|
Perigee
Aug 23, 2011 11:55:41 GMT -4
Post by pleasedebunkme on Aug 23, 2011 11:55:41 GMT -4
Thank you. I greatly appreciate the exceptional analysis here. Thanks!
|
|
|
Perigee
Aug 15, 2011 15:47:53 GMT -4
Post by pleasedebunkme on Aug 15, 2011 15:47:53 GMT -4
You helped me with my questions before, so I am back for more help, please. My question again centers on the re-entry corridor, with the Apollo command module entering the atmosphere. I understand that the command module came back from the moon and swung around to the far side of the Earth in an elliptical orbit. At a height of 400,000 feet, the command module was traveling at a negative 6.5 degree angle, with a velocity of 36,194 fps. As of that point in the atmosphere, the command module had not reached perigee, yet. It is my understanding that the command module would have continued to accelerate until one of two things happened: A. It reached perigee, or B. The force of the wind resistance equalled the gravitational acceleration.
I want to find out at what height the command module stopped accelerating. Also, I want to find out the final (maximum) velocity of the command module, when it did stop accelerating. How do I do this?
Thank you for your help.
|
|
|
Post by pleasedebunkme on Jul 19, 2011 17:01:14 GMT -4
Bob B. That was very helpful. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by pleasedebunkme on Jul 19, 2011 13:31:38 GMT -4
It amazes me how fast you people resort to ad hominem attacks. But, if we could all agree that NASA gave false information in the press kit, then perhaps that might be progress.
|
|
|
Post by pleasedebunkme on Jul 19, 2011 12:16:28 GMT -4
From the Apollo 11 press kit, page 64: The latitude of splashdown depends upon the time of the trans- earth injection burn and thedeclination of the Moon at the time of the burn. A spacecraft returning from a lunar mission w i l l enter the Earth's atmosphere and splash down at a point on the Earth's farside directly opposite the Moon. This point, called the antipode, is a projection of a line from the center of the Moon through the center of the Earth to the surface opposite the Moon. The mid-Pacific recovery line rotates through the antipode once each 24 hours, and the transearth injection burn w i l l be targeted for splashdown along the primary recovery line.
|
|
|
Post by pleasedebunkme on Jul 19, 2011 11:43:28 GMT -4
The burden of proof is always on the proponent of the initial theory (that humans landed on the moon and made it back safely). The velocity of 36,194 fps is close enough to parabolic escape velocity to produce a large orbit. And, such velocity is greater than the velocity Apollo 11 used to break out of its orbit for the translunar injection. Whether that orbit might be an escape orbit or a return orbit does not change my question. With a target angle of re-entry at minus 6.50 degrees at 400,000 feet, the perigee had to be below the 400,000 feet height cited by NASA as the point of re-entry. And, with such a flat re-entry angle, it would seem that the orbital component of the return trip had to be more of a sweeping arc, rather than a straight return. NASA says that re-entry was at the antipode. So, in order to get to the antipode, with a re-entry angle of minus 6.50 degrees, there had to be a large orbital component to the return trip. Your responses above present two more obvious questions: First, with the orbital component in the return trip, how was it possible for the command module to accelerate its velocity up to 36,194 fps? Second, with this orbital component, and with the added distance, how was the command module able to return back to Earth as quickly as it did? So, the way I see it, if the command module had a relatively straight return to Earth, at that velocity, and then swung around to the far side, it would have been flung out into some type of large orbit. But, if the command module had a large sweeping orbital arc to its return trip, then it never would have accelerated its velocity up to being (almost) parabolic escape velocity. About the antipode, when NASA specifically says “antipode” then we must assume that NASA meant the antipode. You do not get to rewrite the official story forty-two years later and make the claim that the antipode really was not the antipode. And, that is my point: You cannot get to the antipode, like NASA said it did, using the return trip parameters that NASA has claimed. The response above seems to agree with this point. With respect to the structural integrity of the command module, I have been unable to discover any data on its torsional strength. The only thing I can find would be a statement from Michael Collins that the command module could not withstand a pressure difference greater than 8 psi. It would seem to me that the leading edge of the command module would have had tremendous pressure that vastly exceeded 8 psi. I am asking for your help, not your snide comments. It was my understanding that: “The goal of the website is to use factual information to counter the claims that the Apollo moon landings were faked.” I am asking for that factual information. I even said “Please.” Thank you for your consideration.
|
|
|
Post by pleasedebunkme on Jul 18, 2011 22:04:28 GMT -4
Could someone please tell me why these two theories are wrong:
Antipode Re-Entry Corridor: This theory states that the Apollo re-entry into the Earth’s atmosphere on the far side of the Earth was not possible because the command module was traveling at parabolic escape velocity, and at that high rate of speed the command module would have swung out into parabolic orbit and not have landed at the antipode. This theory relies upon the fact that when the command module came back to Earth it was traveling faster than when it left. Thus, it was allegedly not possible to complete a half orbit around the Earth, because while traveling at escape velocity the command module would have escaped.
Pressure Differential: This theory states that the Apollo command module did not have the structural integrity to handle the extreme pressure differences when it entered the Earth’s atmosphere. According to this theory, the “lifting characteristics” of the command module as it plowed through the upper atmosphere would have blown it apart.
Thank you.
|
|