If an object cannot accelerate nor decelerate nor maneuver in space, how then did the LM head for the moon?

Question

There would have to be precise measurements taken to land the LM on the moon. Too many factors involved. 1. Moon is continuously moving 2. Scientists prior to the landing did not know the EXACT distance of the moon from earth 3. They would have to know the EXACT angle the LM would have to travel to meet the moon. 4. They could have not known how fast a COASTING LM would be traveling in space since no prior travels were made. Imagine this, the LM is approaching the moon, seeing that it's traveling to fast or too slow to meet the moon, how could they possibly flucuate their speed and position? Newton's Law of Motion: Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless there is an external force applied to it. They're in space with absolutely no friction or resistence. You're telling me the 1st time they attempt to go to the moon they succeed without learning from trial and error? Get Real.

Answer 1

Of course it can accelerate and decelerate. That's what the fuel is for. Shoot it out behind you, and you're going faster - shoot it out in front of you, and you slow down. Basic conservation of energy problem.

1) They aimed for where the Moon was going to be, not where it was.

2) Of course they did. Not as exact as now, but they were aiming for a huge object. Close enough was fine.

3) No, just basic so it didn't crash.

4) Yes, they did - like I said, conservation of energy.

Yes, they got it right. All six times. Isn't physics great?

Answer 2

1. Moon is continuously moving

Yes, but moving in a very predictable way that had been known for centuries.

2. Scientists prior to the landing did not know the EXACT distance of the moon from earth

Absolute rubbish. Prior to Apollo there had been numerous probes from the US and USSR that had flown past, orbited or landed on the Moon.

3. They would have to know the EXACT angle the LM would have to travel to meet the moon.

Wrong. The LM entered lunar orbit first, so it was then just a question of how to descend from an orbit of a known altitude. For that they had two people on board.

4. They could have not known how fast a COASTING LM would be traveling in space since no prior travels were made.

Wow. Your lack of basic research astounds me. Go and look up Luna, Lunar Orbiter, Ranger, Surveyor, Apollo 8 and Apollo 10. There had been LOADS of prior trips to the Moon.

The number of people who assert that Apollo 11 must have been faked who also seem to believe NASA just cobbled together a rocket and shot it to the Moon with no prior research is truly staggering.

>>Imagine this, the LM is approaching the moon, seeing that it's traveling to fast or too slow to meet the moon, how could they possibly flucuate their speed and position?<<

With the rocket engines on the LM and the CSM. Very simple indeed. Fire a rocket one way and your motion and speed alters accordingly.

>>Newton's Law of Motion: Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless there is an external force applied to it. They're in space with absolutely no friction or resistence.<<

But they're carrying rocket engines, thus providing the force needed to change their motion.

>>You're telling me the 1st time they attempt to go to the moon they succeed without learning from trial and error?<<

No. Apollo 11 was not the first time they went to the Moon. There had been many unmanned flights, and a couple of manned ones too before the landing atempt.

You're telling me you know that the landing was faked when you clearly don't even know anything about space flight or the steps that led up to the landing? Get real.

Answer 3

The LM was not a ballistic object - it had rockets and thrusters (though primitive by current standards) and was capable of maneuvering. If they didn't have rockets, how did they take off from the moon?
In fact, as the first LM of Apollo 11 was landing, there were tiny adjustments made during approach to avoid what appeared to be small but deep craters.
There were 2 highly-trained astronauts on board that could directly control their launch from the orbiter, land, then take off again to dock with the orbiter.
So while your arguments are valid for ballistic flights (no acceleration or deceleration after the initial impulse) they do not hold for maneuvered rocket flight.

Answer 4

(1) objects (like the LM) can accelerate and decelerate and maneuver in space quite well. It's called maneuver rockets.

(2) NASA did not need exact distances, speeds, etc. for the moon and LM -- a few feet off, a few feet per second error was allowable.

(3) How do you think the laser retroreflectors got placed on the Moon?

Answer 5

You've missed learning about the fundamental law of motion which states that for every reaction (blowing hot gas out of the back of the spacecraft) there's an equal and opposite reaction (the spacrcraft moves forward). The presence or absence of an atmosphere has nothing to do with this law. Careful measurements of the moon's motion relative to the earth allowed them to predict exactly where the moon would be when they arrived there, and careful measurements of its distance from Earth, the rotation of the Earth, the speed of the spacecraft, the effects of gravity (of both the Earth and the Moon) allowed them to go there, land, and come back safely. I guess you aren't much of a science buff, are you?

Answer 6

You're showing your ignorance. We had been doing lunar orbits since Apollo 9. By the way, the command module does the lunar orbit insertion with the LEM in piggy back. Once in orbit, who cares about the distance to the earth; you're problem is only 69 miles high which was the altitude of the orbit and they knew the mass and curvature of the moon and had landed in simulators rhousands of time. It was all Sir Idaac Newton's Laws.

Answer 7

Just because the person who told you all that BS can't figure that stuff out, doesn't mean that no one else could. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that whoever misinformed you didn't work for NASA or the JPL anytime recently.

Landing a spacecraft on the moon isn't... well, it is rocket science, but it's basic rocket science. A bunch of astrophysics students at MIT could probably pull it off given a big enough budget for rockets and landers. Hell, they'd probably do it cheaper than NASA could.

Answer 8

Gravity constantly has an effect on any merchandise. to illustrate, a projectile is launch 100m/s in the valuable y course (vertical up). Gravity's pull is in the undesirable y (vertical down), in distinctive words the vertical speed is often being slowed by using the acceleration of gravity = 9.8 m/s^2. ultimately, the projectile will "decelerate" to 0m/s. even although, gravity maintains to be appearing upon the projectile even whilst it truly is at 0m/s. subsequently, the projectile's speed will then being develop at a value of 9.8m/s^2 lower back closer to earth (undesirable y direciton).

Answer 9

Of course objects can maneuver in space. How do you think te space shuttle lines up with the space station? How do you think the Mars rover was able to reach Mars? Or do you believe that those things are false also?

Answer 10

Who said one cannot accelerate in space?

Of course you can.

If you fire a rocket in space, you increase speed in the direction the rocket moves you. What's more, you continue to accelerate as long as the rocket continues to burn. And you don't stop until you hit something or until you turn the rocket around and point it in the direction of travel.