Talk:AMSO

Die Achterbahnschleife von Apollo 11 ist astrophysikalischer Blödsinn!

Die von der NASA propagierte und deklarierte Achterbahnschleife von Apollo 11 zum Mond und zurück zur Erde ist einfach astrophysikalischer Blödsinn, weil sich Planeten, Satteliten von Planeten und Raumflugkörper nach dem Ersten Kepplerschen Gesetz auf elliptischen Bahnen um Zentralgestirne, Planeten und Satteliten bewegen! Mit der irrsinnigen von der NASA deklarierten Achterbahn von Apollo 11 hätte sich die Energie bzw. der Treibstoffverbrauch um ein Mehrfaches erhöht. Die resultierende Geschwindigkeit vr zur Einmündung in die Mondumlaufbahn und Retour und zur Einmündung in die Erdumlaufbahn hätte sich damit ganz allgemein auf ca. vr=√vo²+2*vo² =√3*vo² ≈ 1,73*vo (1) erhöht, wobei vo die Orbitgeschwindigkeit im Mond- und Erdorbit darstellt. Damit erhöht sich der Treibstoffverbrauch zur Einmündung in die Mond- und Erdumlaufbahn ganz allgemein auf MTr= [1- (1: 2,72vo*0,73:ve)]*Mo. (2) Für die Einmündung in die Mondumlaufbahn errechnet sich alleine der Treibstoffverbrauch somit auf MTr= [1- (1: 2,721,24:2,6)]*43,7 t ≈ 17 t. (3) Für die Mondlandung ergibt sich eine Treibstoffmasse zu MTr= [1- (1: 2,722,2:2,6)]*15 t ≈ 8,6 t (4) und für die wieder Einmündung in die Umlaufbahn ergibt sich eine Treibstoffmasse zu MTr= [1- (1: 2,722,2:2,6)]*4,7 t ≈ 2,7 t (5) Retour vom Mond wäre zum Erreichen der Fluchtgeschwindigkeit eine Treibstoffmasse von MTr= [1- (1: 2,721,24:2,6)]*17 t ≈ 6 t. (6) Damit hätte Apollo 11 bereits absolut sein Pulver verschossen gehabt, weil nur 18,5 t (Servicemodul) und 10,8 t für die Mondlandefähre insgesamt zur Verfügung standen. Siegfried Marquardt, Königs Wusterhausen

Die NASA widerlegt sich selbst mit dem Leistungsparameter ∆v der Mondlandefähre!

Die NASA gibt im Internet (26.05.2016) die Leistungsparameter ∆v zur Landung auf dem Mond und für den Start vom Mond für die Abstiegsstufe der Mondlandefähre mit 2,5 km/s und für die Aufstiegsstufe mit 2,2 km/s an. Damit wären für die Mondlandung nach Modifikation der Raketengrundgleichung MTr= [1- (1: 2,72vB:ve)]*Mo (1) bei einer Startmasse Mo der Mondlandefähre von 15 t MTr=[1-(1: 2,722,5:2,6)]*15 t=[1- (1: 2,720,96)]*15 t=[1- (1: 2,61)]*15 t = (1-0,38) 15 t≈ 9,3 t(2) Treibstoff notwendig gewesen. Für den Aufstieg in den Orbit des Erdtrabanten wären MTr=[1-(1:2,722,2:2,6)]*4,7 t=[1-(1: 2,720,85)]*4,7t=[1-(1:2,34)]*4,7t= 0,57*4,7 t ≈ 2,7 t (3) erforderlich gewesen. Damit betrüge die Treibstoffmasse insgesamt 12 t! Es standen aber insgesamt für die vermeintliche Mondexpedition laut NASA-Angaben nur 10,8 t an Raketentreibstoff zur Verfügung! Ein Kommentar erübrigt sich vollkommen. Die Amis haben sich somit eindrucksvoll auf höchsten wissenschaftlich-technischem Niveau selbst widerlegt! Mit anderen Worten: Es gab weder im Juli 1969, noch in der Folgezeit eine Landung auf dem Mond! Siegfried Marquardt , Königs Wusterhausen

Abstract mathematical-physical refutation of Apollo 11 and N

1. After Sternfeld (1959) only two 14-day constellations and a 60-day scenario should exist to reach the moon with an artificial spacecraft from Earth and land on the earth. Regardless of the theoretical facts and details of Sternfeld, required the research satellite SMART I, which was launched end of September 2003, 49 days until the moon level and five months until the probe einmündete in lunar orbit. And successfully running in the December 2013 lunar expedition of Chinese probe Chang`e-3 proved impressively that it takes at least 14 days to cope with the distance from the Earth to the Moon. This Apollo 11 would already impressively refuted empirically because a putative 8-day regime that is allegedly practiced with Apollo 11 and drilled, astrophysical theoretically and empirically does not exist!

2. The cosmic radiation, which would have affected the astronauts within eight days would have been absolutely hopeless! After all, you would have incorporated a lethal dose of at least 11 Sv to 26 Sv depending on the chosen model calculation. if you are in this context to the high-energy particle density in the cosmos and to the particle stream the sun with the solar constant of 8.5 * 1015 MeV / m * s thinking. The astronauts had the flight to the moon and back in any case not survive.

3. It was missing a total of 163 tons of rocket fuel to get from Earth to the moon and from there back to Earth by NASA on the given loop-shaped trajectory. Furthermore, the amount of fuel and the former fuel parameters would have a moon charge and even boot from the moon under the former conditions impossible. Alone for the transition from the elliptical trajectory close to the Moon would be for the braking of the CSM + LM with a total of 45.3 t mass of the 2.3 km / s to 1.7 km / s for the lunar orbit [2,72 high (0 , 6: 2,6) -1] * t = 45.3 (1.26 -1) * 45.3 * 45.3 t = 0.26 ≈ 12 tonnes of fuel have been necessary! The remaining three tons a moon landing would not have been possible and start from as little moon! On the Moon, LM did not have 14 t, but (15-8) t = 7 t!

4. Reconstruction of the command module at a predetermined height by NASA of 3.23 m and a diameter of 3.9 m, resulting in the end can only result a total volume of about 12.9 m³, showed that after deduction of the declared internal volume of 6.23 m³ volume of the outer cell of the command module only about 6.7 m³ could include. With a mass of 5.9 t the density of the command module would thus have to be only about 0.9. This would "afford" not even paper or cardboard! Another mathematical optimization was then that the outer cell only from a 2.5 cm thick aluminum layer could exist - without the heat shield. If one half of the total mass of 5.9 tonnes for a heat shield as a basis, the heat shield could consist of only 2 mm thick steel. A commentary is superfluous almost: The command module would be in the earth's atmosphere with a theoretically calculated braking temperature of at least 45,000 K like a shooting star burns!

5. Even in a preliminary phase in the reconstruction of the Lunar Module according to NASA parameters after deduction of the alleged approx MTr = 10.8 t invoiced fuel mass of the starting compound with Mo = 15 t the Lunar Module merely remain only 4.2 t to empty weight, already with the material reconstruction of the cabin (about 1.1 tons), parts of the outer cell (1.3 t), and the declared weight (1.7 t), without taking into account the weight the astronauts with their space suits (400 kg), the mass of the tank and the two main engines of the Lunar Module (...) of 600 kg exceeded. Total lacked exceeding 3 tonnes construction mass, could be as originally stated by NASA and how 11 is impressive and convincing with the total reconstruction of the Luna module of Apollo.

6. The declared by NASA thrust of 44.4 kN and 15.6 kN of the descending and ascending level does not match with the theoretically calculated thrust. There are significant differences here! (descending level: S = m * ve = 16.8 kg / s * 2560m / s ≈ 43 kN and rising level: S = 5.9 kg / s * 2560m / s = 15.1 kN).

7. addition would be the Lunar Module at a speed of 215 m / s bounced and crashed on the moon, because the former fuel parameters such as the effective exhaust velocity of 2560 m / s and the mass ratio of the descending level of 15 t to 6.8 t only permitted a maximum speed burnout of 2025 m / s [vB = ve * ln (Mo: ML) = 2560m / s * ln (15: 6,8) = 2560m / s * 0.79 = 2025 m / s]. Taking away the 570 m / s, which are caused by the moon's gravity from, so you get only a resultant velocity of 1455 m / s. It could have been so ago by the technical and physical parameters, can be held no moon landing! It is on the other hand almost pointless to be mentioned that the rising level only a resulting burnout velocity of around 1500 m / s could have and therefore does not enter the orbit would be as it had a speed difference to the orbital velocity of 170 m / s in this case would.

8. Furthermore, the pendulum behavior of the flag on the moon is extremely treacherous! For the pendulum period T, which is physically connected to the pendulum length l (l = 0.7 m) and the gravitational acceleration g (g = 9.81) to

T = 2 * π * √ l: g (1)

calculated, would have on the Moon

T = 6.28 * √ 0.7 m 1.6 m /s ≈ 4.2 a (2)

respectively. In the TV film documentaries period lasts but close to 2 s, as indicated on the earth. The exact calculation of the period for the earth yields accurate

T = 6.28 * √ 0.7 m / 9.81 ≈ 1.7 s. (3)

This time difference of 2.5 s is serious! In addition, a slightly damped periodic oscillation would arise on the moon, because there is no atmosphere is present on the moon. The increasing vibration is true but almost aperiodic. Summary: The shooting took place so unique on earth!

9. A mechanical instability of the lunar module would have made an intact moon landing impossible! Every person on the planet has probably already seen a failed rocket launch when the rocket has already picked up a few meters from the launch pad and then fail the engines and do not produce more power. As a result, the rocket moves the physical laws of gravity accordingly again towards the launch platform and then tilts due to the mechanical instability simply because the center of gravity has changed dramatically. This would also be the fate of the lunar module of Apollo 11 was because shortly before landing an absolute instability of the ferry would have been! Because: Full expected gross, the rising level would have had to ground just before landing on the moon for about 5 t and the descending stage would have received under the fuel consumption of only 8 t only about 2 tons of empty weight had. As the focus of the Lunar Module must have lain on the moon exactly at 2.1 m before landing the ferry across the nozzle, the torques would like 2.5: 1 to 3:1 behaved. For an absolutely unstable mechanical system would be active! Even the smallest vibration, such as vibrations through the engine orpressure fluctuations in the effluent gases in the nozzle of the engine have the lunar position ferry can easily tip over!Amoon landing would indeed be "successful", but a return from the moon would have been so impossible. However, sincê 11 have fortunately survived the imaginary adventures all actors of Apollo, it can be concluded razor sharp, no moon landing took place. The solution of the physical problem is that the focus of a lander simply must be at the level of the nozzle of the engine, such as the Chinese realize this in December 2013, and practiced.

P. S. By the way, the author had the skeptical thoughts on the instability of the lunar module landing on the moon more than 45 years ago spontaneously for about 1 s had entertained!

Siegfried Marquardt, Kingswells, February 2015

Citation needed. A quick search about who this Sternfeld is (Ary Abramovich Sternfeld) and what kind of scientific product he published in 1959 suggests that you just made this up and are not citing from his book "Künstliche Satelliten" (artificial satellites), which had been published in the German Democratic Republic in 1959, or from his Russian original publication from 1958. Thus I granted you a mild vandalism warning for your mindless copy and paste job. Its not nice, since this article is about the AMSO add-on for Orbiter, and we are not discussing here, if you are unable to fly to the moon. --Urwumpe (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2015 (GMT)