16 thoughts on “Puppet on a String

  1. Mck Will

    I remember several years ago I heard a guy on the radio and he had studied the “moon landing”. He said GETTING there was not the problem, it was getting back.. I thought about this for many years and we know to orbit the earth you got to go 17,500 MPH. So when the shuttles were fixing to re enter they fired their “reverse” rockets traveling at 17,500 mph then the friction of the atmosphere slowed them down at a predetermined rate until landing dead stick. So now we think back to Apollo and to leave earth’s orbit, you got to ramp the speed up to 25,000 mph to escape. So if I leave at 25,000 I’m thinking you would return at 25,000. So I’ve always wondered, how did they bleed the speed from 25,000 to 17,500 on the return? That’s 7,500 mph worth of speed. The only explanation I can think of is upon returning from the moon they fired reverse rockets about 2/3 of the way back. But I thought they were pretty much out of fuel by then. Or maybe they re entered at 25,000 but my brain is having a hard time with that because we know from the shuttle when they re- entered at 17,500 it gets really firery around the ship, so much so that in 2003 one of the shuttles had some tile pieces missing and the ship burned up. So the big reason I’m an Apollo moon landing skeptic is I have yet to hear a good explanation how that extra 7,500 mph of velocity was bleed off coming back. Now we know there were moon studios – that’s been admitted. I want to believe “we” actually went to the moon, but I still have many questions that have not been answered to my satisfaction.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Mugwump

      What you’re saying is true IF the Earth and the Moon’s gravity were the same. They’re not. The Moon is much smaller than the Earth so the Moon’s gravitational pull is much less. You are also correct about escape velocity from the Earth, but when you are going to the Moon you are not trying to escape Earth and whiz off into interplanetary space, you are only trying to escape Earth’s gravitational pull to the Moon’s gravitational pull. Think of it this way; when you fire a bullet up straight into the air it gradually loses speed and falls back to Earth. When you are trying to reach the Moon all you need is enough speed to reach the gravitational pull of the Moon so as to not fall back to Earth, but rather to fall into the gravitational pull of the Moon. You’re not trying to reach Mars at 25,000 MPH.

      Going home it is the same. You don’t need 25,000 MPH to reach escape velocity from the Moon. It is much smaller and it’s gravitational attraction is also much smaller so you just need to reach Earth’s gravitational attraction. Not a lot of fuel is required from the Moon to do that.

      Landing on the Moon is hard just like landing on Mars is because the Moon has no atmosphere to brake your speed and Mars has practically none at all at the speeds needed to reach it.

      Like

      1. Unfuck U

        It’s hard for me to believe they managed the orbital rendezvous with the technology they had these days.
        I watched the video above with moon’s limited gravity in mind (I think it’s one third of our gravity) but some scenes seem implausible even then.

        Like

      2. Mck Will

        I actually have thought of that scenario just as you described. I totally get the velocity is much less {but not sure exactly} to escape the moon. However to use your example of a bullet, let’s pretend there is zero terminal velocity factor i.e. no atmosphere. I think I remember my physics teacher telling us the bullet would return back to earth at the same speed it left the gun provided there was no atmosphere. So if the Apollo leaves the moon’s orbit at {3000?? that’s my guess because 18,000 div by 6 = 3K} the earth’s gravity is going to accelerate and accelerate and accelerate the ship to ????MPH. So what speed did Apollo re enter earth ?? Somewhere in the equation there has to be a mechanism of slowing the ship down to deploy the chute. We know in the case of the shuttle, they’re just going around the earth endlessly at 17 point 5. Then they do a small burn to bleed {500 ??? MPH – that’s my guess} of velocity then the shuttle comes out of orbit and the mechanism used to slow the ship is literally friction until about 75,000 feet then it becomes a 3 axis airplane {OK glider}. In the case of Apollo, wouldn’t there have to be a reverse burn about 1/2 way back ?? Otherwise my brain is telling me that the ship would be coming in too hot. Just like on an airplane {well sort of}, if I’m flying say a 737 my landing speed is usually 150 knots {approximately} if I’m coming in HOT say 180 knots I’d probably run off the end of the runway and blow the tires off.

        Like

      3. Unfuck U

        Escape velocity for the moon is 2374.68 m/sec.
        What I’m pretty sure about: your teacher told you BS regarding that bullet. Even without atmospheric resistance an object has a limited velocity when falling back to earth.
        A fast .308 projectile travels 3,600 ft/s at the muzzle. That won’t be enough to escape earth since you’d need some 36,700 ft/s to do so.
        As soon the bullet stops its upward momentum and it drops back to earth it will increase its velocity until said maximum velocity is reached. One has to look it up but I am sure it won’t reach 3,600 ft/s.

        Like

  2. Mck Will

    Yea people get bent out of shape when you start asking tough questions. They start getting pissed because “how dare you question the established storyline??” My feeling is why do people get so dam upset.?? I don’t get all pissed off when people say humans LANDED on the moon. I’m just asking questions, that’s all. Like I said, some of the answers don’t make sense to me. These people who get so pissed need to chill. For crying out loud, let’s just pretend I’m worth 10 Elon Musks. And I get this bright idea of building an exact replica of Apollo 11 – same engines, same avionics, same computerization. Because my feeling is as this super rich “Elon Musk” guy, I just want to return to the moon. No special reason why other than just to do it. So in my head I’ve been told that Apollo 11 went to the moon and came back without a hitch. That’s why I DON’T want to go “clean slate” because after all Apollo 11 DID IT {I’m told}. So I start waiving my money around, “OK where are the Apollo 11 blueprints ???” How much you willing to bet they are nowhere to be found. Basically what I’m saying is the sun will still rise in the morning and set in the evening regardless of my stance on the moon landing. Let’s just have fun with it – the anti moon landers can “party” with the pro moon landers and we can all just have a good time.

    Like

    1. Mugwump

      I know I’m not bent of of shape.

      The Apollo Command Module reentered the Earth’s atmosphere at a height of 76 miles and a speed of 24,678 MPH. It traveled about 1,500 miles through the atmosphere to scrub off that speed. This is according to NASA.

      Like

      1. Mck Will

        OK thanks for looking it up – yes I admit I’ve been too dam lazy to look all the numbers up because I got other fish to cook – So I calculated escape V from the moon as being 5312 MPH so then that means my bullet theory is true after all. They escaped earth at about 25,000 and then slowed down either by earth pulling the ship backwards or a reverse burn or a combination of both. Then they left the moon’s orbit at 5312 {I had guessed 3000 so I was kind of close LOL} and ACCELERATED back up to pretty close to what the original escape V of earth was. Which would mean my physics teacher {his name was Mr. Fagan and he wore dark glasses} was correct in his “bullet no atmosphere” scenario. So now my question is, could 7500 mph of speed have been bled off in 3 1/2 minutes ?? That doesn’t seem very long to me. And we’re still only talking about to get Apollo down to space shuttle re entry speed of 17 point five. Even at 17 point five as evidenced by the shuttle, you still got a fireball of a ride. And to top it all off, the shuttle has more surface area to engage the atmosphere which to me means MORE ability to slow down. Because we still got to lose 16,500 mph !! The goal is to hit around 1000 mph so you can start to transition to 3 axis controllable flight. So all I got to say, to have slowed Apollo from 24 point six to parachute deploy speed was pretty dam amazing !! When ever I’ve gone camping out in the boonies of boonies away from cities you routinely see “shooting stars” and it’s really cool and you think it’s like 2miles away when in reality it’s very far away and you think the “star” will hit the earth only to burn out halfway down. Then of course I haven’t even brought up the angle of re entry issue. That’s a whole other topic !! But in the movie Apollo 13, I remember Hanky Panky played the lead pilot and with a critical computer being out, he had to use a slide rule to calculate the angle. But whatever, I’m still not 100 % convinced. It’s also kind of funny how “we” went “backwards”. We went to the moon “6” times but then never went back. Now ole Buzzie told the little girl, “well you know we ran out of money” -oh really buzzy, we had money to pay for a 25 year shuttle program, but no money for a few trips back to our nearest neighbor. OK buzzie.

        Like

  3. Aussie John

    I was 9 years old when our school teachers allowed us to view the Apollo 11 moon landing live on TV. I thought it looked dodgy then, still wondering why NASA is encountering such trouble in repeating their ‘proven’ exploits today. I’m happy to be proven wrong that it was all a multi-million dollar fraud.

    Like

    1. Mck Will

      True story, it was perhaps 10 years ago when the push for returning to the moon was a happening thing, I remember some scientist talking about how they were working on the problem of radiation. And I screamed out “are you kidding me ??” Why is that even a freaking problem?? Didn’t Apollo already figure that out ?? Furthermore, why not just make another Apollo ship since it worked FLAWLESSLY except when “Kevin Bacon” “stirred the tanks” !! They could just make an exact replica of the Apollo and upgrade it just like the B-52 !! The B-52 was built in the 50’s and 60’s yet it now has modern engines and avionics and is still flying. I’m not even talking about that, I’m just saying to not reinvent the wheel and build a brand spanking new Apollo 11 but with upgraded avionics and computers. Just make sure “Kevin Bacon” “stirs” the tanks correctly or better yet let the computer do it right LOL But the radiation “problem” should have already been figured out – if the Apollo story is true that is. But whatever, maybe in 1969 there was not radiation in space and when the 2000’s came, all of a sudden radiation came into being. LOL

      Like

      1. Unfuck U

        Regarding radiation: remember what they were talking about when this suicide Mars mission seemed like it could become reality?
        They were saying that the crew would have a safe space within the craft – shielded from hard radiation out there.
        The talk then was and still is that maybe we aren’t able traveling to the stars Star Trek style because of that problem.
        What may have shielded the Apollo crews sufficiently could have been the Van-Allen-Belt. It doesn’t reach all the way to the moon but I imagine it was enough for a somewhat safe travel.

        Like

      2. Mugwump

        The reentry time was about 6 minutes and the astronauts were subjected to 6.35 g. Not a happy ride for them. Lift off is much easier then reentry. By the length of the reentry and the amount of speed burned off they lost about 16 MPH or so for every reentry mile.

        The Apollo Command Module was also much, much smaller and lighter than the Space Shuttle. We forget how crammed in those three guys were at the time. The Space Shuttle was, as you say, reentering at orbital speeds which is a lot slower. Still, they bled off all the speed in six minutes to deploy their parachute.

        They could not maneuver like the Shuttle but they could make some *very* small corrections.

        Money did have a lot to do with killing the program at the time. The race to the Moon was consuming an incredible amount of the Federal budget and this at the time when the Vietnam War was raging as well as the Great Society programs of LBJ splattering blood all over the budget too. What happened after that? We all know what happened on August 13, 1971 with Nixon’s announcement on the gold standard. NASA was part of that big time money problem for sure.

        The Space Shuttle program was an abortion from the beginning and everyone including NASA knew it, but it was all they could do with the budget they had. Today all NASA has really going for it is doing unmanned probes and that’s it. Remember, going to the Moon again is VERY expensive. How can we justify going to the Moon again when BLACK LIVES MATTER? Huh? Anyone who says we should go to the Moon again or Mars is a RACIST.

        I hope you’re not a racist. 🙂

        Oh, and they haven’t solved the radiation problem they identified a long time ago and probably never will and the B-52s that fly today have never been re-engined. They still use the TF33 turbofans they left the factory with.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Aussie John

    In ’65 NASA recognised the problem of trying to launch through the Van Allen belts, so they had the USAF air-launch at least 5 nuclear missiles to detonate above the Pacific Ocean. The idiots tried to destroy the matter shielding much of the Earth from cosmic radiation! The explosions at the limit of the atmosphere were witnessed by people from Hawaii to Tasmania. The resultant huge rent in the ozone layer is above Australia and New Zealand, conveniently blamed on refrigerant gases as a cover-up! Bastard Yanks owe me reparations for metres of sunburn and skin cancers, let alone the rest of the population and poor defenceless wildlife. Imagine the sheer bloody-minded arrogance to commit such an act, the ultimate vandals!

    Like

    1. Aussie John

      Sorry to rant, Unfuck, but this daily affects many millions of people from Papua New Guinea and French Polynesia to the Cook Islands. Will the damage ever self-repair? God alone, has an answer for that.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Unfuck U

        I firmly believe it will “heal”. Nature always seeks the state of equilibrium and she will here, too – as long as we don’t interfere too much.
        Seen from a philosophical standpoint I believe that if nature ever should reach her ultimate goal – equilibrium – on a planet wide scale it would mean a complete standstill, or the end of a world as we used to know since equilibrium ist the counterpart of evolution. Here man comes in. Man is the agent of evolution, is Prometheus, the spark that originates from curiosity which is pushing us forward to our destination whatever it may be.
        In this certain case though I would like mankind not to interfere for our own good.
        If we hold ourselves back this problem will be solved by nature.

        Like

  5. Mck Will

    Well I appreciate you Mugwump !! I really do . Now to me, i’ve always been fascinated with super brain mathematicians. There is no doubt a mathematician could figure out how to re enter a capsule travelling at 7 miles a second {+ or minus} I mean just think how freaking fast that is !! As we all know there is a difference between “theory” and practicality. In theory the O rings on the shuttle in Jan ’86, SHOULD have sealed, but in reality they failed and we lost a ship. The announcer actually said “obviously a major malfunction” – no freaking kidding !! I still will be an Apollo skeptic until I can see all the mathematics. Something still doesn’t seem right to me. What I believe ACTUALLY happened, {it’s just my belief so don’t get all bent out of shape – I could be wrong} is that Apollo simply went into orbit and stayed in orbit. The moon landing fakery occurred then when it was time to return, well they did just that. So when we moon landing deniers say it was a “hoax”, what we’re saying in reality, it was a “partial hoax”. Yes we did see the rocket go up in the sky, and we saw the capsule parachute back to earth and we saw 3 men get on a chopper and were flown to a Navy ship. That part was true and actually pretty dam amazing. To orbit the earth is a HUGE HUGE accomplishment that “we” can be proud of. It’s the middle part that I have serious doubts about. Now the B-52, I had heard the B-52 either had been or was in the process of a re engine program. Which would go from 8 gas guzzlers to 4 high bypass turbo fan engines. Not sure what was the engine of choice. I’m absolutely dam sure the B-52 has gone to a glass cockpit {and if I’m wrong Oh well I’m wrong but I don’t think so} I can tell you for sure the KC135 tankers got re engined with high bypass turbo fan engines. It is in the BEST interest to re engine the B-52 if it’s to remain in the USAF fleet simply because of fuel economy and more range. More range equates to a more effective mission profile. But I’ll look more into the B-52. Perhaps some of the 52’s have new engines and some are still using the gas guzzlers. But I’ll check it out. – Thanks Mugwump

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s