Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #407134

Re: Apollo 11

From Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups sci.physics.relativity
Subject Re: Apollo 11
Date 2017-01-29 20:16 +0100
Message-ID <ef6td5F7gjsU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References <39391af7-5bea-4ba2-99cf-4448ebb67f5b@googlegroups.com> <ef5gquFt356U1@mid.individual.net> <97609b24-fdbd-413e-8019-a1eadb9dbc46@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw


Am 29.01.2017 12:20, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 11:36:16 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> Am 27.01.2017 19:57, schrieb numbernumber1964@gmail.com:
>>>
>>> The Apollo 11 mission did not land on the surface of the moon. If the
>>> moon landing was performed, a test probe would have been first sent to
>>> the surface of the moon to test the gravity of the moon.
>
> They did, in 1966 through 1968:
>
> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/
>
> But it was not necessary to land a probe first.  Apollo 8 and 10 went into
> orbit around the moon and returned to earth, so the mass of the moon was
> known from the characteristics of those orbits.
>
> http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo.html


Well. I have some doubts.

I have for instance once figured out, how much fuel is required for 
landing of the lunar lander 'Eagle' and how much the return ascend would 
require, to catch up with the orbiter.

My calculation showed, that the lander had enough fuel to decelerate 
from orbit velocity  to zero velocity in respect to the Moon and to 
safely sink with stop at zero sinking velocity at the surface.

But obviously the lander had to do the opposite, too. This would require 
ascent from the surface and acceleration to orbit velocity (to catch up 
with the orbiter).

Besides the formidable difficulty of this rendezvous in the middle of 
nowhere, it also required more fuel the ascent stage could carry.

That fuel was also necessary for the descent phase.

So, in my opinion, they could not do it with such a craft.

But if they have been on the Moon, they must have used something else:

the 'Haunebu' (for instance).


TH

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-27 10:57 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 16:05 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Juliana Auerbach <jaot@tognaenn.org> - 2017-01-28 00:18 +0000
      Re: Apollo 11 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 16:41 -0800
        Re: Apollo 11 Juliana Auerbach <jaot@tognaenn.org> - 2017-01-28 01:14 +0000
          Re: Apollo 11 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 11:33 -0800
            Re: Apollo 11 Juliana Auerbach <jaot@tognaenn.org> - 2017-01-28 20:22 +0000
          Re: Apollo 11 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 11:34 -0800
            Re: Apollo 11 Juliana Auerbach <jaot@tognaenn.org> - 2017-01-28 20:19 +0000
              Re: Apollo 11 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 17:21 -0800
                Re: Apollo 11 Juanita Forney <iatiet@oetnnrn.org> - 2017-01-30 12:33 +0000
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-27 16:46 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-28 12:48 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-28 13:16 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-29 13:04 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 17:08 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-28 13:24 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-28 13:34 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-29 07:36 +0100
    Re: Apollo 11 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-29 03:20 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-29 20:16 +0100
        Re: Apollo 11 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-29 12:07 -0800
          Re: Apollo 11 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-02-01 06:24 +0100
        Re: Apollo 11 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-29 22:43 +0100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-29 12:05 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-29 15:27 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-29 15:40 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-30 12:37 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-31 11:18 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-30 15:58 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-30 16:18 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-31 11:22 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-30 16:42 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-31 12:13 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-31 10:01 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-01 12:14 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-31 14:51 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-01 12:24 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-02 12:11 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-01 21:35 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-01 22:05 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-01 15:39 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-02 11:37 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-03 09:40 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-02 15:22 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-03 11:52 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 11:55 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-04 11:44 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 15:25 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-04 12:49 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-05 12:07 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-05 12:16 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-06 08:35 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-06 11:49 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-07 10:58 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 13:32 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-08 12:49 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 11:13 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 12:34 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 11:11 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-10 10:53 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-12 11:09 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-13 11:52 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 11:01 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-11 11:42 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 11:21 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-12 12:00 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 11:44 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-13 11:51 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 13:43 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-13 10:23 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 09:54 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-15 14:26 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 10:49 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 10:52 -0800

csiph-web