Did the Americans put a man on the moon?

How do you slow down a rocket that weighs 10 tonnes+ travelling at 25000mph in an environment that has no air?

Jeez...

a reaction/reply time of 7 mins !!!! 😲

Better than any customer care department !!!😝

----------------------------------------

2 point warning applied for Breach of Charter.

The only explanation for this plot hole comes from flat earthers who claim that the conspiracy is to cover up the fact that the Earth is actually flat.

Markus refuses to clarify if this is his position or not.

There's a great number more sources that just the children's explanation you are dismissing.

But notice how you don't seem to be able to explain why that explanation is not correct.

The concept is indeed simple physics. You don't seem to understand these simple physics or you are pretending not to.

The thread you link to is just more examples of you claiming things but failing to explain them or defending them against the mountains of issues they have. It's very odd you are claiming that thread somehow addresses the question you are asked.

Again I must ask if these are you genuine beliefs or are you doing a bit?

The first and third articles here don't tell us anything useful. The second and fourth (in contradiction to @Wibbs who says it is air resistance that slows spaceships) say that it is the expulsion of gas that thrust the rocket.

Unfortunately for whoever wrote these articles and unfortunately for NASA who don't give any explanation for how it works - this is physically impossible. They are basically saying this all works because of Newton's 3rd law. This is humiliatingly incorrect.

Newton's 3rd law states that for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. So car tyres have action, the road has reaction. Boat motor has action, water has reaction. Helecoptor rotors have action, air has reaction. Rocket/missile exhaust bell combustion has action, air has reaction. This does not give NASA spacecraft the right to break Newton's 1st Law or the thermodynamic law of conservation of energy when there is no reaction force in the vacuum of space.

All bodies will remain at rest or at constant velocity unless impressed upon by an external force

Energy cannot be created or destroyed but changes from one form to another.

NASA's works of fiction have no respect for these two laws and they know it. This is why the vast majority of all their footage is either animation, CGI, extremely restrictive camera angles or simply failure for the mission to succeed - like we've seen i the last few months with the constant failures of the Orion missions and even the more recent failure of the Virgin rocket.

The only way the rockets have any potential to work in space is if @Wibbs could maybe return and entertain us with how the air resistance is used on the moon...

Your argument is entirely and completely wrong on every level. You have demonstrated that you simply just don't have any understanding of physics at all and misunderstand concepts taught at secondary school level.

Claiming "the air has reaction" is complete nonsense and is not what is meant by Newton's 3rd law.

The confidence by which you express your complete and utter misunderstanding is amazing, especially when you are declaring all scientists around the world ignorant.

Again I have to wonder if this is just a bit where you are parodying conspiracy theorists to make some kind of backwards point.

This is an equivalent of how they landed on the moon. Gravity is 6x less on the moon so they didn't need as much thrust

Use thrust, a lot of it, to get a rocket into space (this has been done thousands of times), travel through vacuum of space, then use thrust to slow down as moon is reached. Use lunar lander (similar to the above) to land on moon. The details are complex, but the fundamentals are pretty straight-forward.

Please remember though that Markus claims that all the space program is faked. So the above video is also fake according to him.

As are all physics textbooks.

I think the go among conspiracy theorists was that Nasa actually spent a sizable portion of their budget on developing super advanced CGI technology that they never again used outside of faking space missions.

I believe markus' contends that all footage from space, including scenes inside the ships and stations is all made by CGI.

The details of how this is done and why Nasa keeps leaving in things that blow the conspiracy remain vague and unaddressed

Virgin can’t put a rocket into space in 2023 but we landed men on the moon 50 years ago yet not once since (something something too expensive).

In 1972, the same year as the last so called landing, the first calculator was released, retailing at $395. That’s the technology we had at the time. That’s the cost of the most basic technology, yet they claim to have been able to put humans on the moon 6 times in 3 years, but not now when we’ve never had so much wealth, technology and resources.

In comparison, Artemis 1 was 5 years delayed from 2017-2022, and that was an unmanned mission. Artemis 2 won’t be ready until sometime in 2024 at the very earliest for a manned mission, although it may not even be manned, time will tell. But they managed 6 manned landing in 3 years 50 years ago.

You could spend hours picking holes, absolute fairy tales 😂

How do you slow down a rocket that weighs 10 tonnes+ traveling at 25000mph in an environment that has no air?

1) if rocket is orbiting earth.

2) and point the rocket so the burn pushes you in the direction of the red arrow.

Then the resulting path the rocket would take may look something like this,

3) so you have put lots of energy into the craft at point A, and it works its way up out further up the gravity well, until at some point, the energy put into the rocket will not be sufficient to escape earths gravity well, some where near point B it stops ascending away from earth and starts its fall back to earth, continually gaining speed until it reaches the 25000mph figure again, then it fires up the gravity well again until it stops again at point B and turns around and comes flying back down.

4) now, imagine you timed the burn perfectly, so that when reaching point B, you are in close vicinity to the moon, well at that point, you wouldn't need to scrub any of the 25kmph away, because its all been used to climb out of the gravity well towards the moon, all you need to do now is ensure that you don't escape out of the moons weak gravity well that you are in the vicinity off. the rocket can make a burn to orbit the moon and not fall back toward earth.

5) later when wanting to leave the moon and return back to earth, you just need to escape the moons orbit, and then earths gravity will do all the heavy work of getting you home.

Math is used to work out the exact length of burns that are required, all you need to do as a pilot of such a rocket is point it in the right direction and count.

He also must not believe that satellites exists as they require rockets operating in space to get them into orbit.

Which lends credence to him being a fact earther if he does sincerely believe all of these things.