed for the flight took place. The launch had been so successful, we are told, that the other three scheduled corrections were not needed. Event # 4. On July 19, after Apollo 11 at velocity 2 400 m/s had flown behind the Moon out of contact with Earth, came the first lunar orbit insertion maneuver. At about 75 hours, 50 minutes into the flight, a retrograde firing of the SM P-22KS rocket engine for 357.5 seconds reduced the speed to 1 000 m/s at 3.91 m/s deceleration and placed the spacecraft into an initial, elliptical-lunar orbit. Events # 5 and 6. The amount of fuel on the CSM used for events # 5 and 6 is not known! How you fired the P-22KS rocket engine obstructucted by the LM in front is also not clear. Maybe they used the LM descent engine? On July 20 at 100 hours, 12 minutes into the flight, the LM Eagle, mass 15 065 (or 16 448) kg, undocked and separated from CSM Columbia. Event # 8. At 101 hours, 36 minutes, when the LM was behind the moon on its 13th orbit, the LM descent engine fired for 30 seconds to provide retrograde thrust and commence descent orbit insertion, changing to an orbit of 9 by 67 miles, on a trajectory that was virtually identical to that flown by Apollo 10. At 102 hours, 33 minutes, after Columbia and Eagle had reappeared from behind the moon and when the LM was about 300 miles uprange, powered descent initiation was performed with the descent engine firing for 756.3 seconds. After eight minutes, the LM was at "high gate" about 26,000 feet (7 925 meter) above the surface and about five miles (8 040 meter) from the landing site (i.e. right above it).
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

The LM descent engine continued to provide braking thrust until about 102 hours, 45 minutes into the mission. The LM Eagle landed in the Sea of Tranquility at 0 degrees, 41 minutes, 15 seconds north latitude and 23 degrees, 26 minutes east longitude. Event # 11. 6 757 kg fuel carried in the LM was used for the descent and decrease in speed from 1 000 m/s to 0 m/s. Almost four hours later asstronot Armstrong emerged from the Eagle and deployed the TV camera for the transmission of the event to Earth. At about 109 hours, 42 minutes after launch, Armstrong stepped onto the Moon soil where temperature was 150C. Armstrong's shoes didn't melt. About 20 minutes later, Aldrin followed him. After Aldrin had spent one hour, 33 minutes on the hot Moon surface, he re-entered the LM, followed 41 minutes later by Armstrong. Armstrong and Aldrin spent 21 hours, 36 minutes on the Moon's surface, most of the time inside the Eagle. After a rest period that included seven hours of sleep, the ascent stage engine fired at 124 hours, 22 minutes. Event # 12. It was shut down 435 seconds later when the Eagle reached a velocity of about 1 000 m/s an initial orbit of 11 by 55 miles above the Moon, and when Columbia was on its 25th (sic) revolution. The LM net acceleration was 2.3 m/s to overcome Moon gravity at 1.63 m/s - Event # 13. As the ascent stage reached apolune at 125 hours, 19 minutes, the LM rocket engine fired so as to nearly circularize the Eagle orbit at about 56 miles, some 13 miles below and slightly behind Columbia. Subsequent firings of the LM rocket engine the orbit to 57 by 72 miles. 1 639 kg fuel carried in the LM was used for the ascent and docking. Docking with Columbia occurred on the CSM's 27th revolution (?) at 128 hours, three minutes into the mission. Armstrong and Aldrin returned to the CSM with Collins. Four hours later, the LM jettisoned and remained in lunar orbit (where it still is today unless it has crashed on the Moon). Trans-Earth injection of the CSM, mass 28 801 (or 30 3210) kg minus fuel used previously for braking - event #6, began July 21 as the P22KS rocket engine fired for two-and-a-half minutes when Columbia was behind the moon in its 59th hour of lunar orbit. The speed increased from 1 000 m/s to 2 400 m/s at acceleration 9.33 m/s and placed the CSM into course back to Earth. Events # 14 and 15. The amount

of fuel used on the CSM for acceleration events # 14 and 15 is not known!
Following this, the asstronots (!) slept for about 10 hours. An 11.2 second firing of the control engines accomplished the only midcourse correction required on the return flight. Event # 16. The correction was made July 22 at about 150 hours, 30 minutes into the mission. Re-entry procedures were initiated July 24, 44 hours after leaving lunar orbit. The SM - event # 17 - separated from the CM at speed 11 200 m/s, which was re-oriented to a heat-shield-forward position. The only means to brake the Apollo CM, mass 5 557 kg, to low speed for parachute deployment was now the heat shield friction and turbulence. How it worked nobody knows! According basic calculations the

heat shield and surroundings would heat up >70 000 C due friction and burn up or break up!

How to stop a mass of 5 557 (or 5 960) kg dropping on Earth all the way from Moon? Just dropping one kilogram from
one meter height or altitude through Earth's atmosphere of air produces a big bang, when it impacts Earth at 4.43 m/s. Do not drop it on your
toes! NASA has not been able to clarify how the heat shield friction braking really worked. The resistance of a body moving in a gas like Earth's atmosphere depends on two parameters - the shape of the object and the area of the object. The shape causes turbulence and the area in contact with the gas causes friction. Both are then functions of the velocity of the object and the density of the gas and the strength of gravity. In either case (brake) forces develop that are acting on the object and you must be certain that the object is strong enough to absorb these forces. It is like an airplane landing. No big deal. But airplanes do not use heat shields. The forces acting on the object/air produce/absorb energy that becomes heat. The turbulent air is heated up and the area used for braking - the heat shield for a spaceship entering a planet with an atmosphere - is getting very hot. Parachute deployment occurred at 195 hours, 13 minutes, at low speed, say ~50 m/s. After a flight of 195 hours, 18 minutes, 35 seconds about 36 minutes longer than planned - Apollo 11 splashed down in the Pacific Ocean, just 13 miles from the recovery ship USS Hornet south of Hawaii. Event # 18. Apollo 11 landed, we are told, at 13 degrees, 19 minutes north latitude and 169 degrees, nine minutes west longitude July 24, 1969. Or was it outside California? Nobody knows! All above is NASA SF fantasy and propaganda = lies! A heat shield reduces speed from 11 200 to 50 m/s in Earth's atmosphere? Not possible. Table starts when the Apollo 11 Control, Service Modules, CSM, and Lunar Landing Module, LM, are already on its way at ~7 500 m/s velocity in Earth orbit accelerated by rocket's first and second stages (Event #1). At that speed you go around Earth in about 90 minutes! If you go slower you will soon crash on Earth. Then the third stage rocket is allegedly fired (we are told - Event #3) and the Apollo 11 modules are sent off at ~11 200 m/s velocity in direction Moon about 400 000 km away ... or where the Moon will be three days later. The third stage S-IVB rocket, now empty of fuel, apparently went in another direction than Moon and disappeared. Plenty of fuel was used for getting off the Earth ...3 798 350 litres ... but all carried in separate rocket stages. Here we study the fuel in the CMS and LM modules used for events #4-19:

Event Time #

Location

Unit(s)

Velocity Total Unit kinetic Kintetic (m/s) weight/mass energy change energy used incl. fuel (kg) of (MJ/kg) to accelerate unit(s) (+) or brake () (MJ)
+28.13 by rocket's first and second stages

Fuel used (kg) from previous event

7/16/69 13.32UT

Earth orbit

CSM+LM (still ~7 500 attached to S-IVB)

N.A.

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

7/16/69 16.22 UT

On course for the Moon

CSM+LM (still attached to S-IVB)

+34.595 by rocket's third stage ?

3
4

7/16/69 17.37 UT
7/17/69 noon

On course for CSM+LM ~11 200 the Moon

Mid-course Earth/Moon CSM+LM -

N.A. Not known!

7/19/69 17.15.45 UT

End of trip to CSM+LM ~2 400 Moon & start braking to reduce speed!

m1 (CSM 28.801 -58.94 by Earth kg + LM 15 065 gravity

kg = 43 866 kg
(or CSM 30.320 kg + LM 16.448 kg = 46.678 kg according other sources) m2 (m1 minus -2.38 (braking by SM!) fuel used for braking) ? 15 065 kg (or less?) . . .

7/19/69 17.21.50 UT A little later 7/19/69 18.11.53 UT 7/19/69 19.08 UT 7/19/69 20.05 UT 7/19/69 20.17.40 UT

Moon orbit (elliptic) Moon orbit (circular) Moon orbit

CSM+LM ~1 000

-(2.88m1 0.5m2) . . .

Not known!
. . .

7 8 9 10 11

CSM+LM ~1 000 LM (separated ~1 000 from CSM) ~1 000 0

Into decent LM orbit Starting decent LM On the Moon LM

m3 (11 394 kg ?) . . . m4 (4 819 kg) -0.5 (descent ~-0.25(m3+m4) 6 575 braking by LM or ~-3.8 GJ rocket descent engine using 6.575 kg of fuel = m3 - m4 m5 (3 819 kg) some parts incl. the descent . . . engine (1 000 kg!) of LM were left on the Moon m6 (2 180 kg?) 0.5 (ascent ~0.25(m6+m5) 1 639 acceleration by or ~1.7 GJ LM rocket ascent engine using 1.639 kg of fuel as m6 m5 = 1 639 kg ) m7 (28 801 kg minus fuel used 0 previously for braking - event #6!)

12

7/21/69 17.54.01 Lift off the UT or 124 hrs 22 Moon minutes after start

LM

13

7/21/69 21.34 UT Docking with LM or 128 hrs 02 CSM (LM later minutes after start dumped from CSM)

~1 000

14

7/22/69 04.52.42 UT

Moon orbit

CSM

~1 000

15

7/22/69 04.55.12 UT

On straight CSM course for the Earth

~2 400 m/s

m8

+2.38 ~(2.88m8(acceleration 0.5m7) by CSM P22KS propulsion rocket engine)

? .

Not known!

16 17

7/22 /69?

Mid-course correction

CSM

m8 m8

Not known!

7/24/69 16.21.13 UT

Arrival Earth CSM atmosphere prior separation CM/SM

~11 200 m/s !!! It is fast!

+60.34 (by Earth gravity no fuel required) .

None!

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

18

7/24/69 16.21.14 UT or 194 hrs 55

19

Arrival Earth CM atmosphere minutes after start after separation CM/SM 7/24/69 16.50.35 Splash down! CM UT or 195 hrs 34 The CM space minutes (?) after ship is now a start boat!

~11 200 m/s

m9 (5 557 kg (or 0 5.960 kg according other sources))

None!
.

m9 (5 557 kg)

-62.72

-62.72 m8 or None! 349 GJ

Event # 1 evidently used a hugh external three stages rocket to propel the Apollo modules into Earth orbit as seen on many films. It is of course
possible. You need to accelerate to about 11 200 m/s initial velocity (event #2) to get away from Earth gravity. It is also possible as you use the third stage of the start rocket but not really recommended with people aboard! How to separate the Apollo 11 modules from the third stage is not clear - they have the same velocity and it is assumed that the third stage also flew towards to Moon. NASA has no clue what happened to the third stage. The velcocity of the modules is then, after disposing the third stage of the rocket, reduced, decelerated, by Earth gravity until Moon gravity takes over so arrival velocity at the Moon - event # 5 - is about 2.400 m/s. Note that you decelerate/slow down most (90%) of the way to Moon after the start rocket third stage has been disposed of, you lose kinetic energy but gain potential energy, and that you only start to accelerate again, when Moon gravity takes control of the modules at 10% of the distance Earth/Moon.

Getting into the Moon orbit - how to slow down

Three days later (Event #5) the Apollo 11 modules thus allegedly arrived in the vicinity of the Moon at 2 400 m/s velocity and it is time to slow down to get into orbit around the Moon at 1.000 m/s. In order to enter the Moon orbit and not to miss or fly by the Moon into eternity at, say, 2 400 m/s, you have to slow down the CSM + LM modules by braking to about 1 000 m/s and the only way is to fire the SM module P-22KS rocket engine in the opposite direction of travel. It is the only way to quickly brake or change direction in space. If you forget to brake you will end up at the end of the Universe! How to do it with the LM in front is not clear. At 1 000 m/s velocity in Moon orbit, it then takes about 185 minutes to fly around the Moon (or three times less, about 60 minutes, according NASA, but then the CSM/LM is speeding at 3 000 m/s and will disappear into the universe??), i.e. about twice longer than to fly around the much bigger Earth. Reason is that gravity is much reduced on the Moon due to it's smaller size compared with Earth, so you do not have to speed as fast in Moon orbit.

NASA has not been able to inform how much fuel or energy was used for the deceleration and braking - events # 5 and 6 - or the speeds at arrival and in orbit for that matter.
The kinetic energy for braking/reducing velocity v is evidently the difference of kinetic energy mv/2 (Joule) before and after completion of braking and it is known, if we know the mass m change (fuel used). With good timing Moon gravity then catches you, so you start to orbit or circle around the Moon at about 1.000 m/s velocity. With even better timing and a much, much longer path (around the Sun!) you may arrive at the Moon at just about 1 000 m/s velocity and no braking is necessary at all, but it is quite difficult to accomplish (as it takes many months). Regardless, to leave the Moon orbit later to go home you need to accelerate to 2 400 m/s (Event #14) to get away from the Moon gravity, which requires more fuel. Now, safely in orbit, you have to disconnect the Lunar Landing Module, LM, from the Service, Command Modules, CSM, so you and LM can land, actually brake to 0 m/s velocity on the Moon ... and become a hero.

Landing on the sunny 150 C hot Moon and getting back into Moon orbit again
The amount of rocket fuel used for events # 8-13 - the LM descent/braking and ascent/getting into orbit again - is kindly given by NASA - 8 212 kg. The total (potential (mgh) and kinetic (mv/2) energy of the deceleration descent and accelerating ascent can easily be calculated, if we know the height h of orbit above Moon (meter), local Moon gravity g (m/s), the mass m (kg) of the LM at the various stages, i.e. starting descent (m4), starting ascent (m5) and back in orbit (m6) and the velocities (m/s) at start/end in orbit (1 000 m/s) and 0 m/s on the Moon to plant the flag on the sunny 150C hot Moon surface. Had they landed on the Moon side not exposed to the Sun, the temperature would be -150C. The Moon is a very hostile place exposed to brutal Sun heat radiation. The mass of the LM is evidently reduced as fuel is used for descent and ascent! The total, mostly kinetic, energy required for this descent/ascent manoeuvre seems to be about 5.5 GJ ignoring potential energy gains/losses. It seems that about 8 212 kg of rocket fuel

was required to produce about 5.5 GJ energy to brake descent and get back ascent the LM into Moon orbit again. Note that 1 kg of LM rocket fuel only produces 0.67MJ energy or 0.186 kWh. It does not seem very effective. But I am not a rocket engine expert.
How the LM managed to ascend to and find the orbiting CSM for docking at 1 000 m/s velocity (or 3 000 m/s according NASA??) in a very short time, 3 hrs and 40 minutes, is extremely clever and not further looked into here:

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

"The LM lifted off from the Moon at 17:54:01 UT on 21 July after 21 hours, 36 minutes on the lunar surface. After docking with the CSM at 21:34:00 UT, the LM was jettisoned into lunar orbit at 00:01:01 UT on 22 July."
It appears that the CSM made 8-9 orbit trips around the Moon (27-28 according NASA), while the LM was visiting the hot Moon below.

Getting out of the Moon orbit ... is not easy!

Events #14-15 - to get the CSM (mass incl. fuel at this time, m7, uncertain) en route back to Earth - require acceleration from 1 000 m/s to 2 400 m/s to get away from Moon gravity and to be attracted again by Earth gravity.

The fuel used for events # 14 and 15 is not given by NASA. You should really wonder why!
Energy (unit Joule) required to accelerate a mass m7 of , say, 10 000 kg from 1 000 m/s to 2 400 m/s is exactly 23.8 GJ but for that, it seems, you need about 35.500 kg of rocket fuel, if similar to LM rocket engine is used, so it is not possible. There is no place for 35 500 kg of fuel on the CSM, if it only weighs 10.000 kg!

It is thus a mystery 2012 how the CSM managed to get away from the Moon 1969. And nobody has really wondered for 43 years.

Braking before splash down on Earth ... is very important!

The return to and splash down on Earth is even stranger. It is suggested that the CM now with mass m9 or 5 557 (or 5 960) kg (the SM has just been dropped off - how?) arrives into the Earth atmosphere (event #18) at 7/24/69 16.21.14 UT with 11 200 m/s entry speed (same speed you need to go to the Moon in the first place!) due to strong Earth gravity during 2 or 3 days or 90% of the distance from Moon - no braking takes place and all potential energy (distance from Earth) is transformed into kinetic energy or big velocity - and CM splashes down 29 minutes and 21 seconds later (7/24/69 16.50.35 UT) hanging in parachutes in the Pacific just outside California or Hawaii or somewhere. The Service Module, SM, was evidently dropped off before entry and allegedly burnt up in atmosphere ... as expected.
On Earth the atmosphere is quite complex with its various layers: The troposphere begins at the surface and extends to between 9 km at the poles and 17 km at the equator, with some variation due to weather. The troposphere is mostly heated by transfer of energy from the surface, so on average the lowest part of the troposphere is warmest and temperature decreases with altitude. The tropopause is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere. The stratosphere extends from the tropopause to about 51 km. Temperature increases with altitude due to increased absorption of ultraviolet radiation by the ozone layer, which restricts turbulence and mixing. The stratopause is the boundary between stratosphere and the mesosphere. The mesosphere extends from the stratopause to 8085 km. It is

the layer where most meteors burn up upon entering the atmosphere. Temperature decreases with altitude in the
mesosphere. Above the mesosphere is the ionospehere extending 400 km above Earth where air is very rare, etc.

It is thus suggested By NASA that during 1 761 seconds CM speed was reduced from 11 200 m/s to 50 m/s only due to turbulence and friction (sic) in the Earth's atmosphere ... and then parachutes were opened. With mean speed 5 600 m/s during this braking by
friction (!) the CM travelled 9 861 600 m or 9 861.6 km through Earth atmosphere (about 1/4 of the Earth circumference), which is only 400 km deep, before splashdown in the Pacific outside California or Hawaii. Mean values of various parameters are very useful to get a feel of what is supposed to have happened.

The mean deceleration (velocity change divided by time elapsed) during travel through Earth atmosphere was 11 150/1 761 = 6.33 m/s or 0.64g and the mean drag force due friction acting on the 5 557 kg CM was 35 166 N or about 3.6 ton.

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

It is evidently not possible. You have to first get

into orbit of the Earth by braking for it (using fuel) and then slowly decelerate/brake again using force for several days to stop at all without burning to Hell like a meteorite ... or the SM due to friction. Basic. It doesn't matter what angle you enter the atmosphere. Friction heat will burn you into smoke and gas. The unit kinetic energy (J/kg) at 11 200 m/s is 62.72 MJ/kg! It is a lot! It - the energy of one kilogram moving at 11 200 m/s - is sufficient to raise temperature of 1 kg concrete (C = 880 J/kgC) 71 273C. Actually anything entering Earth atmosphere at 11 200 m/s immediately burns up and becomes gas, smoke ... nothing but atoms unless the forces acting on the object breaks it into small pieces ... that burn up. Except an Apollo 11 Command Module with three asstronots + heat shield wanting to have a shower or swim in the ocean and tell the world about it at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifx0Yx8vlrY and http://www.youtube.com/watch? feature=player_embedded&v=BI_ZehPOMwl . It

looks as if they are not telling the truth.

Source

Conclusions about the Apollo 11 Moon visit

From a simple fuel (energy) analysis point of view it seems the Apollo 11 modules, SM, CM and LM, could never stop at the Moon in the first place and therefore could never return. It is a strong indication that the whole NASA Apollo program was a hoax by stupid science fiction writers paid by NASA ... to impress people 1969. Maybe only the CM plus asstronots (!) were launched into Earth orbit (event #1) by rockets at 7 500 m/s velocity and then the CM was orbiting Earth say 93-98 times while braking to splash down 195 hrs later (event #19) ... after the false Moon trip had been broadcasted live on TV. Or, much easier, the CM was simply dropped from an airplane and never was in space at all ... . Footage and sound from Moon of LM and asstronots stepping down into 150C hot Moon soil, planting flag and fooling around were just a Hollywood 911 style propaganda movie broadcasted to confuse people. It is very easy to fake photos and voices for similar events. The Apollo 11 CM displayed at a Washington, DC, museum, just travelled eight days around Earth at most! Imagine that! It was never orbiting the Moon at all. Everything else, incl. LM + flag on the Moon and SM (with CM) orbiting above, was just theater props or never existed. Imagine how easy it is to fool people with some films! Reason why human Moon (or future Mars) travel is not possible as per the Apollo fairy tale is that, with given heavy, great mass m of various modules and inefficient rocket engines, sufficient rocket fuel to enter/brake into Moon orbit (event #6), to get/accelerate out of Moon orbit (event #15) and to brake in Earth's atmosphere before splash down (event #19) on Earth cannot be carried along.
Actually only way to go to Moon and back is using very light weight robots and modules and to chose a long, slow velocity path through space, so that arrival speeds and energy requirements are minimum to reduce fuel consumption for braking and accelerating. Prove me wrong and earn 1 000 000:-. Only fools believe human space travel is possible at all ... and there are many such persons, incl. PhDs of all kind.

Comparison with getting down to Earth from the ISS 2011 with the Shuttle
The International Space Station, ISS, is, we are told, in a low Earth ellipitcal orbit that varies from 320 000 m to 400 000 m above the Earth's surface. The speed needed to achieve a stable low Earth orbit is about 7 800 m/s, but reduces with (higher) altitude. The Shuttle below allegedly visited the ISS 25 times before being phased out 2011 and sent to the California Science Center museum as an exhibition piece of a heap of scrap:

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

How to get away from the ISS down to Earth alive since the US Shuttle flights were cancelled 2011 is not really clear. The Shuttle had ascended on an increasingly horizontal flight path under power from its main engines and external rockets and upon reaching 7 800 m/s necessary for low Earth orbit, the main engines were shut down. The Shuttle could then dock with the ISS. The above Shuttle has done it 25 times, we are told! To return to Earth the Shuttle must evidently slow down a lot after undocking. Or speed up?

How Capt. Mark Kelly landed the last Shuttle on Earth

The Shuttle return flights, in the old days, were something as follows as NASA can provide very little how the Shuttle returns and lands on Earth:
To slow the Shuttle down from its extreme orbit speed, 7 800 m/s, we are told the Shuttle flipped around and actually flow backwards for a period of time. The orbital maneuvering engines (OMS) then thrust the Shuttle out of orbit and toward Earth. Due to loss of potential energy the Shuttle speed now increases to about 9 000 m/s at an altitude of 130 000 m. Reason being things drop faster the longer they drop. During reentry and landing, the Shuttle then was not powered by engines. Instead, it flow like a high-tech glider, relying first on its steering jets and then its aero surfaces, i.e. the small wings with flaps at back edges to control the airflow around it. Note that no Apollo 11 type heat shield is used. NASA/JPL must have done model tests in a wind tunnel or full scale tests to establish wind forces acting on the high-tech Shuttle glider, as no wind tunnel exists that provides 9 000 m/s winds ... of different densities and very low pressures.

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

So how could NASA/JPL know the forces and resulting movements of the Shuttle before sending it up into space? Will we ever know? Roughly half an hour after the de-orbit burn, the 78 000 kg Shuttle began to encounter the effects of the atmosphere, i.e. wind forces. Called entry interface, this point usually was at an altitude of about 130 000 m, and more than 8 000 000 m from landing at the Shuttle Landing Facility. It was time to fasten seat belts! Average velocity during 30 minutes landing was about 4.500 m/s - so starting velocity was, as said above, 9.000 m/s (or 32 400 km/h or 20 120 mph) and final velocity 0 m/s during 1 800 s. Average deceleration during 1 800 s landing is 5 m/s or 0.51 g only due to friction and airflow control with the small wing flaps. The potential energy of the Shuttle at 130 000 m altitude is say 78 000 x 130 000 x 8 = 81.1 GJ (or 1.04 MJ/kg) and the kinetic energy of the Shuttle at 9 000 m/s velocity is 78000 x 9000/2 = 3 159 GJ (or 40.5 MJ/kg), i.e. the latter dominates. Average external force acting on the 78 ton Shuttle while braking is 390 000 N or about 39.7 ton, i.e. friction and wing flaps produce that force, ~50% of its own weight! Realistically that force would rip apart the Shuttle. Or at least brake the windows in the cockpit. Early in reentry, the Shuttle's orientation was controlled by the aft steering jets, part of the reaction control (?) system. But during descent, the Shuttle flies less like a spacecraft and more like an aircraft, we shall believe. Its aero surfaces -- the wing flaps and rudder -- gradually become active as air pressure builds. As those surfaces become usable, the steering jets turn off automatically. To use up excess energy which Apollo 11 needed a heat shield for, the Shuttle performed a series of four steep banks, rolling over as much as 80 degrees to one side or the other, to slow down. The series of banks gives the shuttle's track toward landing an appearance similar to an elongated letter "S." How that produce brake force is not clear. The last US pilot doing these remarkable, impossible maneuvers 2011 was US super hero Capt. Mark Kelly, whose wife US Congress woman Gaby Gifford had been shot in the head some time earlier at a Tucson, AZ, supermarket. Crazy world, to say the least, isn't it? Actually the pilot did nothing at this stage but watched the show strapped in his seat with 0.51g acting on him. The Shuttle was on auto-pilot. If the pilot was not strapped, he would fly through the windows in front of him. As the Shuttle sliced through the atmosphere faster than the speed of sound (say 340 m/s), the sonic boom -- really, two distinct claps less than a second apart -- could be heard across parts of Florida, depending on the flight path, we are told. Yes, we could, according NASA, both see (!) and hear (a double sonic boom!!) when a space ship was re-entering Earth atmosphere from space, e.g. a shuttle from the ISS:

Source
Ear th's diameter at the Equator is 12 756.1 km and the ISS is orbiting only 350-400 km above Ear th so the above figure is pure propaganda. You cannot overshot when retur ning from the ISS as you are always too close to Ear th from star t. You can only undershoot ... as there is no re-entr y cor ridor ! You will always bur n up. W hy does US Federal Aviation Authority produce above garbage? To confuse?

"Although it is possible to view a spacecraft reentry with the unaided eye, it is not possible to see the Shuttle reentry if the reentry flight path is in broad daylight since the plasma trail created as the Shuttle passes through the atmosphere is not bright enough to contrast with the sky. Naked eye viewing of the reentry itself is best when the observer's site has very clear skies, and the observer is in complete darkness or very close to local sunrise or sunset if you know precisely where to look. Even if you know you cannot see the Shuttle reentry due to lighting or cloud problems, it is possible to hear the double sonic boom from the Shuttle if it is not too far away. It takes sounds about 1100 feet/sec (300m/s) to propagate to the ground; thus if the Shuttle is 200,000 feet (60,00m) away from you at its closest distance during reentry along your line of sight, it would nominally take around 96 seconds for the sound to reach your ears AFTER the shuttle passed that point. For the human ear to detect the boom(s) you should be far away from noises, especially traffic noise."
OK, a plasma trail, whatever it is, can maybe not be seen - what is it?, and of course, that clouds, rain and fog will make seeing difficult is obvious. But hearing? As noise cannot propagate in vacuum and propagates extremely slow in a thin atmosphere, e.g. 1 000 times slower than a landing space ship itself at 130 000 m altitude, how can a sonic boom or two claps (?) from a shuttle propagate from space to ground? A sonic boom only occurs when a jet plane, close to ground, accelerates and pushes air waves ahead of it that cannot escape and then the air produces a sonic

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

boom, when the plane accelerates beyond the local speed of sound. Sonic booms never occur when you decelerate in the other direction. Anyone hearing a Shuttle producing a sonic boom at re-entry was mistaken. Or subject to NASA propaganda! Or they heard it when the Shuttle started some weeks earlier? The Shuttle's velocity then eased, we are happy to be told, below the speed of sound (340 m/s at sea level and 20C) about 25 statute miles (40 000 m) from the runway. As the Shuttle nears the Shuttle Landing Facility, SLF, the commander, i.e. the pilot, e.g. super hero Kelly, finally takes manual control, piloting the vehicle to touchdown on one of two ends of the SLF. The above apparently applies to the Shuttle getting back in one piece from the ISS to Earth using very advanced, impossible (?) braking maneuvers using friction and air turbulence, believe it or not. It seems very complicated compared with Apollo 11's heat shield ... and equally impossible. Maybe the Shuttle was just launched from an airplane at 10 000 meter altitude and then landed on the SLF with cameras recording the show 30 minutes later? It never went to the ISS. And no sonic booms! Somebody should ask Capt. Kelly (retired) about it. Nowadays you allegedly fly to the ISS using a Russian Soyuz space capsule. How it manages to get down to Earth in one piece after visiting the ISS is not clear either and not explained by the Russian administration in charge. After undocking from the ISS at 7 800 m/s horizontal speed to remain in orbit and 320 000 m altitude, the Soyuz space capsule rocket gives it a push force vertically downwards and then the vertical velocity just increases by gravity until Earth's atmosphere friction reduces the total (vertical/horizontal) speed, like Apollo 11, while heating up the Soyuz space capsule until it burns up, it must be assumed. A Soyuz space capsule cannot brake. Please, do not suggest that a Russian made heat shield brakes it. It seems it is impossible to get down from the ISS alive. The private US SpaceX space ship Dragon will do the same, impossible, thing starting October 2012. Its heat shield is private property, i.e. no details are available. So what idiots are up there, you should ask? Answer is probably nobody. The whole thing is a stupid joke, i.e. a hoax, mainly paid for by US tax payers with the Russians chipping in some kopeks or rubels.

NASA is again fooling the world 5-6 August 2012 - Did friction or a parachute decelerate the Mars Science Laboratory spaceship?
The Mars Science Laboratory, MSL, space craft is described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory and the landing on Mars (?) at http://www.bis-space.com/2012/08/03/642 ... pdate-no-4. The Mars Science Laboratory, MSL, spacecraft had an entry-descent-landing (EDL) system (2 401 kg + 390 kg of propellant) and an 899 kg (1,980 lb) mobile rover with an integrated instrument package, total weight 3 690 kg. It had been dispatched from Earth at great velocity months earlier direction Mars. During trip to Mars the start velocity was slowed down by Sun gravity. The MSL apparently was approaching planet Mars at velocity about 6 000 m/s due to Mars gravity working on it for some time prior arrival and no braking was taking place, so the kinetic energy involved was 66.42 GJ (which is quite a lot - 18 450 kWh) at entry Mars atmosphere. On 5-6 August 2012 the Mars Science Laboratory (watch the stupid video) space ship allegedly landed on Mars according NASA/JPL (watch the stupid reportage). The below figure (based on info from links above) of the parabolic descent is evidently not to scale. The spacecraft enters the Mars atmosphere at a very small angle of inclination and then travels over 1 200 kilometers in the Mars atmosphere before reaching the Touchdown area:

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

When the Mars atmosphere was reached a parachute was reportedly deployed to start braking the space craft at 125 000 meter altitude ... at speed 6 000 m/s. You really wonder what magic parachute can do that! The parachute, allegedly built by Pioneer Aerospace, South Windsor, Connecticut, had 80 suspension lines, measured more than 50 meters in length, and opened to a diameter of nearly 17 meters. It is the largest disk-gap-band parachute ever built. If it really worked in the thin Mars atmosphere is not proven anywhere. Mars' atmosphere is 100 times thinner than Earth's and I have doubts that a parachute will work there.

7 minutes of terror
The space craft rover landed 420 seconds later at virtually 0 m/s speed. Imagine that! The MSL space craft landed 4 times quicker on Mars than Apollo 11 on Earth 43 years earlier. There is progress. JPL called it seven minutes of terror. You wonder why? It was all automatic. The Mars atmosphere is pretty thin and light; atmospheric pressure on the Mars ground is only 10 hPa compared with a pressure of 1 000 hPa on Earth. In spite of this, we are told the parachute worked. The last 20 seconds rockets assisted the braking. Mars gravity is also much weaker than Earth gravity. The entry velocity was 6 000 m/s. How NASA knows the velocity of its space crafts is not explained anywhere (but it was by another sputnik orbiting Mars). Time from Entry into Mars atmosphere until Touchdown at Ground Zero was then 420 seconds. The average speed in Mars atmosphere was thus 3 000 m/s during 420 seconds. It means that the MSL space craft travelled 1 260 000 meter in the Mars atmosphere or 1.260 kilometers hanging in a parachute that was slowing down the descent. The vertical travel down was only 125 000 meter through the Mars atmosphere. The average vertical velocity during the 420 seconds decent was thus 125000/420 = 297.62 m/s. The angle of entry into the thin top Mars atmosphere must have been something like 5.67or close to horizontal. The average horizontal velocity during decent was 2 985.2 m/s and the horizontal displacement during decent was of the order 1 253 754 meter! Imagine if the one and only parachute had been deployed 15 seconds too late and that braking had started 15 seconds late. What would be the result? Right - the space craft would have landed 90 kilometers away from the planned Touchdown position in the 150 kilometers diameter Gale crater! Only 90 kilometers. It might have hit the side of the 5 000 meters high mountains around the Gale crater then.

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Imagine if the parachute was less effective than expected (as it had never been tested in a thin atmosphere) and the average vertical velocity was 10% greater or 330 m/s during decent. What would be the result? Right - the space craft would touch ground after 379 seconds at

high absolute velocity. The space craft would probably crash.

On the other hand imagine, if the average vertical decent speed was 10% less, you would stop high above ground and drop down vertically below the parachutes at the end. No rockets would be required at all! NASA/JPL cannot use average velocities to predict the location of Touchdown. They must use an algoritm that calculates absolute positions and velocities in 3-D all the time, while he spaceship is decelerated by the parachute ... and adjust if something goes wrong! Let's face it. There is no way that a parachute of any kind can be used to stop a space craft with 3 690 kg mass and 6 000 m/s entry velocity after a 1 260 kilometer ride through thin Mars atmosphere at a given, pre-planned spot on Mars. It only happens in SF fairy tales. Prove me wrong and earn 1M! As above was not possible, JPL has published another scenario: Source:s http://www.futura-sciences.com/uploads/RTEmagicP_curiosity_detailDescente_mex_nasa_txdam31215_386971.jpg and

http://www.futura-sciences.com/fr/news/t/astronautique/d/curiosity-la-nasa-et-lesa-preparent-larrivee-du-robot-sur-mars_40302/

Above is another fantastic suggestion how the Mars Science Laboratory spaceship landed on Mars during seven minutes (and 12 seconds) of terror.

Time of Event Occurrence at Mars (PDT) http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/news/edl20120809.html

[10:10:45.7 PM] Atmospheric Entry [10:15:04.9 PM] Parachute Deploy (259.2 seconds later! at 11 000 meters altitude) [10:15:24.6 PM] Heat Shield Separation (seen from the Rover - http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html? collection_id=14661 + clicking) [10:17:38.6 PM] Rover Separation (from Descent Stage) (2 minutes 14 seconds later) [10:17:57.3 PM] Touchdown (18.7 seconds later) (Scrap around the Curiosity Rover -

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?collection_id=14661 + clicking)

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Time Event Occurrence Received on Earth (PDT) i.e. 13 minutes and 48.5 seconds later: [10:24:33.8 PM] Atmospheric Entry [10:28:53.0 PM] Parachute Deploy [10:29:12.7 PM] Heat Shield Separation [10:31:26.7 PM] Rover Separation (from Descent Stage) [10:31:45.4 PM] Touchdown

Let Mars atmosphere slow down the spaceship!

Here the MSL spaceship arrives into Mars carbon dioxide atmosphere at altitude 125 000 m at 5 900 m/s velocity at time 0 sec and doesn't brake at all and no parachute is deployed! JPL has no idea at what angle the spaceship must arrive at ... and how to adjust it. If the angle is 90, the spaceship will hit ground after only 25 seconds or so or burn up before and that is not funny. No, the space ship must arrive at a small angle, ~5, and decelerate due friction, while Mars gravity pulls it down to ground. It is the very thin Mars atmosphere that manages to reduce the speed of the spaceship by friction (!) and when velocity is only 405 m/s 259.2 (or 454?) seconds later, the famous parachute is deployed at only 11 000 meter altitude.

The speed is reduced from 5 900 to 405 m/s in only 259.2 seconds we are told by JPL ... and only by friction and turbulence between spaceship's Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator (PICA) heat shield and the 125 000 meter or 125 km deep but very light Mars carbon
dioxide atmosphere. Of course the spaceship must have travelled a 817 128 meters trajectory or 817 km (and descending 114 km) then through the Mars atmosphere ... like a bullet ... during that time ... all predicted by the spaceship board computer and at JPL control center 14 light minutes away. Note that the MSL space ship stops much much quicker than Apollo 11, 1969, due friction inspite of Mars' atmosphere beeing much, much thinner than Earth's. Isn't it strange? There are four basic physical models of a gas that are important to aeronautical engineers who design heat shields ... but none can be used to explain the MSL deceleration entering Mars' mostly carbon dioxide atmosphere. Or from the JPL presskit pp 28.

"During EDL, more than nine-tenths of the deceleration before landing results from friction with the Mars atmosphere before the parachute opens. Peak heating occurs about 75 seconds after atmospheric entry, when the temperature at the external surface of the heat shield will reach about 3,800 degrees Fahrenheit (about 2,100 degrees Celsius). Peak deceleration occurs about 10 seconds later. Deceleration could reach 15 g, but a peak in the range of 10 g to 11 g is more likely."
The unit kinetic energy transformed into heat in 259.2 seconds is 17.32 MJ/kg and if the space ship's heat shield is of concrete with C = 880 J/kg K, it's temperature will rise by 19.685K. JPL thinks it only heats up 2 100C. Evidently it will burn up and disappear long before that or the brake forces rip apart the heat shield. But on film above it drops off undamaged at 10:29:12.7 PM or 13 minutes and 48.5 seconds earlier on Mars. Just behind the heat shield is the Rover! JPL suggests it is unaffected by the heat and forces of the heat shield.

Mean values of various parameters are as already stated above very useful to get a feel of what is supposed to have happened. The mean deceleration during travel through Mars atmosphere until parachute deployment was 5 495/259.2 = 21.20 m/s (every second the speed was reduced 21.20 m/s!) or 2.16 g and the mean drag force acting on the 3 690 kg MSL spaceship due friction was 78 227 N or about 8.0 ton (on Earth). Note that friction in the Mars atmosphere is much bigger than on Earth, when Apollo 11 came dropping down. Magic, isn't it? The Mars atmosphere is thinner than Earth's but applies more friction. Such strong braking force due friction and turbulence in thin Mars atmosphere is not possible and a clear evidence of a hoax.
Because you should really wonder why the parachute then was used on Mars? To reduce speed further from 405 to 80 m/s during 110 seconds? Mars atmosphere friction would do it much faster - actually in (405-80)/21.2 = 15.3 seconds just going the extra time and distance through the atmosphere! But the spaceship has burnt up long before. JPL thinks the parachute can only decelerate the spacecraft to 200 mph or ~80 m/s and then rockets are needed. So this happens:

The parachute ride

#1. The parachute was allegedly deployed at 11 000 m altitude 254 (or 259.2) seconds after entry into Mars atmosphere. Space craft velocity was then 405 m/s at an unknown angle of inclination. There is no means to control the parachute. The spaceship just hangs on to it. It is filmed by a US sputnik that happens to pass (sic) in orbit around Mars. #2. The heat shield was dropped off automatically at 8 000 m altitude 278 seconds after entry into Mars atmosphere, i.e. 24 seconds after parachute was deployed. The Rover is now exposed. Velocity was then 125 m/s. Average speed during these 24 seconds (events #1 and #2) was 265 m/s, average deceleration was 11.67 m/s and total distance travelled 6 360 m. Vertical drop was about 3 000 m. Average vertical velocity was 3 000/24 = 125 m/s. Average inclination was about 28. The 50 kg parachute was apparently subject to 43 000 N shock load after event #1 lasting 24 seconds. #3. Back shell separation and end of parachute travel took place at 1 600 m altitude 364 seconds after entry into Mars atmosphere, i.e. 86 seconds after heat shield was dropped off. Velocity was then 80 m/s. Average speed during these 86 seconds (events #2 and #3) was 102.5 m/s, average deceleration was 0.52 m/s and total distance travelled 8 815 m. Vertical drop was about 6 400 m. Average vertical velocity was 6 400/86 = 74 m/s. Average inclination was about 47.
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

#1-#3 are just JPL science fiction fantasies.

Summary
Atmospheric friction deceleration on Mars was average 21.20 m/s and could apparently reduce speed to 405 m/s according NASA/JPL, when a parachute was required, which initially decelerated the spaceship at 11.67 m/s to 125 m/s velocity, later becoming average only 0.52 m/s deceleration and only 80 m/s final velocity at 1 600 m altitude but still too much to land according JPL. At 1 600 m altitude apparently the parachute was suddenly no longer effective as speed was too high and rockets had to be used to bring velocity to 0 while flying around a little to avoid getting entangled in the parachute and for show - all automatically while the Rover filmed the decent into the Gale crater and added some video game instruments for JPL to enjoy 14 minutes later.

Common sense overlooked ... as usual

It would evidently have been much better to use a little bigger parachute that decelerates the spaceship a little faster, so that absolute velocity had been say only 20 m/s in lieu of 80 m/s at 1 600 m altitude, so that, with final deceleration, say 0.125 m/s, you land at 0 speed 160 seconds later ... with the parachute. Or something like it. No need for rockets (!) that just complicate things. A well designed parachute should have done the job alone! But, sorry - the show must go on! Rockets add to the drama - that never took place. It seems the JPL/NASA SF writers lack imagination. They make believe that the very fast MSL spaceship managed to decelerate from 5 900 to 80 m/s velocity in 6 minutes 4 seconds first by very thin Mars atmosphere friction and a heat shield and then by a big parachute that had never been tested in so thin atmosphere and that it can be predicted and controlled by 500 000 lines of software and a board computer! JPL/NASA failed to realize that they had to brake to 20 m/s in lieu of 80 m/s because then the parachute would also finish the job.

Sorry, it is physically impossible to stop a spaceship with speed 5 900 m/s as suggested. As impossible as a weak top of a tower crushes the stronger bottom by gravity.
The Mars spaceship + equipment burns up in the atmosphere after already 100-120 seconds due to friction regardless of entry angle. No heat shield can prevent it. So all footage of the MSL landing above and celebrations at JPL/Pasadena control center by clowns in blue T-shirts are just Hollywood propaganda ... as usual. And all pictures of Mars crater surface ... and old lake? ... sent later are fake, fake, fake. And the faking cannot stop! US tax payers pay. Soon there will be more fake pictures of Mars. I look forward to them. They will no doubt show traces of some sort of life on Mars 3 billion years ago. God also created life on Mars! Jesus! And towers that crushed themselves from top. What a joke! But US of A trust in God. Why not? If a country wants to waste its money, go ahead.

Summary of three US space ship re-entries:

Space ship
Re-entry mass (kg) Re-entry speed (m/s) Entering planet

Apollo 11 CM
5 557

Shuttle 78 000
9 000 Earth

MSL
3 690 5 900 Mars

and their particulars

11 200
Earth

m v1 x (v )/2
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Unit kinetic energy (MJ/kg) Total kinetic energy (GJ) to absorb braking Unit temperature rise with C = 880 J/kgC (concrete) (C) Entry altitude (m) Speed parachute deploy (m/s) Altitude parachute deploy (m) Time in seconds between atmosphere entry/parachute deploy (s) Average kinetic energy loss due friction/turbulence every second (MJ/s) Distance travelled in re-entry (m) Mean deceleration in re-entry (m/s) Mean brake force in re-entry due friction/turbulence (N) Gravity at planet ground, g (m/s) Planet atmosphere density at ground (kg/m3) Planet atmosphere pressure at ground (hPa) Heat shield diameter (m) Heat shield mass (kg)

63
349

41

3 159
46 023 130 000 150 0 1 800

17 64 19 778 125 000

(v1)/2 m(v1)/2 (v1)/1760 x v2 x t m((v1)-( v2))/2t t(v1+ v2)/2 (v1- v2)/t m(v1- v2)/t x x x x x

71 273
400 000 50 21 000 1 761 198

405
11 000

259.2
247 817 128

1 755
8 100 000 5.0

9 905 625
6.3 35 176 9.82 1.20 1 000 3.9 848

21.2
78 228 3.71 0.02 6-10 4.5 ? (secret ?)

390 000
9.82 1.20 1 000 N.A. N.A.

The Shuttle is the heaviest space ship - 78 000 kg - managing a re-entry. Apollo 11 had the highest re-entry speed - 11 200 m/s and therefore most kinetic energy (MJ) per mass (kg) - 62.72, but the Shuttle's total kinetic energy to transform into friction heat is the biggest - 3 159 (GJ). Those energies would increase the temperature of any space ship and the surroundings >19 000C due friction and turbulence! Manned Apollo 11 and Shuttle do a re-entry in about 30 minutes with a mean deceleration of 0.64-51g and distances travelled in atmosphere are very long 8 000 - 10 000 km (1/4 of the Earth's circumference), while the unmanned MSL does a total re-entry at Mars in 'seven minutes of terror' at mean deceleration 2.15g and travelling only 817 km, which is quite long too.

Apollo 11 and MSL use a heat shield to absorb the kinetic energy as friction of the order 200-250 MJ/s or less (depending on the turbulence), while Shuttle is doing acrobatic flying causing turbulence to absorb 1 755 MJ/s energy. Little footage exists from the cockpit of a Shuttle
during manual (!) re-entry maneuvering (how can you film with deceleration 0.5g during 30 minutes with all crew strapped to their seats and the pilot trying to fly the Shuttle?). Existing footage seems a joke. The Shuttle was subject to a mean brake force (due friction and turbulence) of 390 000 N during re-entry or more than 10 times Apollo 11. The MSL mean brake force at Mars was 78 228 N or more than double Apollo 11 and you wonder how it is possible in the thin Mars atmosphere. Can a heat shield produce such big brake forces? It seems NASA/JPL cannot provide any scientific evidence for it. The Mars' atmosphere is 100 times less dense than Earth's with a ground pressure 60 times lower, but Mars' atmosphere seems to be able to slow down re-entry for MSL twice quicker than for Apollo 11. NASA/JPL cannot provide any scientific evidence for it.

I have a distinct feeling that all types of known US space ship re-entry to any planet is a hoax. The US space ship would just burn up or break up like a meteorite. Prove me wrong and earn 1 000 000:-.

Back to Heiwa Co start page

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com