Moon Landing: How Much Thrust Did the Lem Need to Achieve Orbit?

  • Thread starter chuffmonkey
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Moon
In summary, Mungo is making a television series about conspiracies and is seeking input from forum patrons for the episode on the moon landing. One question posed is about the amount of thrust needed for the LEM to achieve orbit and return to earth, and another is about the possibility of an outside broadcast crew on the moon. Some people believe in conspiracy theories, but the forum discourages spreading misleading information and focuses on mainstream science. Ultimately, the footage and technology used for the moon landing is not as extravagant or risky as some may believe.
  • #1
chuffmonkey
Hello readers,

My name is Mungo and i am making a television series about conspiracies, which is to be narrated by Tom Baker (The 4th Doctor... which actually depends on if you count Peter Cushing from his 1965 Daleks film, which many people do not do, despite the fact that they have no problems accepting Paul McGann, who by the same token only ever did one feature length episode).

The pilot episode covered the "death" of James Paul McCartney following a car crash on November 9th 1966, that saw clues being put out on the five albums from Sgt. Pepper to Abbey Road.

Episode two covers the "moon landings" of the late 60's / early 70's, and having covered the usual points of varying directional shadows from a single light source, crosses on pictures, flags waving in the solar breeze and so on, i would like to tackle a few of the lesser documented, technical issues, and therefore require input from patrons of this forum.

My first question is;

If the moons gravity is one sixth the gravity of earth, how much thrust would the Lem have needed to achieve orbit, in order to dock, and then return to earth?

I would have thought that a rocket one sixth the size of the rocket used at the Earth launch, however, from NASA footage, the Lem merely pooped out a one time only small explosion, followed by some small burners, which to me would not be sufficient.Anyone...?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
So you support conspiracy theories?
 
  • #3
"In before report and deletion" but "common sense" is, in this case, ridiculous. What you are talking about is, quite literally, rocket science. There is no common sense about it.

You should focus on other conspiracy theories, you obviously have no idea about anything that goes into landing on, and returning from, the moon. Please do not spread ridiculous and misleading informaiton.
 
  • #4
I would not say that i support conspiracy theories, as with C.F.C.T (Conspiracy Fact Conspiracy Theory), i put just as much effort into debunking the theories as i put into proving them.

Point at hand is that millions of people have far too much time on their hands, which is why theories have such large followings.

New World Order... a conspiracy, or foolish people arriving very late to the party? Going back 5,000 or so years to Egypt, there is nothing new about rich people controlling the poor masses is there.

Aside from which, i only ever use information that already exists, in the form of archive stills and video / film footage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
Travis_King said:
"In before report and deletion" but "common sense" is, in this case, ridiculous. What you are talking about is, quite literally, rocket science. There is no common sense about it.

You should focus on other conspiracy theories, you obviously have no idea about anything that goes into landing on, and returning from, the moon. Please do not spread ridiculous and misleading informaiton.

Thank you for the heads up... common sense has been removed !

However, possibly logic... would dictate that a one sixth gravity would require one sixth the thrust perhaps?

Again, i am a noob here.
 
  • #6
chuffmonkey said:
However, possibly logic... would dictate that a one sixth gravity would require one sixth the thrust perhaps?

Rockets can be counterintuitive, especially in gravity. The tricky part is that most of the early fuel burn is used not to accelerate the payload but to accelerate the fuel that will be burned later to further accelerate the payload. Google for "Tsiolkovsky rocket equation" and that will get you started on the math.

Another good thing to know is that the energy required to lift an object from the surface of a planet to completely escape from its gravity is the same as the energy required to move the object a distance of one planetary radius against a force equal to the surface gravity. The moon's surface gravity is 1/6 that of earth, but also the moon's radius is about 1/4 that of the earth, so it only takes about 4% as much energy to lift a given mass out of the moon's gravity well than out of the earth's.
 
  • #7
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
zoobyshoe said:


My favorite piece of footage.

Did NASA have an outside broadcast crew on the moon? only the technology wasn't around to do what this video shows 40 years ago.

Manual zoom out prior to panning upwards, as remote tracking was not possible, aside from being extravagant and risky in film terms.

It's too good, Hollywood good.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
Thanks zoobyshoe... That reminded me of another "good to remember":

The Saturn 5 had to lift the command module, the lunar excursion module, and enough fuel to fly the command module to the moon and back, enter and then leave lunar orbit, and to land the lunar excursion module on the moon and bring it back up into lunar orbit.

The LEM at liftoff needed only to boost itself into lunar orbit.
 
  • #10
I'm afraid I've let this go on too long. chuff, we are a mainstream science forum and we don't discuss conspiracy theories. But you did get your answer, no conspiracy.
 

What is the moon lift-off conspiracy?

The moon lift-off conspiracy theory suggests that the Apollo 11 moon landing in 1969 was faked and that the footage of the lift-off from the moon's surface was actually filmed on a soundstage.

What evidence is there for the moon lift-off conspiracy?

Some people point to discrepancies in the footage of the lift-off, such as the lack of a blast crater or the American flag appearing to wave in the airless environment. Others argue that it would have been technologically impossible for astronauts to survive the radiation on the moon's surface.

How do scientists refute the moon lift-off conspiracy?

The majority of scientists and experts in the field of space exploration have provided strong evidence that supports the authenticity of the Apollo 11 moon landing. This includes multiple lines of evidence such as moon rocks brought back by the astronauts, independent verification of the mission by other countries, and the testimony of the astronauts themselves.

Why do some people continue to believe in the moon lift-off conspiracy?

Conspiracy theories often persist due to a lack of trust in government or institutions, as well as a desire for a simpler or more exciting explanation for complex events. Additionally, with the rise of the internet and social media, these theories can spread quickly and gain a larger following.

What impact does the moon lift-off conspiracy have on the scientific community?

The moon lift-off conspiracy has little impact on the scientific community as the overwhelming evidence supports the authenticity of the Apollo 11 moon landing. However, it does highlight the importance of critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning when evaluating claims and theories.

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
20
Views
4K
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Aerospace Engineering
4
Replies
131
Views
11K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
86
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
2
Replies
48
Views
12K
Back
Top