....
LMAO...you're really so galactically stupid to believe that this:
....
took off from the moon and had enough fuel to travel 200K+ miles back to earth using 1960s technology? How do you survive day to day being such an idiot? Do people spoon food in your mouth for you?
For a start, you can simply look at the specifications of the thrusters and the propellant, as well as the vehicle mass fractions. Then use the equations ....
Quite a few high school students could answer your question, using math and a piece of paper, and a calculator with a log function....
As an aside, the rocks they brought back prove they went to the Moon beyond a doubt. But that takes some understanding of geology to explain and understand...
so you're an idiot, and you use logical fallacy to "prove" your arguments. Here, read these:
...
For extra credit, figure out which ones you just used. So exactly how much fuel do you think that completely unrealistic spaceship with rippled poster board siding and christmas wrapping heat/radiation protection required to get back to earth?
Seriously, you
really see that at a plausible craft capable of traveling 500,000 miles through space? How old are you? Here's a better link:
....
Now really look at that. Try to take off your American Exceptionalism blinders and use those dormant frontal lobes of yours and ask yourself if that is a credible spacecraft.
Here are the relevant characteristics. A 3500 lbf thrust rocket motor you can pick up with one hand. That was used to place the ascent module in low lunar orbit, then the orbiting unit made the return to Earth. As you can see, fuel for the ascent stage was about half the weight of the unit.
Mass including fuel: 10,300 lb (4,700 kg)
APS thrust: 3,500 lbf (16,000 N)
APS propellants: Aerozine 50 fuel / nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer
APS specific impulse: 311 s (3,050 N·s/kg)
APS delta-V: 7,280 ft/s (2,220 m/s)
Thrust-to-weight ratio at liftoff: 2.124 (in lunar gravity)
These methods have been well understood for over a century.
total change in velocity = specific impulse * ln(takeoff mass/final empty mass)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equationLet me repeat something you may have missed: Modern radar mapping has shown us these landing sites, and has resolved the equipment left there, the vehicle tracks, and even the footprints of these men in the surface powder. (starts at 2:50 or so)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPJDxEkmjJoPreviously I noted Ayn Rand's comments immediately after the Apollo 11 launch.
Ayn Rand, from the launchpad of Apollo 11, wrote this about the 'doubters'. She talks about the doubters, and the skeptics...You see, they were definitely around then, just as now.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_apollo11Oh, final thing, actual operational spacecraft don't tend to look pretty or elegant. And yes, I have worked in this field and made a small contribution.