Physicist and Einstein researcher, Dr. Gali Weinstein explains why Newton's laws make it challenging to launch any spacecraft to the moon, and at first she successfully crossed it and circled the moon
It is not exactly true that the spacecraft project failed. I will explain it in detail below. Here we are actually talking about Isaac Newton and not Albert Einstein.
First, when the US and Russia sent vehicles to the moon in the beginning they did not actually land on the moon. It took a few tries before they actually managed to land on the moon. Secondly, to orbit the moon and almost reach its ground is a very great achievement from a scientific-technological point of view. For those who are not familiar with Newtonian physics and satellite orbits and how complicated it is to make a spacecraft circle the moon - it is such a difficult task that very few countries succeed in this task - below is a concise explanation:
At first the spaceship is launched at high speed. The spacecraft has to move at a very high escape velocity to enter a circular orbit around the Earth. We have reached escape velocity and the spaceship is orbiting the Earth. Now the track needs to become more and more elliptical. The elliptical orbit around the Earth has two foci - the apogee and the perigee. The apogee is the farthest point from the earth. Phrygia is the nearest point. Calculations are made according to Newtonian mechanics which tells us that the apogee should be raised to the distance of the moon. This is raised by the spacecraft's engine and by ground navigation. Since Newtonian mechanics tells us that the elliptical orbit has constant angular momentum, that means the speed of the spacecraft is decreasing.
About 300 kilometers above the earth they are preparing to go into orbit around the moon. This is a very, very complicated task because it involves two bodies, the Earth and the spacecraft, which transfer it to the moon and then we have two new bodies: the spacecraft and the moon. The spacecraft was going too fast for the moon and we had to slow it down so it would go around the moon and it would capture it. The moon moves at a low speed around the earth and when the elliptical orbit is high enough, the speed of the spacecraft is very low on the elliptical orbit around the earth. It is necessary to calculate exactly - exactly what speed should be given to the spacecraft to match the speed of the moon and for the moon to capture it and then the spacecraft will rotate around it.
The transition between the two orbits occurs at the closest point of the orbit to the moon. Then the speed to be given to the spacecraft is calculated exactly according to the distance between the Earth and the Moon when the spacecraft is at the apogee of the elliptical orbit around the Earth, in order to reduce as much as possible the transit time between the orbits. The transition from track to track takes about two days and there are methods to perform it such as weak stability boundary (WSB) transfer or Hohmann transfer. The moon has captured the spacecraft but it may need to be stabilized in lunar orbit. There are many factors that are taken into account in the stabilization of the orbit of the spacecraft around the moon, including the disturbances in the interaction between the earth, the moon and the sun (three-body problem). If you manage to pass these steps (which as mentioned are very complicated maneuvers!) and the spaceship circles the moon and almost lands on it, this is a very impressive success! And I now predict that quite a few academic articles will appear that will analyze the physics and technology of the Israeli spacecraft.
12 תגובות
To all the readers and writers on the "Hidan" website and to Avi Blizovsky at the head.
The article opens with the sentence: "Physicist and Einstein researcher, Dr. Gali Weinstein explains why..."
I would like to clarify that Gali Weinstein is not a physicist (!!) in the sense that she is not a doctor of physics from any recognized and approved academic institution, nor does she have a master's or first degree in physics.
Gali Weinstein is at most a physics enthusiast. However, her understanding of physics subjects, as much as it is revealed in the articles she publishes, is even less than the level of knowledge of an average physics enthusiast who is not a professional physicist.
Gali Weinstein publishes from time to time articles that are supposedly the fruit of her pen but are actually garbled translations of articles published in English. It is assumed that the disruption is intended to prevent claims against her for impersonation and copying.
In any case, it is evident from the low level of her articles and the simplistic formulations, that the author is not really an expert in physics, not least at an academic level.
Several years ago, I discovered on the Internet, (following an article that was suspicious to me, that Gali Weinstein published in "Hidan") the page of her resume, in which she said that she teaches Einstein's theory of relativity at the Weizmann Institute. When I exposed this far-fetched story on the pages of "Hidaan", he hurriedly (who cares?) and deleted the things from the site. In their place, an old photo of Albert Einstein playing in the yard with a little girl was uploaded (don't forget, Weinstein is an Einstein expert). Gali Weinstein then wrote on her resume page that her first degree is in... craftsmanship. Regarding the second and third degrees, the wording was vague and it was impossible to understand from it what those degrees really dealt with if at all (!!) It only said that in the end she was qualified as an expert in Einstein, at the University of Jerusalem if Tino's memories are full.
Of course, left-handedness raises the question, is there even such a scientific discipline called "Einstein"? Or maybe it's a new discipline invented by Gali Weinstein herself.
In the search I made today on the internet I did not find a resume page for Gali Weinstein. What I did find is that recently, in various interviews she gave in the media, Gali Weinstein presents herself as a historian of science (no longer a physicist) specializing in the study of Albert Einstein.
In addition, Gali Weinstein presents herself as a disabled person who, because of her disability, is blocked from all the ways to get a job in the field of her "specialization", in all institutions of higher education in Israel.
In several interviews Gali Weinstein gave to the press, the nature of the disability she claims she suffers from is neither clarified nor clear. She describes her disability as a "transparent disability".
If her disability is, as she claims, a "transparent disability", how is it that all the institutions of higher education in Israel still notice her despite her transparency, and apparently discriminate against Gali Weinstein because of her?
It must also be assumed that, among all the academic staff members in higher education institutions in Israel, not all of them have a combat profile. 97 It is clear that among all the professors and doctors in universities and colleges in Israel, many have disabilities of one kind or another, some of which are "visible" and some of which are "transparent" ( as defined by Gali Weinstein) and who, despite their disability, are employed and hold teaching and research positions in all academic institutions in Israel.
In conclusion:
Due to my well-founded and long-standing suspicion that Gali Weinstein is not a physicist but pretends to be one, I hereby call on Gali Weinstein to immediately publish, within a reasonable period of time of about a month (!!!), her accurate and complete academic resume, including the presentation of original photographs of certificates The certification of the various degrees in which it boasts. If she does so, and proves that she is indeed a physicist with an academic degree (second and/or third) in physics, I will apologize to her and admit my mistake, on the Hidaan website, prominently and clearly as part of the readers' responses to 5 different articles dealing with the exact sciences, within about a month from now You do so. If you do not do so, I will contact the editor of the website Avi Blizovsky with a request that he will completely stop publishing articles signed by Gali Weinstein and also, I will consider taking any other legal steps in this regard.
For the site staff:
This is one of the funniest articles that belittles my intelligence that I have read on this site.
Exhaust the spacecraft:
You failed!!! cope
Don't get me started on how much of an achievement it is after all.
In 69 people landed on the moon. (I think)
And now decades later with all the technology this is the story you tell yourself to sleep well at night.
Do me a favor
You wasted all the funding
You have proven that you have no idea what you are doing
And now they are trying to make a change of mind so that you will not be laughed at in the street.
I would invest efforts in more important things if I were you
Don't want to land on the moon.
There really is no need
You can give up
Thanks
Lol, get out of this Hollywood movie, they're laughing at you
oak
My source was – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Program_cost
But - it seems that yours is more correct.
when are
Must be a numerical calculation on a computer. It has long been proven that this is the only possible solution to the problem of the three bodies.
Miracles + peace
Not $120 billion, but $200 billion (correct for 2014 dollar value).
מקור:
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/186600-apollo-11-moon-landing-45-years-looking-back-at-mankinds-giant-leap
An Einstein researcher? He has already admitted everything a long time ago.
You have a mistake: 300 thousand km not 300 km
Peace
You don't want to think how much money it cost to put a man on the moon (around 120 billion dollars), and how many failures there were on the way there.
Easy correction: in fact this is not a three-body problem, because the influence of the spacecraft on the orbits of the Moon and the Earth can be neglected.
It is still a considerable problem to solve the spacecraft's equation of motion. Mainly because of the complication arising from starting the engines. And the question of course is, when and in what direction to turn on the spacecraft's engines.
It is worth noting that the rotational momentum of the spacecraft is not conserved, nor is the energy of the spacecraft, but both change following the activation of the engines. (The total rotational momentum, together with the mass of the emitted fuel is of course preserved. But this does not help in the calculations.
Personally, I would be happy to see the details of the calculations that were made, (and I guess at the end a numerical calculation on the computer.
In addition, a proper comparison should be made between all the landings on the moon: all previous landings were made with BRUTE FORCE, meaning they used massive rocket engines that could create the orbit without problems. If Genesis had such an engine and enough fuel, it could have stopped the landing and started again.
But there is one problem I don't understand: the spacecraft relied on acceleration to push the fuel to the main engine. During the landing, the spacecraft constantly changes direction - how are waves not formed in the liquid? Such waves, if they are large, can create breaks in the engine. The acceleration will be in "strokes", and the computer takes the acceleration reading as wrong. From here the whole landing goes wrong.
And if it is staffed, do all the above problems disappear? How on earth did they succeed in 69, while today it is suddenly terribly complicated? The Genesis crash turned me on to conspiracists who don't believe man ever landed on the moon.