I am a Moonie

Ibis, The more you write on a subject which is not your strenght the worse you become.

Here, read about centrifugal force for yourself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force

If you find it a bit technical, don't worry because this is degree level stuff and it took me years to learn it as the maths are complicated.

In the meantime just remember the force is acting stright up and it's magnitude depends on it's speed.

Audi. Simple version without the calculations. Swing the rock on a strinf above your head. You must keep a pull on the string. This is a force that you are applying. It's direction is straight in. The centrifugal force is exactly equal to it and it's direction is straight out. If you swing faster the pull you must apply is greater. This is because the centrifugal force has increased as a result of the velocity increasing.

Now when a craft is in orbit the same applies. T he centrfugal force will be acting straight out. Now there is no string and the force acting straight in is gravity. In orbit the speed is such that they are equal. However if the velocity is now increased the outward force increases. Because gravity stays the same the craft moves in the direction of the greater force, that is out or up when viewed from the ground.Moon Landing

A-T Surely before this discussion you had heard of centrifugal force. I would not expect anyone that did not study it to know the details but if neither you or Ibis had never even heard the phrase I would be surprised

youngdan wrote:

Ibis, The more you write on a subject which is not your strenght the worse you become.

Here, read about centrifugal force for yourself

Centrifugal_force

wikipedia wrote:

This article is about the fictitious force related to rotating reference frames.

For general derivations and discussion of fictitious forces, see Fictitious force.

In classical mechanics, centrifugal force is an outward force associated with rotation. Centrifugal force is one of several so-called pseudo-forces (also known as inertial forces), so named because, unlike real forces, they do not originate in interactions with other bodies situated in the environment of the particle upon which they act. Instead, centrifugal force originates in the rotation of the frame of reference within which observations are made

Does that not mean that the force isn't real youngdan but tied to the motion of the body we're discussing ? Car goes around corner, coffee falls off the dashboard. Centrifugal force.

The force is real Audi.

Car going round the corner is is a good example and I will try to explain why the coffee fall off the dash.

You are driving along in a straight line and you feel no forces acting on you. You, the car and the coffee are fine and dandy. There is a force from the engine pushing you forword. This is a relately small force and you only really feel it when accelorating. Now you start going round a curve to the right say. You will feel yourself being pushed to the left. Now someone can call this a fictitious force maybe because for the uneducated it is hard to understand what exactly this force is. I have never heard that term used though. This force that is acting on you is centriful force and it came into existance only because you began travelling in a circular motion. For you not to fly off in the direction of the force you must supply an equal and opposite force. This you do from the friction of your body against the seat and the extra force you apply by holding tighter to the steering wheel.

The force to the left will also act on the car and it too will supply a counteracting force. This comes from the friction of the tires against the road. This force(hopefully) will equal the centrifugal force.

The coffee too will be subject to the centrifugal force. The counteracting force will again come frim the friction of the coffee cup to the dash. We can figure out this force easily. It just depends in this case on the co-efficient of friction that exists between the cup and dash. The rougher the surface the greater the coefficent and the smoother the less the coefficient. Bottom line is the coffee on any object in the car will likely be unable to have enough force available to prevent it sliding to the left. The coffee tipping is different because this is a result of it's centre of gravity being higher than the point where the centrifugal force is acting. So there is 2 motions, sliding and tipping over both of which are likely to occur.

Now road designers and auto designers know this and act accordingly. They design tires with as high a co efficient of friction as sossible so that they will be able to give a greater offsetting force. The
tires getting bald reduces this force.

A road designer will tilt the curve in the direction of the centre of the curve. He does this to give the car the ability to use the force of gravity to add to the friction force in offsetting the centrifugal force. This extra force depends on the angle of tilt or to be more correct the cosine of the angle of tilt.

A driver is oblivious to all this but from experience knows that you slow down coming in to a curve. Therefore reducing the Centrifugal Force. Go too fast and you go in over the ditch when the car can not match it.

Some say accelorate out of a curve. What is happening here is a n extra force is now acting down on the tires and therefore the force they produce against the centrifugal is increased

I think they call it a 'fictitious' or 'pseudo-force' because it only exists when there is a change in something - in this case inertia (?) It seems to get mixed up with the idea of the force of gravity though I don't think they're unrelated i.e. they ARE related.


http://www.karlgiberson.com/Site/The_Patent_Clerk.html

I don't think it's necessary to orbit the earth in any centrifugal style in order to escape the gravity well though.

Audi.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about. When you see lads floating in a plane
they are actually falling to Earth under the forse of gravity. The plane goes into a dive and accelorateS down at the same rate as gravity. So for a short time they are moving slowly RELATIVE TO THE PLANE.

They call it a pseudo-force because it's the result of the tendency of a body to continue in a straight line. A force suggests something 'pushing', whereas this is simply a momentum vector.

In the case of a body in stable orbit, the force exerted by gravity on the body in motion is exactly sufficient to pull the orbiting body off its 'preferred' straight line path by an amount that brings it no closer to Earth.

If you like, you can view the body as dropping under gravity away from the straight line away from Earth it would naturally have followed - falling around the Earth. Just as if you throw an object faster from your hand then it takes longer to drop to Earth, so if you boost a rocket in orbit, the path it follows is straighter - thus, a gentler curve, a wider orbit.

This may be useful - the NASA Technical Memorandum, "Apollo Lunar Descent and Ascent Trajectories" from 1970, post Apollo 11.

youngdan wrote:

Audi.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about. When you see lads floating in a plane
they are actually falling to Earth under the forse of gravity. The plane goes into a dive and accelorateS down at the same rate as gravity. So for a short time they are moving slowly RELATIVE TO THE PLANE.

I know what you're saying but I'm not sure I know what Einstein was saying but I think he was saying that gravity is like the inertial pseudo-force of the car going around the corner. He thought about falling out of a plane and imagined himself not being pulled to earth but instead feeling NO force. I think.

ibis I'll read that again but can I axe you this - the body 'falling' around the earth in orbit - it needs no propulsion while doing this ? It uses energy to get there but once there uses no energy flying around. Like you say, if you were superman and threw a ball into space at the right speed it would go up and out and start to fall but would cease to fall to the surface and would instead fall all around the earth forever and forever.

What a wonderful thought to end the night with.

There was a time when I had no firm view on this matter, but over the last 30 odd years my view has hardened. Based on the scientific law of probability, I now firmly believe the moon landing did in fact happen.

For me the plain fact is that each and every one of the people who are personally known to me who do not believe the landing happened, are 100% sure fire nutters and always have been.

As youngdan is not personally known to me I do not include him in my calculations.

Audi. Ibis has no clue whatsoever on this subject and is spoofing rubbish. Ask him to explain to you in simple English what a momentum vector is and watch him rehash what he reads off Wiki

Tonys, there is no shortage of nutters sure enough. Just out of interest how many individuals have you met who are non believers. I reckon few
people think of it at all. I wish I had thought on it before I went to Cape Canaveral so that I could have asked an astronaut.

youngdan wrote:

Tonys, there is no shortage of nutters sure enough. Just out of interest how many individuals have you met who are non believers. I reckon few
people think of it at all. I wish I had thought on it before I went to Cape Canaveral so that I could have asked an astronaut.

You would reckon right. 3 that I can think of, not many, that’s true, but they do come with a 100% nutter rating.

Jesus, where do I start.

This thread has gone from bad to worse, but I'll have one last stab at it.

The process of landing on the moon is fairly straight forward.

You start out with a huge rocket engine, an even bigger fuel tank fully loaded, maybe some solid rocket boosters if it's a shuttle, and a bit stuck on the top or side to carry people.

You turn the thing on, light it up, put the pedal to the metal and off ye go.

Straight up at first, to get out of the heavier atmosphere, which is costly on fuel because of drag. So you want to get out of it as quickly as possible. Common sense really.

About 4 nautical miles up comes the roll. This is to point the ship in the direction of the earths rotation. You want to end up flying at a tangent to earths equatorial plane, not perpendicular to it. The plan is to be in orbit, not flying away into space. There's a good reason for that, which I may or may not mention further down.

Listen to the youtubes of the shuttle launches and you'll hear the capcom guy quoting altitude and downstream figures. Downstream means nautical miles from launch pad. Try writing down the numbers and plotting them against time, it's fairly obvious it's not a straight line shot.

In fact it's a curve shot.All designed to get the ship into a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) .

A LEO is an orbit around earth at about 300Km above the surface. That's where the International Space Station is and has been for some time, so I doubt it's existence can be denied. By anyone.

Anyway, there you are sitting on top of your rocket, rolled over, accelerating to ...well what ?

Well, to a position of balance between centripetal and centrifugal forces. As there is now a rotating frame of reference, centrifufal forces do exist. Ignore the pseudo force babble for the moment.

Gravity is pulling you in(centripetal), your speed going in a circle is pulling you out(centrifugal).

LEO balance is achieved quite nicely if you, in your rocket get to 300Km above the surface while at the same time accelerating to 28,000 kmh. Thats 7.7 Km per second. Very fast.

Which brings me back to the massive fuel tanks.

Most of this fuel was expended, not in achieving this altitude, but in reaching this velocity. And remember that a lot of fuel was expended in lifting the fuel itself. Fuel to lift fuel. And fuel to lift BIG engines to burn fuel you're lifting.

Anyway, you're now in LEO, and you can see the ISS through your windscreen, but those lads are doing 28,000 Kmh too, so no need to worry about them jamming on the brakes.

But those lads are going nowhere, just hanging out in space. You, however, have bigger plans.

According to most websites, and probably most authorities on space and planetary mechanics, Hohmann developed the low energy transit or transfer orbit back in 1925. Apparently some Russian came to the same conclusions about the same time. Or earlier. Who cares.

The way this works is that while you are at a particular point in your boring circular LEO, you turn the engines on for a wee bit. Say 29 seconds. Remember you are much lighter now having left all that fuel and rockets and engines behind.

Google SRB Separation. Shed the weight as early as possible.

So now you weigh 10% of what you were on the launchpad. Still bombing around the earth at 28,000 Kmh.

Enter the Delta-V as the Yanks call it.It's a fuel supplied thrust to increase the velocity from 7.7Km/s to about 10 Km/s. This takes an awful lot less energy than one would imagine, Remember, you are in an atmosphere free zone now.

The effect of this is a bit like a cowboy trying to catch a cow with a noose. As the rope goes towards the cow, he lets the rope out, as the rope comes back, he pulls it in. Funny thing is, the angular velocity of the rope is not constant.

As the noose swings over the cows head, it is travelling at it's slowest. As he pulls the rope in for another swing, it accelerates, reaching maximum speed behind his head.

Really, the world is inundated with examples of these everyday newtonian effects. I can't even believe I am writing this shite.


Anyway where was I.

Oh yes. Easy on that throttle now. Careful not to go too fast, Don't want to end up in infinity. Which is most likely where you will end up if you accelerate to escape velocity.

That's why it's called ESCAPE VELOCITY.

After the burn, the orbit changes. About a 30% kinetic energy increase does it. Engines off. Enjoy the ride. 200,000 miles of earth getting smaller.


Now, if the lads in Houston have done their sums, just as you get to r2, the gorgeous Moon will be passing by.

And the record shows the lads at Houston can do sums.And nobody can deny that.

You need to get ready for second burn now.

You are coming into the moons earth orbit almost perpendicularly. You need to be tangential. Because you wan to be in a local lunar orbit.

Calm down too, because even though you are right beside the moon, you are still in an earth orbit. Oh yes. Not just that, you are at the Apogee or apocentre of that orbit. Your velocity will be not the 10Km/s when you left LEO, more like 1.5 Kmh/s.

Nearly there.

Oh OOOOOO. Big problem. You want to walk on the moon, but Mother Earth says NO. You are on an earth orbit, so you are coming straight back to earth.No Buts.

Enter Delta-v2 second burn.
Sorry, don't want to continue on this earth orbit, want to stay out here with the moon for a while.

Earth says : Tough shit. You ARE coming back. I'm orbiting you.

You : Well, I've got an engine, and fuel, and I'm turnig them on for 13 seconds

Earth: Righteo, You know what you are doing. Just don't sue me

As I stated before , you can orbit the moon as low as you like, if you don't mind getting regolith in your face.

Getting from 60 nautical miles above the moon to the surface simply involves slowing one part of the vehicle by a few kmh.

The centrifugal reduction will draw the bit you slowed down towards the surface. You are falling onto the moon.

But falling slowly. This is where the myths come from. It's not a cannon shot. It's a parachute jump.

Getting home is even easier.You just have to ensure you speed up relative to the moon, and slow down relative to earth. y doing this you will fall back to earth on the path that was originally planned by the mathematics of god, dinosaurs and whatever.

The moon is very far away. But the Pyramids are big and the Wall of China is long.

Frankly, I disbelieve the wall of China more than the moon landings. I disbelieve the Pyramids more also. And I could go and look at them if I wished.But I could not be arsed. Because I just know....

And that's just Apollo 11

Subsequently, the USA put men on the moon 5 more times. Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, and finally Apollo 17 around about now in 1972.

EOF. 0x0a 0x0d.

That is a long version of exactly what I have already explained. Point out something I said different about the mechanics of getting there if you can.

The problem I have is with the part where the craft must to decelorated from space speed to zero mph. This must be achieved at exactly surface level, not 20 meters to soon or 20 meter too late

Auditor #9 wrote:

ibis I'll read that again but can I axe you this - the body 'falling' around the earth in orbit - it needs no propulsion while doing this ? It uses energy to get there but once there uses no energy flying around. Like you say, if you were superman and threw a ball into space at the right speed it would go up and out and start to fall but would cease to fall to the surface and would instead fall all around the earth forever and forever.

What a wonderful thought to end the night with.

Sure - satellites are unpowered, after all.

"Momentum vector" is simple. A body in motion has momentum mv - mass by velocity. Velocity is a vector quantity, which is to say it has direction as well as speed.

youngdan wrote:

That is a long version of exactly what I have already explained. Point out something I said different about the mechanics of getting there if you can.

The problem I have is with the part where the craft must to decelorated from space speed to zero mph. This must be achieved at exactly surface level, not 20 meters to soon or 20 meter too late

Dan, you just don't want to see it.

You like your fantasy. Fine by me. I've done my best.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would say my description of how to get to the moon is better than yours. I'm about 7.5, you are +/- zero.
Yet *Sticks fists in ears* you still maintain this bullshit.

This thread is over for me now.

Houston out.

This is addressed to Ibis.

That is exactly my point. And if you knew what you were talking about you would not use such terms to Audi in trying to explain mechanics.

The whole idea in explaining something is to simplify terminology and actions as much as possible but you come along with fancy terms
for simple actions.

In the future do not just repeat what Wiki says because Audi can read for himself.

You can never admit to not knowing something no matter what the topic

EVM. What I said about getting to the moon is exactly the same as what YOU said and you can not point out any difference because there is none.

You would be very upset if there was a difference.

What the fuck are you on about .

Simple terms ?

I just spent a whole fucking hour describing how to go to the fucking moon in simple fucking terms.

And you. Well it went over your fucking head anyway.

Why do I bother.

Quote :

Subsequently, the USA put men on the moon 5 more times. Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, and finally Apollo 17 around about now in 1972.

Which wiki reference did you not like Dan. Are we always going to be chasing theories with you ?

Wiki is good for numbers, bad for understanding.

Less wiki, more study.

youngdan wrote:

EVM. What I said about getting to the moon is exactly the same as what YOU said and you can not point out any difference because there is none.

You would be very upset if there was a difference.

Oh no Dan. There is a difference . A big fucking difference.

YOU said it's impossible and never happened.

I said it did happen, as did most other people living and dead.

That's a big diffference.

Bit of a miscommunication there EVM. The post about simple terms was addressed to Ibis where it has just been proven that he knows nothing at all about mechanics, your post further explains how Ibis was caught by relying on Wiki because as you say it is not good for understanding because the entries are written by knowledgeable people and are not explainin it in simple terms.

Thank you for emphasizing the point of Ibis's lack of knowledge.


Now you come back and say something that I did not say. I described the mechanics of getting to the moon and you come along and repeat the exact same thing.

Craft have gone to the noon frequently and I have already pointed out that the Soviets had SOFT landed a craft in 1966 after 11 failing attempts.

If you read the thread you would know all this but no you
just rush in.

I have pointed out the 3 areas of where I do not agree wiyh the official story

The only one who needed the explaination that you spent the time on is Ibis and maybe A-T.

Don't think that I do not understand mechanics as I have a Civil degree and your degree is Electrical if my memory serves me right

youngdan wrote:

Bit of a miscommunication there EVM. The post about simple terms was addressed to Ibis where it has just been proven that he knows nothing at all about mechanics, your post further explains how Ibis was caught by relying on Wiki because as you say it is not good for understanding because the entries are written by knowledgeable people and are not explainin it in simple terms.

Thank you for emphasizing the point of Ibis's lack of knowledge.


Now you come back and say something that I did not say. I described the mechanics of getting to the moon and you come along and repeat the exact same thing.

Craft have gone to the noon frequently and I have already pointed out that the Soviets had SOFT landed a craft in 1966 after 11 failing attempts.

If you read the thread you would know all this but no you
just rush in.

I have pointed out the 3 areas of where I do not agree wiyh the official story

The only one who needed the explaination that you spent the time on is Ibis and maybe A-T.

Don't think that I do not understand mechanics as I have a Civil degree and your degree is Electrical if my memory serves me right

I wouldn't have any difficulty with the idea that orbital mechanics and rocket science are not my chosen field of study. On the other hand, I'm not aware that they form a particularly large part of a civil engineering degree either. Your repeated assertion that, in effect, you are speaking from authority and others are not would be slightly less ridiculous, however, if you showed a stronger grasp of theoretical concepts. Aside from anything else, an engineering degree is no substitute for the ability to think clearly.

A part of the problem with your claims, youngdan, is that almost anyone can do the necessary mechanics calculations (even if some who think they understand them are actually grasping the wrong end of the stick). Millions of people have had the opportunity to work over the question of whether the Apollo missions could really either land on the Moon or take off from it again, with sliderules, calculators, or computers. Of all those people, the overwhelming majority do not reach your conclusions. Further, and equally tellingly, it means one would have to be extremely foolish to try to foist such a deception on the world - and then incredibly cunning to keep that deception a secret for 40 years.

I am suspicious of theories that involve the substitution of incredible feats of conspiracy for incredible feats of engineering - and for good reason, since the evidence for the latter are commonplace, whereas history is littered with the evidence of the failure of the former. Our engineering and scientific knowledge is almost incomparably greater than it was even a hundred years ago - but the psychology of the naked ape has not changed at all.

Ibis.

See. When you stick to where your strenghts lie, which is as much plain common sense and the ability to neatly put them into words as anything else, you put the argument to rest and yourself looking good. In effect saying that until proven otherwise why would you not believe the experts.

Now rocket science, is indeed but one single question, in one single subject, in 3rd year, or at least it was in my day. It was as much window dressing as anything else. The basic mechanics though had to be understood as it is involved in everything.

The getting out of orbit and into lunar orbit is not even an issue ,the Indians did it last month, the big question is could they get down gently. I find it very difficult to believe it could be down from the physics of the situation. From a common sense viewpoint I believe that no astronaut would try it without a real live test first being done with a monkey. You, and the rest believe it could be done easily.

I have a problem with the radiation but as I said many times I do not know much about this issue.

I have a problem with the rover. Not so much about getting it unloaded but with the fact that what would be a very tricky and dangerous operation would not be filmed. If for no other reason than to fix the problem next time if there was a mishap.

The craft next April will settle this for all and if I am wrong I will not duck the ridicule of admitting I was mistaken.

Here it rests for 5 months

youngdan wrote:

A-T Surely before this discussion you had heard of centrifugal force. I would not expect anyone that did not study it to know the details but if neither you or Ibis had never even heard the phrase I would be surprised

Of course I've heard of centrifugal force youngdan. If I had not understood what it was, I would have asked before now.