/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15985655
>the module carried almost as much propellant fuel as the weight of the module itself?
not almost as much, but slightly more
the dry weight of the module was 2260 kg, the weight of the propellant was 2386 kg
>Where was this stored as per the video?
pic rel shows the location of both tanks, Aerozine 50 on the right and oxidizer (dinitrogen tetroxide) on the top
>How was combustion achieved?
you mix the fuel with the oxidizer
is this babby's first rocket physics?
>It makes absolutely no sense for a space carrier to only weigh 22 times more than, let's say, an average slightly overweight man of 100kg.
except when you actually calculate the numbers, it makes perfect sense (ultimately because you need exponentially less fuel for lower gravity due to how the mass of the propellant itself is a limiting factor)
>a module weighing 1/4th of this weight is capable of travelling through space, landing on the moon, lifting off from the moon and going back to earth fully intact yet alone also carrying humans
I don't see any problem with that at all according to the measurable physical facts as calculated above
not really sure why you think the module needs to be so heavy, or why you bring up a submarine designed to withstand almost 40 MPa of pressure
>Or was it another vessel supposedly carrying the astronauts?
as mentioned above, the lunar ascent module just takes them from the lunar surface and back up to the command module in orbit, which is what then travels back to Earth
the command module had a dry mass of 11,900 kg, if that feels more like the "right" mass to you, despite not actually caring much about the actual calculations involved