If that gas can send them to the moon, can we citizens have some and run on a full tank for about a year? No? I don't beleive they went to the moon ...it's all a hoax. Do you agree?
2007-01-12 02:28:55 · 14 answers · asked by HIRO 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
you all need to get real, what evidence do YOU have that they really landed on mars? you guys need to open your minds. no one has been anywhere but here on planet earth. think, they can't find a cure for aids or HERPES for that matter. How in the hell are they gonna fly out of our atmosphere and can figure out simple ailments?
2007-01-12 02:38:16 · update #1
*CAN'T figure out simple ailments*
2007-01-12 02:38:59 · update #2
IT WAS A HOAX. GOSH ...YOU GUYS ARE MINDNUMBING.
2007-01-12 05:04:29 · update #3
it was normal fuel - they just had alot of it. don't be ridiculous.
2007-01-12 02:31:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
If you believe it is a hoax, then what answer about the fuel will satisfy you?
It should be noted that different engines can run on different fuel types. An engine for a rocket is not the same as an engine for a car, nor does it use the same fuel. There are some engineering issues with building a car that can run on the same fuel that they use for the rockets on a space shuttle.
So, sadly, you cannot fill up on a tank of this fuel and drive around for a year on it.
EDIT: Curing diseases like AIDS and herpes are not obstacles to space flight. They are two different sciences at their respective work. If you really want to get riled up, why is it that I can simply walk into a grocery store and get a week's worth of food while there are people in this world who are starving? My grocery store and those people starving are related in the same way that curing AIDs and spaceflight are related.
There is also a difference between asking a question and making a statement.
2007-01-12 02:38:54 · answer #2 · answered by auken_hill 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
"Gas?" Are you asking what kind of fuel they used for the craft that took them to the moon and back?
The fuel they used in the lunar lander was called "aerozine 50", and it used dinitrogen tetroxide as an oxidizer (since there's no oxygen in space, you have to bring your own oxidizer to "burn" things).
Aerozine 50 is a mixture of hydrazine and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine. It's hypergolic with dinitrogen tetroxide -- meaning it ignites on contact. That makes it a great high-energy rocket fuel, but a lousy fuel to power your car (since it would blow up as soon as the two-part fuel mixed). It's also quite expensive, today it would cost around $1,000 per gallon.
No, the moon landings were not a hoax. There is considerable proof that they did go, there is NO proof they did not. You really should learn and understand science instead of listening to wacko conspiracy theorists with no evidence of any kind -- it'll help you make better decisions about what's real and what's not real.
2007-01-12 03:42:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Oh yes, we spent billions of dollars to build several Space Crafts and even purposely killed a few astronaunts an on top of that spent more billions to make a fake moon set. Get real, how stupid can you be? It's impossible for it to be a hoax. Why would the government spend Billions of dollars for each Apollo and then spend more Billions to make a FAKE moon?
I don't know how many astronaunts died in all but I read 3 of them died instantly in a failed Apollo launch. Look at the facts, like I said it's impossible for it to be a "hoax".
2007-01-12 02:44:18 · answer #4 · answered by D.O... 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't agree that it was a hoax. We landed on the moon six different times. Anyone who tells you different is either ignorant, stupid, a liar, or some combination thereof.
And why do you assume they used an automotive internal combustion engine that requires gasoline to get to the moon? The Saturn V rocket was fueled with immense quantities of RP-1 (kerosene) (first stage) and liquid hydrogen (second and third stages), which used liquid oxygen as the oxidizer. In space, there's no oxygen for the fuel to burn, so it has to be carried along.
The first stage of the Saturn V carried 700 tons of RP-1, and 1589 tons of liquid oxygen. This lasted for about 2.5 minutes.
The second stage carried 76.5 tons of liquid hydrogen and 394.5 tons of liquid oxygen, and burned for about 6.5 minutes.
The third stage carried 19.9 tons of liquid hydrogen, and 96.1 tons of liquid hydrogen. It used up that fuel in two burns -- the first of about 2¾ minutes, and the second of about 5¼ minutes.
Show me any automobile that can carry that much fuel, and you'll have shown me something ridiculously huge, insanely unwieldy, and utterly undrivable.
2007-01-12 02:53:00 · answer #5 · answered by Dave_Stark 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I believe they ran on kerosene and liquid oxygen and hydrazine with an acid reactant. Those fuels would not work in your car; just cause it to explode. Assuming they didn't go to the moon, why would the country spend 28 billion dollars, 14 years and hire 250,000 people just to make a movie ? Get real, please!
2007-01-12 02:33:16 · answer #6 · answered by Gene 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes, we spent billions of dollars to fake it all in a TV studio. Please tell Buzz Aldrin to his face that you think it is all a hoax. We've landed craft on Mars - what makes you think we couldn't land a man on the moon? Do you know what millinium this is?
2007-01-12 02:33:13 · answer #7 · answered by Paul H 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The fuel that the Saturn V rocket used was a kerosene and liquid oxygen mixture, newer rockets use liquid hydrogen to power them to the moon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_fuel
2007-01-12 04:54:21 · answer #8 · answered by Richie B. 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As Graham Chapman once said on "Monty Python's Flying Circus" -- "You're a loony!"
2007-01-12 13:26:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
some previous answers are precise and serious, probably too for this provocative question, I'm an aerospace engineering student and I want to add that we (engineering students) are spending the ''best years of our lifes'' learning to do very difficult calculation methods not for nothing, we don't go to actor's school !!!
2007-01-12 05:06:15 · answer #10 · answered by sparviero 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They used Gulf No Nox, the best gasoline available at the time!!!
2007-01-12 02:32:03 · answer #11 · answered by Like, Uh, Ya Know? 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋