An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Originally posted by physicsteacher
...It is impossible at this point to maintain the alignment of action and reaction vectors. It is enough a very little displacement between the 2 vectors that infinite biggest momentums make the rocket to spin and run to all infinite directions of 3D space....

Yes...well thank God they had a 16-thruster Reaction Control System (RCS) to keep them from spining out of control.

There were 16 reaction control thrusters mounted on the sides of the Command Module that automatically corrected the course of the spacecraft while the main thruster was burning.

This RCS and its 16 450-Newton rocket thrusters kept the Command Module from spinning out of control and kept it moving in the intended direction.

As a physics teacher, you should know a system such as this works. Just look at the Space Shuttle -- it has similar RCS thrusters to keep it moving straight while it fires its Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) engines. You're right to say that without the RCS engines the Space Shuttle or the Command Module may, as you put it, "spin and run to all infinite directions of 3D space". Thankfully they DO have these engines, therefore these spacecrafts DO NOT spin out of control.

By the way, the LEM also had an RCS with 16 small thrusters that kept it 'flying' straight and level when it landed on the Moon.

[edit on 1/13/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by phisicsteacher

Originally posted by ngchunter
reply to post by no.stars

 

The spacecraft is not a disk with forces being applied tangentally to the edge, so how is this analogy supposed to apply? If the force of the engine were going to induce a spin, the simulator would reflect it. If you try to do a burn with a fictional spacecraft that's not properly balanced it will spin, but the apollo spacecraft never exhibit this behavior because their engines are directly in line with their cog, unlike in your example.

In that disk compressed air acts along the radius in line with its center of gravity.

You say in another post:

"The simulator I use implements the real apollo guidance computer software. It features the real performance characteristics of the vehicle, and it runs inside an advanced free spaceflight simulator program developed by an independent physicist from London".

A simulator can't reproduce the complexity of the real thing. Do you think landing on the Moon is a video game?

You say in another post:

"I hope you don't doubt the fact that the spacecraft can slow down in this manner, since this is basic physics...action/reaction stuff, and is done all of the time".

In my analogy we are in the field of dynamics like the spacecraft in 3D space.
You talk about action/reaction stuff but a vector remains in line of another opposite vector only in statics.
In dynamics momentums cause the disalignment of action-reaction vectors.

I'm afraid you need to study basic physics a bit closer. Momentum does not cause the "disalignment" of action-reactions. If it did, there'd be no way to make accurate mid-course corrections, plane alignments, or any of a variety of other common orbital maneuvers that occur at an angle to the vector of the spacecraft's momentum. What you're saying, essentially, is that all space missions are impossible.

Also, a simulator can't reproduce the real thing EXACTLY, but it can get it awfully close. This simulator shows that nothing you've described actually occurs, not even close. Unless you're saying your understanding of physics is vastly superior to that of a PhD physicist from london in good standing, then I'm afraid your predictions about what should happen to the apollo spacecraft is wrong. Furthermore, this simulator has been used by some to follow along with real shuttle missions in real time. The simulator routinely produces results that are amazingly similar to the real thing, with the velocity, orbit, and major events such as docking, de-orbit and landing occuring within moments of the real thing. In summary, this is no "video-game."

Originally posted by physicsteacher

Originally posted by EarthDweller

Instead the new question should be:
With what technology was it made possible?

Certainly not with Apollo technology since a rocket that runs at 39,600 km/h can't be slowed down to 5,700 km/h turning round it and igniting its rocket engine.
Action-reaction vectors remain in line only in statics.
Imagine the Command Service Module that weighs 30 tons and runs at 39,000 km/h. You turn round the rocket and, in order to slow down its speed to 5,700 km/h, you turn on its rocket engine.
It is impossible at this point to maintain the alignment of action and reaction vectors. It is enough a very little displacement between the 2 vectors that infinite biggest momentums make the rocket to spin and run to all infinite directions of 3D space.

As I stated in my previous post, if this were true, all space missions, manned and unmanned, would be impossible. The apollo missions weren't the only ones that required firing the engine to slow the spacecraft down from trans-lunar to lunar orbit. Any mission going to the moon has the same requirement. You're essentially saying all missions to the moon are a hoax, along with any mission that requires the spacecraft to fire an engine with an angle between the vector of momentum and the engine. That about describes every single mission there is. Is that what you really believe though? Because that's where this theory takes you.

Imagine a rocket that runs at 39,600 km/h. You turn round it and ignite its rocket engine.

Imagine that the disalignment between action and reaction vectors happens on a 2D plane.

A disalignment of 10° causes a several tons momentum. Remember that the rocket weighs 30 tons and runs at 39,600 km/h.

How can 4 thrusters of 45 kg oppose to that momentum? They can't and the rocket begins to spin on that plane and then on another plane and then on another and over and over.

Look at the thrusters:



Only some NASA swindlers could place the thrusters in that position.
A smart engineer would place them at the top since their momentums would be greater and more efficacious.

Originally posted by vonbraun
Imagine a rocket that runs at 39,600 km/h. You turn round it and ignite its rocket engine.

Imagine that the disalignment between action and reaction vectors happens on a 2D plane.

A disalignment of 10° causes a several tons momentum. Remember that the rocket weighs 30 tons and runs at 39,600 km/h.

How can 4 thrusters of 45 kg oppose to that momentum? They can't and the rocket begins to spin on that plane and then on another plane and then on another and over and over.

Look at the thrusters:



Only some NASA swindlers could place the thrusters in that position.
A smart engineer would place them at the top since their momentums would be greater and more efficacious.

Sorry, folks...troll is back.

So far, by my count, this same person has come in, and been banned, about ten times at the least!

NO logical points to contribute...NO apparent understanding of basic science and physics...and finally, NO sense of propriety. This person is best ignored, it would seem. Nothing will ever makes sense to him/her.

Just my own rant...thanks to all the others who have tried, and tried to post and explain in this thread...many great contributions.

[spelling edit]

[edit on 14-1-2008 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by vonbraun
Imagine a rocket that runs at 39,600 km/h. You turn round it and ignite its rocket engine.

Imagine that the disalignment between action and reaction vectors happens on a 2D plane.

A disalignment of 10° causes a several tons momentum. Remember that the rocket weighs 30 tons and runs at 39,600 km/h.

How can 4 thrusters of 45 kg oppose to that momentum? They can't and the rocket begins to spin on that plane and then on another plane and then on another and over and over.

Look at the thrusters:



Only some NASA swindlers could place the thrusters in that position.
A smart engineer would place them at the top since their momentums would be greater and more efficacious.

A 10 degree "disalignment" causes several "tons momentum"? What is that supposed to mean? The momentum is the mass times the velocity. p=mv. Where in there do you see "momentum" being "caused" by thrusting at an angle to the momentum's vector? Please, show us all how you calculated that a 10 degree "disalignment" "causes several tons" of momentum. Let's see the formula and the math you did. By the way, the way you talk about the spacecraft "running" at 39,600km/hr makes it seem like you think it has to actively do something to keep this speed up. I think you need to completely rethink your understanding of physics. I can only hope you don't actually teach this subject. And lastly, you still haven't addressed my previous posts. Your theory about the way physics works forces one to conclude that all space missions are impossible, is that really what you believe though, or does your theory contradict your beliefs about modern spacecraft?

reply to post by vonbraun


Okay, Werner Von Braun...I'll humor you once more.

If it is impossible to control a spacecraft using this method, then (as pointed out by ngchunter) how does any spacecraft maneuver in space, and what method did the Russians, the Chinese, and the Japanese use to get their various spacecrafts to slow down enough to get into a lunar orbit?

EDIT:spelling

[edit on 1/14/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by ngchunter

A 10 degree "disalignment" causes several "tons momentum"? What is that supposed to mean? The momentum is the mass times the velocity. p=mv.

No, English is not my first language.

Look at this:

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by von.braun

Originally posted by ngchunter

A 10 degree "disalignment" causes several "tons momentum"? What is that supposed to mean? The momentum is the mass times the velocity. p=mv.

No, English is not my first language.

Look at this:

en.wikipedia.org...

Ironically, this is essentially how spacecraft use their reaction control systems to maintain stability; they use thrust at a distance from the center of gravity to rotate the spacecraft where it needs to go. But how in the heck is an engine (assuming it's not gimbaling) that is directly in line with the center of gravity of the spacecraft going to generate any "torque," or change in the angular momentum? I don't see a darn thing in here about the velocity of an object changing the location of the center of gravity. It doesn't matter what the velocity or weight of a spacecraft is, an engine that doesn't generate any change in the angular momentum of a rocket lifting off a pad isn't going to start changing the angular momentum once it gets going "fast" past some ambiguously defined point that seems in your mind to exist only when the apollo spacecraft go to the moon, but not in spacecraft that trying to orbit the earth at mach 25. Once again, if a rocket in line to the center of gravity can start magically changing the craft's angular momentum, how does this NOT affect unmanned missions, or modern missions to the space station. In fact, the shuttle's OMS engines, unlike apollo, are NOT in line to the center of gravity, and in that special case they DO generate some angular mometum. Does this mean the space shuttle can't manuever in space while it's "going at about 7km/sec"? No, of course not, because the angular momentum is dependent on the distance of the engine from the "fulcrum" or place where it would be in line to the center of gravity, and the force of the engine. Because the shuttle's engines aren't that far from the "fulcrum," not much angular momentum is generated, and even its small-ish thrusters can keep it stable. It doesn't matter how fast the shuttle is going, or even if it were to be blasted to the moon, the rate at which its engines will generate angular momentum is constant.

At this time I wish to express my sincere respect and admiiration to NGChunter, SoylentGreenispeople, and Weedwhacker for thier clarity, consciseness , tolerance, and patience over the last 3-4 pages of this thread.

Truly inspiring.

reply to post by darkbluesky


Thanks, darkbluesky. It has been fun!

I am at a loss, though, why a person will persist in coming back again and again with a different username just to post nonsense on one thread. Just don't understand at all...

(in case anyone wonders what I am talking about, just read a few dozen pages...)

Thanks to Mods who are adept at noticing this person...

Gee, wonder who would have so many email addresses as to be able to create 'new' names and keep 'trolling' here at ATS? Any ideas?

Thanks.

I will try to be simple in my reasoning. I hope you can understand.

When Charlie Brown is in orbit around the Moon it can orbit in all positions staying for example perpendicular to the ground of the Moon.

But when you must slow down its speed to land Snoopy on the Moon you must turn round the rocket and ignite its engine.
It is in this manoeuvre that a little disalignment of action and reaction vectors cause infinite angular momentums that those poor RCS thrusters can’t oppose SINCE CHARLIE BROWN HAS A COMPUTER OF 32K RAM.
The disalignment increases and angular momentums become bigger and the rocket begins to spin and run to all directions at 360° x 360° like a little balloon you have inflated and left free to fly.
You can’t oppose to those infinite angular momentums with a ridiculous computer of 32k RAM.
Since you can’t react in real time, it is better for you not to slow down your rocket but come back to Earth.
It’s not too hard to understand.

Someone here has told something about Von Braun.

Look at this article:

history.msfc.nasa.gov...

You went to the Moon only in Disney comic-strips and, with collaboration of Von Braun and Kubrick, you landed on a fake Moon in some Disney studio.

Originally posted by rewind
You went to the Moon only in Disney comic-strips and, with collaboration of Von Braun and Kubrick, you landed on a fake Moon in some Disney studio.

Hey! Thanks for that link and from a NASA source too

WD and WB fooled the UFO conspiracy people too... for years this famous picture of the base on the Moon circulated the websites... Even today you can still find it...




Look in the bottom right corner you can see the Disney TV logo

Originally posted by rewind
I will try to be simple in my reasoning. I hope you can understand.

When Charlie Brown is in orbit around the Moon it can orbit in all positions staying for example perpendicular to the ground of the Moon.

But when you must slow down its speed to land Snoopy on the Moon you must turn round the rocket and ignite its engine.
It is in this manoeuvre that a little disalignment of action and reaction vectors cause infinite angular momentums that those poor RCS thrusters can’t oppose SINCE CHARLIE BROWN HAS A COMPUTER OF 32K RAM.
The disalignment increases and angular momentums become bigger and the rocket begins to spin and run to all directions at 360° x 360° like a little balloon you have inflated and left free to fly.
You can’t oppose to those infinite angular momentums with a ridiculous computer of 32k RAM.
Since you can’t react in real time, it is better for you not to slow down your rocket but come back to Earth.
It’s not too hard to understand.

You just won't quit will you? Adding fictional cartoon characters STILL does not answer the questions I put forward to you, nor does it make your english easier to understand. There is no way you can get infinite angular momentum by igniting the SPS engine regardless of the direction you're facing. Infinite angular momentum is not even physically possible! That's like saying you can break the speed of light with a chemical rocket! Once again, will you please enlighten us about this "magical difference" between burning retrograde in lunar orbit and burning retrograde in earth orbit? The fact is that there is no difference, and if you wish to prove otherwise you're going to have to provide proof. So far you've still failed to answer my very simple question of how you calculated that the apollo spacecraft could generate infinite angular momentum. I already provided you with access to a free physics simulator that uses emulates the very same guidance computer with the very same guidance software; if it's not powerful enough to maintain the attitude of the apollo spacecraft as you claim, it would be easy for you to actually prove it by running the simulator and recording your results. Instead you come to us making bold statements that bear no resemblance to physical reality without a shred of proof. It's a physical law that every action and an equal and OPPOSITE reaction; there's nothing in there that says this is only true if you're not orbiting the moon or not going faster than some weakly defined speed. It doesn't matter how fast you're going, and in fact, the orbital speed for earth is much faster than that of the moon, so will you PLEASE explain how this theory of yours only works when burning retrograde over the moon but not the earth? Because spacecraft have to burn retrograde all the time for various reasons, and some spacecraft like the shuttle DO generate angular momentum EVERY time they light their engines because of the position of the engines, but not because of the orientation of the spacecraft. So how is it that the space shuttle doesn't generate "inifinite angular momentum" according to your theory of the way things work?

[edit on 17-1-2008 by ngchunter]

reply to post by zorgon


Z,

You got 'punked' by the poster you responded to...you fell for his BS hook, line and sinker!! You see, this person has been trolling this thread for some time now, getting banned and coming back again and again...at least a dozen different screen names by now...spouting the same nonsense over and over again, in very poor English to boot!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
you fell for his BS hook, line and sinker!!

I did?? Well I guess I better consult you first in the future so you can 'explain things' to me huh?

Just so happens I know that Disney and von Braun collaborated to cover up the work on the real moon base so if anything leaked they could use plausible deniability and point to the movie...


And I don't buy the LEM story either... though I know they are on the moon... believe me they did not get all that heavy mining equipment up there in the hold of the LEM...

BTW just how did they fit those funny cars inside that thing?



Seems Disney and Lockheed martin are doing the same for the Mars Rovers now too

You see, this person has been trolling this thread for some time now, getting banned and coming back again and again...at least a dozen different screen names by now...spouting the same nonsense over and over again,

Well that may be but if you guys weren't here to answer back there would be no purpose to him doing this would there? If he is so crazy, why are you (and others) constantly participating? Seems if you ignored it it would go away

in very poor English to boot!!

Well I would call this constant harassment of people over spelling issues and abilities with language much worse than trolling... Not everyone is a literary genius... Not everyone has a full command of the english language... Seems to be your pet peeve though as half your posts in all threads are correcting people's English and spelling... and you seem to forget this is an INTERNATIONAL board

I think I will search through your posts and see if you have any typos

reply to post by zorgon


Z, you have a lot of better things to do, dontcha?

As to the LRVs, and how they were stored...um, it's easy enough to look up how they folded and placed in a compartment on the Descent stage of the LM.

Disney on the Moon? Bet they have more attendance than EuroDisney in France!!



[edit on 17-1-2008 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by ngchunter

So how is it that the space shuttle doesn't generate "inifinite angular momentum" according to your theory of the way things work?

Space shuttle doesn't generate "infinite angular momentums" because it doesn't land going backwards. It has wings and is more similar to an airplane than a rocket, therefore it lands like an airplane.

Originally posted by ngchunter

It's a physical law that every action and an equal and OPPOSITE reaction...

youtube.com...

Action - right reaction: O.K.

Action - wrong reaction: crash



Nobody here have still said the reasons of this strange depressed behaviour of the 3 HEROES OF THE SPACE:

youtube.com...

Originally posted by miamibics


Space shuttle doesn't generate "infinite angular momentums" because it doesn't land going backwards. It has wings and is more similar to an airplane than a rocket, therefore it lands like an airplane.

Nobody here have still said the reasons of this strange depressed behaviour of the 3 HEROES OF THE SPACE:

I can't view youtube videos right now, can anyone tell me what the heck this is all about? If you were doing all your research on the way orbital mechanics actually work from youtube... that might explain a lot - there's only "action-reaction," no "wrong reaction." Physics doesn't suddenly change just because you're going a certain speed through space. Need I remind you that the earth itself is hurtling through space at an incredible speed, yet it doesn't affect our "action-reactions." By the way, you claim the shuttle doesn't have to burn retrograde to land? Wrong. It doesn't use its wings until it's thick in the atmosphere, about 60-100km's altitude, but way before that point it must use its OMS engines while "turned around" (retrograde) to slow down so that it can descend into the atmosphere. During this "de-orbit burn" the wings are totally functionless because there's no atmosphere, so how the heck are wings or no-wings going to matter?

Note step two in this picture.


Oops, guess that's impossible according to your theory, so the shuttle must be a hoax too. Either that or your theory's wrong...

[edit on 17-1-2008 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter


Hello, ngchunter,

Well, by my count, this is the same person again, the one who gets banned and comes up with new names...up to twenty, by my count.

Your response was right on, and intellectual -- but I am afraid it still falls on 'deaf ears'. I get it, though...