Saturn V rocket needed to be 266 times bigger.

[margamatix]

If you would care to click on the banner ad entitled "Moon Landing Hoax" ( www.moonmovie.com )at the top of the page, you will see that the intro has changed.

Whereas it did show footage of many of NASA's launch-pad failures, it now features a young lady who will explain to you, using Nazi war criminal turned NASA scientist Wernher von Braun's own calculations, why the Saturn V rocket would have needed to weigh 800,000 tons and been taller than the Empire State Building in NY in order to have reached the moon. The Saturn V rocket weighed 3000 tons

I will stress again, that this is Wernher von Braun's calculation, not Bart Sibrel's.

We heve never been to the moon, or anywhere near it.

[gdwarf]

Was not the Saturn V used to put satilites into space? If so then the fact that they worked is proof enough that the Saturn V does.
Besides, if the Russians got their people into space without a rocket that huge, why can't the US?

I'll leave the technical parts of the discussion to those who know more about these things then I do.

[margamatix]

gdwarf said:

Was not the Saturn V used to put satilites into space? If so then the fact that they worked is proof enough that the Saturn V does.
Besides, if the Russians got their people into space without a rocket that huge, why can't the US?
.

"Space" in this context means 400 miles away, not 248,000 miles away.

[frenat]

That whole thing is misleading. The Saturn V did not go to the moon. Most of it was left in earth orbit and burned up in the atmosphere. Only a small portion of it went to the moon. I suspect those calculations may be correct if using a single stage rocket, but the Saturn V was a multi-stage rocket. Most of the mass of the rocket did not need to get out of low earth orbit. I'm sure others will be by later giving the calculations for the mass of the Apollo hardware to reach the moon. I am also sure that you won't really pay much attention to it. You have been given much more evidence that we have gone to the moon and shown where any evidence against that is wrong. It really looks like you don't want to really examine the evidence. You've made up your mind and have stopped listening.

The other misleading thing about that intro is the statement that man hasn't been farther than 400 miles from the earth. While true, man hasn't had a need to. The shuttle wasn't designed for it, it was designed to put things in orbit, nothing more. Public interest in space dropped greatly after Apollo and funding dropped as well. They try to draw the conclusion that because man hasn't been further than 400 miles since then that we couldn't go at all. That is total BS and bad logic.

[PhantomWolf]

Most of the energy needed to get to the moon occurs from launch to earth orbit. getting to the moon from there is realatively easy, the ESA just did it with about 35 kgs (?) of fuel in their ion engine. To claim that the Saturn V couldn't have gone to the moon is dumb because no one claims it did. All the Sat V did was launch the vehicle that went there, a vehilce that was smaller than Skylab, which was also launched by Saturn V. Or are you going to suggest that Skylab was a hoax and that those of us that saw it crossing the sky, and those in Australia who saw it fall from the sky, were all just in on it?

[PhantomWolf]

margamatix said:

Whereas it did show footage of many of NASA's launch-pad failures

Actually this isn't true either. The rockets it shows are mostly pre-NASA and many are not even American

[skinbath]

At the top of this thread by Margamatix;

We heve (sic) never been to the moon, or anywhere near it.

Although I disagree with the above,I`d like to make the observation that : Seemingly,many are affected by its influence.

[hubcapdave69]

Marga,

Those calculations would be true only for a mission that went directly to the moon from launch. I did a little readng on this, and there were three options considered for going to the Moon.

The first was the direct approach, where a ship is rocketed off directly to the Moon (if I remember, it also considered the use of a single craft capable of landing on the Moon and returning to Earth). The launch vehicle for that kind of approach would be required to generate some 40,000,000 lbs. of thrust in order to accomplish that goal. Needless to say, that was an impossible task.

The second option was to launch all the part in orbit, then assemble the craft in orbit and send it on to the Moon. A great savings in thrust, but it would require multiple launches and the development of construction techniques in zero G.

The final option was what became the Apollo missions. Two stages to get the ships into orbit, one stage to get them moving toward the Moon.

This is another example of people who perpetrate the Hoax Theory of using selective evidence. They only discuss the one theory that makes it sound impossible to have achieved the goal of landing on th e moon, and not discuss the other two that made it practial and doable.

Edited to add: I just watched the New intro you mention. I was right! Von Braun's calculations did have to do with a direct launch to the moon! On the positive side, the girl doing the reading is kinda cute! However, I think I'd be more interested in her knob-polishing abilities than her scientific acumen! ;D

[scooter]

As the young lady made reference to VBs book, my first impression was "I'd like to see the entire page, not just an exerpt ". (she was rully, rully cool, ya know??)

Those numbers were a direct mission...no LEO, no lunar injection, just a straight shot...that's not how the real mission mode turned out, as history, and VBs rocket design, clearly shows.

Then the seeming importance that we "couldn't" go to the Moon since 1972. There is a huge difference between being capable of it and actually choosing to continue the missions. Our leadership, and the general populace, chose the latter option.

Keep swinging...

Dave

[frenat]

Margamatix,
It may not be Sibrel's calculations but it is Sibrel's misleading statement about what it means. Why am I not surprised that you believe it unquestioningly?

[echnaton]

margamatix,

Are you going to keep endlessly repeating others baseless claims or are you going to try to educate yourself? The choice is yours.

[scooter]

I have come to accept that Mr M, as with seemingly all others of his belief set, have but a few strictly limited sources for their data...and this, and any other fact spouting site, aren't among them...

I choose to ignore your inputs, you haven't convinced me...so I am still right...

I think there's some kinda persecution complex thing happening here...they seem to relish their chosen closeminded path...the overwhelming ignorance, by choice, is sometimes (often?) astounding.

Dave, not a real rocket scientist, but I can do math...

[margamatix]

Well, let's all hope that Apollo didn't happen, as I'm sure you would all be as nauseated as I would if America's first mission to the moon was masterminded by a Nazi war criminal responsible for the mass slaughter of civilians, who should have been hanged at Nuremburg......

[JayUtah]

And it was not Sibrel's statement, but rather the high-school student he had reading the script talking about mass flow rates and exhaust velocity: things which Sibrel (and likely the high-school student) know nothing about. They correctly describe the relationship between "mass flow" (but omitting the "rate", and using the wrong units) and velocity (which they give in the wrong units for the computation) and thrust. But unfortunately they take that idea nowhere. It is simply a ploy to get the viewer to believe they know something about rocketry.

They accurately quote from Von Braun's 1953 book, but unfortunately since Sibrel is not an engineer, scientist, historian, or in any way qualified to comment on space development history, he expects those alarming figures to stand on their own.

First, as has been said, Von Braun assumed a direct-ascent approach in a single spacecraft. That greatly multiplies the fuel and thrust requirements. All the fuel, for example, for the transearth burn would have been carried down as dead weight (mass, really) to the lunar surface and then back up to lunar orbit, at the cost of tremendous amounts of fuel that wasn't strictly necessary. That fuel, in turn, would have been dead weight for the ascent and translunar transfer. Since each kilogram of dead weight requires dozens and dozens of kilograms of fuel and a commensurately large structure to put it in, the problem did seem impractical in 1953.

In contrast, the fuel for the return trip was taken to the moon, but only as far as necessary: to lunar orbit. Lunar orbit rendezvous was a very clever strategy. The biggest single contributor to the mass of any spacecraft of that type is fuel. Therefore if you can carry the fuel only as far as needs to be carried and no farther, you can optimize the mission for fuel and therefore get by with less to begin with.

Second, von Braun assumed the craft would have to be built with the V-2 structural technology he was familiar with. This method produced unnecessarily heavy structures, but was the only way to provide the necessary structural strength. The V-2 design created a self-sustaining internal framework on which the skin was "hung". Modern rocket designs, which began in the early 1960s -- too late to help von Braun with his earlier book, but not too late to contribute to Apollo -- employ newer, more structurally efficient materials, skin-and-stringer and monocoque methods, and the use of internal pressure to keep elements braced in compression. A modern rocket works a little like a soda can. When it's pressurized, it can sustain a tremendous load both in compression and in bending. Unpressurized it collapses easily, showing the inherent structural strength of its constituents.

Because Bart Sibrel is woefully, utterly ignorant of space technology -- and determined to make everyone as ignorant as he (at his profit and their expense) -- he cannot explain why the 1953 book and the 1969 flight of the Saturn V can both be true. As he has done countless times before, he reaches back into ancient history to show the growing pains of a new, emerging science, and then fast-forwards 10 or 20 years into the future to show the "suspicious" progress -- suspicious only because he has ignored the intervening development!

He pulled the same trick with the rocket footage. Only one or two of the many rocket accidents he shows you were actually NASA rockets. He wants you to think they were all "NASA launch pad" mishaps, but he has basically assembled every available shot of a rocket explosion from the 1940s onward and tried to make NASA responsible for them. The viewer won't know the difference. But those of us who have made a detailed study of rocketry can recognize almost all that footage. And we know that almost none of it has anything to do with NASA. Sibrel is trying to stack the deck with old footage to make his claims seem more reasonable.

Sibrel wants you to think the 1953 claims are buried. Instead, all von Braun's works are recommended reading for all rocket scientists, the same ones who built the Saturn V and also the ones who are building today's commercial launch vehicles. What do we think when we read it? It's like the quaint predictions of computer experts when they thought we'd be stuck with magnetic core memory and component circuitry forever, or what race car makers were telling us was possible before composite materials came about. We chuckle a bit and say, "If he had only known then what we know now..."

A knowledgeable author would be able to follow Von Braun's computations -- as I have -- and shown why they don't constitute a limitation for the Saturn V. But Sibrel can't do it. He just waves around his manufactured discontinuity and assumes you'll think he's a rocket scientist.

Now that this is the fourth or fifth (I've lost count) time we've pointed out Bart Sibrel's lying, deceptive, conniving practices to you, Margamatix, is there any hope you'll actually think before the next time you uncritically repeat his claims?

[scooter]

hmmm, rather provocative shift in direction...

...it happened, but I hope you all are miserable as it was all engineered by a (insert your finest insult here)...

So, what are your feelings on the Saturn V LOR mission mode being able to accomplish the mission...could it or couldn't it??

Von Braun's past is not the issue here...

Dave
edit for spelling