/sci/ - Science & Math

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HQfauGJaTs

>>15985374
What's the mainstream explanation for the sparkles?

>>15985373
Not watching some stupid video, but what is your question? The energy can be calculated using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential

>>15985381
It's just the supposed footage of Apollo 17 taking off from the moons surface supposedly by a combustion looking like a sizzling fart, which supposedly generated enough energy to lift off an object of several tonnes from the moons surface and far enough to escape the gravitational pull.

I wouldn't know how to account for all variables, but it could be interesting to determine the amount of energy needed theoretically and the liken it to the supposed process and how much energy could actually be generated from such a process.

Naturally, I think the footage is fake so the two numbers would probably be off by many magnitudes considering how tedious a process it takes to liftoff a space carrier from earth.

>>15985373
Work to lift object of mass m off the surface of the moon to infinity would be:
[math] W = \int_R^\infty \frac {GMm}{r^2}dr = \frac {GMm}{R} [/math] ,
where R is the radius, and M the mass of the moon (if accounting for the moon's gravity alone)

This is bit of a red herring though, you would be better off looking at the rocket equation to get an idea how much fuel you'd need for that. This would give you a rough idea. In reality the ascend engines job was not the take the module off the moon's gravity well, but rather just put in into orbit, which requires substantially less Δv.

By the way, the "little sizzling fart explosion" is merely the startup of the ascend engine, the engine burn lasted for several minutes total

>>15985373
>energy needed to lift off
1/2 m v^2, where v is rhe escape velocity and m is the mass you want to lift off.

>>15985424
The radius to exit the gravitational pull of the moon? And lowercase m would be the mass of the given object, right? G is the gravitational acceleration, right?

Does this equation account for all variables?

Yea we would need to see how much energy the combustion and burning of fuel would produce and compare it. It simply isn't feasible compared to the amount of effort needed to lift a space carrier off of earth

>>15985470
R is the initial distance from the center of mass (~center of the moon). So if you're lifting of the moon's surface, then R is the radius of the moon. The mass of the object is m, and G is the gravitational constant.

>Does this equation account for all variables?
The most significant ones. There is error though, as it ignores other celestial bodies, and assumes Newtonian gravity.

So basically answers the question that you proposed. However, the question itself does not really relate to the video you posted

>>15985470
>It simply isn't feasible compared to the amount of effort needed to lift a space carrier off of earth
Most certainly not. Gravity of earth is much greater than that of the moon, and you would need correspondingly larger amount of thrust and propellant. Rockets that lift stuff off earth are much more substantial in relation to payload

>>15985492
Well it should relate to the video since we could theoretically calculate the amount of energy needed for a successful liftoff and compare it with the proposed combustion and burning of fuel.

>>15985499
Doesn't matter. We are talking about a fragile object weighing several tonnes supposed to both lift off and overcome the gravitational pull even though it's "only" 1/6th of that on earth. Just look at the amount of work this takes on earth. And this supposedly happened several times without any failure whatsoever.

>>15985373
Sure, let's calculate the values.

First, we calculate the velocity `v` using the formula:

[math]v = \sqrt{\frac{GM}{r}}[/math]

Substituting the given values:

[math]v = \sqrt{\frac{6.674 \times 10^{-11} \, m^3 kg^{-1} s^{-2} \times 7.347 \times 10^{22} \, kg}{1.837 \times 10^{6} \, m}}[/math]

After calculating, we get:

[math]v \approx 1683.4 \, m/s[/math]

Next, we calculate the kinetic energy `KE` using the formula:

[math] KE = \frac{1}{2} m v^2 [/math]

Substituting the given values:

[math] KE = \frac{1}{2} \times 4000 \, kg \times (1683.4 \, m/s)^2 [/math]

After calculating, we get:

[math] KE \approx 5.65 \times 10^{9} \, J [/math]

So, the velocity of the object is approximately 1683.4 m/s and the kinetic energy is approximately 5.65 billion Joules. Please note that these are simplified calculations and actual values can be influenced by a variety of factors.

>>15985583
Tsiolkovsky equation is logarithmic. You need exponentially less fuel mass to reach 1.5 km/s velocity of the moon orbit compared to 8km/s of Earth orbit + no air drag losses

>>15985373
>Do we have any physics anons here able to calculate the the energy needed to lift off a carrier, let's say of a couple of tons, from the moons surface and far enough for it to escape the moons gravitational pull?
well, that depends on exactly what you're looking for
if you're talking about the escape velocity, then that's going to require more energy than to just get back into orbit and dock with something there that has a lot more fuel and can take you away to e.g. Earth, although the differences aren't necessarily that big in this case
since you're referencing the Apollo missions, I'm assuming you're actually asking about the latter, since that's what they did there
let's use this calculator to estimate:
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/ideal-rocket-equation
the ascent module for the Apollo 17 mission weighed 2260 kg without propellant, and the orbital velocity of the command module was ~1.8 km/s
the exhaust speed of its propellant was ~3.05 km/s, so if you fill in that, the final weight of 2260 kg, and change of velocity of 1.8 km/s, you'll see the total weight would have to be 4078 kg, which means 4078 kg - 2260 kg = 1818 kg of propellant
in reality the ascent module had 2387 kg of propellant, which means it could actually have achieved an orbit of as much as almost 2.2 km/s
not quite the escape velocity of ~2.38 km/s, but still more than enough to get it back to the command module of course

>>15985640
Also hyperglicolics burn very "cleanly" - flame is almost invisible.

>>15985603
Do we know how much energy is created by the proposed combustion and burning of fuel? How much fuel was carried by the carrier?

>>15985640
So we're supposed to believe the module carried almost as much propellant fuel as the weight of the module itself? Where was this stored as per the video? How was combustion achieved? 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.

The Titan submarine which imploded last year weighed approximately 9500kg to liken a vessel meant for travelling under higher amounts of outside pressure. Are we supposed to believe 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? Or was it another vessel supposedly carrying the astronauts?

>>15985583
>Well it should relate to the video
There are at least two problems:
-The lunar module does not have constant mass, as fuel is constantly burned while the thruster is operating
-The module not accelerated to escape velocity, but rather just to orbit

This is why you should look at the rocket equation, as it takes into account the mass of the propellant, which is very significant.

>Doesn't matter
Earth is more than 80 times more massive than the moon, with some 3.67 times the radius. Looking at the equation in >>15985424, it would seem that you need more than 20 times the energy to escape the gravity well of earth. 20 fold difference in the relative amount of energy matters

>>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

>>15985655
Space vessels dont need to survive gigactic pressures, but only up to one atmosphere, its just a tin can with a motor and two liquid tanks. Two liquids which ignite when mixed.

Heres a simplified schematic because you can't google.

They also had a seperate bigger module whuch stayed on orbit, to go back to earth. Havent you read ANYTHING about the thing you are trying to disprove?

Also if you're gonna try to disprove Tsiolkovskys equation then good luck.

>>15985655
>So we're supposed to believe the module carried almost as much propellant fuel as the weight of the module itself?
Yup. This is something you could have read about before making this thread. If you are to debunk some claims, you should sort of have an idea of what you are trying to debunk. The lunar module ascent stage supposedly carried some 2,353 kg of propellant for the ascend propulsion system, which is a bit more than the dry weight of the ascend stage

I'm pretty sure that if some state level actor is going for some kind of global conspiracy, they are going to get high school level math and physics about right. I a random fuckwit finds some stupidly simple shit dubious, it is more likely that they just don't know their shit

>>15985677
How was docking from the ascent module to the command module achieved? This just makes it even more bizarre.

Weighs do matter in relation to vessel design and claims postulated, but naturally the absolute numbers can't be compared. You can't expect for a vessel supposedly capable to space travel to weigh the same as a vessel meant for "simple" deep sea exploration.

>>15985685
Sure, they might not be made to withstand large amounts of pressure, but any compromising of the hull or small crack will result in a rapid depressurization of the inside of the hull. You can't just claim you need nothing but the likes of a tincan to travel through vast distances of empty space.

Nobody wants to disprove any equation here. I am simply questioning some of the claims and making a comparison. These things are almost humorous and so many important details are left out. What do modern space carriers weigh?

>>15985677
So the command module meant for space travel weights only slightly more than a vessel made for deep sea exploration? Shouldn't the hull be expected to way significantly more due to the risk of hull integrity while travelling in outer space? Or are we supposed to believe thin layers of metal kept the astronauts fully protected travelling, landing and taking off from the moon not just once but several times?

>>15985700
>Can't just claim you need nothing but the likes of a tincan to travel through vast distances of empty space.

A balloon would be enough, but any defect would pop it, hence a tin can

>>15985655
Given that 1 kg of UDMH rocket fuel contains approximately 32986.7 kJ of energy, we can calculate the energy in 1.5 tons of UDMH as follows:

First, convert tons to kilograms. 1 ton is equal to 1000 kg, so 1.5 tons is 1500 kg.

Then, multiply the mass of the UDMH by the energy per kilogram:

[math]\text{Total Energy} = \text{mass} \times \text{Energy per kg}[/math]

Substituting the values:

[math]\text{Total Energy} = 1500 \, \text{kg} \times 32986.7 \, \text{kJ/kg} = 49480050 \, \text{kJ}[/math]

So, 1.5 tons of UDMH rocket fuel contains approximately 49480050 kJ of energy. Please note that this is a rough estimation and actual values may vary based on conditions such as temperature and pressure.

>>15985700
>How was docking from the ascent module to the command module achieved?
what exactly would the problem be, in your imagination?
the command module was tracked with Earth-based ranging (it takes ~2.5 seconds on average for electromagnetic signals to get to the Moon and back), while the ascent module had radar to track its position in relation to the command module
based on those it's not very difficult to dock considering the virtually complete lack of friction
>You can't expect for a vessel supposedly capable to space travel to weigh the same as a vessel meant for "simple" deep sea exploration.
I don't see why you can't expect that at all
in fact, I'd expect deep sea vessels to be more massive in general, due to having to withstand such tremendous pressures
>the command module meant for space travel weights only slightly more than a vessel made for deep sea exploration?
in terms of dry weight and comparing to the submarine you mentioned above, that is correct
>Shouldn't the hull be expected to way significantly more due to the risk of hull integrity while travelling in outer space?
why?
it just needs to be thick enough to withstand what can be expected of debris (e.g. small meteoroids) that might hit it, and for appropriate heat shielding for reentry, but there's no inherent reason why that has to be any thicker or more massive than what you need to withstand 40 MPa of constant pressure (which sounds far more challenging to me, and is probably part of the reason why deep sea exploration seems to be a lot harder than space exploration)
>thin layers of metal
not really that thin, 4-5 cm of stainless steel is quite thick if you ask me, wouldn't be particularly easy to rupture
>not just once but several times?
not sure what you're thinking here, but I assume you realize that they didn't reuse the modules, they made new ones for each mission

>>15985714
Yeah sure, we can keep assuming the hull to theoretically be as thin as physically possible if the hull is not compromised. But realistically, the hull will expect degrees of being compromised due to metal deforming from temperature and pressure differences or from foreign bodies outside potentially hitting the hull while flying in space. Even just the tiniest speck of space rock or dirt could compromise the hull due to the high velocity when travelling through space - and it supposedly only weighed a little more than, let's say, the Titan?

>>15985700
>How was docking from the ascent module to the command module achieved? This just makes it even more bizarre.
Precise timing, communication, radars on the vessels, radars on the ground, start tracking for orientation and position tracking, massive team of mathematicians back on the base calculating trajectories and backing up the crew, guidance computers on the vessels doing most of the actual controls of the flight, many, many months of training in simulations and flights before lunar landing and take off.

Everything is documented and available on NASA websites as pdfs to read.

>>15985722
Yes, a tin can with some outer material layer, and final IR reflective foil layer to stabilize temperatures.

How much energy speck of space rock you think has compared to a bullet? Even if it gets pierced. How fast do you think air would escape through a tiny hole at 1/4 of atmoshperic pressure? How thick do you think are the walls of ISS, Soyuz or Dragon space capsules? How many times do astronauts on ISS/Mir deal with small holes/leaks and how dangerous they are?

Or do you also think modern spaceships are fake?

>>15985721
How did the docking exactly occur seeing the ascent module couldn't be navigated travelling at constant velocity? Wouldn't it smash into the command module? How was a tight docking achieved?

>>15985721
You seriously believe 4-5cm of stainless steel would be safe for space travel? What about the vessels carrying astronauts to and from the space centers orbiting earth? What are they weighing?

Yea naturally I assume they "used new models" if it really did happen, which I think it didn't, I ain't a dufus as you might see on my writings and capability of understanding the math.

>>15985724
I don't see how you some of you guys in here as most likely representing people in either academia or applied sciences aren't at least a little skeptical of these things. That's the basis of scientific methodology.

>>15985732
What are the weigh of these modern spaceships compare to the command module? Looking at SpaceX Starship under development it weighs 200 tons, which is significantly more than 10 tons.

A speck of space rock travels faster than a bullet, so I would assume it has a comparable if energy if not more than a bullet. Now imagine many specs of space rock. Is 4-5cm of stainless steel seriously proposed to be considered enough for space travel?

>>15985733
>seeing the ascent module couldn't be navigated travelling at constant velocity
Why it wouldn't be?


>Wouldn't it smash into the command module?
They had tiny RCS thrusters, proximity radar, optical telescopes and a window for visual confirmation of approach.


>I don't see how you some of you guys in here as most likely representing people in either academia or applied sciences aren't at least a little skeptical of these things. That's the basis of scientific methodology.

There is an amazing mountain of evidence and documentation that the flights happened. All the published technical specs match the visual properties of the vehicle.

If you are trying to disprove Tsiolkovsky equation, expect spaceships to be as thick as deep ocean submarines, and doubt that people can dock spaceships, then you seem to disprove an established fact that spaceflight is possible an is being done.

I think you're a flatearther.

How did the ascent module dock the command module while apparently travelling at 1600-1700 m/s? Wouldn't it just simply smash into the module disintegrating both vessels?

>>15985685
>Space vessels dont need to survive gigactic pressures
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4RLOo6bchU

>>15985737
>Looking at SpaceX Starship under development it weighs 200 tons, which is significantly more than 10 tons.

Have you seen the size difference between a lunar ascention module, which could barely fit 2 adult men and SpaceXs Starship?

>>15985741
They both travelled at 1600-1700 m/s and synchronised their velocities.

You know that ISS travels at around 7 km/s and spaceships regularly dock to it right?

>>15985740
I ain't trying to disprove an equation - I am simply questioning the material available. So small thrusters were supposed to slow down a vessel travelling at 1600 m/s? How much fuel was needed for these thrusters to slow down the ascent module? We are talking about navigating with millimeters, hell even less, of precision.

>>15985744
Yes, the ascend module weight even less supposedly a hundred times less than the SpaceX Starship. it ain't just size being accounted for but actual safety in the form of a stable and solid hull.

>>15985749
Yes and this is happening many decades later with technology and computational power having increased by a factor of several millions. And these vessels do in fact seem to weigh many times more than what is proposed the weight of the command module and ascend module weighed.

>>15985733
>How did the docking exactly occur seeing the ascent module couldn't be navigated travelling at constant velocity?
the command module intercepted the ascent module with a small burn, and then proceeded to do all the translation and rotation maneuvers for the docking
>Wouldn't it smash into the command module?
if the command module didn't do a small burn to intercept the ascent module, then it would just miss and pass
>4-5cm of stainless steel would be safe for space travel
it is, and there's no reason why it wouldn't be
>What about the vessels carrying astronauts to and from the space centers orbiting earth? What are they weighing?
as mentioned by a lot of different people above, that would require a lot more mass due to the exponential increase in propellant needed and the larger rockets necessary
the re-entry module on the other hand isn't particularly massive at all in comparison, just ~3000 kg for the current iteration of Soyuz
>which I think it didn't
on exceptionally poor grounds, as this thread has demonstrated so far
>I ain't a dufus as you might see on my writings and capability of understanding the math
can't really say I see any evidence of that in what you write, since you seem to be dismissing the actual math in favor of your own poor intuitions

>>15985761
But the math is lacking - any questioning of further details is simply just dismissed with "thrusters and radars" or comparing with other hulls is furthermore also just dismissed on no grounds whatsoever.

>>15985791
>the math is lacking
it really isn't, though
see: >>15985640
rather than lacking, the math checks out perfectly
>any questioning of further details is simply just dismissed
and by "dismissed" I assume you mean "addressed in great detail", as I and others have been doing
>"thrusters and radars"
turns out those two are really useful for monitoring and adjusting the relative velocities of two moving objects
it's not like there's a lack of detailed documentation about the docking procedure either
>comparing with other hulls is furthermore also just dismissed
and by "dismissed" I assume you again mean "addressed in great detail" as I and others have been doing

>>15985801
But you aren't addressing it. You simply postulate a hull thinner than a modern commercial airplane, by a quick Googling is 15cm thick, is enough for space travel. You are making just as many assumptions as I am.

Turns out they they are and it's without a doubt feasible especially when travelling to and from earth - a place with with infrastructure and governments/corporations working collectively to make these things happen. A collaborative effort within a developed earth so to say. To claim this can simply be done from a barren surface to the same degree, adding on top of that a previous landing and takeoff from earth, is just mind blowing and I don't really see this degree of annoyance when things like these are being questioned. Comparing a vessel taking off from earth and docking a craft orbiting the earth is completely different from a vessel taking off from earth, entering the orbit of the moon, landing and launching again from this barren piece of giant space rock and then flying back to the earth is simply infeasible. It's like comparing apples to oranges, hell, not just that but like comparing apples to something completely unrelated not even being a fruit.

>>15985823
>you aren't addressing it
yes, I am, and so are many others
>postulate
no, I'm referring to the actual hull used by the craft in question
>thinner than a modern commercial airplane
much thicker
commercial airplanes (and airplanes in general) have extremely thin skins
the skin of a Boeing 747 for reference is ~2 mm thick
compared to the 40-50 mm thick plating of steel in the command module that's really nothing
>by a quick Googling is 15cm thick
no idea where you got that number, but that's hilariously false, and must refer to something totally different than the thickness of the hull itself (which for aircraft is known as the skin, specifically because they are so thin)
>You are making just as many assumptions as I am.
no, I'm actually presenting the facts and the math
>is simply infeasible
except when actually presented with the math, it's clear that it's not infeasible in the slightest, but perfectly feasible

>>15985852
No you aren't. You are presenting the rough math and then dismissing everything else with "thrusters and radars". You also conveniently forgot to address the comparison being infeasible. Sure, you might be able to dock a space station, when carefully planning the liftoff from earth decades later with millions times the magnitude in computational power and taking off from a highly developed planet rather than a barren empty space rock - not even accounting in both a previous liftoff, landing and another round of liftoff

>>15985863
>you aren't
I am, though
>presenting the rough math
with favorable assumptions, and even then there was enough fuel to get significantly higher up
>dismissing
again meaning "addressing in great detail", I assume
>thrusters and radars
still what's used to monitor and adjust the relative position of two objects
sensor and actuator, name a more legendary duo when it comes to cybernetics
>conveniently forgot to address
except I've addressed every objection so far in great detail
I've already explained how the docking is done, all you have done is repeat "it's easy now, but back then it must have been impossible!" when that clearly isn't the case at all and the docking procedure that was used has been documented in great detail and is perfectly feasible
>that image
must include non-structural materials used on the inside of the skin, like plastic
fact is that the skin itself is far thinner
I see you got the answer from here:
https://www.quora.com/How-thick-are-the-walls-of-an-airplane
did you even bother to read the top-rated answer to the question, which actually answers how thick the metal skin itself is?
quoting it:
>Most commercial aircraft that we see fly today have a skin thickness between 0.070inches (1.778mm) to 0.090inches (2.286mm) depending on the location on the fuselage.

>>15985903
>I've already explained how the docking is done
No you haven't. You simply said "thrusters and radars". You simply compared it to being absolutely the same process being done now decades later with million times the computational power available and happening with direct liftoff from earth.

Once again you're not addressing the prior events being a two times liftoff and a landing and practically saying "well yeah but its the same thing as a direct docking after having taken off from a developed planet with a massively designed launch platform and the infrastructure connected to it".w

Now it's just throwing mud. I didn't even question the process of docking anymore, but simply even having the capability of doing so compared to the prior events.

>>15985914
Do you know how the docking procedure is to dock in low earth orbit? Describe it.
Then describe precisely which measurements would be unfeasible to perform back then to be able to follow that procedure. Be specific. Quantify the exact level of precision required in each measurement for a successful docking, and justify.

>>15985914
>you haven't
yes, I have
>You simply said "thrusters and radars".
no, I didn't say just that, I actually explained how the command module and lunar module were tracked, how the command module intercepted the lunar module, and how the command module moved to enable the docking
>million times the computational power
you don't need very much computational power to adjust the relative position of two objects in order to allow for docking
>you're not addressing
I've addressed everything so far in great detail
>two times liftoff and a landing
doesn't change anything about the orbital mechanics involved
calculate when to lift off to meet the command module in orbit, have the command module intercept the lunar module (which would only have a relative velocity of ~30-40 m/s when appearing on the command module radar), and translate/rotate accordingly
there's nothing difficult about it in principle, although it requires a fair deal of engineering in practice of course
>throwing mud
all I'm throwing at you are facts and math
>even having the capability of doing so compared to the prior events
there's zero reason why those prior events would remove any capability of doing so
the ascent module was specifically designed with one single purpose in mind: get off the lunar surface and dock with the command module
given that it's really strange how you think the prior events would somehow make it unable to fulfill its singular purpose

>>15985914
How much computational power you need to follow a precalculated sequence of burns it your opinion? How much calculation power you need for a simple PID controller to control aproach speed and distance? And why do you think apollo guidance computer cannot do it?

>>15985914
You know that first docking in space was done before all of the apollo flights that with even more primitive computers and visual tracking of the target on final approach using binoculars inside a space capsule?

Do you really think that synchronisation of orbits is task an engineer can't calculate by hand?

Gamers eyeball it in Kerbal Space Program, which does have proper Newtonian physics.

>>15985946
You must be absolutely kidding me - you're arguing on the basis of a space simulator. You guys completely lack the comprehension to even understand the logical sequence of events. It's not just a docking. It's a docking after taking off from earth, landing on a barren space rock, taking off from the space rock and then successfully docking.

Docking after a takeoff from a barren space rock is completely different from a controlled and monitored docking and circumstances after doing do from a direct liftoff from earth.

>>15985943
It's not simply the computational power - it's about it being stable for two liftoffs from two different terrestrial surfaces and furthermore also a landing.

Politically the event also makes no sense. It supposedly all happened at the height of the Cold War era, in the backwater of the failed Vietnam War with all landings happening under Nixon and supposedly not having gone back ever since then. This is just adding to the questions regarding the scientific calculations. Surely, everything theoretical can be calculated, but we are supposed to believe it happened multiple times without a single time of failure? What about the Moon Rover - they also supposedly brought a vehicle, a remarkable feat, drove around in it after having landed on manned missions only a few times before.

>>15985980
>It's a docking after taking off from earth, landing on a barren space rock, taking off from the space rock and then successfully docking.
addressed already here: >>15985933
>>two times liftoff and a landing
>doesn't change anything about the orbital mechanics involved
>calculate when to lift off to meet the command module in orbit, have the command module intercept the lunar module (which would only have a relative velocity of ~30-40 m/s when appearing on the command module radar), and translate/rotate accordingly
>there's nothing difficult about it in principle, although it requires a fair deal of engineering in practice of course
>>even having the capability of doing so compared to the prior events
>there's zero reason why those prior events would remove any capability of doing so
>the ascent module was specifically designed with one single purpose in mind: get off the lunar surface and dock with the command module
>given that it's really strange how you think the prior events would somehow make it unable to fulfill its singular purpose
you're the one unable to accept that fact
>Docking after a takeoff from a barren space rock is completely different
except that it's not, the docking procedure is the exact same
also, repeating the phrase "barren space rock" doesn't really have the emotional appeal you seem to wish it has, as the barrenness of the Moon or the fact that it's rocky and located in space (Earth by comparison would be a "fertile space rock") doesn't really affect the docking procedure in the slightest
>stable for two liftoffs from two different terrestrial surfaces
like others have asked: why wouldn't it?
the answer is: there's zero reason why that would pose a problem, especially since it's been part of the design from day 1
>Politically the event also makes no sense.
has exactly nothing to do with
>questions regarding the scientific calculations
you probably want another board
>>>/pol/ is that way and >>>/x/ is that way
knock yourself out

The last landing, Apollo 17, even supposedly had the astronauts staying on the surface of the moon for three whole days in the tiny ascent module. The Wikipedia pages compared to the events remarkably lack any kind of calculations and are akin to reading a storytelling. Surely with the importance of the events, compared to other scientific feats and events, the pages are devoid of any actual science and delving down into the stuff.

These "landings" are nothing but a twist on a bunch of realistic calculations and then simply saying "Well it happened cause we said so".

>>15985988
Then explain how you can even remotely compare a docking from a direct liftoff from earth with the major obstacles being present to endure a liftoff, a landing, another liftoff and then a docking. How is it even remotely the same?

There is nothing paranormal or political about it but we have to view the events from all angles. /pol/ is just a bunch of randos not capable of combining applied math with explanations.

>>15985993
Go away kike

>>15986004
Now you're just admitting to the thing seeming dubious, aren't you?

>>15985993
>Wikipedia pages compared to the events remarkably lack any kind of calculations
why would an article meant to give an overview delve into the physical calculations?
it's sufficient to note that e.g. the module weighed this much and carried that much fuel, there's no need to prove via the rocket equations that this is sufficient fuel to actually bring it back into orbit, that's something you can do on your own, or that you can find in more detailed treatises on the subject
>Surely with the importance of the events, compared to other scientific feats and events, the pages are devoid of any actual science and delving down into the stuff.
they contain exactly what they should contain, which is an overview of what happened, not how it happened, and certainly not proof in terms of calculations that it is in fact possible for it to have happened, which anyone with even basic knowledge of physics can calculate themselves
even so, the articles do provide a gazillion references to articles that do in fact delve into all the physics, and it takes me only a couple of clicks to get from the Apollo 17 article to the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation article
>Then explain how you can even remotely compare a docking from a direct liftoff from earth with the major obstacles being present to endure a liftoff, a landing, another liftoff and then a docking. How is it even remotely the same?
the docking procedure is the exact same regardless of where you lift off from
arguably it's much harder from Earth given the steeper gravitational well and the atmospheric drag, so it's quite frankly puzzling why you think it would be so hard from the lunar surface, when in fact it would be a lot easier in most respects
>or political about it
then don't bring politics into the discussion
wrong board for that
>/pol/ is just a bunch of randos not capable of combining applied math with explanations
sounds exactly like you so far

>>15986017
I ain’t questioning the calculations - I am questioning the circumstances. Theoretical calculations really prove nothing by themselves. You can do calculations on a bunch of hypothetical or supposed events.

>>15986040
>ain’t questioning the calculations
you've done precisely that repeatedly
>questioning the circumstances
there's nothing suspect about the circumstances, and from the beginning you were constantly doubting things like the module mass and hull thickness, but after all of that has been shown to be totally nonsensical objections on your part you now shift the goalpost to making it about politics instead
as I already said, >>>/pol/ is that way, you'll probably enjoy the company

>>15986045
Nothing has been really shown - you just keep on dismissing the same things over and over again. There really was never a discussion cauae you’re simply dismissing anything by assumption. Where have I dismissed the posted calculations? I am simply inquiring further which you can’t seem to answer other than “thrusters and radars”.

>>15986057
>Nothing has been really shown
except the tons of facts and math that has been shown, proving you wrong at every turn
>keep on dismissing
except that I haven't dismissed a single thing and have instead addressed everything in great detail
>really was never a discussion
this much is true, because every objection you've offered has been so extremely simple to prove wrong
>dismissing anything by assumption
and by "assumption" I assume you mean demonstrating factuality with mathematical calculations
>Where have I dismissed the posted calculations?
literally all over the place, through language like, "but can it REALLY only have that small of a mass???", even when shown that yes, that's exactly the appropriate mass
>inquiring further
no, you're not "inquiring further", you're the one who is now dismissing everything that has been proven to you in order to cling to a preconceived notion that you refuse to let go of even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary
that's not science, but superstition
I guess >>>/x/ was the right board for you after all
>can’t seem to answer other than “thrusters and radars”
except I already addressed this nonsensical repetition of yours, like here: >>15985933
>doesn't change anything about the orbital mechanics involved
>calculate when to lift off to meet the command module in orbit, have the command module intercept the lunar module (which would only have a relative velocity of ~30-40 m/s when appearing on the command module radar), and translate/rotate accordingly
>there's nothing difficult about it in principle, although it requires a fair deal of engineering in practice of course
funnily enough, at this point you are the one who is just dismissing and hand-waving away everything because you simply don't like to hear it
that's not curiosity or inquiry at all, it's essentially a religious belief for you at this point, not possible for anyone to prove wrong even when all the calculations and physics check out perfectly

>>>/sci/sfg/