Apollo 11 - The Moon Shot

my friend it is simple in the sixties we were fufilling a dead president's dream. back then we were in a race for the soviets. back then there was massive public support for the space progeam. back then nasa had a nearly unlimited budget. today they don't have the same conditions.

You have a computor several thousand times more powerful than the one they had, yet you can barely string a sentence together, what does that tell you?
The reason they didnt go back is that there nothing there but grey dust and it's several billion for each trip, thats an easy equation.

...Can't string a sentence together buddy you wish you could string a sentence like me.
As for Technology and cost would have gone down with time.

Learn basic grammar, then maybe you can put your advanced computer to good use.

you get done striking your two stones together to make fire for your lunch go to a library and learn something other than caveman mentality.

with narrow closed minds like you are what are holding back mankind from any more advancements..anywhere be it space or here on earth. Accept the fact that there are smarter people than you and we HAVE been to the moon. Now go back to playing with your tonka toys!

Actually, silly people like you, who believes anything anyone tells you, just because it's in a video, are the ones really holding us back.
WE DID NOT HAVE THE FUCKING TECHNOLOGY TO GO TO THE MOON - AND BACK, BACK THEN. No way in hell. You are being trolled by Nasa and your government.

you have to mess up the only good productive thing in america . WITHOUT ANY PRODUCTIVE ARGUMENTS . YOU CANT PROVE WE WERN'T THERE. I CAN PROVE THAT WE WERE. FUCKING IDIOT.

Okay, tell me why this is a fake.

I cant unravel this fraud composed by the american government. I just know what i believe. There is a documentary about all the things that doesnt add up with the evidence of us being on the moon. Watch it.

Nothing like religion to substitute for science and facts. You probably believe the earth is a few hundred years old too.

.

So do they breed idiots in Dublin or is it just you?

...I deduced from your previous idiotic comment that you don't even know where Dublin is - like most poorly educated, gullible Americans.

Go research it now on the internet and pretend you knew where it was all along - hint - it's not in America ;)

And Columbus didn't have the technology to sail across the Atlantic to America in 3 small wooden ships, so the United States of America couldn't have been created. If the US doesn't exist, how could it have gone to the moon? Simple logic.

Dumbass.

- A raving loony moon landing believer who is so stupid that the only reason God gave him a head was to keep his ears apart.

No man from any nation has even achieved deep space orbit of the earth, never mind gone anywhere near the moon, and the shuttle can't go beyond about 400 miles above the earth without endangering the astronaut lives.

Even at 400 miles the astronauts complained of flashing lights in their eyes, even when closed.

It's sad that clowns like copernicus here have to resort to gratuitous insults to compensate for their complete and utter lack of evidence to support what were in actual fact just mere cold war exercises.

Think again smart guy. I'm not a "believer," I'm an engineer with a graduate degree and a functional brain. I guess if you're a retard you have to go by faith to make up for the absence of rational thought.

It's funny being called a clown by a clown. I bet when you're not spouting nonsense on the internet you go to college campuses and yell over the fence at the professors and call them stupid.

Copernicus must be spinning in his grave having a dim witted loser like yourself abusing his name by adopting it as your non de plume here.

Now just like you I happened to believe in the fairytale 'moon landings' on the same blind faith you demonstrate and have the nerve to accuse me of in now NOT believing.

But then I grew up and realised - hey something doesn't add up here and decided to do some impartial research and quickly discovered that they didn't happen and indeed couldn't even happen today or in the foreseeable future as the technology isn't even a dot on the horizon yet.

Even the late great Carl Sagan - America's most famous astronomer and scientist - never compromised his integrity by promoting the lie during his lifetime.

Indeed in an interview shortly before he died he referred to the Apollo mission as a being "...about beating the Russians, intimidating other nations and the nuclear arms race..." - just falling short of stating it was a cold war exercise lest he be accused of heresy by the likes of gullible fools like you Dopernicusss.

He tellingly went on to state that the greatest achievement by NASA were the Viking landings.

But I guess you with your engineering degree knows more than Carl - you are an embarrassment to intelligent engineers everywhere.

Shame on you.

First of all, Sagan never said anything as idiotic as we didn’t go to the moon. He said Mars is a more interesting destination and we should go to there instead of returning to the moon. He actually worked with the Apollo astronauts in support of their lunar missions (guess you didn't know that).

Second, I didn’t say I’m smarter than Sagan, I said I’m smarter than you. I know it’s obvious but it needs to be said.

Third, I didn’t say I don’t know where Dublin is, I just wondered if they breed idiots like you there or if you’re just an accident. I bet you make the people there very proud, the way you represent them on Metacafe.

By the way, I like the way you bash Americans and call us stupid and uneducated. Sagan was American born and educated. And I know I'm such an embarrassment to the smart (American) engineers like the ones that got us to the moon.

This is too easy : )

You cracked up along time ago as is evidenced by your wild and delusional rantings here.

Now maybe you should read and address what I stated in my previous comment instead of throwing in expedient self serving red herrings that have nothing to do with what I stated.

I never stated he that he said 'we didn’t go to the moon' - you are lying there for anyone and everyone reading this to see for themselves.

As I stated he fell short of saying it was a cold war exercise lest he be accused of heresy by delusional fanatics like yourself.

Sagan was involved with virtually every NASA mission until his death so there is nothing revelatory in the well known fact that he was involved in the Apollo missions, as he stated himself in his book Pale Blue Dot - "...I don't blame people who think
the whole thing was faked in a Hollywood movie studio."

He also stated that NASA's greatest achievement were the Viking missions - NOT the Apollo missions which he knew to be faked.

Even in his TV series Cosmos he mentions the alleged moon landings just once - in a reference to the mirrors left up there by these putative astronauts and he states almost in the same sentence that the Russians had left mirrors on the moon before America with unmanned landers.

The mirrors are one of the most oft used pieces of undeniable evidence of manned landings proposed by the moon loons like yourself Dopernicus.

And you admit not knowing what or where Dublin is - how embarrassing for you.

How stupid could someone be not to know what the capital of Ireland is, with all the amazing people who have come out of this great city.

James Joyce, Oscar Wilde, George Bernard Shaw, W.B. Yeats and Jonathan Swift among many others, and more recently rock giants U2 who all still live here.

What kind of an uneducated twit am I trying to elucidate here?

You really should go back to college and learn something this time.

(shakes head)

Oh hell, I wasn’t going to play with you anymore but I have to slap you down again for fun.

It’s cute the way you invent arguments to avoid embarrassing yourself. If I’m educated enough to understand aerospace engineering, chances are I know basic geography. In fact, one of my good professors was from Dublin (talked like a leprechaun). But I understand your concern about appearing foolish so you fantasize about things you can teach me, it’s ok.

All I can say is Sagan would’ve laughed at you, so my advice to you is find some stupid people to idolize or else quit acting silly.

BTW, how old are you? I know I’m picking on a kid and I shouldn’t be, but damn, I wasn’t that goofy when I was young.

What a lame response, but I expected as much.

You silly SILLY little boy, with your not gonna '...play with you anymore' sulks, and 'I know I’m picking on a kid...' you are so obviously on the back foot and can't deal with reality and the truth.

'It's cute the way you invent arguments...' - said he of red herring infamy, try and turn it around at your peril, trust in yourself - the only person you are fooling is yourself.

Now try researching your case rather than blindly accepting everything you hear and read, and if your mind is open to the truth - be prepared for a shock.

Hi Ken.

Hey I ran into Sagan’s ghost the other day, he was pissed. He wants to know why you’re dragging his name down with this moon conspiracy crap. I said you’re probably one of those weird moon hoax guys, I don’t know. He asks why you don’t quote some of the living luminaries of our time like Sibrel or Ranen and leave him out of it. I’ve never seen him this pissed… not when we was alive anyway. Then again hoax nuts didn’t mess with him back when he could speak up for himself. He wants me to tell you he’s going to haunt your ass every night and sing Sinatra Fly Me to the Moon until you stop. He says he’s going to thump you in the nose when you croak.

You’re screwed.

Hey Dopernicus - none of the above exist - they are myths, but you you gullible fool believe in them all, and try - and fail abysmally - to sound authoritative in your 'knowledge' of these 'truths'.

Cop on to yourself and start experiencing reality, the only person you are fooling and convincing at the same time is own delusional self.

You are to be pitied.

I look forward to your latest lame tunnel visioned reply so that I can further ensconce you even deeper into the deep shit of your own comfortable starry eyed denial of reality and intrinsic truth.

Hey Ken,

I was going to come back with a devastating shock-and-awe smackdown but then I got to thinking…

Something you said makes me think there’s a 10% chance you did consider some aspects of the moon missions and had some honest questions about those flights. Aeronautics is a very complex field, and space flight many times more so. Some of your questions are very easy to answer, while others are more complex. If you personally don’t have a degree in engineering or science, you should bring your questions to people with the right background. Bart Sibrel and those guys can splice together a convincing looking “documentary” with a professional sounding narrator, but they have ulterior motives and don’t understand the subject in any case. As an engineer I’m lucky enough to work in an environment where fantastic flight projects aren’t a big mystery to me. In fact, you may have come across a couple of my former test pilot coworkers in your conspiracy research. Sunita Williams and Ken Ham are both card carrying members of the space shuttle conspiracy : ) Anyway, you’d be surprised at how accessible professional engineers, scientists, and professors can be (even famous ones!) – especially with the internet and email. Carl Sagan would be an excellent choice except he is dead and can’t confirm your suspicions. Find some living Sagans to help shape your opinions. The UK and Europe are great sources of human intelligence.

If I’m wrong about you and you’re a true fanatical hoaxie then disregard, but you may have to wait a while in anticipation of my next deadly counterpunch. I have some other things to do with my evenings and besides, there’s a long line of other hoax freaks out there that need my attention : )

But you never know, if you keep it interesting I might come back and tussle with ya.

Cheers.

"I was going to come back with a devastating shock-and-awe smackdown but then I got to thinking… hey I don't have one because ....well....I can't think of one. Otherwise I would have come out and stated it - instead I'll throw in more irrelevant red herrings, make more unfounded assumptions about what this man thinks - my arrogance and hubris is such that my over inflated ego extends to reading the minds of perfect strangers half a world away in a city I never heard of, and again fail to address directly the points highlighted by this man because well - hey - I prefer not to because actually I can't"

So many lines and so little content, I guess that just about sums up your complete lack of conviction and intellectual impotence in forwarding a single compelling irrefutable point that backs up the case for manned landings on the moon almost half a century ago.

So try me -

Come back with that devastating shock-and-awe smackdown you spoke of in your last reply and see what happens why don't you?

Or can you STILL not think of one? :)

Alright Ken, here’s the situation.

You are making an argument. You now have to provide evidence to support your argument. This is the process followed in legal justice, science, and most professional fields of study. Your argument is that NASA committed the single greatest hoax of all time by faking the manned moon landings. The burden of proof is on you to offer convincing evidence. I’ll explain what that means shortly.

I on the other hand am making no argument. The case for the landings has already been made and is the commonly accepted version of events. The evidence has already been presented in the samples, flight data, photo/video, thousands of participants & witnesses, corroborating stories, historical records, the works. This is why I don’t need to “forward any compelling irrefutable points to back up the case.” The case is yours to make for a gigantic hoax. This is a fundamental principle you need to understand.

Your job has a mandatory part and may include an optional part:

Part (1)
Prove that a hoax of huge magnitude was committed.
Evidence could include uncovering the special effects studio, presenting credible witnesses & hoax participant, numerous people corroborating each other’s stories, documents, financial transactions, physical props, etc.
This part is required.
Evidence offered: none

Part (2)
Raise reasonable doubt in the existing story.
This part is not required but can help support part (1). Even if you're successful here, you still haven't proved your argument that a hoax took place.
Evidence offered:
a. The technology didn't exist then and doesn't exist now.
b. Carl Sagan didn't believe we went to the moon.
c. No man from any nation has even achieved deep space orbit of the earth, never mind gone anywhere near the moon.
d. The shuttle can't go beyond about 400 miles above the earth without endangering the astronauts’ lives.
e. Even at 400 miles the astronauts complained of flashing lights in their eyes, even when closed.

Part (1) you failed miserably, you didn't even make an effort.
Part (2) you attempted but you also failed. Here's why.

(2)a. The technology didn't exist then and doesn't exist now.
You offer no evidence to support the lack of technology.
(2)b. Carl Sagan didn't believe we went to the moon.
- Sagan never promoted the landing story: 1st, actively working on the Apollo program can reasonably be considered supporting it. 2nd, lack of support is not evidence we didn't land, and not even that Sagan believed we didn't land. The part about not compromising his integrity is speculation on your part, since you haven't proved his belief in a hoax.
- Sagan felt the Mars missions were a greater achievement than the Apollo lunar landings: 1st, the mere comparison between Viking and Apollo suggests the legitimacy of both. 2nd, in several ways the Mars landings were more difficult (longer distance, higher gravity, atmosphere, fully autonomous landing) and more interesting (Mars may support life). His greater interest in one mission over another doesn't prove one of them was a hoax.
- Sagan said the Apollo project was only about beating the Russians, intimidating other nations, and the arms race: All these speak to motive. That's why they called it a "space race," race means competition. The motive for an effort doesn't prove success or failure of the effort. Otherwise Sputnik was a hoax because the Soviets were competing with the US, and Michael Phelps didn't win his gold medals because he was competing in the Olympics. Your logic is repeatedly faulty.
- Sagan said “I don't blame people who think the whole thing was faked in a Hollywood movie studio”: You left out the rest of his quote. He was explaining the great achievement, and concluded with “The Moon is no longer unattainable. A dozen humans, all American, have made those odd bounding motions they called moonwalks on the crunchy cratered ancient gray lava...” You misrepresented him.
(2)c. No man from any nation has even achieved deep space orbit of the earth, never mind gone anywhere near the moon.
There are several definitions of "deep space" and you don’t identify which one you’re using. The lunar gravity influence definition puts it at about 90% the distance to the moon, there’s no reason to go that far if you're not going to the moon (beyond earth orbit). Less than that is rarely defined as deep space.
(2)d. The shuttle can't go beyond about 400 miles above the earth without endangering the astronaut lives. (Not clear if you’re referring to shuttle capability or crew radiation vulnerability. I’ll address shuttle limit here, radiation in the following point(2)e.)
The shuttle wasn’t designed to be a moon ship so it says nothing about Apollo. A side note: The shuttle's altitude is limited by its large mass, thermal protection system, and structural strength. It wasn't designed with enough maneuvering fuel to reach high altitudes and then to deorbit, or for high speed reentry.
(2)e. Even at 400 miles the astronauts complained of flashing lights in their eyes, even when closed.
As usual, you offer no evidence of unacceptably harmful effects. What is the radiation distribution at the various altitudes? What is the safety limit to human tissue and physiology over a two-week period mission duration? All this data is available yet you presented no findings. The astronauts who reported flashing lights were not harmed during their flights, including the Apollo moon missions. Gemini 11 reached 850 miles in earth orbit without any harm to the crew.


So much for your highlighted points.

You also need to understand that people avoid arguing with you because they don't want to waste time with an irrational person, not because they can't refute your arguments. As you can see your arguments are easily refutable. You won't find many people willing to spend any time like I just did. But I wanted to address your complaint that I wasn't responding to your points.

I've pointed out your faulty approach, which is best described as often lazy, always sloppy, and occasionally disingenuous. In my previous post I offered some helpful suggestions. Your choice is to get a qualified professional to explain things to you, otherwise your opinions will be nothing more than amateurish guesses and you'll never be taken seriously. It's up to you.

Speak for yourself, I’m not making any argument, I am making observations which you happen to disagree with which is your entitlement, but don’t ever delude yourself that I am arguing with you because I‘m not - I‘m merely trying to wake you up to reality.

As for my ‘highlighted points’ well I’m only just starting - and you cherry picked the ones you tried and failed to debunk.

Now I’ll tell you something, you don’t need to explain anything to me you jumped up little know-it-all/know-nothing with your affected diction, I have far more knowledge of philology, semantics and phraseology than you ever have or will.

Which is why the burden of proof is on you to prove that any man - let alone twelve (ha ha!) went to the moon and came back safely to the earth, because all the evidence tells us - shouts in our face in fact - that they never have, and never could have, achieved something that was - and still is - quite quite impossible, especially given the antiquated technology of the late sixties. How many astronauts have been killed in low earth orbit accidents involving the shuttle?

Now I’m not going to be dictated by you the rules of your imaginary ‘argument’ by participating in your absurd little courtroom drama here, I’m not here in a proof or no proof situation, and you Dopernicuss certainly CANNOT prove that a dozen men played golf and drove cars up there, but I’m amused and saddened that you have embraced the fairytale and still believe in it.

As for your interpretation of Carl Sagan remarks that the Apollo mission was just "...about beating the Russians, intimidating other nations and the nuclear arms race..." and that he couldn’t blame people believing it was faked, well that’s all it is - like everything else you spout - your interpretation, an interpretation that is fatally compromised by your blind unquestioning belief that these absurd technological impossibilities actually occurred nearly half a century ago.

You state in your previous comment Dopernicus this;

“The shuttle wasn’t designed to be a moon ship so it says nothing about Apollo. A side note: The shuttle's altitude is limited by its large mass, thermal protection system, and structural strength. It wasn't designed with enough maneuvering [sic] fuel to reach high altitudes and then to deorbit [sic], or for high speed reentry.”

Take a look at this photo folks and read the above comment and try not to laugh - this is an official NASA photo by the way of this ’moon ship’ allegedly on the moon (excluding the text of course;) -

bp1.blogger.com/_7Bqr1I5gzyk/R59cCbk7fjI/AAAAAAAAAR0/af9jWrASe14/s1600-h/11flymetothemoon.jpg

Some Moon Ship’ Dopernicus! Lol!

Check this out too folks while you’re at it, this is good, I wonder what absurd argument dopernicuss will come up with to explain this one away, another official NASA photo by the way folks;

bp3.blogger.com/_7Bqr1I5gzyk/R583O7k7fgI/AAAAAAAAARc/kk7mh0f0fpg/s1600-h/moonrover_packed_with_tracks.jpg

Ah I know what it was - they were packing it back in to bring back to Earth….eh no … they left it up there we are supposed to believe.

Dopernicus goes on…

“[Even at 400 miles the astronauts complained of flashing lights in their eyes, even when closed.]
As usual, you offer no evidence of unacceptably harmful effects. What is the radiation distribution at the various altitudes? What is the safety limit to human tissue and physiology over a two-week period mission duration? All this data is available yet you presented no findings. The astronauts who reported flashing lights were not harmed during their flights, including the Apollo moon missions. Gemini 11 reached 850 miles in earth orbit without any harm to the crew.”

Sorry to piss on your parade Doprnicus but in a TV interview with journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994, the NASA Administrator, Dan Golden, openly admitted that mankind cannot venture beyond more than 400 miles above Earth orbit, until they can overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He let the mask slip! Those Gemini astronauts were were either superhuman or NASA was telling more fibs, I know what I believe.

Check this out folks too, this will be a toughie methinks for Copernicus to explain away, but I look forward with amusement to his latest delusional rants concerning this one;

bp0.blogger.com/_7Bqr1I5gzyk/R519Frk7fOI/AAAAAAAAAPM/AcFZK9C3iWc/s1600-h/moon%20stuff001.jpg

I eagerly await your elucidating reply Dopernicus so that I can finally realise how incredibly stupid you are to believe in the moon landing nonsense, and to pick your brains for more of your brain washed delusional baloney.

Geez Ken, it sounds like I intimidate you. I’m not the most intimidating guy, I think your problem is the silly position you’ve chosen for yourself. It can be torn down easily by most educated people. I’m not even trying that hard, it’s just tedious and somewhat degrading playing in the sandbox. I’ll try to make this one quick and move on.

For starters, you don’t seem that well versed in the use of language. I wonder why you feel you have to convince me you are. You’re certainly not well versed in logic or deductive reasoning, your responses don’t address the points raised and are characteristically childish and loose with the facts. Or else you didn’t notice I actually addressed all the points you made to me. You’re wrong about not being in a proof or no proof situation, that’s pretty much where you find yourself. If you really think otherwise I wonder why you’re still trying to present evidence by people with poor credentials. …never mind, maybe that one just answered itself.

I’m about done spending time on you, except to finish out a problem you were assigned. I notice you’re unaware the high energy radiation inner Van Allen belt starts at about 400 miles and stretches to about 6000. Probably a bad (and senseless) place to pick for a mean altitude earth orbit. Seems better to stay below it or else fly through it quick at escape velocity, say on a lunar trajectory. Dang it, I think I just did your homework assignment for you in problem (2)e. You’re lucky I don’t charge you for this high quality education.

I don’t doubt the world will eventually recognize your genius and scientists will admit their comparative gullible foolishness and give you the Nobel. Sagan would be proud you succeeded where he failed.

Sorry Ken, you’re now officially in the Waste of Time category. It’s been fun but now it’s getting old. Glad I’m not you.

I'm very disappointed in this lamer than lame response of yours.

You've clearly lost the will to try and fight your case by virtually ignoring my previous devastating reply.

Now I urge you to try again, if only for the sake of all the moon landing believers who are relying on you to fight their corner - and this time I want you to address the first three of countless anomalous official photographs from the NASA archives that I dared you to address and explain away those incredible anomalies for everyone to see.

Be brave dopernicuss - do it for NASA, do it for American prestige, but never ever do it for good honest, ethical reasons.

C'mon the 'proof' is in the details you know!

:)

;)

That's the Eagle LM (landing module). The "garbage can" at 4:58 is the actual lander. If you look closely, you can see the LM.

creative licence.

Why would they put something fake ..loses credibility. We watched it Live on TV...awesome...even without the Rover!

Unfortunately, this is how history gets mixed up in the new world of internet info. There are now 5,000 viewers with the wrong info.

This is intended as entertainment, it's up to you to educate yourself..

but, to title and date the video as Apollo 11's moon shot, then add something that didn't happen on that trip is a bit disingeuous. If you are going to add "creative license" then you must be prepared to be called to the floor for it. It's not pathetic to comment that a lot of people now have the wrong info. It's a great video... just ....wish ...you...didn't... add.... the....moon.. .rover.

It was just great footage and I did'nt want to leave it out.

A lot of young people born after the 1970's don't know anything about this fantastic achievement. I recommend the HBO series "From The Earth to the Moon" produced by Tom Hanks. The most accurate account of the Apollo program and what goes on behind it, especially the episodes on Apollo 8, 9, 11, and 15. We simply can't let these events fade into memory, no more than World War I and II.

Well said.

...and the technology still isn't available for us today to undertake such a monumental task, never mind nearly 40 years ago.

If you believe man landed on the moon then you might as well still believe in Santa Claus.

No man has ever set foot on the moon,

...and the technology still isn't available for us today to undertake such a monumental task, never mind nearly 40 years ago.

If you believe man landed on the moon then you might as well still believe in Santa Claus.

watch the video again and watch carefully between the 5:00 - 5:15! Do you really think that Garbage Can lifted off from the moon. The Garbage Can they used to lift off from the moon can barely fit one person Can you tell me where all the fuel needed to blast off that Garbage can is stored. Guess all you need is some chinese charry bombs and fire crackers for fuel and you can ride any rusted Garbage Can to the moon and Back.

the fuel tanks are stored outside, you can see a round sphere on the left side of it, that's a fuel tank. I'm not sure what fuel they used but it was probably hydrogen and oxygen, these gases are compressed and cooled down into their liquid state, this makes the fuel many times denser, and makes it have a much smaller volume, so it's easy to store the amount of fuel you need in a small space. secondly the moon's gravity is about 1/6 than that of earth's so the lander only weighs 1/6 of what it did on earth, there's no friction because there's no atmosphere, and the lander itself was very light to begin with, so you need much less energy to lift off than on earth,
I don't see why any of this doesn't make sense to you.

first of all the garbage can looks like it's floating upwards like someone is pulling it with strings because there is no flame coming from the bottom to constantly propell the garbage can up. It can only go up so far before it comes back down without propultion. Second if that thing on the left is the fuel tank then that Garbage can traveled 385,000+ Km on less fuel then me using on my car to travel about

< than 500km before refuling. also the Garbage can would have been on fire and the crew baked alive from solar radiation/flares while traveling through space with the plastic shielding they had at that time.

I assume from your obvious expertise that you are in fact a rocket scientist?

Just common sense, if it looks crap and talks crap and smells like crap then brother i am willing to bet anything that it's crap

No man has ever set foot on the moon, and the technology still isn't available for us today to undertake such a monumental task, never mind nearly 40 years ago.

If you believe man landed on the moon then you might as well still believe in Santa Claus.

The propellant is called hypergolic, meaning the fuel (aerozine 50) and oxidizer (N2O4) ignite on contact, no ignition system needed. This fuel and oxidizer combination also doesn't produce a visible flame in the vacuum of space.

The ascent stage mass ratio (total wt / fuel wt) was about 2.03 for Apollo 11, meaning the fuel alone weighed a little more than the actual structure. This was enough fuel to get back into lunar orbit.

If you do your homework you can avoid living up to your screen name.

The LEM fuel was Aerozine 50 which contains 50% Hydrazine (N2H4) and 50% Unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine (N2H2(CH3)2). The oxidizer was Nitrogen Textroxide (N2O4). These are called hypergolics, meaning they ignite on contact with each other so no mechanical ignition system is needed. Simple and reliable. They were fed into the combustion chamber by pressurized helium (no mechanical turbopumps that can fail). All these chemicals could be stored safely at various temperatures.

Also, the fuel is lighter than the oxidizer so the fuel tank was mounted farther out from the vertical axis than the oxidizer tank. This ensured the center of mass didn't move throughout the ascent while the
propellant tanks were being depleted. That's why the LEM looks asymmetrical with a bulge sticking out of the left side.

Amazing how while all this violent combustion was going on just beneath their feet there is no sound whatsoever coming from the rocket engines in the silent background as we listen to the fake script as they allegedly come in to land.

How gullible some people are. (shakes head)