He wants people to think its been a success and to stop looking now. He knows the jig is up and has gotten nervous
A life of lies, bread crumb...He wants people to think its been a success and to stop looking now. He knows the jig is up and has gotten nervous
What jig would that be?
He wants people to think its been a success and to stop looking now. He knows the jig is up and has gotten nervous
What jig would that be?
"Elon MuskTotallacking
✔
@elonmusk
Third burn successful. Exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt.
9:46 PM - Feb 6, 2018
197K
46.1K people are talking about this"
WHAT A FUCKING TOOL!!!
HOW FAST IS THIS FUCKING CAR!?!?
THE FUCKER TOOK OFF ON FEBRUARY 6TH, 2018, AND ECLIPSES MARS ORBIT ON THE SAME FUCKING DAY!?!?
LMMFAO!!!
The first plan was to insert this car into Mars' orbit."Elon MuskTotallacking
✔
@elonmusk
Third burn successful. Exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt.
9:46 PM - Feb 6, 2018
197K
46.1K people are talking about this"
WHAT A FUCKING TOOL!!!
HOW FAST IS THIS FUCKING CAR!?!?
THE FUCKER TOOK OFF ON FEBRUARY 6TH, 2018, AND ECLIPSES MARS ORBIT ON THE SAME FUCKING DAY!?!?
LMMFAO!!!
He is not actually claiming it’s already passed mars. Don’t be so dumb.
yesThe first plan was to insert this car into Mars' orbit."Elon MuskTotallacking
✔
@elonmusk
Third burn successful. Exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt.
9:46 PM - Feb 6, 2018
197K
46.1K people are talking about this"
WHAT A FUCKING TOOL!!!
HOW FAST IS THIS FUCKING CAR!?!?
THE FUCKER TOOK OFF ON FEBRUARY 6TH, 2018, AND ECLIPSES MARS ORBIT ON THE SAME FUCKING DAY!?!?
LMMFAO!!!
He is not actually claiming it’s already passed mars. Don’t be so dumb.
Correct? that is a YES or NO question...
The very day of the launch, claims Elon, third burn (SUCCESS) EXCEEDS Mars' orbit...no
Correct? that also is a YES or NO question...
Then on Feb 8th, 2018, video released of the supposed car, over 400000 km away, taking up far greater than 0.05" in the sky, yet the car has dimensions of far less than the CSM of Apollo...
Got it?
Now again, please do not muddy up the threads with your insane ramblings...Your lack of reading comprehension already "muddy" the thread.
Sit very still and play nicely with the dog in the corner...
yesGood bot!
noIdiot bot!
noIdiot bot!
Do you understand how we are able to see it? Does light reflecting of the object mean anything to you?
noHey moran, you need to re-read the whole fucking thing from start to fucking finish!
Your lack of reading comprehension already "muddy" the thread.
If you go look at the actual tweet https://twitter.com/elonmusk
you will find the picture of the predicted orbit that went along with the tweet. You of course had to leave this part out. Second if you read his tweet you will see that "Exceeded Mars orbit" can only refer to the burn, not the car.
Try and keep up.
Total lacking.
yesGood bot!noIdiot bot!
Musk did claim the third burn a success, yet it exceeded amounts necessary for insertion into the Mars' orbit!
Bots are fucking dense!!!noIdiot bot!
Do you understand how we are able to see it? Does light reflecting of the object mean anything to you?
Reflected light is virtually how we are able to "see" anything !
I am writing about how we are able to resolve objects of a certain size and the limits of available technology!
At 400000km an object the size of a Tesla Roadster is not large enough to reflect enough light in order to be visible here on Earth, even with the Hubble telescope.
The object in question in the video was larger than 0.05". The Tesla Roadster is only 192 inches long, much smaller than the Apollo CSM which was not capable of being visually tracked by Earthbound telescopes.
noHey moran, you need to re-read the whole fucking thing from start to fucking finish!
Your lack of reading comprehension already "muddy" the thread.
If you go look at the actual tweet https://twitter.com/elonmusk
you will find the picture of the predicted orbit that went along with the tweet. You of course had to leave this part out. Second if you read his tweet you will see that "Exceeded Mars orbit" can only refer to the burn, not the car.
Try and keep up.
Total lacking.
CLEAN UP ON AISLE EIGHT!!!
LMMFAO!!!
Musk did claim the third burn a success, yet it exceeded amounts necessary for insertion into the Mars' orbit!
WHAT A FUCKING TOOL!!!So which is it? Did he say the Tesla exceed mars or did the burn leave it with an orbit that will exceed mars? Make up your mind already.
HOW FAST IS THIS FUCKING CAR!?!?
THE FUCKER TOOK OFF ON FEBRUARY 6TH, 2018, AND EXCEEDED MARS ORBIT ON THE SAME FUCKING DAY!?!?
LMMFAO!!!
I don't know how he screwed up so fast. I'm just wondering if he thinks rockets and such are like planes and always under engine power. So he thinks the burn was meant to last until mars. This could be why he said both things.
The car has dimensions smaller than the CSM but it is still attached to the rocket.The first plan was to insert this car into Mars' orbit."Elon MuskTotallacking
✔
@elonmusk
Third burn successful. Exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt.
9:46 PM - Feb 6, 2018
197K
46.1K people are talking about this"
WHAT A FUCKING TOOL!!!
HOW FAST IS THIS FUCKING CAR!?!?
THE FUCKER TOOK OFF ON FEBRUARY 6TH, 2018, AND ECLIPSES MARS ORBIT ON THE SAME FUCKING DAY!?!?
LMMFAO!!!
He is not actually claiming it’s already passed mars. Don’t be so dumb.
Correct? that is a YES or NO question...
The very day of the launch, claims Elon, third burn (SUCCESS) EXCEEDS Mars' orbit...
Correct? that also is a YES or NO question...
Then on Feb 8th, 2018, video released of the supposed car, over 400000 km away, taking up far greater than 0.05" in the sky, yet the car has dimensions of far less than the CSM of Apollo...
Got it?
Now again, please do not muddy up the threads with your insane ramblings...
Sit very still and play nicely with the dog in the corner...
So which is it? Did he say the Tesla exceed mars or did the burn leave it with an orbit that will exceed mars? Make up your mind already.What did Musk write?
LOL, another total screwup and misunderstanding by totallackey.
I don't know how he screwed up so fast. I'm just wondering if he thinks rockets and such are like planes and always under engine power. So he thinks the burn was meant to last until mars. This could be why he said both things.
He does it time and time again, I know you shouldn't laugh at someones disabilities, but sometimes it's so funny you can't help it.I did not screw up...
They didn't intend Mars orbit insertion. They intended a heliocentric (sun centered) elliptical orbit that extended out to Mars. In this case, they overshot and now the orbit extends out to the asteroid belt.So which is it? Did he say the Tesla exceed mars or did the burn leave it with an orbit that will exceed mars? Make up your mind already.What did Musk write?
I did inadvertently write eclipsed in my post, but if your intent is Martian orbit insertion why make a burn exceeding that?
HOW CAN YOU CLAIM SUCCESS IF YOU FAIL IN ACHIEVING MISSION PARAMETERS?
"Exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the asteroid belt," SpaceX rock star CEO Elon Musk tweeted yesterday night (Feb. 6) after a successful launch of his Falcon Heavy rocket from Cape Canaveral, Florida.
Those less familiar with the principles of interplanetary flight might take this as a statement that the rocket, currently the most powerful in the world, and its payload — Musk's midnight-cherry Tesla Roadster blasting David Bowie's "Space Oddity" — have already reached the orbit around the Red Planet. [Radiation Will Tear Elon Musk's Rocket Car to Bits in a Year]
But that clearly would be too ambitious a feat even for the boundary-breaking entrepreneur. What actually happened is that the rocket overshot its intended orbit and set itself onto a trajectory that would lead it much deeper into space than originally intended, into the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.
They didn't intend Mars orbit insertion. They intended a heliocentric (sun centered) elliptical orbit that extended out to Mars. In this case, they overshot and now the orbit extends out to the asteroid belt.See this post:
Did he say the Tesla exceed mars or did the burn leave it with an orbit that will exceed mars? Make up your mind already.
They didn't intend Mars orbit insertion. They intended a heliocentric (sun centered) elliptical orbit that extended out to Mars. In this case, they overshot and now the orbit extends out to the asteroid belt.So which is it? Did he say the Tesla exceed mars or did the burn leave it with an orbit that will exceed mars? Make up your mind already.What did Musk write?
I did inadvertently write eclipsed in my post, but if your intent is Martian orbit insertion why make a burn exceeding that?
HOW CAN YOU CLAIM SUCCESS IF YOU FAIL IN ACHIEVING MISSION PARAMETERS?
Also:Quote from: https://www.livescience.com/61684-spacex-falcon-heavy-not-beyond-mars.html"Exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the asteroid belt," SpaceX rock star CEO Elon Musk tweeted yesterday night (Feb. 6) after a successful launch of his Falcon Heavy rocket from Cape Canaveral, Florida.
Those less familiar with the principles of interplanetary flight might take this as a statement that the rocket, currently the most powerful in the world, and its payload — Musk's midnight-cherry Tesla Roadster blasting David Bowie's "Space Oddity" — have already reached the orbit around the Red Planet. [Radiation Will Tear Elon Musk's Rocket Car to Bits in a Year]
But that clearly would be too ambitious a feat even for the boundary-breaking entrepreneur. What actually happened is that the rocket overshot its intended orbit and set itself onto a trajectory that would lead it much deeper into space than originally intended, into the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.
First and foremost “orbit mars” and “mars orbit” are two different things. The car/rocket was never going to fire it’s engine again to slow down so that it could park in an orbit around mars. Do you understand this?Musk claimed success, even though the burn did not accomplish the stated objective.
Did you learn not to jump to conclusions when you don’t understand the principles?What conclusions?
You said Elon claimed that the Tesla was already at Mars. Then you claimed Elon said the burn would take the Tesla to Mars. Two completely different ideas.I already stated I had misquoted Musk when I wrote the word, "eclipsed."
You don't know much about interplanetary travel and orbits, do you. Any rocket starting from Earth will always orbit Earth, circular or elliptically, unless it in its orbit comes to close to another heavenly body that attracts it so it crashes there.
You don't know much about interplanetary travel and orbits, do you. Any rocket starting from Earth will always orbit Earth, circular or elliptically, unless it in its orbit comes to close to another heavenly body that attracts it so it crashes there.
You don't know much about interplanetary travel and orbits, do you?
List of active Solar System probes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Solar_System_probes).
The mission objective was to test the Falcon Heavy and have it not blow up. That objective was met.Did you learn not to jump to conclusions when you don’t understand the principles?What conclusions?
I did not make a Twitter comment stating the 3rd Burn was a success but it did not lead to accomplishing mission objectives.
He wants people to think its been a success and to stop looking now. He knows the jig is up and has gotten nervous
What jig would that be?
The actual Tesla, the one that was launched came plummeting back to Earth when no one was looking. The 'live footage' was pre processed and uploaded on queue. Elons only success was fooling the masses. Yes he launched a rocket and yes it went very high but the car did not reach outer space and beyond. What we saw was just 'Hollywood fakery' at its finest.
My guess is the government was getting annoyed the new generation of youngsters were beginning to spread doubt so they got someone 'cool' like Elon to pull off this stunt to revive everyone's 'assurance' of the round earth. Or Elon could have also fooled the government too to try and siphon money to sure up his failing business ventures
But funny how all the news articles instantly said the flat earth 'myths' are busted. It's like they were trying to make sure that is the message from this launch.
Did you learn not to jump to conclusions when you don’t understand the principles?
He wants people to think its been a success and to stop looking now. He knows the jig is up and has gotten nervous
What jig would that be?
The actual Tesla, the one that was launched came plummeting back to Earth when no one was looking. The 'live footage' was pre processed and uploaded on queue. Elons only success was fooling the masses. Yes he launched a rocket and yes it went very high but the car did not reach outer space and beyond. What we saw was just 'Hollywood fakery' at its finest.
My guess is the government was getting annoyed the new generation of youngsters were beginning to spread doubt so they got someone 'cool' like Elon to pull off this stunt to revive everyone's 'assurance' of the round earth. Or Elon could have also fooled the government too to try and siphon money to sure up his failing business ventures
But funny how all the news articles instantly said the flat earth 'myths' are busted. It's like they were trying to make sure that is the message from this launch.
No one is buying your attempt to pretend you're a flat earther.
Actually no. Three dimensional shapes are fine.
Actually no. Three dimensional shapes are fine.
For your limited intellect and capacity perhaps
I ignore it because it's rubbish or incomplete
You've come a long way admittedly, but some of you believe humans have already reached the zenith. This will cause your species to stagnate in development
3D works for a lot of applications within your limitations but if you think the dimensions of 'x, y, z' is all there is you are mistaken.
I ignore it because it's rubbish or incomplete
You've come a long way admittedly, but some of you believe humans have already reached the zenith. This will cause your species to stagnate in development
3D works for a lot of applications within your limitations but if you think the dimensions of 'x, y, z' is all there is you are mistaken.
You and totallacking need to have a study session on context and reading comprehension. Currently you both fail at it.
I ignore it because it's rubbish or incomplete
You've come a long way admittedly, but some of you believe humans have already reached the zenith. This will cause your species to stagnate in development
3D works for a lot of applications within your limitations but if you think the dimensions of 'x, y, z' is all there is you are mistaken.
You and totallacking need to have a study session on context and reading comprehension. Currently you both fail at it.
You are projecting your fallacies onto others. I suggest you study and in the next few centuries perhaps then and only then you may talk to me on the same level field
I ignore it because it's rubbish or incomplete
You've come a long way admittedly, but some of you believe humans have already reached the zenith. This will cause your species to stagnate in development
3D works for a lot of applications within your limitations but if you think the dimensions of 'x, y, z' is all there is you are mistaken.
I am the singularity
I am the singularity
Infinitely dense. Yep that fits.
I agree it was exciting. Magic is always exciting. But the question remains how much fuel (kg) was used to put how much payload(kg) in orbit. NASA had great problems 49 years ago and produced some incredible figures that have never been met since, e.g. 10 kg fuel was used to put 1 kg payload in orbit 1969. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#EV1.The mission objective was to test the Falcon Heavy and have it not blow up. That objective was met.Did you learn not to jump to conclusions when you don’t understand the principles?What conclusions?
I did not make a Twitter comment stating the 3rd Burn was a success but it did not lead to accomplishing mission objectives.
Putting his personal Tesla Roadster into a heliocentric orbit that nears Mars was pretty much just a publicity stunt because Musk doesn't like boring test flights.
I agree it was exciting. Magic is always exciting. But the question remains how much fuel (kg) was used to put how much payload(kg) in orbit. NASA had great problems 49 years ago and produced some incredible figures that have never been met since, e.g. 10 kg fuel was used to put 1 kg payload in orbit 1969. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#EV1.The mission objective was to test the Falcon Heavy and have it not blow up. That objective was met.Did you learn not to jump to conclusions when you don’t understand the principles?What conclusions?
I did not make a Twitter comment stating the 3rd Burn was a success but it did not lead to accomplishing mission objectives.
Putting his personal Tesla Roadster into a heliocentric orbit that nears Mars was pretty much just a publicity stunt because Musk doesn't like boring test flights.
Arianespace needs 5 times more 45 years later.
Maybe Elon only needed 5000 kg fuel to a 1000 kg Tesla roadster in space? Will we ever know?
ftfyActually no. Three dimensional shapes are fine.
For your verylimited intellect and capacity perhaps
ftfyActually no. Three dimensional shapes are fine.
For your verylimited intellect and capacity perhaps
I agree it was exciting. Magic is always exciting. But the question remains how much fuel (kg) was used to put how much payload(kg) in orbit. NASA had great problems 49 years ago and produced some incredible figures that have never been met since, e.g. 10 kg fuel was used to put 1 kg payload in orbit 1969. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#EV1.The mission objective was to test the Falcon Heavy and have it not blow up. That objective was met.Did you learn not to jump to conclusions when you don’t understand the principles?What conclusions?
I did not make a Twitter comment stating the 3rd Burn was a success but it did not lead to accomplishing mission objectives.
Putting his personal Tesla Roadster into a heliocentric orbit that nears Mars was pretty much just a publicity stunt because Musk doesn't like boring test flights.
Arianespace needs 5 times more 45 years later.
Maybe Elon only needed 5000 kg fuel to a 1000 kg Tesla roadster in space? Will we ever know?
Let's see if that's true.. The falcon heavy has two boosters each carries 407.6 tonnes of fuel, some of that will be for re-entry and landing then the main stage 1 engine has another 407.6 tonnes of fuel, so that's a total of 1,222,800 kg of fuel, Then there's the second stage which has another 107.6 tonnes of fuel, so all up we have a total of around 1.3 million kg of fuel.
5000 =/= 1,300,000
Are you always that far wrong with your calculations?
The lift capacity to geosynchronous transfer orbit is 22,400 kg so that's about 58 kg of fuel per 1 kg of payload
I agree it was exciting. Magic is always exciting. But the question remains how much fuel (kg) was used to put how much payload(kg) in orbit. NASA had great problems 49 years ago and produced some incredible figures that have never been met since, e.g. 10 kg fuel was used to put 1 kg payload in orbit 1969. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#EV1.The mission objective was to test the Falcon Heavy and have it not blow up. That objective was met.Did you learn not to jump to conclusions when you don’t understand the principles?What conclusions?
I did not make a Twitter comment stating the 3rd Burn was a success but it did not lead to accomplishing mission objectives.
Putting his personal Tesla Roadster into a heliocentric orbit that nears Mars was pretty much just a publicity stunt because Musk doesn't like boring test flights.
Arianespace needs 5 times more 45 years later.
Maybe Elon only needed 5000 kg fuel to a 1000 kg Tesla roadster in space? Will we ever know?
Let's see if that's true.. The falcon heavy has two boosters each carries 407.6 tonnes of fuel, some of that will be for re-entry and landing then the main stage 1 engine has another 407.6 tonnes of fuel, so that's a total of 1,222,800 kg of fuel, Then there's the second stage which has another 107.6 tonnes of fuel, so all up we have a total of around 1.3 million kg of fuel.
5000 =/= 1,300,000
Are you always that far wrong with your calculations?
The lift capacity to geosynchronous transfer orbit is 22,400 kg so that's about 58 kg of fuel per 1 kg of payload
Thanks for the support.
So Leon/Spaxeshit had about 1 300 000 kg (1 300 tons!) of fuel aboard his rocket and according same Leon/Spaxeshit he needs 58 kg fuel to put 1 kg payload in low Earth parking orbit. So this person/company Leon/Spaxeshit can put 22.414 tons of payload in orbit 2018 with his latest rocket. LOL!
It is worse than NASA 1969! And Arianespace today.
So how to get off for a trip around the Moon next year and to Mars a little later, Leon/Spaxeshit? Anything wrong at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#EV1 ? I think Leon/Spaxeshit's space/rocket engineers are a load of shit.
Yes. You have higher speed at low altitude LEO and lower speed at high altitude GTO but you still need a lot of energy to change your orbit to got the Moon or Mars to piss. It seems you don't know the basics of orbits and have not won my Challenge at http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm . Try!I agree it was exciting. Magic is always exciting. But the question remains how much fuel (kg) was used to put how much payload(kg) in orbit. NASA had great problems 49 years ago and produced some incredible figures that have never been met since, e.g. 10 kg fuel was used to put 1 kg payload in orbit 1969. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#EV1.The mission objective was to test the Falcon Heavy and have it not blow up. That objective was met.Did you learn not to jump to conclusions when you don’t understand the principles?What conclusions?
I did not make a Twitter comment stating the 3rd Burn was a success but it did not lead to accomplishing mission objectives.
Putting his personal Tesla Roadster into a heliocentric orbit that nears Mars was pretty much just a publicity stunt because Musk doesn't like boring test flights.
Arianespace needs 5 times more 45 years later.
Maybe Elon only needed 5000 kg fuel to a 1000 kg Tesla roadster in space? Will we ever know?
Let's see if that's true.. The falcon heavy has two boosters each carries 407.6 tonnes of fuel, some of that will be for re-entry and landing then the main stage 1 engine has another 407.6 tonnes of fuel, so that's a total of 1,222,800 kg of fuel, Then there's the second stage which has another 107.6 tonnes of fuel, so all up we have a total of around 1.3 million kg of fuel.
5000 =/= 1,300,000
Are you always that far wrong with your calculations?
The lift capacity to geosynchronous transfer orbit is 22,400 kg so that's about 58 kg of fuel per 1 kg of payload
Thanks for the support.
So Leon/Spaxeshit had about 1 300 000 kg (1 300 tons!) of fuel aboard his rocket and according same Leon/Spaxeshit he needs 58 kg fuel to put 1 kg payload in low Earth parking orbit. So this person/company Leon/Spaxeshit can put 22.414 tons of payload in orbit 2018 with his latest rocket. LOL!
It is worse than NASA 1969! And Arianespace today.
So how to get off for a trip around the Moon next year and to Mars a little later, Leon/Spaxeshit? Anything wrong at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#EV1 ? I think Leon/Spaxeshit's space/rocket engineers are a load of shit.
Do you know the difference between GTO and LEO.
Yes. You have higher speed at low altitude LEO and lower speed at high altitude GTO but you still need a lot of energy to change your orbit to got the Moon or Mars to piss. It seems you don't know the basics of orbits and have not won my Challenge at http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm . Try!I agree it was exciting. Magic is always exciting. But the question remains how much fuel (kg) was used to put how much payload(kg) in orbit. NASA had great problems 49 years ago and produced some incredible figures that have never been met since, e.g. 10 kg fuel was used to put 1 kg payload in orbit 1969. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#EV1.The mission objective was to test the Falcon Heavy and have it not blow up. That objective was met.Did you learn not to jump to conclusions when you don’t understand the principles?What conclusions?
I did not make a Twitter comment stating the 3rd Burn was a success but it did not lead to accomplishing mission objectives.
Putting his personal Tesla Roadster into a heliocentric orbit that nears Mars was pretty much just a publicity stunt because Musk doesn't like boring test flights.
Arianespace needs 5 times more 45 years later.
Maybe Elon only needed 5000 kg fuel to a 1000 kg Tesla roadster in space? Will we ever know?
Let's see if that's true.. The falcon heavy has two boosters each carries 407.6 tonnes of fuel, some of that will be for re-entry and landing then the main stage 1 engine has another 407.6 tonnes of fuel, so that's a total of 1,222,800 kg of fuel, Then there's the second stage which has another 107.6 tonnes of fuel, so all up we have a total of around 1.3 million kg of fuel.
5000 =/= 1,300,000
Are you always that far wrong with your calculations?
The lift capacity to geosynchronous transfer orbit is 22,400 kg so that's about 58 kg of fuel per 1 kg of payload
Thanks for the support.
So Leon/Spaxeshit had about 1 300 000 kg (1 300 tons!) of fuel aboard his rocket and according same Leon/Spaxeshit he needs 58 kg fuel to put 1 kg payload in low Earth parking orbit. So this person/company Leon/Spaxeshit can put 22.414 tons of payload in orbit 2018 with his latest rocket. LOL!
It is worse than NASA 1969! And Arianespace today.
So how to get off for a trip around the Moon next year and to Mars a little later, Leon/Spaxeshit? Anything wrong at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#EV1 ? I think Leon/Spaxeshit's space/rocket engineers are a load of shit.
Do you know the difference between GTO and LEO.
Yes. Do you know the difference between STFU and GTFO?I agree it was exciting. Magic is always exciting. But the question remains how much fuel (kg) was used to put how much payload(kg) in orbit. NASA had great problems 49 years ago and produced some incredible figures that have never been met since, e.g. 10 kg fuel was used to put 1 kg payload in orbit 1969. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#EV1.The mission objective was to test the Falcon Heavy and have it not blow up. That objective was met.Did you learn not to jump to conclusions when you don’t understand the principles?What conclusions?
I did not make a Twitter comment stating the 3rd Burn was a success but it did not lead to accomplishing mission objectives.
Putting his personal Tesla Roadster into a heliocentric orbit that nears Mars was pretty much just a publicity stunt because Musk doesn't like boring test flights.
Arianespace needs 5 times more 45 years later.
Maybe Elon only needed 5000 kg fuel to a 1000 kg Tesla roadster in space? Will we ever know?
Let's see if that's true.. The falcon heavy has two boosters each carries 407.6 tonnes of fuel, some of that will be for re-entry and landing then the main stage 1 engine has another 407.6 tonnes of fuel, so that's a total of 1,222,800 kg of fuel, Then there's the second stage which has another 107.6 tonnes of fuel, so all up we have a total of around 1.3 million kg of fuel.
5000 =/= 1,300,000
Are you always that far wrong with your calculations?
The lift capacity to geosynchronous transfer orbit is 22,400 kg so that's about 58 kg of fuel per 1 kg of payload
Thanks for the support.
So Leon/Spaxeshit had about 1 300 000 kg (1 300 tons!) of fuel aboard his rocket and according same Leon/Spaxeshit he needs 58 kg fuel to put 1 kg payload in low Earth parking orbit. So this person/company Leon/Spaxeshit can put 22.414 tons of payload in orbit 2018 with his latest rocket. LOL!
It is worse than NASA 1969! And Arianespace today.
So how to get off for a trip around the Moon next year and to Mars a little later, Leon/Spaxeshit? Anything wrong at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#EV1 ? I think Leon/Spaxeshit's space/rocket engineers are a load of shit.
Do you know the difference between GTO and LEO.
Yes. Do you know the difference between STFU and GTFO?I agree it was exciting. Magic is always exciting. But the question remains how much fuel (kg) was used to put how much payload(kg) in orbit. NASA had great problems 49 years ago and produced some incredible figures that have never been met since, e.g. 10 kg fuel was used to put 1 kg payload in orbit 1969. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#EV1.The mission objective was to test the Falcon Heavy and have it not blow up. That objective was met.Did you learn not to jump to conclusions when you don’t understand the principles?What conclusions?
I did not make a Twitter comment stating the 3rd Burn was a success but it did not lead to accomplishing mission objectives.
Putting his personal Tesla Roadster into a heliocentric orbit that nears Mars was pretty much just a publicity stunt because Musk doesn't like boring test flights.
Arianespace needs 5 times more 45 years later.
Maybe Elon only needed 5000 kg fuel to a 1000 kg Tesla roadster in space? Will we ever know?
Let's see if that's true.. The falcon heavy has two boosters each carries 407.6 tonnes of fuel, some of that will be for re-entry and landing then the main stage 1 engine has another 407.6 tonnes of fuel, so that's a total of 1,222,800 kg of fuel, Then there's the second stage which has another 107.6 tonnes of fuel, so all up we have a total of around 1.3 million kg of fuel.
5000 =/= 1,300,000
Are you always that far wrong with your calculations?
The lift capacity to geosynchronous transfer orbit is 22,400 kg so that's about 58 kg of fuel per 1 kg of payload
Thanks for the support.
So Leon/Spaxeshit had about 1 300 000 kg (1 300 tons!) of fuel aboard his rocket and according same Leon/Spaxeshit he needs 58 kg fuel to put 1 kg payload in low Earth parking orbit. So this person/company Leon/Spaxeshit can put 22.414 tons of payload in orbit 2018 with his latest rocket. LOL!
It is worse than NASA 1969! And Arianespace today.
So how to get off for a trip around the Moon next year and to Mars a little later, Leon/Spaxeshit? Anything wrong at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#EV1 ? I think Leon/Spaxeshit's space/rocket engineers are a load of shit.
Do you know the difference between GTO and LEO.
This would be funny, if it was actually successful at trolling someone. But sadly it seems like everyone can tell you're just taking the piss.He wants people to think its been a success and to stop looking now. He knows the jig is up and has gotten nervous
What jig would that be?
The actual Tesla, the one that was launched came plummeting back to Earth when no one was looking. The 'live footage' was pre processed and uploaded on queue. Elons only success was fooling the masses. Yes he launched a rocket and yes it went very high but the car did not reach outer space and beyond. What we saw was just 'Hollywood fakery' at its finest.
My guess is the government was getting annoyed the new generation of youngsters were beginning to spread doubt so they got someone 'cool' like Elon to pull off this stunt to revive everyone's 'assurance' of the round earth. Or Elon could have also fooled the government too to try and siphon money to sure up his failing business ventures
But funny how all the news articles instantly said the flat earth 'myths' are busted. It's like they were trying to make sure that is the message from this launch.
No one is buying your attempt to pretend you're a flat earther.
I'm never said I was. My views are quite obvious to those who can read and pay attention. It is neither the typical round earth or flat earth and to limit anything in the universe down to 3 dimensional shapes is stupid
This would be funny, if it was actually successful at trolling someone. But sadly it seems like everyone can tell you're just taking the piss.He wants people to think its been a success and to stop looking now. He knows the jig is up and has gotten nervous
What jig would that be?
The actual Tesla, the one that was launched came plummeting back to Earth when no one was looking. The 'live footage' was pre processed and uploaded on queue. Elons only success was fooling the masses. Yes he launched a rocket and yes it went very high but the car did not reach outer space and beyond. What we saw was just 'Hollywood fakery' at its finest.
My guess is the government was getting annoyed the new generation of youngsters were beginning to spread doubt so they got someone 'cool' like Elon to pull off this stunt to revive everyone's 'assurance' of the round earth. Or Elon could have also fooled the government too to try and siphon money to sure up his failing business ventures
But funny how all the news articles instantly said the flat earth 'myths' are busted. It's like they were trying to make sure that is the message from this launch.
No one is buying your attempt to pretend you're a flat earther.
I'm never said I was. My views are quite obvious to those who can read and pay attention. It is neither the typical round earth or flat earth and to limit anything in the universe down to 3 dimensional shapes is stupid
He wants people to think its been a success and to stop looking now. He knows the jig is up and has gotten nervousReally? What evidence do you have that it was faked?
He wants people to think its been a success and to stop looking now. He knows the jig is up and has gotten nervousReally? What evidence do you have that it was faked?
Again, what evidence do you have it was fake?He wants people to think its been a success and to stop looking now. He knows the jig is up and has gotten nervousReally? What evidence do you have that it was faked?
(https://regmedia.co.uk/2017/01/06/elon_musk.jpg?x=1200&y=794)
Does this look like a face you can trust? I'd be questioning him even if he says water is wet
Again, what evidence do you have it was fake?He wants people to think its been a success and to stop looking now. He knows the jig is up and has gotten nervousReally? What evidence do you have that it was faked?
(https://regmedia.co.uk/2017/01/06/elon_musk.jpg?x=1200&y=794)
Does this look like a face you can trust? I'd be questioning him even if he says water is wet
I got a feeling and I know I'm right
I got a feeling and I know I'm right
So that's the way it feels when you ignore all the evidence.
I got a feeling and I know I'm right
So that's the way it feels when you ignore all the evidence.
Evidence can be fabricated
So then why is it wrong to question everything you see no matter how outrageous it seems?
Of course it is:So then why is it wrong to question everything you see no matter how outrageous it seems?
Nothing, I agree, question everything. But when you have solid evidence that something is true, you accept it. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.
Rejecting evidence, just because you don't like it or don't understand it, is trying to create you own reality.
Carl Sagan, wrote a guide he called "The Baloney Detector" it's probably on line somewhere.
So your answer is you have no evidence at all?Again, what evidence do you have it was fake?He wants people to think its been a success and to stop looking now. He knows the jig is up and has gotten nervousReally? What evidence do you have that it was faked?
(https://regmedia.co.uk/2017/01/06/elon_musk.jpg?x=1200&y=794)
Does this look like a face you can trust? I'd be questioning him even if he says water is wet
I got a feeling and I know I'm right
I just publish my evidence, e.g. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EMSo your answer is you have no evidence at all?Again, what evidence do you have it was fake?He wants people to think its been a success and to stop looking now. He knows the jig is up and has gotten nervousReally? What evidence do you have that it was faked?
(https://regmedia.co.uk/2017/01/06/elon_musk.jpg?x=1200&y=794)
Does this look like a face you can trust? I'd be questioning him even if he says water is wet
I got a feeling and I know I'm right
That sounds a lot like paranoia to me.
I just publish my evidence, e.g. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM
Elon is a fraud paid by NASA and ... US tax payers?
Why carry/burn 140 tons of extra fuel to recover the three times bigger first stage, when a smaller, lighter rocket with only three engines can do it using half the fuel?
You really should read what I write. There is no problem to put a satellite into orbit. Arianespace does it all the time. But humans in space is a fraud. Or a Hollywood show. Like this Elon's rocket landings. So NASA pays Elon to put fake humans in space, so Elon can subsidize his satellite launches (and probably also his car biz). You don't have to be an Einstein to conclude it.I just publish my evidence, e.g. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM
Elon is a fraud paid by NASA and ... US tax payers?
in 2017 SpaceX had 4 US government launches and 13 non-government launches.
Unless you consider paying the lowest price for the same goods and services fraud. I dont see a problem here.
Why can one type of mass go into orbit and not another? What special properties do humans contain that makes us un-orbitable?Thanks for asking. It is very easy to send things into orbit around Earth. You just need a rocket that catapults the thing into the orbit. Like Arianespace! But that's all you can do. You cannot ever return down to Earth and stop there at the ground. You are too high up and at too fast speed orbiting. You cannot de-orbit under any circumstances.
Dont care about your challenge.Why can one type of mass go into orbit and not another? What special properties do humans contain that makes us un-orbitable?Thanks for asking. It is very easy to send things into orbit around Earth. You just need a rocket that catapults the thing into the orbit. Like Arianespace! But that's all you can do. You cannot ever return down to Earth and stop there at the ground. You are too high up and at too fast speed orbiting. You cannot de-orbit under any circumstances.
If you can - I pay you €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm
Topic here is not my Challenge. Topic here is Elon's claim of something.Dont care about your challenge.Why can one type of mass go into orbit and not another? What special properties do humans contain that makes us un-orbitable?Thanks for asking. It is very easy to send things into orbit around Earth. You just need a rocket that catapults the thing into the orbit. Like Arianespace! But that's all you can do. You cannot ever return down to Earth and stop there at the ground. You are too high up and at too fast speed orbiting. You cannot de-orbit under any circumstances.
If you can - I pay you €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm
So can nothing come back to the surface of earth? Meteorites are not a thing? Capsuals like stardust (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stardust_(spacecraft)) are impossible?
What physical properties stop objects from falling down to earth?
Topic here is not my Challenge. Topic here is Elon's claim of something.Well, actually according to your claims, humans can leave earth. Just not come back.
Yes, nothing can come back to the surface of Earth undamaged. Everything trying burns up and becomes dust. The Stardust capsule was just ... Hollywood show nonsense.
No physical properties stop anything. Gravity just accelerates anything until it contacts ground in a CRASH.
I like gravity. It keeps us human beings on Earth for ever. You cannot escape it ... unless you are a brainwashed member of sects to the contrary. What are you?
No you don't you lying moron. You just claim to publish your evidence. The truth is you don't have any because you are a fraud and a failure. If you have any evidence at all that this or any space flight is a fake, publish it here. Of course you won't because you are a lying fraud and have none at all.I just publish my evidence, e.g. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EMSo your answer is you have no evidence at all?Again, what evidence do you have it was fake?He wants people to think its been a success and to stop looking now. He knows the jig is up and has gotten nervousReally? What evidence do you have that it was faked?
(https://regmedia.co.uk/2017/01/06/elon_musk.jpg?x=1200&y=794)
Does this look like a face you can trust? I'd be questioning him even if he says water is wet
I got a feeling and I know I'm right
That sounds a lot like paranoia to me.
Elon is a fraud paid by NASA and ... US tax payers?
Topic here is not my Challenge. Topic here is Elon's claim of something.Well, actually according to your claims, humans can leave earth. Just not come back.
Yes, nothing can come back to the surface of Earth undamaged. Everything trying burns up and becomes dust. The Stardust capsule was just ... Hollywood show nonsense.
No physical properties stop anything. Gravity just accelerates anything until it contacts ground in a CRASH.
I like gravity. It keeps us human beings on Earth for ever. You cannot escape it ... unless you are a brainwashed member of sects to the contrary. What are you?
So, on to the falcon heavy launch. I presume you have an issue with the 1st stages coming back to earth.
I am curios, at what altitude is the point of no return. How high above earth do you need to be, before you can not come back? (I am not talking about orbital speed)
Ok, show us some evidence to support your bullshit. Or continue to be the failure that we all see you are.Topic here is not my Challenge. Topic here is Elon's claim of something.Well, actually according to your claims, humans can leave earth. Just not come back.
Yes, nothing can come back to the surface of Earth undamaged. Everything trying burns up and becomes dust. The Stardust capsule was just ... Hollywood show nonsense.
No physical properties stop anything. Gravity just accelerates anything until it contacts ground in a CRASH.
I like gravity. It keeps us human beings on Earth for ever. You cannot escape it ... unless you are a brainwashed member of sects to the contrary. What are you?
So, on to the falcon heavy launch. I presume you have an issue with the 1st stages coming back to earth.
I am curios, at what altitude is the point of no return. How high above earth do you need to be, before you can not come back? (I am not talking about orbital speed)
Thanks for asking. Yes, you are right - no space craft can return and land on Earth. Gravity is too strong. Any object coming from the Moon, Mars or further away dropping down on Earth by free fall gravity will simply burn up in the atmosphere at 100 000 m altitude.
How high above Earth can you go without breaking up on return? Good question. I would say ... max 200 000 m. But what would you do up there? No air! Nothing. Compare US/North Korean ICBMs being sent up to 400 000 m altitude. They can never return. They break up or spin out of control when dropping down.
Free fall dropping from 200 000 m altitude results in a final speed before hitting ground (ignoring friction) of >1900 m/s. There is no way to stop/land/brake at that speed.
How high above Earth can you go without breaking up on return? Good question. I would say ... max 200 000 m. But what would you do up there? No air! Nothing. Compare US/North Korean ICBMs being sent up to 400 000 m altitude. They can never return. They break up or spin out of control when dropping down.
Free fall dropping from 200 000 m altitude results in a final speed before hitting ground (ignoring friction) of >1900 m/s. There is no way to stop/land/brake at that speed.
Free fall dropping from 200 000 m altitude results in a final speed before hitting ground (ignoring friction) of >1900 m/s. There is no way to stop/land/brake at that speed.So you're saying that there is no way to use aerodynamics to slow down and control a reentry vehicle?
Free fall dropping from 200 000 m altitude results in a final speed before hitting ground (ignoring friction) of >1900 m/s. There is no way to stop/land/brake at that speed.So you're saying that there is no way to use aerodynamics to slow down and control a reentry vehicle?
Close. He doesn't understand it so he thinks it must be fake.Free fall dropping from 200 000 m altitude results in a final speed before hitting ground (ignoring friction) of >1900 m/s. There is no way to stop/land/brake at that speed.So you're saying that there is no way to use aerodynamics to slow down and control a reentry vehicle?
He doesn't believe in heat shields, ablative shields, and aerodynamic braking.
Close. He doesn't understand it so he thinks it must be fake.Free fall dropping from 200 000 m altitude results in a final speed before hitting ground (ignoring friction) of >1900 m/s. There is no way to stop/land/brake at that speed.So you're saying that there is no way to use aerodynamics to slow down and control a reentry vehicle?
He doesn't believe in heat shields, ablative shields, and aerodynamic braking.
That's because that question is way over his comprehension level.
He doesn't believe in heat shields, ablative shields, and aerodynamic braking.
That's because everyone knows that day is followed by night. Duh!
He doesn't believe in heat shields, ablative shields, and aerodynamic braking.
He doesn't believe night is followed by day.
No, the SpaceX return of a booster is 100% fakery as explained at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM . A booster might reach an altitude 120000-160000 m but it is then also far from the launch site heading away horizontally from it at great speed. It means that you must also stop the horizontal displacement, return to where you started, etc, while dropping down. Impossible.
How high above Earth can you go without breaking up on return? Good question. I would say ... max 200 000 m. But what would you do up there? No air! Nothing. Compare US/North Korean ICBMs being sent up to 400 000 m altitude. They can never return. They break up or spin out of control when dropping down.
Free fall dropping from 200 000 m altitude results in a final speed before hitting ground (ignoring friction) of >1900 m/s. There is no way to stop/land/brake at that speed.
Okay, so then your actually fine with SpaceX in terms of returning 1st stage boosters. They achieve max altitude at about 120 - 160km height with max velocity of mach 6.
Ignoring fuel for the rockets (next topic), politics and your personal vendetta with Musk, SpaceX and the US government. Is there any reason why this is an issue?
Just think about their sanitary difficulties.
No, the SpaceX return of a booster is 100% fakery as explained at . A booster might reach an altitude 120000-160000 m but it is then also far from the launch site heading away horizontally from it at great speed. It means that you must also stop the horizontal displacement, return to where you started, etc, while dropping down. Impossible.
Okay, so then your actually fine with SpaceX in terms of returning 1st stage boosters. They achieve max altitude at about 120 - 160km height with max velocity of mach 6.
Ignoring fuel for the rockets (next topic), politics and your personal vendetta with Musk, SpaceX and the US government. Is there any reason why this is an issue?
Personal vendetta? No, I have shown since many years that the NASA project with human beings in space is fantasy. No human beings have ever been in space for obvious reasons. It is a trip with no return! But it has become a big, criminal fraud with 1000's of NASA and other people involved suggesting it is easy and possible. Lone Skum is just one late comer offering his services to send human beings into space paid for by NASA. So he is a simple criminal in my eyes.
I am a great supporter of sending - one-way - robot satellites into orbit for various reasons. It is cheap and safe.
But human beings in space is a joke. Just think about their sanitary difficulties.
Thanks for asking. Say that LEO is at 400 000 m altitude and you send up various objects/masses there using a suitable rocket. Each object has high velocity to stay in orbit. Idea is to screw them all together to one big thing, e.g. a Space Station. Problem is that the different objects/masses are in different locations in LEO and to bring them together in one location at same speed is difficult or impossible. I explain it at my website.No, the SpaceX return of a booster is 100% fakery as explained at . A booster might reach an altitude 120000-160000 m but it is then also far from the launch site heading away horizontally from it at great speed. It means that you must also stop the horizontal displacement, return to where you started, etc, while dropping down. Impossible.
Okay, so then your actually fine with SpaceX in terms of returning 1st stage boosters. They achieve max altitude at about 120 - 160km height with max velocity of mach 6.
Ignoring fuel for the rockets (next topic), politics and your personal vendetta with Musk, SpaceX and the US government. Is there any reason why this is an issue?
Personal vendetta? No, I have shown since many years that the NASA project with human beings in space is fantasy. No human beings have ever been in space for obvious reasons. It is a trip with no return! But it has become a big, criminal fraud with 1000's of NASA and other people involved suggesting it is easy and possible. Lone Skum is just one late comer offering his services to send human beings into space paid for by NASA. So he is a simple criminal in my eyes.
I am a great supporter of sending - one-way - robot satellites into orbit for various reasons. It is cheap and safe.
But human beings in space is a joke. Just think about their sanitary difficulties.
What is the maximum mass that can be sent to LEO or even slower, to say 7km/s?
Do you believe there is a maximum mass that can be taken to that altitude? If yes, how much?
Thanks for asking. Say that LEO is at 400 000 m altitude and you send up various objects/masses there using a suitable rocket. Each object has high velocity to stay in orbit. Idea is to screw them all together to one big thing, e.g. a Space Station. Problem is that the different objects/masses are in different locations in LEO and to bring them together in one location at same speed is difficult or impossible. I explain it at my website.No, the SpaceX return of a booster is 100% fakery as explained at . A booster might reach an altitude 120000-160000 m but it is then also far from the launch site heading away horizontally from it at great speed. It means that you must also stop the horizontal displacement, return to where you started, etc, while dropping down. Impossible.
Okay, so then your actually fine with SpaceX in terms of returning 1st stage boosters. They achieve max altitude at about 120 - 160km height with max velocity of mach 6.
Ignoring fuel for the rockets (next topic), politics and your personal vendetta with Musk, SpaceX and the US government. Is there any reason why this is an issue?
Personal vendetta? No, I have shown since many years that the NASA project with human beings in space is fantasy. No human beings have ever been in space for obvious reasons. It is a trip with no return! But it has become a big, criminal fraud with 1000's of NASA and other people involved suggesting it is easy and possible. Lone Skum is just one late comer offering his services to send human beings into space paid for by NASA. So he is a simple criminal in my eyes.
I am a great supporter of sending - one-way - robot satellites into orbit for various reasons. It is cheap and safe.
But human beings in space is a joke. Just think about their sanitary difficulties.
What is the maximum mass that can be sent to LEO or even slower, to say 7km/s?
Do you believe there is a maximum mass that can be taken to that altitude? If yes, how much?
Please do not misunderstand me.Thanks for asking. Say that LEO is at 400 000 m altitude and you send up various objects/masses there using a suitable rocket. Each object has high velocity to stay in orbit. Idea is to screw them all together to one big thing, e.g. a Space Station. Problem is that the different objects/masses are in different locations in LEO and to bring them together in one location at same speed is difficult or impossible. I explain it at my website.No, the SpaceX return of a booster is 100% fakery as explained at . A booster might reach an altitude 120000-160000 m but it is then also far from the launch site heading away horizontally from it at great speed. It means that you must also stop the horizontal displacement, return to where you started, etc, while dropping down. Impossible.
Okay, so then your actually fine with SpaceX in terms of returning 1st stage boosters. They achieve max altitude at about 120 - 160km height with max velocity of mach 6.
Ignoring fuel for the rockets (next topic), politics and your personal vendetta with Musk, SpaceX and the US government. Is there any reason why this is an issue?
Personal vendetta? No, I have shown since many years that the NASA project with human beings in space is fantasy. No human beings have ever been in space for obvious reasons. It is a trip with no return! But it has become a big, criminal fraud with 1000's of NASA and other people involved suggesting it is easy and possible. Lone Skum is just one late comer offering his services to send human beings into space paid for by NASA. So he is a simple criminal in my eyes.
I am a great supporter of sending - one-way - robot satellites into orbit for various reasons. It is cheap and safe.
But human beings in space is a joke. Just think about their sanitary difficulties.
What is the maximum mass that can be sent to LEO or even slower, to say 7km/s?
Do you believe there is a maximum mass that can be taken to that altitude? If yes, how much?
Thats not at all what I asked. Please focus, I am trying to understand your world view on physics.
So far you believe.
Objects can go into orbit using chemical rockets.
Objects can return from Orbit at around 200km altitude, but not higher.
Now I want to know
In a single launch. Single stage.
What is the maximum mass that can be sent to LEO or even slower, to say 7km/s?
Do you believe there is a maximum mass that can be taken to that altitude? If yes, how much?
Please do not misunderstand me.
Yes - it is possible to launch satellites into orbits. No problem! I have described it at my website since 20+years.
No, objects cannot return from any orbit. They are going to fast in orbit, they are too high up in orbit, they cannot ever stop and land anywhere. I describe it too.
Re question 2 you have to study, e.g. how Arianespace launches satellites. It is always two stages. I have never heard about single stage, space launches except ICBMs, missiles and similar military nonsense. They always miss their targets at re-entry though, etc.
Yes, there is a maximum mass that can be taken to any altitude. I myself could easily lift 80 kg above my head 50 years ago. Today I can only lift 30, if I try. I don't use rockets, though.
You haven't understood what I explain at my web sites since many years.Please do not misunderstand me.
Yes - it is possible to launch satellites into orbits. No problem! I have described it at my website since 20+years.
No, objects cannot return from any orbit. They are going to fast in orbit, they are too high up in orbit, they cannot ever stop and land anywhere. I describe it too.
Re question 2 you have to study, e.g. how Arianespace launches satellites. It is always two stages. I have never heard about single stage, space launches except ICBMs, missiles and similar military nonsense. They always miss their targets at re-entry though, etc.
Yes, there is a maximum mass that can be taken to any altitude. I myself could easily lift 80 kg above my head 50 years ago. Today I can only lift 30, if I try. I don't use rockets, though.
Heiwa, I am not misunderstanding you, I also will not miss quote you.
I am trying to show to you, that by your very own definitions, there is nothing wrong with spaceX landing its boosters.
You agree that chemical rockets work - check
You agree that anything under 200km altitude can return to earth - check
You agree that a rocket can take mass to LEO (We dont even need Orbital speeds or heights, about half the dV will be fine) - check
Then all of a sudden your doing mental gymnastics when it comes to spaceX?
You have an issue with them taking fuel up - Fuel is a mass which you believe can go up - no problems there
and then using that fuel to land - they managed to get something 5 times heavier at that speed, so they have the thrust to slow down
Your too personally invested in this argument. take a step back.
What fundamental properties of physics do you believe they are breaking, because according to you, none.
No spacecraft of any type can re-enter and land on Earth after a trip in space. It is as simple as that.This is not a fundamental property of physical, this is an opinion. I am looking for your well thought out process. This is not it, and I have not seen it on your website.
a), b), c) Yes, I agreeQuoteNo spacecraft of any type can re-enter and land on Earth after a trip in space. It is as simple as that.This is not a fundamental property of physical, this is an opinion. I am looking for your well thought out process. This is not it, and I have not seen it on your website.
So, lets try again, where is your issue.
a) Rockets use chemical propulsion to go up, all the way into the vacuum of space.
b) They can do so with enough thrust to place mass into orbit around earth (7-8km/s)
c) rocket fuel has mass = mass can also be rocket fuel
d) Objects below 200km altitude can return to earth
you have previously agreed with all of these statements.
Now please tell me which fundamental factual points I have missed out that makes SpaceX landings impossible?
Ok you say it is fake. Show us your evidence. Show it here where you made the claim.a), b), c) Yes, I agreeQuoteNo spacecraft of any type can re-enter and land on Earth after a trip in space. It is as simple as that.This is not a fundamental property of physical, this is an opinion. I am looking for your well thought out process. This is not it, and I have not seen it on your website.
So, lets try again, where is your issue.
a) Rockets use chemical propulsion to go up, all the way into the vacuum of space.
b) They can do so with enough thrust to place mass into orbit around earth (7-8km/s)
c) rocket fuel has mass = mass can also be rocket fuel
d) Objects below 200km altitude can return to earth
you have previously agreed with all of these statements.
Now please tell me which fundamental factual points I have missed out that makes SpaceX landings impossible?
d) Yes but they are destroyed in the process. You have to understand what I say!
Re the SpaceX nonsense I describe it at htt://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM .
SpaceX is 100% paid for by NASA. They send satellites into orbit like Arianspace but they do/can not send humans into space to, e.g. the International Fake/Space Station.
SpaceX/NASA is just a mix of simple, easy things like launching satellites and magic, i.e. sending human beings into space. They are both criminal enterprises.
The SpaceX landings are just part of the show. They are 100% CGI. Magicians use the trick all the time. Just watch the SpaceX videos. Copy/paste all the time. Same shit every time. SSET!
Are you under the impression that every drop of propellant must be burned regardless of the payload size? If you're willing to sacrifice payload capacity, then why shouldn't it be possible to burn, let's say, 2/3 of the propellant on the way up and save the rest for the way down? You've already burned off most of your propellant and everything from the second stage on up is gone, so the propellant requirements become manageable, if you're clever enough. Are you clever enough, Anders?No, the SpaceX return of a booster is 100% fakery as explained at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM . A booster might reach an altitude 120000-160000 m but it is then also far from the launch site heading away horizontally from it at great speed. It means that you must also stop the horizontal displacement, return to where you started, etc, while dropping down. Impossible.
How high above Earth can you go without breaking up on return? Good question. I would say ... max 200 000 m. But what would you do up there? No air! Nothing. Compare US/North Korean ICBMs being sent up to 400 000 m altitude. They can never return. They break up or spin out of control when dropping down.
Free fall dropping from 200 000 m altitude results in a final speed before hitting ground (ignoring friction) of >1900 m/s. There is no way to stop/land/brake at that speed.
Okay, so then your actually fine with SpaceX in terms of returning 1st stage boosters. They achieve max altitude at about 120 - 160km height with max velocity of mach 6.
Ignoring fuel for the rockets (next topic), politics and your personal vendetta with Musk, SpaceX and the US government. Is there any reason why this is an issue?
Yes, I am very clever and put my info with calculations at http://heiwaco.com for everyone to study. I don't hide behind an anonymous signature. Re payload - you need fuel to put objects it in space. If you plan to have extra fuel aboard to land a rocket later, you have to deduct it from the payload. Just do simple fuel calculations for any SpaceX return trip you find they are 100% hoaxes. Or just try to verify the software SpaceX uses to carry out the trips. Just nonsense.Are you under the impression that every drop of propellant must be burned regardless of the payload size? If you're willing to sacrifice payload capacity, then why shouldn't it be possible to burn, let's say, 2/3 of the propellant on the way up and save the rest for the way down? You've already burned off most of your propellant and everything from the second stage on up is gone, so the propellant requirements become manageable, if you're clever enough. Are you clever enough, Anders?No, the SpaceX return of a booster is 100% fakery as explained at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM . A booster might reach an altitude 120000-160000 m but it is then also far from the launch site heading away horizontally from it at great speed. It means that you must also stop the horizontal displacement, return to where you started, etc, while dropping down. Impossible.
How high above Earth can you go without breaking up on return? Good question. I would say ... max 200 000 m. But what would you do up there? No air! Nothing. Compare US/North Korean ICBMs being sent up to 400 000 m altitude. They can never return. They break up or spin out of control when dropping down.
Free fall dropping from 200 000 m altitude results in a final speed before hitting ground (ignoring friction) of >1900 m/s. There is no way to stop/land/brake at that speed.
Okay, so then your actually fine with SpaceX in terms of returning 1st stage boosters. They achieve max altitude at about 120 - 160km height with max velocity of mach 6.
Ignoring fuel for the rockets (next topic), politics and your personal vendetta with Musk, SpaceX and the US government. Is there any reason why this is an issue?
Yes, I am very clever and put my info with calculations at for everyone to study. I don't hide behind an anonymous signature. Re payload - you need fuel to put objects it in space. If you plan to have extra fuel aboard to land a rocket later, you have to deduct it from the payload. Just do simple fuel calculations for any SpaceX return trip you find they are 100% hoaxes. Or just try to verify the software SpaceX uses to carry out the trips. Just nonsense.Are you under the impression that every drop of propellant must be burned regardless of the payload size? If you're willing to sacrifice payload capacity, then why shouldn't it be possible to burn, let's say, 2/3 of the propellant on the way up and save the rest for the way down? You've already burned off most of your propellant and everything from the second stage on up is gone, so the propellant requirements become manageable, if you're clever enough. Are you clever enough, Anders?No, the SpaceX return of a booster is 100% fakery as explained at . A booster might reach an altitude 120000-160000 m but it is then also far from the launch site heading away horizontally from it at great speed. It means that you must also stop the horizontal displacement, return to where you started, etc, while dropping down. Impossible.
How high above Earth can you go without breaking up on return? Good question. I would say ... max 200 000 m. But what would you do up there? No air! Nothing. Compare US/North Korean ICBMs being sent up to 400 000 m altitude. They can never return. They break up or spin out of control when dropping down.
Free fall dropping from 200 000 m altitude results in a final speed before hitting ground (ignoring friction) of >1900 m/s. There is no way to stop/land/brake at that speed.
Okay, so then your actually fine with SpaceX in terms of returning 1st stage boosters. They achieve max altitude at about 120 - 160km height with max velocity of mach 6.
Ignoring fuel for the rockets (next topic), politics and your personal vendetta with Musk, SpaceX and the US government. Is there any reason why this is an issue?
Yes, I am very clever and put my info with calculations at http://heiwaco.com for everyone to study. I don't hide behind an anonymous signature. Re payload - you need fuel to put objects it in space. If you plan to have extra fuel aboard to land a rocket later, you have to deduct it from the payload. Just do simple fuel calculations for any SpaceX return trip you find they are 100% hoaxes. Or just try to verify the software SpaceX uses to carry out the trips. Just nonsense.Are you under the impression that every drop of propellant must be burned regardless of the payload size? If you're willing to sacrifice payload capacity, then why shouldn't it be possible to burn, let's say, 2/3 of the propellant on the way up and save the rest for the way down? You've already burned off most of your propellant and everything from the second stage on up is gone, so the propellant requirements become manageable, if you're clever enough. Are you clever enough, Anders?No, the SpaceX return of a booster is 100% fakery as explained at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM . A booster might reach an altitude 120000-160000 m but it is then also far from the launch site heading away horizontally from it at great speed. It means that you must also stop the horizontal displacement, return to where you started, etc, while dropping down. Impossible.
How high above Earth can you go without breaking up on return? Good question. I would say ... max 200 000 m. But what would you do up there? No air! Nothing. Compare US/North Korean ICBMs being sent up to 400 000 m altitude. They can never return. They break up or spin out of control when dropping down.
Free fall dropping from 200 000 m altitude results in a final speed before hitting ground (ignoring friction) of >1900 m/s. There is no way to stop/land/brake at that speed.
Okay, so then your actually fine with SpaceX in terms of returning 1st stage boosters. They achieve max altitude at about 120 - 160km height with max velocity of mach 6.
Ignoring fuel for the rockets (next topic), politics and your personal vendetta with Musk, SpaceX and the US government. Is there any reason why this is an issue?
Re payload - you need fuel to put objects it in space. If you plan to have extra fuel aboard to land a rocket later, you have to deduct it from the payload.Which is exactly what SpaceX does. In order to have enough fuel to land the booster, the payload is reduced by about 1/3. A smaller payload requires less fuel for the same rocket, so that means that you can have fuel left over to land the booster (which is much, much lighter than at liftoff).
Yes, I am very clever and put my info with calculations at http://heiwaco.com for everyone to study. I don't hide behind an anonymous signature. Re payload - you need fuel to put objects it in space. If you plan to have extra fuel aboard to land a rocket later, you have to deduct it from the payload. Just do simple fuel calculations for any SpaceX return trip you find they are 100% hoaxes. Or just try to verify the software SpaceX uses to carry out the trips. Just nonsense.Are you under the impression that every drop of propellant must be burned regardless of the payload size? If you're willing to sacrifice payload capacity, then why shouldn't it be possible to burn, let's say, 2/3 of the propellant on the way up and save the rest for the way down? You've already burned off most of your propellant and everything from the second stage on up is gone, so the propellant requirements become manageable, if you're clever enough. Are you clever enough, Anders?No, the SpaceX return of a booster is 100% fakery as explained at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM . A booster might reach an altitude 120000-160000 m but it is then also far from the launch site heading away horizontally from it at great speed. It means that you must also stop the horizontal displacement, return to where you started, etc, while dropping down. Impossible.
How high above Earth can you go without breaking up on return? Good question. I would say ... max 200 000 m. But what would you do up there? No air! Nothing. Compare US/North Korean ICBMs being sent up to 400 000 m altitude. They can never return. They break up or spin out of control when dropping down.
Free fall dropping from 200 000 m altitude results in a final speed before hitting ground (ignoring friction) of >1900 m/s. There is no way to stop/land/brake at that speed.
Okay, so then your actually fine with SpaceX in terms of returning 1st stage boosters. They achieve max altitude at about 120 - 160km height with max velocity of mach 6.
Ignoring fuel for the rockets (next topic), politics and your personal vendetta with Musk, SpaceX and the US government. Is there any reason why this is an issue?
How about the software that got us to the moon and back Heiwa? 8)
Ok surely you can show us the evidence for that.Yes, I am very clever and put my info with calculations at http://heiwaco.com for everyone to study. I don't hide behind an anonymous signature. Re payload - you need fuel to put objects it in space. If you plan to have extra fuel aboard to land a rocket later, you have to deduct it from the payload. Just do simple fuel calculations for any SpaceX return trip you find they are 100% hoaxes. Or just try to verify the software SpaceX uses to carry out the trips. Just nonsense.Are you under the impression that every drop of propellant must be burned regardless of the payload size? If you're willing to sacrifice payload capacity, then why shouldn't it be possible to burn, let's say, 2/3 of the propellant on the way up and save the rest for the way down? You've already burned off most of your propellant and everything from the second stage on up is gone, so the propellant requirements become manageable, if you're clever enough. Are you clever enough, Anders?No, the SpaceX return of a booster is 100% fakery as explained at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM . A booster might reach an altitude 120000-160000 m but it is then also far from the launch site heading away horizontally from it at great speed. It means that you must also stop the horizontal displacement, return to where you started, etc, while dropping down. Impossible.
How high above Earth can you go without breaking up on return? Good question. I would say ... max 200 000 m. But what would you do up there? No air! Nothing. Compare US/North Korean ICBMs being sent up to 400 000 m altitude. They can never return. They break up or spin out of control when dropping down.
Free fall dropping from 200 000 m altitude results in a final speed before hitting ground (ignoring friction) of >1900 m/s. There is no way to stop/land/brake at that speed.
Okay, so then your actually fine with SpaceX in terms of returning 1st stage boosters. They achieve max altitude at about 120 - 160km height with max velocity of mach 6.
Ignoring fuel for the rockets (next topic), politics and your personal vendetta with Musk, SpaceX and the US government. Is there any reason why this is an issue?
How about the software that got us to the moon and back Heiwa? 8)
Good question! It never existed! Ask NASA to provide a copy and ... they will tell you it has disappeared. That is one reason why nobody has won my Challenge about Moon travel - a very popular thread at this Forum upsetting a lot of twerps.
http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htmOk surely you can show us the evidence for that.Yes, I am very clever and put my info with calculations at http://heiwaco.com for everyone to study. I don't hide behind an anonymous signature. Re payload - you need fuel to put objects it in space. If you plan to have extra fuel aboard to land a rocket later, you have to deduct it from the payload. Just do simple fuel calculations for any SpaceX return trip you find they are 100% hoaxes. Or just try to verify the software SpaceX uses to carry out the trips. Just nonsense.Are you under the impression that every drop of propellant must be burned regardless of the payload size? If you're willing to sacrifice payload capacity, then why shouldn't it be possible to burn, let's say, 2/3 of the propellant on the way up and save the rest for the way down? You've already burned off most of your propellant and everything from the second stage on up is gone, so the propellant requirements become manageable, if you're clever enough. Are you clever enough, Anders?No, the SpaceX return of a booster is 100% fakery as explained at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM . A booster might reach an altitude 120000-160000 m but it is then also far from the launch site heading away horizontally from it at great speed. It means that you must also stop the horizontal displacement, return to where you started, etc, while dropping down. Impossible.
How high above Earth can you go without breaking up on return? Good question. I would say ... max 200 000 m. But what would you do up there? No air! Nothing. Compare US/North Korean ICBMs being sent up to 400 000 m altitude. They can never return. They break up or spin out of control when dropping down.
Free fall dropping from 200 000 m altitude results in a final speed before hitting ground (ignoring friction) of >1900 m/s. There is no way to stop/land/brake at that speed.
Okay, so then your actually fine with SpaceX in terms of returning 1st stage boosters. They achieve max altitude at about 120 - 160km height with max velocity of mach 6.
Ignoring fuel for the rockets (next topic), politics and your personal vendetta with Musk, SpaceX and the US government. Is there any reason why this is an issue?
How about the software that got us to the moon and back Heiwa? 8)
Good question! It never existed! Ask NASA to provide a copy and ... they will tell you it has disappeared. That is one reason why nobody has won my Challenge about Moon travel - a very popular thread at this Forum upsetting a lot of twerps.
Ok surely you can show us the evidence for that.http://www.ratemypoo.com
That's what I thought. More failure and no evidence to support your lies.http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htmOk surely you can show us the evidence for that.Yes, I am very clever and put my info with calculations at http://heiwaco.com for everyone to study. I don't hide behind an anonymous signature. Re payload - you need fuel to put objects it in space. If you plan to have extra fuel aboard to land a rocket later, you have to deduct it from the payload. Just do simple fuel calculations for any SpaceX return trip you find they are 100% hoaxes. Or just try to verify the software SpaceX uses to carry out the trips. Just nonsense.Are you under the impression that every drop of propellant must be burned regardless of the payload size? If you're willing to sacrifice payload capacity, then why shouldn't it be possible to burn, let's say, 2/3 of the propellant on the way up and save the rest for the way down? You've already burned off most of your propellant and everything from the second stage on up is gone, so the propellant requirements become manageable, if you're clever enough. Are you clever enough, Anders?No, the SpaceX return of a booster is 100% fakery as explained at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM . A booster might reach an altitude 120000-160000 m but it is then also far from the launch site heading away horizontally from it at great speed. It means that you must also stop the horizontal displacement, return to where you started, etc, while dropping down. Impossible.
How high above Earth can you go without breaking up on return? Good question. I would say ... max 200 000 m. But what would you do up there? No air! Nothing. Compare US/North Korean ICBMs being sent up to 400 000 m altitude. They can never return. They break up or spin out of control when dropping down.
Free fall dropping from 200 000 m altitude results in a final speed before hitting ground (ignoring friction) of >1900 m/s. There is no way to stop/land/brake at that speed.
Okay, so then your actually fine with SpaceX in terms of returning 1st stage boosters. They achieve max altitude at about 120 - 160km height with max velocity of mach 6.
Ignoring fuel for the rockets (next topic), politics and your personal vendetta with Musk, SpaceX and the US government. Is there any reason why this is an issue?
How about the software that got us to the moon and back Heiwa? 8)
Good question! It never existed! Ask NASA to provide a copy and ... they will tell you it has disappeared. That is one reason why nobody has won my Challenge about Moon travel - a very popular thread at this Forum upsetting a lot of twerps.
What is wrong with my evidence?That's what I thought. More failure and no evidence to support your lies.http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htmOk surely you can show us the evidence for that.Yes, I am very clever and put my info with calculations at http://heiwaco.com for everyone to study. I don't hide behind an anonymous signature. Re payload - you need fuel to put objects it in space. If you plan to have extra fuel aboard to land a rocket later, you have to deduct it from the payload. Just do simple fuel calculations for any SpaceX return trip you find they are 100% hoaxes. Or just try to verify the software SpaceX uses to carry out the trips. Just nonsense.Are you under the impression that every drop of propellant must be burned regardless of the payload size? If you're willing to sacrifice payload capacity, then why shouldn't it be possible to burn, let's say, 2/3 of the propellant on the way up and save the rest for the way down? You've already burned off most of your propellant and everything from the second stage on up is gone, so the propellant requirements become manageable, if you're clever enough. Are you clever enough, Anders?No, the SpaceX return of a booster is 100% fakery as explained at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM . A booster might reach an altitude 120000-160000 m but it is then also far from the launch site heading away horizontally from it at great speed. It means that you must also stop the horizontal displacement, return to where you started, etc, while dropping down. Impossible.
How high above Earth can you go without breaking up on return? Good question. I would say ... max 200 000 m. But what would you do up there? No air! Nothing. Compare US/North Korean ICBMs being sent up to 400 000 m altitude. They can never return. They break up or spin out of control when dropping down.
Free fall dropping from 200 000 m altitude results in a final speed before hitting ground (ignoring friction) of >1900 m/s. There is no way to stop/land/brake at that speed.
Okay, so then your actually fine with SpaceX in terms of returning 1st stage boosters. They achieve max altitude at about 120 - 160km height with max velocity of mach 6.
Ignoring fuel for the rockets (next topic), politics and your personal vendetta with Musk, SpaceX and the US government. Is there any reason why this is an issue?
How about the software that got us to the moon and back Heiwa? 8)
Good question! It never existed! Ask NASA to provide a copy and ... they will tell you it has disappeared. That is one reason why nobody has won my Challenge about Moon travel - a very popular thread at this Forum upsetting a lot of twerps.
Re payload - you need fuel to put objects it in space. If you plan to have extra fuel aboard to land a rocket later, you have to deduct it from the payload.Which is exactly what SpaceX does. In order to have enough fuel to land the booster, the payload is reduced by about 1/3. A smaller payload requires less fuel for the same rocket, so that means that you can have fuel left over to land the booster (which is much, much lighter than at liftoff).
You still don't get it, do you? It isn't a matter of carrying extra fuel, it's a matter of taking maximum advantage of the fuel that you have.Re payload - you need fuel to put objects it in space. If you plan to have extra fuel aboard to land a rocket later, you have to deduct it from the payload.Which is exactly what SpaceX does. In order to have enough fuel to land the booster, the payload is reduced by about 1/3. A smaller payload requires less fuel for the same rocket, so that means that you can have fuel left over to land the booster (which is much, much lighter than at liftoff).
I think you haven't understood what payload is.
According Elon and SpaceX Falcon 9 - the payload is 22.8 tons to LEO, 8.3 tons to GTO and 4.02 tons to planet Mars. Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 .
Do you think the payload to LEO is reduced to 15 tons so it can carry 100 extra tons to land again on Earth? How is it possible? I think the payload is 0 if you try to carry extra fuel to land again.
No, I think you do not get it. Of course it takes less fuel for a F9 rocket with mass 22 tons to put 10.8 tons in LEO compared with putting 22.8 tons in LEO. In the first case total mass is 32.8 tons, in the second case the total mass is 44.8 tons forgetting the fuel - say 400-600 tons for the trip. After that the rocket is used and drops down and is destroyed.You still don't get it, do you? It isn't a matter of carrying extra fuel, it's a matter of taking maximum advantage of the fuel that you have.Re payload - you need fuel to put objects it in space. If you plan to have extra fuel aboard to land a rocket later, you have to deduct it from the payload.Which is exactly what SpaceX does. In order to have enough fuel to land the booster, the payload is reduced by about 1/3. A smaller payload requires less fuel for the same rocket, so that means that you can have fuel left over to land the booster (which is much, much lighter than at liftoff).
I think you haven't understood what payload is.
According Elon and SpaceX Falcon 9 - the payload is 22.8 tons to LEO, 8.3 tons to GTO and 4.02 tons to planet Mars. Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 .
Do you think the payload to LEO is reduced to 15 tons so it can carry 100 extra tons to land again on Earth? How is it possible? I think the payload is 0 if you try to carry extra fuel to land again.
Do you think that it takes the same amount of fuel to put 10,800 kg into LEO as it takes to put 22,800 into LEO? No, of course it doesn't. That's how they can have enough fuel left over to recover the booster when launching smaller payloads with the the same fuel load as bigger payloads on expendable boosters.
No. If you're only putting 10.8 tons into LEO, then that means that the booster doesn't need to burn the full 400-600 tons of fuel on the way up. That means that you can have fuel left over to recover the booster.No, I think you do not get it. Of course it takes less fuel for a F9 rocket with mass 22 tons to put 10.8 tons in LEO compared with putting 22.8 tons in LEO. In the first case total mass is 32.8 tons, in the second case the total mass is 44.8 tons forgetting the fuel - say 400-600 tons for the trip. After that the rocket is used and drops down and is destroyed.You still don't get it, do you? It isn't a matter of carrying extra fuel, it's a matter of taking maximum advantage of the fuel that you have.Re payload - you need fuel to put objects it in space. If you plan to have extra fuel aboard to land a rocket later, you have to deduct it from the payload.Which is exactly what SpaceX does. In order to have enough fuel to land the booster, the payload is reduced by about 1/3. A smaller payload requires less fuel for the same rocket, so that means that you can have fuel left over to land the booster (which is much, much lighter than at liftoff).
I think you haven't understood what payload is.
According Elon and SpaceX Falcon 9 - the payload is 22.8 tons to LEO, 8.3 tons to GTO and 4.02 tons to planet Mars. Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 .
Do you think the payload to LEO is reduced to 15 tons so it can carry 100 extra tons to land again on Earth? How is it possible? I think the payload is 0 if you try to carry extra fuel to land again.
Do you think that it takes the same amount of fuel to put 10,800 kg into LEO as it takes to put 22,800 into LEO? No, of course it doesn't. That's how they can have enough fuel left over to recover the booster when launching smaller payloads with the the same fuel load as bigger payloads on expendable boosters.
Now, if you want to recover the 22 tons F9 rocket, i.e. land it intact empty again, you need extra fuel for re-entry and landing. And then you need extra fuel to put that extra landing fuel in space.
Hm! Booster? An Elon F9 rocket has no boosters. It is a simple F9 rocket with a second stage + payload on top. Elon says it can deliver a 2nd stage and a payload in orbits and then the F9 rocket returns after various boost back, entry and landing burns to Earth. I show at my website that it is nonsense. The F9 rocket flips 180° in flight with 50 tons of fuel sloshing around in the fuel tanks ... an unsafe and unstable condition!No. If you're only putting 10.8 tons into LEO, then that means that the booster doesn't need to burn the full 400-600 tons of fuel on the way up. That means that you can have fuel left over to recover the booster.No, I think you do not get it. Of course it takes less fuel for a F9 rocket with mass 22 tons to put 10.8 tons in LEO compared with putting 22.8 tons in LEO. In the first case total mass is 32.8 tons, in the second case the total mass is 44.8 tons forgetting the fuel - say 400-600 tons for the trip. After that the rocket is used and drops down and is destroyed.You still don't get it, do you? It isn't a matter of carrying extra fuel, it's a matter of taking maximum advantage of the fuel that you have.Re payload - you need fuel to put objects it in space. If you plan to have extra fuel aboard to land a rocket later, you have to deduct it from the payload.Which is exactly what SpaceX does. In order to have enough fuel to land the booster, the payload is reduced by about 1/3. A smaller payload requires less fuel for the same rocket, so that means that you can have fuel left over to land the booster (which is much, much lighter than at liftoff).
I think you haven't understood what payload is.
According Elon and SpaceX Falcon 9 - the payload is 22.8 tons to LEO, 8.3 tons to GTO and 4.02 tons to planet Mars. Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 .
Do you think the payload to LEO is reduced to 15 tons so it can carry 100 extra tons to land again on Earth? How is it possible? I think the payload is 0 if you try to carry extra fuel to land again.
Do you think that it takes the same amount of fuel to put 10,800 kg into LEO as it takes to put 22,800 into LEO? No, of course it doesn't. That's how they can have enough fuel left over to recover the booster when launching smaller payloads with the the same fuel load as bigger payloads on expendable boosters.
Now, if you want to recover the 22 tons F9 rocket, i.e. land it intact empty again, you need extra fuel for re-entry and landing. And then you need extra fuel to put that extra landing fuel in space.
Remember that the booster doesn't need to take the payload all the way to orbit. It only needs to take it high enough and fast enough so that the second stage can finish the job. A lighter payload means that the second stage can be used earlier in the flight than with a heavier payload, therefore the booster doesn't need to do as much work on the way up.
What evidence? Once again you failed to post any. Links to your pathetic website are not evidence of anything.What is wrong with my evidence?That's what I thought. More failure and no evidence to support your lies.http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htmOk surely you can show us the evidence for that.Yes, I am very clever and put my info with calculations at http://heiwaco.com for everyone to study. I don't hide behind an anonymous signature. Re payload - you need fuel to put objects it in space. If you plan to have extra fuel aboard to land a rocket later, you have to deduct it from the payload. Just do simple fuel calculations for any SpaceX return trip you find they are 100% hoaxes. Or just try to verify the software SpaceX uses to carry out the trips. Just nonsense.Are you under the impression that every drop of propellant must be burned regardless of the payload size? If you're willing to sacrifice payload capacity, then why shouldn't it be possible to burn, let's say, 2/3 of the propellant on the way up and save the rest for the way down? You've already burned off most of your propellant and everything from the second stage on up is gone, so the propellant requirements become manageable, if you're clever enough. Are you clever enough, Anders?No, the SpaceX return of a booster is 100% fakery as explained at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM . A booster might reach an altitude 120000-160000 m but it is then also far from the launch site heading away horizontally from it at great speed. It means that you must also stop the horizontal displacement, return to where you started, etc, while dropping down. Impossible.
How high above Earth can you go without breaking up on return? Good question. I would say ... max 200 000 m. But what would you do up there? No air! Nothing. Compare US/North Korean ICBMs being sent up to 400 000 m altitude. They can never return. They break up or spin out of control when dropping down.
Free fall dropping from 200 000 m altitude results in a final speed before hitting ground (ignoring friction) of >1900 m/s. There is no way to stop/land/brake at that speed.
Okay, so then your actually fine with SpaceX in terms of returning 1st stage boosters. They achieve max altitude at about 120 - 160km height with max velocity of mach 6.
Ignoring fuel for the rockets (next topic), politics and your personal vendetta with Musk, SpaceX and the US government. Is there any reason why this is an issue?
How about the software that got us to the moon and back Heiwa? 8)
Good question! It never existed! Ask NASA to provide a copy and ... they will tell you it has disappeared. That is one reason why nobody has won my Challenge about Moon travel - a very popular thread at this Forum upsetting a lot of twerps.
My evidence is at http://heiwaco.com . It is very popular and explains everything. Of course stupid twerps like you don't understand it. Try to educate yourself.What evidence? Once again you failed to post any. Links to your pathetic website are not evidence of anything.What is wrong with my evidence?That's what I thought. More failure and no evidence to support your lies.http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htmOk surely you can show us the evidence for that.Yes, I am very clever and put my info with calculations at http://heiwaco.com for everyone to study. I don't hide behind an anonymous signature. Re payload - you need fuel to put objects it in space. If you plan to have extra fuel aboard to land a rocket later, you have to deduct it from the payload. Just do simple fuel calculations for any SpaceX return trip you find they are 100% hoaxes. Or just try to verify the software SpaceX uses to carry out the trips. Just nonsense.Are you under the impression that every drop of propellant must be burned regardless of the payload size? If you're willing to sacrifice payload capacity, then why shouldn't it be possible to burn, let's say, 2/3 of the propellant on the way up and save the rest for the way down? You've already burned off most of your propellant and everything from the second stage on up is gone, so the propellant requirements become manageable, if you're clever enough. Are you clever enough, Anders?No, the SpaceX return of a booster is 100% fakery as explained at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM . A booster might reach an altitude 120000-160000 m but it is then also far from the launch site heading away horizontally from it at great speed. It means that you must also stop the horizontal displacement, return to where you started, etc, while dropping down. Impossible.
How high above Earth can you go without breaking up on return? Good question. I would say ... max 200 000 m. But what would you do up there? No air! Nothing. Compare US/North Korean ICBMs being sent up to 400 000 m altitude. They can never return. They break up or spin out of control when dropping down.
Free fall dropping from 200 000 m altitude results in a final speed before hitting ground (ignoring friction) of >1900 m/s. There is no way to stop/land/brake at that speed.
Okay, so then your actually fine with SpaceX in terms of returning 1st stage boosters. They achieve max altitude at about 120 - 160km height with max velocity of mach 6.
Ignoring fuel for the rockets (next topic), politics and your personal vendetta with Musk, SpaceX and the US government. Is there any reason why this is an issue?
How about the software that got us to the moon and back Heiwa? 8)
Good question! It never existed! Ask NASA to provide a copy and ... they will tell you it has disappeared. That is one reason why nobody has won my Challenge about Moon travel - a very popular thread at this Forum upsetting a lot of twerps.
Hm! Booster? An Elon F9 rocket has no boosters. It is a simple F9 rocket with a second stage + payload on top.Are you really this stupid? Can't you even read the Wikipedia article that you linked?
Falcon 9 is a family of two-stage-to-orbit medium lift launch vehicles, named for its use of nine Merlin first-stage engines, designed and manufactured by SpaceX.
Elon says it can deliver a 2nd stage and a payload in orbits and then the F9 rocket returns after various boost back, entry and landing burns to Earth.Not quite. The booster stage lifts the second stage and payload to around 60-100 km, depending on the mission profile. The second stage takes the payload the rest of the way to its intended orbit.
I show at my website that it is nonsense. The F9 rocket flips 180° in flight with 50 tons of fuel sloshing around in the fuel tanks ... an unsafe and unstable condition!How much sloshing is going to happen after the engines cutoff and the entire booster is coasting? Not much, I should think.
I have asked Elon how much fuel he used for the boost back, entry and landing burns back to Earth and what autopilot he used. No reply. Can you enlighten me. You seem to know everything.Unlike you, I don't claim to know everything. However, I do know enough to understand that if the payload is small enough, then it's entirely plausible to be able to save enough fuel to recover the first stage booster.
My evidence is at http://heiwaco.com . It is very popular and explains everything. Of course stupid twerps like you don't understand it. Try to educate yourself.Liar. There is no evidence there. Prove me wrong post some of it here. Or continue to fail.
No, I am not stupid. Simple question remains how much fuel a SpaceX F9 rocket (first stage/booster/whatever - mass 22 tons and 9 engines/tanks, etc) uses to to put (1) the second stage + payload into space and (2) put itself back on Earth via boost-back, re-entry and landing burns. Answer that question and we can talk.Hm! Booster? An Elon F9 rocket has no boosters. It is a simple F9 rocket with a second stage + payload on top.Are you really this stupid? Can't you even read the Wikipedia article that you linked?Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9Falcon 9 is a family of two-stage-to-orbit medium lift launch vehicles, named for its use of nine Merlin first-stage engines, designed and manufactured by SpaceX.
So, yes, the Falcon 9 has a booster stage with 9 engines and a second stage with one engine.Elon says it can deliver a 2nd stage and a payload in orbits and then the F9 rocket returns after various boost back, entry and landing burns to Earth.Not quite. The booster stage lifts the second stage and payload to around 60-100 km, depending on the mission profile. The second stage takes the payload the rest of the way to its intended orbit.I show at my website that it is nonsense. The F9 rocket flips 180° in flight with 50 tons of fuel sloshing around in the fuel tanks ... an unsafe and unstable condition!How much sloshing is going to happen after the engines cutoff and the entire booster is coasting? Not much, I should think.I have asked Elon how much fuel he used for the boost back, entry and landing burns back to Earth and what autopilot he used. No reply. Can you enlighten me. You seem to know everything.Unlike you, I don't claim to know everything. However, I do know enough to understand that if the payload is small enough, then it's entirely plausible to be able to save enough fuel to recover the first stage booster.
And yet Spacex continues to launch and land the first stage. You lose.Well, the show must go on and the only evidence is some stupid videos of landings. But as long as they cannot tell how much fuel is used for the landings, I consider the whole thing a fraud.
And another failed post by heiwa.No, I am not stupid. Simple question remains how much fuel a SpaceX F9 rocket (first stage/booster/whatever - mass 22 tons and 9 engines/tanks, etc) uses to to put (1) the second stage + payload into space and (2) put itself back on Earth via boost-back, re-entry and landing burns. Answer that question and we can talk.Hm! Booster? An Elon F9 rocket has no boosters. It is a simple F9 rocket with a second stage + payload on top.Are you really this stupid? Can't you even read the Wikipedia article that you linked?Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9Falcon 9 is a family of two-stage-to-orbit medium lift launch vehicles, named for its use of nine Merlin first-stage engines, designed and manufactured by SpaceX.
So, yes, the Falcon 9 has a booster stage with 9 engines and a second stage with one engine.Elon says it can deliver a 2nd stage and a payload in orbits and then the F9 rocket returns after various boost back, entry and landing burns to Earth.Not quite. The booster stage lifts the second stage and payload to around 60-100 km, depending on the mission profile. The second stage takes the payload the rest of the way to its intended orbit.I show at my website that it is nonsense. The F9 rocket flips 180° in flight with 50 tons of fuel sloshing around in the fuel tanks ... an unsafe and unstable condition!How much sloshing is going to happen after the engines cutoff and the entire booster is coasting? Not much, I should think.I have asked Elon how much fuel he used for the boost back, entry and landing burns back to Earth and what autopilot he used. No reply. Can you enlighten me. You seem to know everything.Unlike you, I don't claim to know everything. However, I do know enough to understand that if the payload is small enough, then it's entirely plausible to be able to save enough fuel to recover the first stage booster.
Of course, I answer it at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM and show that it is not possible at all. Any F9 rocket landing again is doing a magic trick ... and no fuel at all is used.
Are you stupid or mentally sick?And another failed post by heiwa.No, I am not stupid. Simple question remains how much fuel a SpaceX F9 rocket (first stage/booster/whatever - mass 22 tons and 9 engines/tanks, etc) uses to to put (1) the second stage + payload into space and (2) put itself back on Earth via boost-back, re-entry and landing burns. Answer that question and we can talk.Hm! Booster? An Elon F9 rocket has no boosters. It is a simple F9 rocket with a second stage + payload on top.Are you really this stupid? Can't you even read the Wikipedia article that you linked?Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9Falcon 9 is a family of two-stage-to-orbit medium lift launch vehicles, named for its use of nine Merlin first-stage engines, designed and manufactured by SpaceX.
So, yes, the Falcon 9 has a booster stage with 9 engines and a second stage with one engine.Elon says it can deliver a 2nd stage and a payload in orbits and then the F9 rocket returns after various boost back, entry and landing burns to Earth.Not quite. The booster stage lifts the second stage and payload to around 60-100 km, depending on the mission profile. The second stage takes the payload the rest of the way to its intended orbit.I show at my website that it is nonsense. The F9 rocket flips 180° in flight with 50 tons of fuel sloshing around in the fuel tanks ... an unsafe and unstable condition!How much sloshing is going to happen after the engines cutoff and the entire booster is coasting? Not much, I should think.I have asked Elon how much fuel he used for the boost back, entry and landing burns back to Earth and what autopilot he used. No reply. Can you enlighten me. You seem to know everything.Unlike you, I don't claim to know everything. However, I do know enough to understand that if the payload is small enough, then it's entirely plausible to be able to save enough fuel to recover the first stage booster.
Of course, I answer it at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM and show that it is not possible at all. Any F9 rocket landing again is doing a magic trick ... and no fuel at all is used.
Post your evidence here where you make the claim.
But you have already admitted lying in another thread so why should we believe anything you say?
More failure you liar. Post your evidence here.Are you stupid or mentally sick?And another failed post by heiwa.No, I am not stupid. Simple question remains how much fuel a SpaceX F9 rocket (first stage/booster/whatever - mass 22 tons and 9 engines/tanks, etc) uses to to put (1) the second stage + payload into space and (2) put itself back on Earth via boost-back, re-entry and landing burns. Answer that question and we can talk.Hm! Booster? An Elon F9 rocket has no boosters. It is a simple F9 rocket with a second stage + payload on top.Are you really this stupid? Can't you even read the Wikipedia article that you linked?Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9Falcon 9 is a family of two-stage-to-orbit medium lift launch vehicles, named for its use of nine Merlin first-stage engines, designed and manufactured by SpaceX.
So, yes, the Falcon 9 has a booster stage with 9 engines and a second stage with one engine.Elon says it can deliver a 2nd stage and a payload in orbits and then the F9 rocket returns after various boost back, entry and landing burns to Earth.Not quite. The booster stage lifts the second stage and payload to around 60-100 km, depending on the mission profile. The second stage takes the payload the rest of the way to its intended orbit.I show at my website that it is nonsense. The F9 rocket flips 180° in flight with 50 tons of fuel sloshing around in the fuel tanks ... an unsafe and unstable condition!How much sloshing is going to happen after the engines cutoff and the entire booster is coasting? Not much, I should think.I have asked Elon how much fuel he used for the boost back, entry and landing burns back to Earth and what autopilot he used. No reply. Can you enlighten me. You seem to know everything.Unlike you, I don't claim to know everything. However, I do know enough to understand that if the payload is small enough, then it's entirely plausible to be able to save enough fuel to recover the first stage booster.
Of course, I answer it at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM and show that it is not possible at all. Any F9 rocket landing again is doing a magic trick ... and no fuel at all is used.
Post your evidence here where you make the claim.
But you have already admitted lying in another thread so why should we believe anything you say?
I post my evidence at http://heiwaco.com . You have to click on the link and then see my evidence.
And I have not admitted to lying anywhere. Why do you invent it. Do you work for CIA or FBI? Have you read the Pentagon Papers? Plenty Presidents lying for years ... and nobody cared.
No, I am not stupid. Simple question remains how much fuel a SpaceX F9 rocket (first stage/booster/whatever - mass 22 tons and 9 engines/tanks, etc) uses to to put (1) the second stage + payload into space and (2) put itself back on Earth via boost-back, re-entry and landing burns. Answer that question and we can talk.You are stupid if you think that it's a simple question. The amount of fuel required for recovery depends on a lot of factors, including (but not limited to) whether they want to recover back to the launch site or to a landing barge, how much propellant they need to get the payload to its intended orbit and how high and fast the booster will be at stage separation.
I am not stupid as I have already answered the question at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM several times.No, I am not stupid. Simple question remains how much fuel a SpaceX F9 rocket (first stage/booster/whatever - mass 22 tons and 9 engines/tanks, etc) uses to to put (1) the second stage + payload into space and (2) put itself back on Earth via boost-back, re-entry and landing burns. Answer that question and we can talk.
You are stupid if you think that it's a simple question. The amount of fuel required for recovery depends on a lot of factors, including (but not limited to) whether they want to recover back to the launch site or to a landing barge, how much propellant they need to get the payload to its intended orbit and how high and fast the booster will be at stage separation.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that he had barge and land recovery ideas about the same time. It was much safer to practice far out to sea, however. Also, as I recall, the first successful recovery was on land after several spectacular failures at sea.I am not stupid as I have already answered the question at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM several times.No, I am not stupid. Simple question remains how much fuel a SpaceX F9 rocket (first stage/booster/whatever - mass 22 tons and 9 engines/tanks, etc) uses to to put (1) the second stage + payload into space and (2) put itself back on Earth via boost-back, re-entry and landing burns. Answer that question and we can talk.
You are stupid if you think that it's a simple question. The amount of fuel required for recovery depends on a lot of factors, including (but not limited to) whether they want to recover back to the launch site or to a landing barge, how much propellant they need to get the payload to its intended orbit and how high and fast the booster will be at stage separation.
In the early days Lone Skum recovered his F9 rockets on a barge in the Atlantic, where the rocket dropped down flying away from Florida after launch. Then you only needed extra fuel to stop the drop.
Later Skum got an idea. Why not stop the F9 rocket flying away from USA and flip it 180° in flight, fire the engines so it stops in flight and flies back to USA where it, after a 90° flop, can drop down where it started? Then he needed extra fuel to stop the flight away from USA and to return to USA and to carry the extra fuel to land.
Why do you call Skum's F9 rocket a booster? An F9 rocket has nine liquid fuel rocket engines ... and no boosters. Boosters are normally solid fuel fireworks attached to a rocket to assist the launch into orbit and then burns up and are forgotten.I call the first stage of the Falcon 9 a booster because that's what it is. Auxiliary strap on rockets are also called boosters, so we're both right. However, solid rocket boosters, like those that the space shuttle used, don't necessarily burn up on reentry. In fact, most of the time the first stage and any strap on boosters don't go high enough and fast enough to burn up. They just drop into the ocean where they may or may not be recovered.
A booster rocket (or engine) is either the first stage of a multistage launch vehicle, or else a shorter-burning rocket used in parallel with longer-burning sustainer rockets to augment the space vehicle's takeoff thrust and payload capability. (Boosters used in this way are frequently designated "zero stages".)
Anyway, markjo, whatever way you do it, Lone Skum doesn't have enough fuel to do it.The fact that he's recovered and reused a number of boosters suggest otherwise.
That's what he says and shows on various videos. IMO it is all fake. Look at the videos yourself. Whatever was sent up into space could not be recovered. You don't have the fuel (and software) for it. Only twerps believe Lone Skum.Anyway, markjo, whatever way you do it, Lone Skum doesn't have enough fuel to do it.The fact that he's recovered and reused a number of boosters suggest otherwise.
That's what he says and shows on various videos. IMO it is all fake.
Opinions are not evidence.That's what he says and shows on various videos. IMO it is all fake.Anyway, markjo, whatever way you do it, Lone Skum doesn't have enough fuel to do it.The fact that he's recovered and reused a number of boosters suggest otherwise.
Look at the videos yourself. Whatever was sent up into space could not be recovered. You don't have the fuel (and software) for it.You keep saying it, yet thousands of spectators watch the recoveries happen (at least the ones to the launch site).
Only twerps believe Lone Skum.You sound like you're butthurt that SpaceX is taking business away from Arianespace.
Opinions are not evidence.That's what he says and shows on various videos. IMO it is all fake.Anyway, markjo, whatever way you do it, Lone Skum doesn't have enough fuel to do it.The fact that he's recovered and reused a number of boosters suggest otherwise.Look at the videos yourself. Whatever was sent up into space could not be recovered. You don't have the fuel (and software) for it.You keep saying it, yet thousands of spectators watch the recoveries happen (at least the ones to the launch site).Only twerps believe Lone Skum.You sound like you're butthurt that SpaceX is taking business away from Arianespace.
Markjo, the only evidence Lone Skum has provided for his magic F9 rocket recoveries is some videos, which are all the same. I provide a summary of the Skum 2017 videos athttp://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM(http://www.howtoarguewithanidiot.com/) . Only twerps accept such videos as evidence of anything.
Skum's magic start is athttp://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm#F9(http://www.howtoarguewithanidiot.com/) . Enjoy!
As you can see I have followed the Skum frauds for many years.
I only see fake videos.Markjo, the only evidence Lone Skum has provided for his magic F9 rocket recoveries is some videos, which are all the same. I provide a summary of the Skum 2017 videos athttp://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM(http://www.howtoarguewithanidiot.com/) . Only twerps accept such videos as evidence of anything.
Skum's magic start is athttp://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm#F9(http://www.howtoarguewithanidiot.com/) . Enjoy!
As you can see I have followed the Skum frauds for many years.;D ;D ;D ;D Sure, all just a big fake to fool all these eye-witnesses! ;D ;D ;D
Compilation of crazy crowd reactions to twin Falcon Heavy booster landing. Robert McGregor
You surely prove that what small close-minded ignoramuses can't explain, they ridicule.;) ;) Only a self-opinionated twerp would claim that because that self-opinionated twerp can't do something alone that an organised team of real Rocket Scientists and real Rocket Engineers can't do it! ;) ;)
I am not stupid
You are a twerp, i.e. a fool. Haven't you understood that it is only possible to put satellites into orbits? There is no need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy, bla, bla, bla. They are not needed.The mission objective was to test the Falcon Heavy and have it not blow up. That objective was met.Did you learn not to jump to conclusions when you don’t understand the principles?What conclusions?
I did not make a Twitter comment stating the 3rd Burn was a success but it did not lead to accomplishing mission objectives.
Putting his personal Tesla Roadster into a heliocentric orbit that nears Mars was pretty much just a publicity stunt because Musk doesn't like boring test flights.
If you think it's fake show us your evidence. Oh wait you are a complete lying failure and don't have any evidence.That's what he says and shows on various videos. IMO it is all fake. Look at the videos yourself. Whatever was sent up into space could not be recovered. You don't have the fuel (and software) for it. Only twerps believe Lone Skum.Anyway, markjo, whatever way you do it, Lone Skum doesn't have enough fuel to do it.The fact that he's recovered and reused a number of boosters suggest otherwise.
And as always you have failed to support your bullshit claims. You really suck at this don't you?You are a twerp, i.e. a fool. Haven't you understood that it is only possible to put satellites into orbits? There is no need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy, bla, bla, bla. They are not needed.The mission objective was to test the Falcon Heavy and have it not blow up. That objective was met.Did you learn not to jump to conclusions when you don’t understand the principles?What conclusions?
I did not make a Twitter comment stating the 3rd Burn was a success but it did not lead to accomplishing mission objectives.
Putting his personal Tesla Roadster into a heliocentric orbit that nears Mars was pretty much just a publicity stunt because Musk doesn't like boring test flights.
The only objective met was to fool anonymous twerps like you. It was easy. You are paid to play the fool.
Is is funny? Why do you do it?
No, I am quite happy with http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM that I just updated. Imagine what a criminal ELON MUSK, aka LONE SKUM is producing all these fake videos.And as always you have failed to support your bullshit claims. You really suck at this don't you?You are a twerp, i.e. a fool. Haven't you understood that it is only possible to put satellites into orbits? There is no need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy, bla, bla, bla. They are not needed.The mission objective was to test the Falcon Heavy and have it not blow up. That objective was met.Did you learn not to jump to conclusions when you don’t understand the principles?What conclusions?
I did not make a Twitter comment stating the 3rd Burn was a success but it did not lead to accomplishing mission objectives.
Putting his personal Tesla Roadster into a heliocentric orbit that nears Mars was pretty much just a publicity stunt because Musk doesn't like boring test flights.
The only objective met was to fool anonymous twerps like you. It was easy. You are paid to play the fool.
Is is funny? Why do you do it?
More failure. You claim they are fake prove, here where you make the claim. Of course you won't because you are a lying failureNo, I am quite happy with http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM that I just updated. Imagine what a criminal ELON MUSK, aka LONE SKUM is producing all these fake videos.And as always you have failed to support your bullshit claims. You really suck at this don't you?You are a twerp, i.e. a fool. Haven't you understood that it is only possible to put satellites into orbits? There is no need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy, bla, bla, bla. They are not needed.The mission objective was to test the Falcon Heavy and have it not blow up. That objective was met.Did you learn not to jump to conclusions when you don’t understand the principles?What conclusions?
I did not make a Twitter comment stating the 3rd Burn was a success but it did not lead to accomplishing mission objectives.
Putting his personal Tesla Roadster into a heliocentric orbit that nears Mars was pretty much just a publicity stunt because Musk doesn't like boring test flights.
The only objective met was to fool anonymous twerps like you. It was easy. You are paid to play the fool.
Is is funny? Why do you do it?
You sit thousands of kilometres away spouting libellous slanderous claims with impunity while being to stingy and scared to actually eye-witness these events.You surely prove that what small close-minded ignoramuses can't explain, they ridicule.I only see fake videos.;) ;) Only a self-opinionated twerp would claim that because that self-opinionated twerp
can't do something alone that an organised team of real Rocket Scientists and real Rocket Engineers can't do it! ;) ;)
You sit thousands of kilometres away spouting libellous slanderous claims with impunity while being to stingy and scared to actually eye-witness these events.You surely prove that what small close-minded ignoramuses can't explain, they ridicule.I only see fake videos.;) ;) Only a self-opinionated twerp would claim that because that self-opinionated twerp
can't do something alone that an organised team of real Rocket Scientists and real Rocket Engineers can't do it! ;) ;)"an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories"
Put up the calculations that prove the impossibility of landing the rocket's first stages or forever hold your piece!
Breaking news! Heiwa fails again to support his trash with actual evidence. He can't even prove his bullshit challenge is real by showing he has the money. Lies and failure, really that's all he has.You sit thousands of kilometres away spouting libellous slanderous claims with impunity while being to stingy and scared to actually eye-witness these events.You surely prove that what small close-minded ignoramuses can't explain, they ridicule.I only see fake videos.;) ;) Only a self-opinionated twerp would claim that because that self-opinionated twerp
can't do something alone that an organised team of real Rocket Scientists and real Rocket Engineers can't do it! ;) ;)"an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories"
Put up the calculations that prove the impossibility of landing the rocket's first stages or forever hold your piece!
The calculations are at the link provided - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM .
I am not afraid of alleged eyewitnesses. Or rather videos of alleged eyewitnesses screaming oh my good. Actually I just feel sorry for people, i.e. twerps, believing bad and fake videos of something to be real, e.g. videos with two moving at supersonic speed spots in the sky and people on a beach believing they are rockets braking backwards and landing at supersonic speed far away. Americans incl. the POTUIS are really stupid. They believe in nuclear weapons of mass destruction, people pissing on the Moon and skyscrapers becoming dust by gravity because they have seen videos of it. ROTFL.
No ... the calculations are at the link provided - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM . Study them!Breaking news! Heiwa fails again to support his trash with actual evidence. He can't even prove his bullshit challenge is real by showing he has the money. Lies and failure, really that's all he has.You sit thousands of kilometres away spouting libellous slanderous claims with impunity while being to stingy and scared to actually eye-witness these events.You surely prove that what small close-minded ignoramuses can't explain, they ridicule.I only see fake videos.;) ;) Only a self-opinionated twerp would claim that because that self-opinionated twerp
can't do something alone that an organised team of real Rocket Scientists and real Rocket Engineers can't do it! ;) ;)"an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories"
Put up the calculations that prove the impossibility of landing the rocket's first stages or forever hold your piece!
The calculations are at the link provided - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM .
I am not afraid of alleged eyewitnesses. Or rather videos of alleged eyewitnesses screaming oh my good. Actually I just feel sorry for people, i.e. twerps, believing bad and fake videos of something to be real, e.g. videos with two moving at supersonic speed spots in the sky and people on a beach believing they are rockets braking backwards and landing at supersonic speed far away. Americans incl. the POTUIS are really stupid. They believe in nuclear weapons of mass destruction, people pissing on the Moon and skyscrapers becoming dust by gravity because they have seen videos of it. ROTFL.
More failure. Show your evidence here as there is none on your website. And still no proof you can pay.No ... the calculations are at the link provided - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM . Study them!Breaking news! Heiwa fails again to support his trash with actual evidence. He can't even prove his bullshit challenge is real by showing he has the money. Lies and failure, really that's all he has.You sit thousands of kilometres away spouting libellous slanderous claims with impunity while being to stingy and scared to actually eye-witness these events.You surely prove that what small close-minded ignoramuses can't explain, they ridicule.I only see fake videos.;) ;) Only a self-opinionated twerp would claim that because that self-opinionated twerp
can't do something alone that an organised team of real Rocket Scientists and real Rocket Engineers can't do it! ;) ;)"an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories"
Put up the calculations that prove the impossibility of landing the rocket's first stages or forever hold your piece!
The calculations are at the link provided - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM .
I am not afraid of alleged eyewitnesses. Or rather videos of alleged eyewitnesses screaming oh my good. Actually I just feel sorry for people, i.e. twerps, believing bad and fake videos of something to be real, e.g. videos with two moving at supersonic speed spots in the sky and people on a beach believing they are rockets braking backwards and landing at supersonic speed far away. Americans incl. the POTUIS are really stupid. They believe in nuclear weapons of mass destruction, people pissing on the Moon and skyscrapers becoming dust by gravity because they have seen videos of it. ROTFL.
Aha, the mindless zombie is at it again. What drugs are you on?More failure. Show your evidence here as there is none on your website. And still no proof you can pay.No ... the calculations are at the link provided - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM . Study them!Breaking news! Heiwa fails again to support his trash with actual evidence. He can't even prove his bullshit challenge is real by showing he has the money. Lies and failure, really that's all he has.You sit thousands of kilometres away spouting libellous slanderous claims with impunity while being to stingy and scared to actually eye-witness these events.You surely prove that what small close-minded ignoramuses can't explain, they ridicule.I only see fake videos.;) ;) Only a self-opinionated twerp would claim that because that self-opinionated twerp
can't do something alone that an organised team of real Rocket Scientists and real Rocket Engineers can't do it! ;) ;)"an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories"
Put up the calculations that prove the impossibility of landing the rocket's first stages or forever hold your piece!
The calculations are at the link provided - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM .
I am not afraid of alleged eyewitnesses. Or rather videos of alleged eyewitnesses screaming oh my good. Actually I just feel sorry for people, i.e. twerps, believing bad and fake videos of something to be real, e.g. videos with two moving at supersonic speed spots in the sky and people on a beach believing they are rockets braking backwards and landing at supersonic speed far away. Americans incl. the POTUIS are really stupid. They believe in nuclear weapons of mass destruction, people pissing on the Moon and skyscrapers becoming dust by gravity because they have seen videos of it. ROTFL.
Lies, failures and fraud.
Of course you could prove me wrong by posting it here.
The bottom line is, until you post your evidence here, you fail. Until you prove you have the money your challenge is fake and you are a fraud. Not sure why that is so hard for you to understand.Aha, the mindless zombie is at it again. What drugs are you on?More failure. Show your evidence here as there is none on your website. And still no proof you can pay.No ... the calculations are at the link provided - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM . Study them!Breaking news! Heiwa fails again to support his trash with actual evidence. He can't even prove his bullshit challenge is real by showing he has the money. Lies and failure, really that's all he has.You sit thousands of kilometres away spouting libellous slanderous claims with impunity while being to stingy and scared to actually eye-witness these events.You surely prove that what small close-minded ignoramuses can't explain, they ridicule.I only see fake videos.;) ;) Only a self-opinionated twerp would claim that because that self-opinionated twerp
can't do something alone that an organised team of real Rocket Scientists and real Rocket Engineers can't do it! ;) ;)"an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories"
Put up the calculations that prove the impossibility of landing the rocket's first stages or forever hold your piece!
The calculations are at the link provided - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM .
I am not afraid of alleged eyewitnesses. Or rather videos of alleged eyewitnesses screaming oh my good. Actually I just feel sorry for people, i.e. twerps, believing bad and fake videos of something to be real, e.g. videos with two moving at supersonic speed spots in the sky and people on a beach believing they are rockets braking backwards and landing at supersonic speed far away. Americans incl. the POTUIS are really stupid. They believe in nuclear weapons of mass destruction, people pissing on the Moon and skyscrapers becoming dust by gravity because they have seen videos of it. ROTFL.
Lies, failures and fraud.
Of course you could prove me wrong by posting it here.
Aha, another mindless zombie is at it again. What drugs are you on?The bottom line is, until you post your evidence here, you fail. Until you prove you have the money your challenge is fake and you are a fraud. Not sure why that is so hard for you to understand.Aha, the mindless zombie is at it again. What drugs are you on?More failure. Show your evidence here as there is none on your website. And still no proof you can pay.No ... the calculations are at the link provided - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM . Study them!Breaking news! Heiwa fails again to support his trash with actual evidence. He can't even prove his bullshit challenge is real by showing he has the money. Lies and failure, really that's all he has.You sit thousands of kilometres away spouting libellous slanderous claims with impunity while being to stingy and scared to actually eye-witness these events.You surely prove that what small close-minded ignoramuses can't explain, they ridicule.I only see fake videos.;) ;) Only a self-opinionated twerp would claim that because that self-opinionated twerp
can't do something alone that an organised team of real Rocket Scientists and real Rocket Engineers can't do it! ;) ;)"an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories"
Put up the calculations that prove the impossibility of landing the rocket's first stages or forever hold your piece!
The calculations are at the link provided - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM .
I am not afraid of alleged eyewitnesses. Or rather videos of alleged eyewitnesses screaming oh my good. Actually I just feel sorry for people, i.e. twerps, believing bad and fake videos of something to be real, e.g. videos with two moving at supersonic speed spots in the sky and people on a beach believing they are rockets braking backwards and landing at supersonic speed far away. Americans incl. the POTUIS are really stupid. They believe in nuclear weapons of mass destruction, people pissing on the Moon and skyscrapers becoming dust by gravity because they have seen videos of it. ROTFL.
Lies, failures and fraud.
Of course you could prove me wrong by posting it here.
More failure. This whole conversation proves you are just a lying fraud and your challenge is fake.No, another mindless zombie is at it again. What drugs are you on?
No proof, just failure.More failure. This whole conversation proves you are just a lying fraud and your challenge is fake.No, another mindless zombie is at it again. What drugs are you on?
Markjo, the only evidence Lone Skum has provided for his magic F9 rocket recoveries is some videos, which are all the same.Elon Musk did not provide the spectator videos.
There is no need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy, bla, bla, bla. They are not needed.Of course there is a need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy. It fills the need of placing very large payloads into earth orbit and beyond.
Markjo, the only evidence Lone Skum has provided for his magic F9 rocket recoveries is some videos, which are all the same.Elon Musk did not provide the spectator videos.There is no need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy, bla, bla, bla. They are not needed.Of course there is a need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy. It fills the need of placing very large payloads into earth orbit and beyond.
Wow. I am amazed. Heiwa once again proves he is a fraud, a liar, and a failure. Will this never stop? It's all in your hands you worthless piece of shit. You could so easily prove me wrong by posting your evidence here. Of course we both know that isn't possible because you are a liar, a fraud and a failure. Prove me wrong.Markjo, the only evidence Lone Skum has provided for his magic F9 rocket recoveries is some videos, which are all the same.Elon Musk did not provide the spectator videos.There is no need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy, bla, bla, bla. They are not needed.Of course there is a need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy. It fills the need of placing very large payloads into earth orbit and beyond.
Well, Lone Skum looks like a drugged zombie on his videos that also include trips to the International Space Station, which I call the International Fake Station, IFS, at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm . Imagine that NASA 1981-2007 faked 135 Shuttle trips into space to build it - but that there exist no videos of the construction!
I put all my evidence at http://heiwaco.com i.e. my website. It is 150 MB so I cannot copy it here. You really have to visit it! Why are you so upset about Lone Skum's fake space ventures? He is the liar and fraud. And soon a failure.Wow. I am amazed. Heiwa once again proves he is a fraud, a liar, and a failure. Will this never stop? It's all in your hands you worthless piece of shit. You could so easily prove me wrong by posting your evidence here. Of course we both know that isn't possible because you are a liar, a fraud and a failure. Prove me wrong.Markjo, the only evidence Lone Skum has provided for his magic F9 rocket recoveries is some videos, which are all the same.Elon Musk did not provide the spectator videos.There is no need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy, bla, bla, bla. They are not needed.Of course there is a need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy. It fills the need of placing very large payloads into earth orbit and beyond.
Well, Lone Skum looks like a drugged zombie on his videos that also include trips to the International Space Station, which I call the International Fake Station, IFS, at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm . Imagine that NASA 1981-2007 faked 135 Shuttle trips into space to build it - but that there exist no videos of the construction!
Well, Lone Skum looks like a drugged zombie
Have you ever seen a drugged zombie?
Well, Lone Skum looks like a drugged zombie
You should ease up on how other people look. ;)
Have you ever seen a drugged zombie?
Well, Lone Skum looks like a drugged zombie
You should ease up on how other people look. ;)
No you moron, don't copy the entire site here, just some of the relevant parts.I put all my evidence at http://heiwaco.com i.e. my website. It is 150 MB so I cannot copy it here. You really have to visit it! Why are you so upset about Lone Skum's fake space ventures? He is the liar and fraud. And soon a failure.Wow. I am amazed. Heiwa once again proves he is a fraud, a liar, and a failure. Will this never stop? It's all in your hands you worthless piece of shit. You could so easily prove me wrong by posting your evidence here. Of course we both know that isn't possible because you are a liar, a fraud and a failure. Prove me wrong.Markjo, the only evidence Lone Skum has provided for his magic F9 rocket recoveries is some videos, which are all the same.Elon Musk did not provide the spectator videos.There is no need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy, bla, bla, bla. They are not needed.Of course there is a need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy. It fills the need of placing very large payloads into earth orbit and beyond.
Well, Lone Skum looks like a drugged zombie on his videos that also include trips to the International Space Station, which I call the International Fake Station, IFS, at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm . Imagine that NASA 1981-2007 faked 135 Shuttle trips into space to build it - but that there exist no videos of the construction!
Hm, much easier that you, like 1 000 000's others, just visit my site and have a look at my evidence that no humans have ever been in space. It was fake every time done by NASA, assisted by Hollywood.No you moron, don't copy the entire site here, just some of the relevant parts.I put all my evidence at http://heiwaco.com i.e. my website. It is 150 MB so I cannot copy it here. You really have to visit it! Why are you so upset about Lone Skum's fake space ventures? He is the liar and fraud. And soon a failure.Wow. I am amazed. Heiwa once again proves he is a fraud, a liar, and a failure. Will this never stop? It's all in your hands you worthless piece of shit. You could so easily prove me wrong by posting your evidence here. Of course we both know that isn't possible because you are a liar, a fraud and a failure. Prove me wrong.Markjo, the only evidence Lone Skum has provided for his magic F9 rocket recoveries is some videos, which are all the same.Elon Musk did not provide the spectator videos.There is no need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy, bla, bla, bla. They are not needed.Of course there is a need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy. It fills the need of placing very large payloads into earth orbit and beyond.
Well, Lone Skum looks like a drugged zombie on his videos that also include trips to the International Space Station, which I call the International Fake Station, IFS, at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm . Imagine that NASA 1981-2007 faked 135 Shuttle trips into space to build it - but that there exist no videos of the construction!
And still no proof you have the money.
You just continue to lie and fail.
And more failure. I've been to your shitty website, you post no evidence there just you claiming it's impossible. So you are a liar as well as a failure.Hm, much easier that you, like 1 000 000's others, just visit my site and have a look at my evidence that no humans have ever been in space. It was fake every time done by NASA, assisted by Hollywood.No you moron, don't copy the entire site here, just some of the relevant parts.I put all my evidence at http://heiwaco.com i.e. my website. It is 150 MB so I cannot copy it here. You really have to visit it! Why are you so upset about Lone Skum's fake space ventures? He is the liar and fraud. And soon a failure.Wow. I am amazed. Heiwa once again proves he is a fraud, a liar, and a failure. Will this never stop? It's all in your hands you worthless piece of shit. You could so easily prove me wrong by posting your evidence here. Of course we both know that isn't possible because you are a liar, a fraud and a failure. Prove me wrong.Markjo, the only evidence Lone Skum has provided for his magic F9 rocket recoveries is some videos, which are all the same.Elon Musk did not provide the spectator videos.There is no need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy, bla, bla, bla. They are not needed.Of course there is a need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy. It fills the need of placing very large payloads into earth orbit and beyond.
Well, Lone Skum looks like a drugged zombie on his videos that also include trips to the International Space Station, which I call the International Fake Station, IFS, at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm . Imagine that NASA 1981-2007 faked 135 Shuttle trips into space to build it - but that there exist no videos of the construction!
And still no proof you have the money.
You just continue to lie and fail.
I was fooled by it 50+ years ago but today I just think was stupid madness by Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ and Tricky Dick.
What do you THINK? Can you THINK?
So you don't have any technical arguments against the Falcon Heavy and are forced to resort to childish name calling. Pitiful.Markjo, the only evidence Lone Skum has provided for his magic F9 rocket recoveries is some videos, which are all the same.Elon Musk did not provide the spectator videos.There is no need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy, bla, bla, bla. They are not needed.Of course there is a need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy. It fills the need of placing very large payloads into earth orbit and beyond.
Well, Lone Skum looks like a drugged zombie on his videos that also include trips to the International Space Station, which I call the International Fake Station, IFS...
Imagine that NASA 1981-2007 faked 135 Shuttle trips into space to build it - but that there exist no videos of the construction!Irrelevant and off topic. Topic is the orbit of Elon Musk's Tesla roadster.
Hm, my solid evidence that Lone Skum is a ciriminal hoax is at http://heiwaco.comSo you don't have any technical arguments against the Falcon Heavy and are forced to resort to childish name calling. Pitiful.Markjo, the only evidence Lone Skum has provided for his magic F9 rocket recoveries is some videos, which are all the same.Elon Musk did not provide the spectator videos.There is no need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy, bla, bla, bla. They are not needed.Of course there is a need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy. It fills the need of placing very large payloads into earth orbit and beyond.
Well, Lone Skum looks like a drugged zombie on his videos that also include trips to the International Space Station, which I call the International Fake Station, IFS...Imagine that NASA 1981-2007 faked 135 Shuttle trips into space to build it - but that there exist no videos of the construction!Irrelevant and off topic. Topic is the orbit of Elon Musk's Tesla roadster.
Then why don't you report his crimial activities to the proper authorities?Hm, my solid evidence that Lone Skum is a ciriminal hoax is at...So you don't have any technical arguments against the Falcon Heavy and are forced to resort to childish name calling. Pitiful.Markjo, the only evidence Lone Skum has provided for his magic F9 rocket recoveries is some videos, which are all the same.Elon Musk did not provide the spectator videos.There is no need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy, bla, bla, bla. They are not needed.Of course there is a need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy. It fills the need of placing very large payloads into earth orbit and beyond.
Well, Lone Skum looks like a drugged zombie on his videos that also include trips to the International Space Station, which I call the International Fake Station, IFS...Imagine that NASA 1981-2007 faked 135 Shuttle trips into space to build it - but that there exist no videos of the construction!Irrelevant and off topic. Topic is the orbit of Elon Musk's Tesla roadster.
I don't hide behind an avatar, I repeat...Good for you. Do you want a lollipop?
Then why don't you report his crimial activities to the proper authorities?Hm, my solid evidence that Lone Skum is a ciriminal hoax is at...So you don't have any technical arguments against the Falcon Heavy and are forced to resort to childish name calling. Pitiful.Markjo, the only evidence Lone Skum has provided for his magic F9 rocket recoveries is some videos, which are all the same.Elon Musk did not provide the spectator videos.There is no need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy, bla, bla, bla. They are not needed.Of course there is a need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy. It fills the need of placing very large payloads into earth orbit and beyond.
Well, Lone Skum looks like a drugged zombie on his videos that also include trips to the International Space Station, which I call the International Fake Station, IFS...Imagine that NASA 1981-2007 faked 135 Shuttle trips into space to build it - but that there exist no videos of the construction!Irrelevant and off topic. Topic is the orbit of Elon Musk's Tesla roadster.
What is your proof that all the video, including the spectator videos, are fake?Then why don't you report his crimial activities to the proper authorities?Hm, my solid evidence that Lone Skum is a ciriminal hoax is at...So you don't have any technical arguments against the Falcon Heavy and are forced to resort to childish name calling. Pitiful.Markjo, the only evidence Lone Skum has provided for his magic F9 rocket recoveries is some videos, which are all the same.Elon Musk did not provide the spectator videos.There is no need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy, bla, bla, bla. They are not needed.Of course there is a need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy. It fills the need of placing very large payloads into earth orbit and beyond.
Well, Lone Skum looks like a drugged zombie on his videos that also include trips to the International Space Station, which I call the International Fake Station, IFS...Imagine that NASA 1981-2007 faked 135 Shuttle trips into space to build it - but that there exist no videos of the construction!Irrelevant and off topic. Topic is the orbit of Elon Musk's Tesla roadster.
But I have ... several ... times. To the FBI. But FBI always sleeps. I report it at http://heiwaco com
What do you think I should do?
Maybe you should take a few refresher physics and engineering courses so that you can figure out why your claims of fake are wrong.Then why don't you report his crimial activities to the proper authorities?Hm, my solid evidence that Lone Skum is a ciriminal hoax is at...So you don't have any technical arguments against the Falcon Heavy and are forced to resort to childish name calling. Pitiful.Markjo, the only evidence Lone Skum has provided for his magic F9 rocket recoveries is some videos, which are all the same.Elon Musk did not provide the spectator videos.There is no need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy, bla, bla, bla. They are not needed.Of course there is a need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy. It fills the need of placing very large payloads into earth orbit and beyond.
Well, Lone Skum looks like a drugged zombie on his videos that also include trips to the International Space Station, which I call the International Fake Station, IFS...Imagine that NASA 1981-2007 faked 135 Shuttle trips into space to build it - but that there exist no videos of the construction!Irrelevant and off topic. Topic is the orbit of Elon Musk's Tesla roadster.
But I have ... several ... times. To the FBI. But FBI always sleeps. I report it at http://heiwaco com
What do you think I should do?
Tell that to NASA and NIST and FBI.Maybe you should take a few refresher physics and engineering courses so that you can figure out why your claims of fake are wrong.Then why don't you report his crimial activities to the proper authorities?Hm, my solid evidence that Lone Skum is a ciriminal hoax is at...So you don't have any technical arguments against the Falcon Heavy and are forced to resort to childish name calling. Pitiful.Markjo, the only evidence Lone Skum has provided for his magic F9 rocket recoveries is some videos, which are all the same.Elon Musk did not provide the spectator videos.There is no need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy, bla, bla, bla. They are not needed.Of course there is a need for big rockets like Falcon Heavy. It fills the need of placing very large payloads into earth orbit and beyond.
Well, Lone Skum looks like a drugged zombie on his videos that also include trips to the International Space Station, which I call the International Fake Station, IFS...Imagine that NASA 1981-2007 faked 135 Shuttle trips into space to build it - but that there exist no videos of the construction!Irrelevant and off topic. Topic is the orbit of Elon Musk's Tesla roadster.
But I have ... several ... times. To the FBI. But FBI always sleeps. I report it at http://heiwaco.com
What do you think I should do?
But I have ... several ... times. To the FBI. But FBI always sleeps. I report it at http://heiwaco comStop lying to the FBI!
What do you think I should do?
Why would I lie to the FBI? It is correct that I was in touch with a SAC of FBI/Albuquerque, i.e. I woke her up sleeping in her office, when I came by. She got very upset and asked me to contact her colleagues at Paris, France, instead, which I did, but they were also asleep or absent or the US embassy was under attack so nobody could be reached.But I have ... several ... times. To the FBI. But FBI always sleeps. I report it at http://heiwaco comStop lying to the FBI!
What do you think I should do?
Look folks, heiwa fails again. Poor sick, lying heiwa. He just can't get anything right.Why would I lie to the FBI? It is correct that I was in touch with a SAC of FBI/Albuquerque, i.e. I woke her up sleeping in her office, when I came by. She got very upset and asked me to contact her colleagues at Paris, France, instead, which I did, but they were also asleep or absent or the US embassy was under attack so nobody could be reached.But I have ... several ... times. To the FBI. But FBI always sleeps. I report it at http://heiwaco comStop lying to the FBI!
What do you think I should do?
Anyway, topic is Elon's roadster flying to Mars if you believe his ridiculous videos of it. But it is just simple fraud too with FBI looking on.
They already know why your claims of fake are wrong. You're the one who doesn't.Tell that to NASA and NIST and FBI.What do you think I should do?Maybe you should take a few refresher physics and engineering courses so that you can figure out why your claims of fake are wrong.
They already know why your claims of fake are wrong. You're the one who doesn't.Tell that to NASA and NIST and FBI.What do you think I should do?Maybe you should take a few refresher physics and engineering courses so that you can figure out why your claims of fake are wrong.
That's why I recommended the physics and engineering refresher courses. Everything you need to know you can learn there.They already know why your claims of fake are wrong. You're the one who doesn't.Tell that to NASA and NIST and FBI.What do you think I should do?Maybe you should take a few refresher physics and engineering courses so that you can figure out why your claims of fake are wrong.
They do? Where, when, how? Can I get it in writing?
I don't follow. Where can I know that NASA, NIST and FBI consider my findings wrong. I have been in touch with them. They do not reply. What to do?That's why I recommended the physics and engineering refresher courses. Everything you need to know you can learn there.They already know why your claims of fake are wrong. You're the one who doesn't.Tell that to NASA and NIST and FBI.What do you think I should do?Maybe you should take a few refresher physics and engineering courses so that you can figure out why your claims of fake are wrong.
They do? Where, when, how? Can I get it in writing?
Educate yourself on the things that you claim to be an expert on so that you don't sound like a crackpot when you ask them stupid questions.I don't follow. Where can I know that NASA, NIST and FBI consider my findings wrong. I have been in touch with them. They do not reply. What to do?That's why I recommended the physics and engineering refresher courses. Everything you need to know you can learn there.They already know why your claims of fake are wrong. You're the one who doesn't.Tell that to NASA and NIST and FBI.What do you think I should do?Maybe you should take a few refresher physics and engineering courses so that you can figure out why your claims of fake are wrong.
They do? Where, when, how? Can I get it in writing?
Take NASA! I ask about navigation in 3D space. They refer to a Dr Buzz Aldrin using compass and sextant 1969 as if we were talking about ships at sea on Earth. But in space your speed and direction and your heavenly bodies positions change all the time due to Earth, Sun and Moon gravity forces. IMO there is no way to know how to navigate between these mobile targets at variable speeds and directions. NASA says it is easy ...but cannot explain how!We've been over this countless times already. The motions of the sun, earth and moon are well known and predictable as are their gravitational fields. The math is very complicated, but that's why they have computers to crunch the numbers.
Take NIST! I show them that a top C of any structure A cannot crush A into dust due to gravity. I show that A always resists C and stops C. No dust! But NIST says they have seen C crush A into dust live on TV twice so it can happen. I consider such response criminal, but when I contact FBI they are asleep at their desks.Irrelevant and off topic (not to mention very dickish to call the deaths of over 2000 people a fraud).
Educate yourself on the things that you claim to be an expert on so that you don't sound like a crackpot when you ask them stupid questions.I don't follow. Where can I know that NASA, NIST and FBI consider my findings wrong. I have been in touch with them. They do not reply. What to do?That's why I recommended the physics and engineering refresher courses. Everything you need to know you can learn there.They already know why your claims of fake are wrong. You're the one who doesn't.Tell that to NASA and NIST and FBI.What do you think I should do?Maybe you should take a few refresher physics and engineering courses so that you can figure out why your claims of fake are wrong.
They do? Where, when, how? Can I get it in writing?Take NASA! I ask about navigation in 3D space. They refer to a Dr Buzz Aldrin using compass and sextant 1969 as if we were talking about ships at sea on Earth. But in space your speed and direction and your heavenly bodies positions change all the time due to Earth, Sun and Moon gravity forces. IMO there is no way to know how to navigate between these mobile targets at variable speeds and directions. NASA says it is easy ...but cannot explain how!We've been over this countless times already. The motions of the sun, earth and moon are well known and predictable as are their gravitational fields. The math is very complicated, but that's why they have computers to crunch the numbers.Take NIST! I show them that a top C of any structure A cannot crush A into dust due to gravity. I show that A always resists C and stops C. No dust! But NIST says they have seen C crush A into dust live on TV twice so it can happen. I consider such response criminal, but when I contact FBI they are asleep at their desks.Irrelevant and off topic (not to mention very dickish to call the deaths of over 2000 people a fraud).
Yes see what you're are saying. Post some evidence to support your ignorant position.Educate yourself on the things that you claim to be an expert on so that you don't sound like a crackpot when you ask them stupid questions.I don't follow. Where can I know that NASA, NIST and FBI consider my findings wrong. I have been in touch with them. They do not reply. What to do?That's why I recommended the physics and engineering refresher courses. Everything you need to know you can learn there.They already know why your claims of fake are wrong. You're the one who doesn't.Tell that to NASA and NIST and FBI.What do you think I should do?Maybe you should take a few refresher physics and engineering courses so that you can figure out why your claims of fake are wrong.
They do? Where, when, how? Can I get it in writing?Take NASA! I ask about navigation in 3D space. They refer to a Dr Buzz Aldrin using compass and sextant 1969 as if we were talking about ships at sea on Earth. But in space your speed and direction and your heavenly bodies positions change all the time due to Earth, Sun and Moon gravity forces. IMO there is no way to know how to navigate between these mobile targets at variable speeds and directions. NASA says it is easy ...but cannot explain how!We've been over this countless times already. The motions of the sun, earth and moon are well known and predictable as are their gravitational fields. The math is very complicated, but that's why they have computers to crunch the numbers.Take NIST! I show them that a top C of any structure A cannot crush A into dust due to gravity. I show that A always resists C and stops C. No dust! But NIST says they have seen C crush A into dust live on TV twice so it can happen. I consider such response criminal, but when I contact FBI they are asleep at their desks.Irrelevant and off topic (not to mention very dickish to call the deaths of over 2000 people a fraud).
It seems you don't follow. Yes, the motions of heavenly bodies like Earth and planets orbiting Sun and Moon orbiting Earth are known but the trajectories of space ships travelling between these moving bodies cannot be predicted. I know JFK & Co said it was easy but ... NASA had to fake it all. Like Lone Skum and XpaceS.
And NIST! To suggest that a weak top C of a structure can crush the intact bottom A of same structure into dust by gravity and at the same time murder 2000 persons? It is criminal.
Problem remains. NASA, NIST and FBI do not reply when you call them to clarify. Try yourself.
It seems you don't follow. Yes, the motions of heavenly bodies like Earth and planets orbiting Sun and Moon orbiting Earth are known but the trajectories of space ships travelling between these moving bodies cannot be predicted. I know JFK & Co said it was easy but ... NASA had to fake it all. Like Lone Skum and XpaceS.If the motions of the bodies in question are well known and predictable, then why shouldn't someone be able to calculate a trajectory between them? In fact, here are some calculations that you can run yourself:
And NIST! To suggest that a weak top C of a structure can crush the intact bottom A of same structure into dust by gravity and at the same time murder 2000 persons? It is criminal.Still irrelevant and off topic,
Problem remains. NASA, NIST and FBI do not reply when you call them to clarify. Try yourself.Perhaps they have better things to do than to coddle you.
I know humanity is good bu c'mon, we launched a rocket ship at the start of 2006 and apparently it is going to rendezvous with a pebble we barely know and understand well outside the orbit of Pluto. We are supposed to believe we can do this with perfect precision.Have you studied the physics of this? I mean it sounds like you are saying you don't understand so it can't be done.
If the angle of that rocket was off by even the slightest of fractions or the predicted speed of that pebble or the rocket were off by fractions of a percent, over the time spent in space you would miss the target by hundreds of thousands if not millions of kilometres. But right on cue to the exact hour from a launch 10 years ago we arrive in a hairs breadth of Pluto and will again to this pebble designated 2014MU on January 1, 2019. The amount of variables to pull it off are astronomical. How can you predict exactly what speed you will get doing a gravity assist? If your off by even 1km/h you will end up arrive either way too late or too early.
Keep in mind this object 2014MU wasn't even discovered until 2014, 8 years after it launched and is no more than 30km wide. To pull off arriving at this object will be like getting a hole in 1 at Golf. Except you are blindfolded and the hole is nearly 7 billion km away.
I know humanity is good bu c'mon, we launched a rocket ship at the start of 2006 and apparently it is going to rendezvous with a pebble we barely know and understand well outside the orbit of Pluto. We are supposed to believe we can do this with perfect precision.Have you studied the physics of this? I mean it sounds like you are saying you don't understand so it can't be done.
If the angle of that rocket was off by even the slightest of fractions or the predicted speed of that pebble or the rocket were off by fractions of a percent, over the time spent in space you would miss the target by hundreds of thousands if not millions of kilometres. But right on cue to the exact hour from a launch 10 years ago we arrive in a hairs breadth of Pluto and will again to this pebble designated 2014MU on January 1, 2019. The amount of variables to pull it off are astronomical. How can you predict exactly what speed you will get doing a gravity assist? If your off by even 1km/h you will end up arrive either way too late or too early.
Keep in mind this object 2014MU wasn't even discovered until 2014, 8 years after it launched and is no more than 30km wide. To pull off arriving at this object will be like getting a hole in 1 at Golf. Except you are blindfolded and the hole is nearly 7 billion km away.
I know humanity is good bu c'mon, we launched a rocket ship at the start of 2006 and apparently it is going to rendezvous with a pebble we barely know and understand well outside the orbit of Pluto. We are supposed to believe we can do this with perfect precision.Umm.... You do realize that the probe has thrusters on board to make mid-course corrections and minor trajectory changes, don't you?
If the angle of that rocket was off by even the slightest of fractions or the predicted speed of that pebble or the rocket were off by fractions of a percent, over the time spent in space you would miss the target by hundreds of thousands if not millions of kilometres. But right on cue to the exact hour from a launch 10 years ago we arrive in a hairs breadth of Pluto and will again to this pebble designated 2014MU on January 1, 2019. The amount of variables to pull it off are astronomical. How can you predict exactly what speed you will get doing a gravity assist? If your off by even 1km/h you will end up arrive either way too late or too early.
Keep in mind this object 2014MU wasn't even discovered until 2014, 8 years after it launched and is no more than 30km wide. To pull off arriving at this object will be like getting a hole in 1 at Golf. Except you are blindfolded and the hole is nearly 7 billion km away.
I know humanity is good bu c'mon, we launched a rocket ship at the start of 2006 and apparently it is going to rendezvous with a pebble we barely know and understand well outside the orbit of Pluto. We are supposed to believe we can do this with perfect precision.Umm.... You do realize that the probe has thrusters on board to make mid-course corrections and minor trajectory changes, don't you?
If the angle of that rocket was off by even the slightest of fractions or the predicted speed of that pebble or the rocket were off by fractions of a percent, over the time spent in space you would miss the target by hundreds of thousands if not millions of kilometres. But right on cue to the exact hour from a launch 10 years ago we arrive in a hairs breadth of Pluto and will again to this pebble designated 2014MU on January 1, 2019. The amount of variables to pull it off are astronomical. How can you predict exactly what speed you will get doing a gravity assist? If your off by even 1km/h you will end up arrive either way too late or too early.
Keep in mind this object 2014MU wasn't even discovered until 2014, 8 years after it launched and is no more than 30km wide. To pull off arriving at this object will be like getting a hole in 1 at Golf. Except you are blindfolded and the hole is nearly 7 billion km away.
I could do it.I know humanity is good bu c'mon, we launched a rocket ship at the start of 2006 and apparently it is going to rendezvous with a pebble we barely know and understand well outside the orbit of Pluto. We are supposed to believe we can do this with perfect precision.Umm.... You do realize that the probe has thrusters on board to make mid-course corrections and minor trajectory changes, don't you?
If the angle of that rocket was off by even the slightest of fractions or the predicted speed of that pebble or the rocket were off by fractions of a percent, over the time spent in space you would miss the target by hundreds of thousands if not millions of kilometres. But right on cue to the exact hour from a launch 10 years ago we arrive in a hairs breadth of Pluto and will again to this pebble designated 2014MU on January 1, 2019. The amount of variables to pull it off are astronomical. How can you predict exactly what speed you will get doing a gravity assist? If your off by even 1km/h you will end up arrive either way too late or too early.
Keep in mind this object 2014MU wasn't even discovered until 2014, 8 years after it launched and is no more than 30km wide. To pull off arriving at this object will be like getting a hole in 1 at Golf. Except you are blindfolded and the hole is nearly 7 billion km away.
Yes, piloting a craft from billions of km away with hours of lag for a response and hours for a confirmation. I'm sure we know to the exact cubic metre of the entire solar system where our radio controlled toy travelling more than 16km/s is and where everything else is and their exact speeds.Trying to do a course correction at those speeds to meet up with an object you only just discovered but a few billion km away is fanciful.
I could do it.I know humanity is good bu c'mon, we launched a rocket ship at the start of 2006 and apparently it is going to rendezvous with a pebble we barely know and understand well outside the orbit of Pluto. We are supposed to believe we can do this with perfect precision.Umm.... You do realize that the probe has thrusters on board to make mid-course corrections and minor trajectory changes, don't you?
If the angle of that rocket was off by even the slightest of fractions or the predicted speed of that pebble or the rocket were off by fractions of a percent, over the time spent in space you would miss the target by hundreds of thousands if not millions of kilometres. But right on cue to the exact hour from a launch 10 years ago we arrive in a hairs breadth of Pluto and will again to this pebble designated 2014MU on January 1, 2019. The amount of variables to pull it off are astronomical. How can you predict exactly what speed you will get doing a gravity assist? If your off by even 1km/h you will end up arrive either way too late or too early.
Keep in mind this object 2014MU wasn't even discovered until 2014, 8 years after it launched and is no more than 30km wide. To pull off arriving at this object will be like getting a hole in 1 at Golf. Except you are blindfolded and the hole is nearly 7 billion km away.
Yes, piloting a craft from billions of km away with hours of lag for a response and hours for a confirmation. I'm sure we know to the exact cubic metre of the entire solar system where our radio controlled toy travelling more than 16km/s is and where everything else is and their exact speeds.Trying to do a course correction at those speeds to meet up with an object you only just discovered but a few billion km away is fanciful.
Thanks! I have tried to do PR for the NASA Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, Security-Regolith Explorer mission at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#OR .I know humanity is good bu c'mon, we launched a rocket ship at the start of 2006 and apparently it is going to rendezvous with a pebble we barely know and understand well outside the orbit of Pluto. We are supposed to believe we can do this with perfect precision.Have you studied the physics of this? I mean it sounds like you are saying you don't understand so it can't be done.
If the angle of that rocket was off by even the slightest of fractions or the predicted speed of that pebble or the rocket were off by fractions of a percent, over the time spent in space you would miss the target by hundreds of thousands if not millions of kilometres. But right on cue to the exact hour from a launch 10 years ago we arrive in a hairs breadth of Pluto and will again to this pebble designated 2014MU on January 1, 2019. The amount of variables to pull it off are astronomical. How can you predict exactly what speed you will get doing a gravity assist? If your off by even 1km/h you will end up arrive either way too late or too early.
Keep in mind this object 2014MU wasn't even discovered until 2014, 8 years after it launched and is no more than 30km wide. To pull off arriving at this object will be like getting a hole in 1 at Golf. Except you are blindfolded and the hole is nearly 7 billion km away.
Sometimes I like to play for team Heiwa to keep things interesting
I don't follow. Where can I know that NASA, NIST and FBI consider my findings wrong. I have been in touch with them. They do not reply. What to do?
<snip>
How do you know? Are you working for them? You told me you are an old USN sailor, which tells me all. Only twerps work for any navy.I don't follow. Where can I know that NASA, NIST and FBI consider my findings wrong. I have been in touch with them. They do not reply. What to do?
<snip>
They do not reply to you because they do not consider your claims credible. They will not waste time and money on your crackpot conspiracy theories.
Mike
Since you were in the Navy that means you are calling yourself a twerp?How do you know? Are you working for them? You told me you are an old USN sailor, which tells me all. Only twerps work for any navy.I don't follow. Where can I know that NASA, NIST and FBI consider my findings wrong. I have been in touch with them. They do not reply. What to do?
<snip>
They do not reply to you because they do not consider your claims credible. They will not waste time and money on your crackpot conspiracy theories.
Mike
Pls present some evidence of what you say about me.
Re conspiracy theories ... it is not my biz. I work for safety at sea - http://heiwaco.comI don’t care what your “biz” is. All your challenges are nothing but crackpot conspiracy theories. That’s why nobody you’ve called takes you seriously.
Yes, I was in the Swedish Navy 1965/70 - about 500 days on/off, most of it national service (unavoidable) - and it was quite interesting from professional, naval architecture, marine engineering, safety at sea points of view. And the girls loved me in my uniform, of course. I made the most of it. But full time, professional, navy sailors? Most of them twerps! Like you.Since you were in the Navy that means you are calling yourself a twerp?How do you know? Are you working for them? You told me you are an old USN sailor, which tells me all. Only twerps work for any navy.I don't follow. Where can I know that NASA, NIST and FBI consider my findings wrong. I have been in touch with them. They do not reply. What to do?
<snip>
They do not reply to you because they do not consider your claims credible. They will not waste time and money on your crackpot conspiracy theories.
Mike
...
Mike
Re conspiracy theories ... it is not my biz. I work for safety at sea - http://heiwaco.comThen perhaps you should refrain from commenting about safety in space, seeing as that isn't your biz.
You sound like a retired NASA engineer with a 45+ years career inventing space missions that never took place, and now are trying to cover up the shit.Re conspiracy theories ... it is not my biz. I work for safety at sea - http://heiwaco.comThen perhaps you should refrain from commenting about safety in space, seeing as that isn't your biz.
Fail. More baseless claims from the pathetic lying piece of shit that is heiwa. Never has he been able to provide a shred of evidence to support his bullshit claims. He is a liar and a fraud. The funny thing is he could so easily prove me wrong. Well it would be easy if anything he said were true. Of course we all know it's all lies and he is a fraud.You sound like a retired NASA engineer with a 45+ years career inventing space missions that never took place, and now are trying to cover up the shit.Re conspiracy theories ... it is not my biz. I work for safety at sea - http://heiwaco.comThen perhaps you should refrain from commenting about safety in space, seeing as that isn't your biz.
There is no safety in space! Human beings cannot enter space. No human beings have ever been in space. We are all stuck on Earth for ever.
Fail. More baseless claims from the pathetic lying piece of shit that is heiwa. Never has he been able to provide a shred of evidence to support his bullshit claims. He is a liar and a fraud. The funny thing is he could so easily prove me wrong. Well it would be easy if anything he said were true. Of course we all know it's all lies and he is a fraud.You sound like a retired NASA engineer with a 45+ years career inventing space missions that never took place, and now are trying to cover up the shit.Re conspiracy theories ... it is not my biz. I work for safety at sea - http://heiwaco.comThen perhaps you should refrain from commenting about safety in space, seeing as that isn't your biz.
There is no safety in space! Human beings cannot enter space. No human beings have ever been in space. We are all stuck on Earth for ever.
Epic failure. You just can't get anything right can you?Fail. More baseless claims from the pathetic lying piece of shit that is heiwa. Never has he been able to provide a shred of evidence to support his bullshit claims. He is a liar and a fraud. The funny thing is he could so easily prove me wrong. Well it would be easy if anything he said were true. Of course we all know it's all lies and he is a fraud.You sound like a retired NASA engineer with a 45+ years career inventing space missions that never took place, and now are trying to cover up the shit.Re conspiracy theories ... it is not my biz. I work for safety at sea - http://heiwaco.comThen perhaps you should refrain from commenting about safety in space, seeing as that isn't your biz.
There is no safety in space! Human beings cannot enter space. No human beings have ever been in space. We are all stuck on Earth for ever.
?? Markjo sounds like he is retired and has spent his life lying for NASA about Americans pissing on the Moon, etc, etc, and is now covering up the shit. Why not ask Markjo to introduce himself? What has Markjo done for a living? And yourself. Where did you learn your foul language?
There is no safety in space! Human beings cannot enter space. No human beings have ever been in space. We are all stuck on Earth for ever.*sigh* You're always going on and on about things that can't be done. What kind of engineer has that kind of attitude? A piss poor one, if you ask me. A good engineer should always be thinking about how to do things that can't be done. The word "can't" should not be in an engineer's vocabulary.
There is no safety in space! Human beings cannot enter space. No human beings have ever been in space. We are all stuck on Earth for ever.*sigh* You're always going on and on about things that can't be done. What kind of engineer has that kind of attitude? A piss poor one, if you ask me. A good engineer should always be thinking about how to do things that can't be done. The word "can't" should not be in an engineer's vocabulary.
That was one of my favorite poems as a kid. My mom used to read it to me.There is no safety in space! Human beings cannot enter space. No human beings have ever been in space. We are all stuck on Earth for ever.*sigh* You're always going on and on about things that can't be done. What kind of engineer has that kind of attitude? A piss poor one, if you ask me. A good engineer should always be thinking about how to do things that can't be done. The word "can't" should not be in an engineer's vocabulary.
This is the attitude that got us to space:
(The exact opposite of Heiwa's attitude)
It Couldn’t Be Done
BY EDGAR ALBERT GUEST
Somebody said that it couldn’t be done
But he with a chuckle replied
That “maybe it couldn’t,” but he would be one
Who wouldn’t say so till he’d tried.
So he buckled right in with the trace of a grin
On his face. If he worried he hid it.
He started to sing as he tackled the thing
That couldn’t be done, and he did it!
Somebody scoffed: “Oh, you’ll never do that;
At least no one ever has done it;”
But he took off his coat and he took off his hat
And the first thing we knew he’d begun it.
With a lift of his chin and a bit of a grin,
Without any doubting or quiddit,
He started to sing as he tackled the thing
That couldn’t be done, and he did it.
There are thousands to tell you it cannot be done,
There are thousands to prophesy failure,
There are thousands to point out to you one by one,
The dangers that wait to assail you.
But just buckle in with a bit of a grin,
Just take off your coat and go to it;
Just start in to sing as you tackle the thing
That “cannot be done,” and you’ll do it.
Well, I don't say things can't be done. I explain at my website why certain things are not possible to carry out, e.g. manned space trips. It is not only unsafe, it means certain death for any human beings aboard ... and I list the reasons. Of course plenty dreamers believing fake footage of all sorts have other ideas. I call them twerps.There is no safety in space! Human beings cannot enter space. No human beings have ever been in space. We are all stuck on Earth for ever.*sigh* You're always going on and on about things that can't be done. What kind of engineer has that kind of attitude? A piss poor one, if you ask me. A good engineer should always be thinking about how to do things that can't be done. The word "can't" should not be in an engineer's vocabulary.
But you're a liar. You don't explain anything you just claim you don't understand so it must be fake. The only thing you prove is your own ignorance.Well, I don't say things can't be done. I explain at my website why certain things are not possible to carry out, e.g. manned space trips. It is not only unsafe, it means certain death for any human beings aboard ... and I list the reasons. Of course plenty dreamers believing fake footage of all sorts have other ideas. I call them twerps.There is no safety in space! Human beings cannot enter space. No human beings have ever been in space. We are all stuck on Earth for ever.*sigh* You're always going on and on about things that can't be done. What kind of engineer has that kind of attitude? A piss poor one, if you ask me. A good engineer should always be thinking about how to do things that can't be done. The word "can't" should not be in an engineer's vocabulary.
I don't say things can't be done. I just explain why they're not possible. lolYes, certain things are not possible ... like explaining to a twerp anything.
I don't say things can't be done. I just explain why they're not possible. lolYes, certain things are not possible ... like explaining to a twerp anything.
Yes, we share that same frustration when trying to explain to you why manned space travel and reentry are possible (if you're clever enough).I don't say things can't be done. I just explain why they're not possible. lolYes, certain things are not possible ... like explaining to a twerp anything.
Yes, we share that same frustration when trying to explain to you why manned space travel and reentry are possible (if you're clever enough).I don't say things can't be done. I just explain why they're not possible. lolYes, certain things are not possible ... like explaining to a twerp anything.
(https://chatsworthconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/week145.jpg)
By applying the proper force at the right time and for the necessary duration. In this case, SpaceX actually overshot their intended orbit.Yes, we share that same frustration when trying to explain to you why manned space travel and reentry are possible (if you're clever enough).I don't say things can't be done. I just explain why they're not possible. lolYes, certain things are not possible ... like explaining to a twerp anything.
(https://chatsworthconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/week145.jpg)
Please remind me -
1. How to extend an orbit around Earth to an orbit around the Sun by applying a force in initial orbit, and....
2. How to find the location above Earth to start a re-entry, then how to penetrate the atmosphere while braking so you land by using parachutes in front of a reception crowd.First of all, I don't believe that there has ever been a parachute recovery done in front of a reception crowd. Usually they're done in remote areas or out at sea.
It seems NASA and Lone Skum cannot do it.Yes, it might seem that way if you ignore all of the times that NASA and SpaceX did just that.
By applying the proper force at the right time and for the necessary duration. In this case, SpaceX actually overshot their intended orbit.Yes, we share that same frustration when trying to explain to you why manned space travel and reentry are possible (if you're clever enough).I don't say things can't be done. I just explain why they're not possible. lolYes, certain things are not possible ... like explaining to a twerp anything.
(https://chatsworthconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/week145.jpg)
Please remind me -
1. How to extend an orbit around Earth to an orbit around the Sun by applying a force in initial orbit, and....2. How to find the location above Earth to start a re-entry, then how to penetrate the atmosphere while braking so you land by using parachutes in front of a reception crowd.First of all, I don't believe that there has ever been a parachute recovery done in front of a reception crowd. Usually they're done in remote areas or out at sea.
Secondly, this document should give you an idea of how atmospheric reentry is calculated:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/cami/library/online_libraries/aerospace_medicine/tutorial/media/III.4.1.7_Returning_from_Space.pdf
Thirdly, reentry isn't really relevant to this particular topic. That is unless you're referring to the booster recovery, which doesn't use parachutes (except for the fairings). Even then, the boosters and fairings never reached orbital velocity, so the reentry forces and considerations are quite different.It seems NASA and Lone Skum cannot do it.Yes, it might seem that way if you ignore all of the times that NASA and SpaceX did just that.
What's not to believe? The force applied depends on what you want your new orbit to look like. I assume that you believe that that it's possible to transfer from LEO to geosynchronous orbit, so why shouldn't it be possible to apply a greater force to go beyond that?By applying the proper force at the right time and for the necessary duration. In this case, SpaceX actually overshot their intended orbit.Yes, we share that same frustration when trying to explain to you why manned space travel and reentry are possible (if you're clever enough).I don't say things can't be done. I just explain why they're not possible. lolYes, certain things are not possible ... like explaining to a twerp anything.
(https://chatsworthconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/week145.jpg)
Please remind me -
1. How to extend an orbit around Earth to an orbit around the Sun by applying a force in initial orbit, and....2. How to find the location above Earth to start a re-entry, then how to penetrate the atmosphere while braking so you land by using parachutes in front of a reception crowd.First of all, I don't believe that there has ever been a parachute recovery done in front of a reception crowd. Usually they're done in remote areas or out at sea.
Secondly, this document should give you an idea of how atmospheric reentry is calculated:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/cami/library/online_libraries/aerospace_medicine/tutorial/media/III.4.1.7_Returning_from_Space.pdf
Thirdly, reentry isn't really relevant to this particular topic. That is unless you're referring to the booster recovery, which doesn't use parachutes (except for the fairings). Even then, the boosters and fairings never reached orbital velocity, so the reentry forces and considerations are quite different.It seems NASA and Lone Skum cannot do it.Yes, it might seem that way if you ignore all of the times that NASA and SpaceX did just that.
Thanks. Re 1 - I don't believe you. I need more details of the force applied. Don't you agree that as soon as you stop applying the extra force out of Earth orbit, you will drop straight back on Earth again.
Re 2 - I talk about Lone Skum's idea to take a trip with tourists around the Moon in one of his spacecrafts and then land it again on Earth. How is the re-entry and landing done? Any idea?Did you read that document that I linked? If you don't want to believe NASA or the FAA about reentry, then I don't know what I could tell you that you would believe. Maybe you should ask the Russians or the Chinese how they do it. I don't think that they would lie about such things, would they?
They can't do it? If only you had some evidence to support your bullshit. You don't of course or you would post it here.Yes, we share that same frustration when trying to explain to you why manned space travel and reentry are possible (if you're clever enough).I don't say things can't be done. I just explain why they're not possible. lolYes, certain things are not possible ... like explaining to a twerp anything.
(https://chatsworthconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/week145.jpg)
Please remind me -
1. How to extend an orbit around Earth to an orbit around the Sun by applying a force in initial orbit, and
2. How to find the location above Earth to start a re-entry, then how to penetrate the atmosphere while braking so you land by using parachutes in front of a reception crowd.
It seems NASA and Lone Skum cannot do it.
What's not to believe? The force applied depends on what you want your new orbit to look like. I assume that you believe that that it's possible to transfer from LEO to geosynchronous orbit, so why shouldn't it be possible to apply a greater force to go beyond that?By applying the proper force at the right time and for the necessary duration. In this case, SpaceX actually overshot their intended orbit.Yes, we share that same frustration when trying to explain to you why manned space travel and reentry are possible (if you're clever enough).I don't say things can't be done. I just explain why they're not possible. lolYes, certain things are not possible ... like explaining to a twerp anything.
(https://chatsworthconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/week145.jpg)
Please remind me -
1. How to extend an orbit around Earth to an orbit around the Sun by applying a force in initial orbit, and....2. How to find the location above Earth to start a re-entry, then how to penetrate the atmosphere while braking so you land by using parachutes in front of a reception crowd.First of all, I don't believe that there has ever been a parachute recovery done in front of a reception crowd. Usually they're done in remote areas or out at sea.
Secondly, this document should give you an idea of how atmospheric reentry is calculated:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/cami/library/online_libraries/aerospace_medicine/tutorial/media/III.4.1.7_Returning_from_Space.pdf
Thirdly, reentry isn't really relevant to this particular topic. That is unless you're referring to the booster recovery, which doesn't use parachutes (except for the fairings). Even then, the boosters and fairings never reached orbital velocity, so the reentry forces and considerations are quite different.It seems NASA and Lone Skum cannot do it.Yes, it might seem that way if you ignore all of the times that NASA and SpaceX did just that.
Thanks. Re 1 - I don't believe you. I need more details of the force applied. Don't you agree that as soon as you stop applying the extra force out of Earth orbit, you will drop straight back on Earth again.Re 2 - I talk about Lone Skum's idea to take a trip with tourists around the Moon in one of his spacecrafts and then land it again on Earth. How is the re-entry and landing done? Any idea?Did you read that document that I linked? If you don't want to believe NASA or the FAA about reentry, then I don't know what I could tell you that you would believe. Maybe you should ask the Russians or the Chinese how they do it. I don't think that they would lie about such things, would they?
Re 1. It is easy to put any object in orbit around Earth - EPO, GTO, etc. - starting from Earth. The object never leaves Earth! It is orbiting Earth! My dear Arianespace does it all the times. But from orbit Earth to orbit the Sun?Opinions are not facts. What factual basis do you have for thinking that it isn't possible to transfer orbit from one body to another. If anything, transferring from a geocentric orbit to a heliocentric orbit should be relatively easy when you consider the fact that the earth is already orbiting the sun.
They are two completely different orbits.
IMHO it is not possible to go from orbit Earth to orbit Sun.
Re 2. No, I didn't read it. I just wonder how you would do it.I would probably either consult some reference materials (like the one that you didn't read) or an aerospace engineer with experience in atmospheric reentry design. I sure as hell wouldn't whine about it not being possible.
Re 1. It is easy to put any object in orbit around Earth - EPO, GTO, etc. - starting from Earth. The object never leaves Earth! It is orbiting Earth! My dear Arianespace does it all the times. But from orbit Earth to orbit the Sun?Opinions are not facts. What factual basis do you have for thinking that it isn't possible to transfer orbit from one body to another. If anything, transferring from a geocentric orbit to a heliocentric orbit should be relatively easy when you consider the fact that the earth is already orbiting the sun.
They are two completely different orbits.
IMHO it is not possible to go from orbit Earth to orbit Sun.Re 2. No, I didn't read it. I just wonder how you would do it.I would probably either consult some reference materials (like the one that you didn't read) or an aerospace engineer with experience in atmospheric reentry design. I sure as hell wouldn't whine about it not being possible.
But you are a proven pathological liar. There is no evidence posted at your website, just you saying you aren't smart enough to understand it so it must be fake. That's why you are such a pathetic failure. You have no evidence but claim you do. Your challenge is a known fake. You are nothing but a liar, a failure and a fraud. Everyone knows this.Re 1. It is easy to put any object in orbit around Earth - EPO, GTO, etc. - starting from Earth. The object never leaves Earth! It is orbiting Earth! My dear Arianespace does it all the times. But from orbit Earth to orbit the Sun?Opinions are not facts. What factual basis do you have for thinking that it isn't possible to transfer orbit from one body to another. If anything, transferring from a geocentric orbit to a heliocentric orbit should be relatively easy when you consider the fact that the earth is already orbiting the sun.
They are two completely different orbits.
IMHO it is not possible to go from orbit Earth to orbit Sun.Re 2. No, I didn't read it. I just wonder how you would do it.I would probably either consult some reference materials (like the one that you didn't read) or an aerospace engineer with experience in atmospheric reentry design. I sure as hell wouldn't whine about it not being possible.
Re 1. Yes, it is an opinion. An object in geocentric orbit is orbiting around Earth. It is a satellite. An object in heliocentric orbit is orbiting around the Sun. It is a planet or asteroid. And my opinion is that a satellite cannot shift from a geocentric orbit (around Earth) to a heliocentric orbit (around the Sun) by applying a force to it. You say it is easy, so show how it is done! What kind of force can shift a satellite from two completely different orbits?
I on the other hand show that it is not possible at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . Have you ever studied it?
Re 2. Yes I have consulted dr. Buzz Aldrins scientific PhD thesis about re-entry. You apply a 'heat shield' to your spacecraft - it is made of Avcot (lol) and just hope for the best. Before that you had a 'brake rocket' to stop the speed but for that you needed fuel ... that you didn't have. Only twerps believe re-entries are possibly. What sect do you belong too? Heat shield or brake rocket?
Sorry, wrong as usual. All info including scientific papers (and who published them) are at http://heiwaco.com . And also at FB. Why should I publish fake info about myself and others? Everyone talks about Fake News in the media today, incl. social media. I just publish some old Fake News at my website and some twerps, like you, get upset.But you are a proven pathological liar. There is no evidence posted at your website, just you saying you aren't smart enough to understand it so it must be fake. That's why you are such a pathetic failure. You have no evidence but claim you do. Your challenge is a known fake. You are nothing but a liar, a failure and a fraud. Everyone knows this.Re 1. It is easy to put any object in orbit around Earth - EPO, GTO, etc. - starting from Earth. The object never leaves Earth! It is orbiting Earth! My dear Arianespace does it all the times. But from orbit Earth to orbit the Sun?Opinions are not facts. What factual basis do you have for thinking that it isn't possible to transfer orbit from one body to another. If anything, transferring from a geocentric orbit to a heliocentric orbit should be relatively easy when you consider the fact that the earth is already orbiting the sun.
They are two completely different orbits.
IMHO it is not possible to go from orbit Earth to orbit Sun.Re 2. No, I didn't read it. I just wonder how you would do it.I would probably either consult some reference materials (like the one that you didn't read) or an aerospace engineer with experience in atmospheric reentry design. I sure as hell wouldn't whine about it not being possible.
Re 1. Yes, it is an opinion. An object in geocentric orbit is orbiting around Earth. It is a satellite. An object in heliocentric orbit is orbiting around the Sun. It is a planet or asteroid. And my opinion is that a satellite cannot shift from a geocentric orbit (around Earth) to a heliocentric orbit (around the Sun) by applying a force to it. You say it is easy, so show how it is done! What kind of force can shift a satellite from two completely different orbits?
I on the other hand show that it is not possible at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . Have you ever studied it?
Re 2. Yes I have consulted dr. Buzz Aldrins scientific PhD thesis about re-entry. You apply a 'heat shield' to your spacecraft - it is made of Avcot (lol) and just hope for the best. Before that you had a 'brake rocket' to stop the speed but for that you needed fuel ... that you didn't have. Only twerps believe re-entries are possibly. What sect do you belong too? Heat shield or brake rocket?
For instance you claim to have written well respected scientific papers. But when asked who published them, you run away. Even the pictures on your Facebook page have been proven to be fake.
Of course you could prove me wrong and show your evidence here, but, alas, you are a coward as well and will not or rather, cannot.
Re 1. Yes, it is an opinion. An object in geocentric orbit is orbiting around Earth. It is a satellite. An object in heliocentric orbit is orbiting around the Sun. It is a planet or asteroid. And my opinion is that a satellite cannot shift from a geocentric orbit (around Earth) to a heliocentric orbit (around the Sun) by applying a force to it. You say it is easy, so show how it is done! What kind of force can shift a satellite from two completely different orbits?And opinions are often wrong. Luna I accidentally entered a heliocentric orbit,
I on the other hand show that it is not possible at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . Have you ever studied it?
Hi All,
I am not sure whether this is of interest to the community, but next year will see three rather significant
50th anniversaries in unmanned lunar and interplanetary spaceflight, those of Luna-1, the first probe to escape the gravitational field of the Earth (lunar impact intended),
Luna-2, the first probe to actually hit the Moon and Luna 3, the first probe to image the Moon's far side.
Luna-1 was launched on 2nd January 1959 and flew by the Moon on the 4th of the same month at a
distance of 6000 km on its way to heliocentric orbit.
Re 1. Yes, it is an opinion. An object in geocentric orbit is orbiting around Earth. It is a satellite. An object in heliocentric orbit is orbiting around the Sun. It is a planet or asteroid. And my opinion is that a satellite cannot shift from a geocentric orbit (around Earth) to a heliocentric orbit (around the Sun) by applying a force to it. You say it is easy, so show how it is done! What kind of force can shift a satellite from two completely different orbits?And opinions are often wrong. Luna I accidentally entered a heliocentric orbit,
I on the other hand show that it is not possible at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . Have you ever studied it?>:( but, of course, that's impossible, Heiwa said so and he's never wrong! ;D
Re 1. Yes, it is an opinion. An object in geocentric orbit is orbiting around Earth. It is a satellite. An object in heliocentric orbit is orbiting around the Sun. It is a planet or asteroid. And my opinion is that a satellite cannot shift from a geocentric orbit (around Earth) to a heliocentric orbit (around the Sun) by applying a force to it. You say it is easy, so show how it is done! What kind of force can shift a satellite from two completely different orbits?First of all, I have never said that it was easy. I said relatively easy. You should really learn the difference.
I on the other hand show that it is not possible at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . Have you ever studied it?If you won't read the links that I supply, then why should I read yours?
Re 2. Yes I have consulted dr. Buzz Aldrins scientific PhD thesis about re-entry. You apply a 'heat shield' to your spacecraft - it is made of Avcot (lol) and just hope for the best.*sigh* I think that most people would insist on some fairly rigorous testing of the heat shield before they "just hope for the best".
Before that you had a 'brake rocket' to stop the speed but for that you needed fuel ... that you didn't have.Why do you keep thinking that SpaceX (or anyone else, for that matter) would even attempt a reentry (let alone landing) without making sure that they would have enough fuel? Do you honestly think that no one would have thought about the fuel requirements ahead of time?
Only twerps believe re-entries are possibly.Ad hominem noted.
What sect do you belong too? Heat shield or brake rocket?It depends on the situation.
Re 1. Yes, it is an opinion. An object in geocentric orbit is orbiting around Earth. It is a satellite. An object in heliocentric orbit is orbiting around the Sun. It is a planet or asteroid. And my opinion is that a satellite cannot shift from a geocentric orbit (around Earth) to a heliocentric orbit (around the Sun) by applying a force to it. You say it is easy, so show how it is done! What kind of force can shift a satellite from two completely different orbits?First of all, I have never said that it was easy. I said relatively easy. You should really learn the difference.
Secondly, do you understand the concept of escape velocity? It's the notion that if you go fast enough, then you can escape the earth's gravitational influence. You may want to do a little research on the topic.
But question is how you escape from one orbit around Earth to another orbit around the Sun. Any ideas?By applying the appropriate Delta-V at the appropriate time.
But question is how you escape from one orbit around Earth to another orbit around the Sun. Any ideas?By applying the appropriate Delta-V at the appropriate time.
;D ;D But your will of course disprove that! ;D ;D
If you don't escape at 11.186 km/s, then why would they call it escape velocity?Re 1. Yes, it is an opinion. An object in geocentric orbit is orbiting around Earth. It is a satellite. An object in heliocentric orbit is orbiting around the Sun. It is a planet or asteroid. And my opinion is that a satellite cannot shift from a geocentric orbit (around Earth) to a heliocentric orbit (around the Sun) by applying a force to it. You say it is easy, so show how it is done! What kind of force can shift a satellite from two completely different orbits?First of all, I have never said that it was easy. I said relatively easy. You should really learn the difference.
Secondly, do you understand the concept of escape velocity? It's the notion that if you go fast enough, then you can escape the earth's gravitational influence. You may want to do a little research on the topic.
Yes, I describe 'escape velocity' at my website. According to - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity - escape velocity is the minimum speed needed for an object to escape from the gravitational influence of a massive body. The escape velocity from Earth is about 11.186 km/s. However with that speed you don’t escape at all!
When Apollo 11 (never) went to the Moon it never escaped Earth gravity until it was caught by Moon gravity. Apollo 11 was slowed down by Earth gravity most of the way to the Moon.First of all, Apollo 11 never intended to achieve escape velocity. They used a free return trajectory which was essentially a highly elliptical earth orbit that reached out to the moon.
For a spherically symmetric, massive body such as a star, or planet, the escape velocity for that body, at a given distance, is calculated by the formula[3]
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/f74d7bf2a53c4a4d6960295523b030d6755cd11e)
where G is the universal gravitational constant (G ≈ 6.67×10−11 m3·kg−1·s−2), M the mass of the body to be escaped from, and r the distance from the center of mass of the body to the object.[nb 2] The relationship is independent of the mass of the object escaping the massive body.
But question is how you escape from one orbit around Earth to another orbit around the Sun. Any ideas?Sure. Apply enough delta v to achieve orbital velocity around the sun.
If you don't escape at 11.186 km/s, then why would they call it escape velocity?Re 1. Yes, it is an opinion. An object in geocentric orbit is orbiting around Earth. It is a satellite. An object in heliocentric orbit is orbiting around the Sun. It is a planet or asteroid. And my opinion is that a satellite cannot shift from a geocentric orbit (around Earth) to a heliocentric orbit (around the Sun) by applying a force to it. You say it is easy, so show how it is done! What kind of force can shift a satellite from two completely different orbits?First of all, I have never said that it was easy. I said relatively easy. You should really learn the difference.
Secondly, do you understand the concept of escape velocity? It's the notion that if you go fast enough, then you can escape the earth's gravitational influence. You may want to do a little research on the topic.
Yes, I describe 'escape velocity' at my website. According to - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity - escape velocity is the minimum speed needed for an object to escape from the gravitational influence of a massive body. The escape velocity from Earth is about 11.186 km/s. However with that speed you don’t escape at all!When Apollo 11 (never) went to the Moon it never escaped Earth gravity until it was caught by Moon gravity. Apollo 11 was slowed down by Earth gravity most of the way to the Moon.First of all, Apollo 11 never intended to achieve escape velocity. They used a free return trajectory which was essentially a highly elliptical earth orbit that reached out to the moon.
Secondly, escape velocity changes depending on how far you are away from the body that you're trying to escape from. It doesn't matter how much that body's gravity well slows you down as long as your velocity never reaches zero. Here is the formula for escape velocity:Quote from: https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/f74d7bf2a53c4a4d6960295523b030d6755cd11eFor a spherically symmetric, massive body such as a star, or planet, the escape velocity for that body, at a given distance, is calculated by the formula[3]
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/f74d7bf2a53c4a4d6960295523b030d6755cd11e)
where G is the universal gravitational constant (G ≈ 6.67×10−11 m3·kg−1·s−2), M the mass of the body to be escaped from, and r the distance from the center of mass of the body to the object.[nb 2] The relationship is independent of the mass of the object escaping the massive body.But question is how you escape from one orbit around Earth to another orbit around the Sun. Any ideas?Sure. Apply enough delta v to achieve orbital velocity around the sun.
You haven't understood much, have you? You cannot escape from Earth with a velocity 11 186 m/s. With that start velocity you may reach the Moon after a couple of days but then you drop back again. It is a free return ... to death.What do you suppose would happen if you escape from earth with a velocity of 11,500 m/s or greater?
So what is orbital velocity around the Sun at 1 AU. It is about 30 000 m/s. Earth orbits the Sun at a little less speed. So every rocket starting from Earth has already that speed ... orbiting the Sun. But before you can start orbiting the Sun starting from Earth, you have to get away from orbiting Earth.You do realize that the earth's gravitational sphere of influence is not infinite, don't you? Past a certain point, the sun's gravitational influence becomes greater than the earth's.
But how? 11 186 m/s? No, after a couple of days in space Earth gravity pulls you back and you are ... dead.
You haven't understood much, have you? You cannot escape from Earth with a velocity 11 186 m/s. With that start velocity you may reach the Moon after a couple of days but then you drop back again. It is a free return ... to death.What do you suppose would happen if you escape from earth with a velocity of 11,500 m/s or greater?So what is orbital velocity around the Sun at 1 AU. It is about 30 000 m/s. Earth orbits the Sun at a little less speed. So every rocket starting from Earth has already that speed ... orbiting the Sun. But before you can start orbiting the Sun starting from Earth, you have to get away from orbiting Earth.You do realize that the earth's gravitational sphere of influence is not infinite, don't you? Past a certain point, the sun's gravitational influence becomes greater than the earth's.
But how? 11 186 m/s? No, after a couple of days in space Earth gravity pulls you back and you are ... dead.
Here is another document that explains interplanetary transfers quite nicely. However I'm quite sure that you'll just ignore it like everything else that might cause you to learn something:
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-07-dynamics-fall-2009/lecture-notes/MIT16_07F09_Lec17.pdf
If you escape from Earth at 11 600 m/s speed, you will after a couple of days have speed 0 and drop back on Earth. Everything thrown away from Earth at that speed comes down again. Gravity!Nope. At 11,600 m/s, you will escape the earth's gravitational sphere of influence before your speed reaches zero. You do understand that gravity obeys the inverse-square law, don't you? The further you get away from earth, the slower the rate of deceleration.
Only twerps like you believe otherwise. But why do you do it? Are you stupid. Or paid for it?It appears that twerps are smarter than you, so I'll gladly consider myself a twerp.
Well, you don't know nothing about rocket science ... and are a twerp.If you escape from Earth at 11 600 m/s speed, you will after a couple of days have speed 0 and drop back on Earth. Everything thrown away from Earth at that speed comes down again. Gravity!Nope. At 11,600 m/s, you will escape the earth's gravitational sphere of influence before your speed reaches zero. You do understand that gravity obeys the inverse-square law, don't you? The further you get away from earth, the slower the rate of deceleration.Only twerps like you believe otherwise. But why do you do it? Are you stupid. Or paid for it?It appears that twerps are smarter than you, so I'll gladly consider myself a twerp.
Hmmm.... I don't know nothing? That must mean that I do know something (like don't use double negatives).Well, you don't know nothing about rocket science ... and are a twerp.If you escape from Earth at 11 600 m/s speed, you will after a couple of days have speed 0 and drop back on Earth. Everything thrown away from Earth at that speed comes down again. Gravity!Nope. At 11,600 m/s, you will escape the earth's gravitational sphere of influence before your speed reaches zero. You do understand that gravity obeys the inverse-square law, don't you? The further you get away from earth, the slower the rate of deceleration.Only twerps like you believe otherwise. But why do you do it? Are you stupid. Or paid for it?It appears that twerps are smarter than you, so I'll gladly consider myself a twerp.
You are right. You are a twerp. So why do you waste your time here? I promote my popular website and Challenges but you? 0!Hmmm.... I don't know nothing? That must mean that I do know something (like don't use double negatives).Well, you don't know nothing about rocket science ... and are a twerp.If you escape from Earth at 11 600 m/s speed, you will after a couple of days have speed 0 and drop back on Earth. Everything thrown away from Earth at that speed comes down again. Gravity!Nope. At 11,600 m/s, you will escape the earth's gravitational sphere of influence before your speed reaches zero. You do understand that gravity obeys the inverse-square law, don't you? The further you get away from earth, the slower the rate of deceleration.Only twerps like you believe otherwise. But why do you do it? Are you stupid. Or paid for it?It appears that twerps are smarter than you, so I'll gladly consider myself a twerp.
So we invariably come to the point where someone points out all of your mistakes and you have nothing left but insults.You are right. You are a twerp. So why do you waste your time here? I promote my popular website and Challenges but you? 0!Hmmm.... I don't know nothing? That must mean that I do know something (like don't use double negatives).Well, you don't know nothing about rocket science ... and are a twerp.If you escape from Earth at 11 600 m/s speed, you will after a couple of days have speed 0 and drop back on Earth. Everything thrown away from Earth at that speed comes down again. Gravity!Nope. At 11,600 m/s, you will escape the earth's gravitational sphere of influence before your speed reaches zero. You do understand that gravity obeys the inverse-square law, don't you? The further you get away from earth, the slower the rate of deceleration.Only twerps like you believe otherwise. But why do you do it? Are you stupid. Or paid for it?It appears that twerps are smarter than you, so I'll gladly consider myself a twerp.
You are right. You are a twerp. So why do you waste your time here? I promote my popular website and Challenges but you? 0!Hmmm.... I don't know nothing? That must mean that I do know something (like don't use double negatives).Well, you don't know nothing about rocket science ... and are a twerp.If you escape from Earth at 11 600 m/s speed, you will after a couple of days have speed 0 and drop back on Earth. Everything thrown away from Earth at that speed comes down again. Gravity!Nope. At 11,600 m/s, you will escape the earth's gravitational sphere of influence before your speed reaches zero. You do understand that gravity obeys the inverse-square law, don't you? The further you get away from earth, the slower the rate of deceleration.Only twerps like you believe otherwise. But why do you do it? Are you stupid. Or paid for it?It appears that twerps are smarter than you, so I'll gladly consider myself a twerp.
I still wonder how a self-proclaimed expert at safety at sea can honestly believe that he knows more about rocket science than actual rocket scientists.
If only you had some evidence to support that steaming pile of shit. Obviously you don't or you would post it here. Your website contains none, just you admitting you are too stupid too understand so it must all be fake. You can't even prove you have the money for your challenges.Why do you write this nonsense?
Even your Facebook page is filled with fake pictures. We've proven that here.
Just more failures by a sad little man.
If it were nonsense you would prove me wrong. Instead you spend page after page squirming and dodging. Prove me wrong or admit you fail.If only you had some evidence to support that steaming pile of shit. Obviously you don't or you would post it here. Your website contains none, just you admitting you are too stupid too understand so it must all be fake. You can't even prove you have the money for your challenges.Why do you write this nonsense?
Even your Facebook page is filled with fake pictures. We've proven that here.
Just more failures by a sad little man.
Example - no rocket scientist I know can explain how to shift from one orbit around Earth to another orbit around the Sun, or, how to travel safely to the Moon. All info I get are fantasies! Same with this Lone Skum clown.Fundamentally, transferring from earth orbit to moon or sun orbit isn't that much different than transferring from LEO to geostationary orbit. The same problems of knowing exactly where you are in 3D space so that you can apply the right force at the right time exist for both, yet you claim that one is possible but the other isn't.
It seems you don't know the difference of a spaceship orbiting Earth and the Sun.Example - no rocket scientist I know can explain how to shift from one orbit around Earth to another orbit around the Sun, or, how to travel safely to the Moon. All info I get are fantasies! Same with this Lone Skum clown.Fundamentally, transferring from earth orbit to moon or sun orbit isn't that much different than transferring from LEO to geostationary orbit. The same problems of knowing exactly where you are in 3D space so that you can apply the right force at the right time exist for both, yet you claim that one is possible but the other isn't.
The difference is which gravity well has the greater influence.It seems you don't know the difference of a spaceship orbiting Earth and the Sun.Example - no rocket scientist I know can explain how to shift from one orbit around Earth to another orbit around the Sun, or, how to travel safely to the Moon. All info I get are fantasies! Same with this Lone Skum clown.Fundamentally, transferring from earth orbit to moon or sun orbit isn't that much different than transferring from LEO to geostationary orbit. The same problems of knowing exactly where you are in 3D space so that you can apply the right force at the right time exist for both, yet you claim that one is possible but the other isn't.
When the spaceship orbits Earth at different altitudes - LEO or GEO - there is balance of the forces between Earth and the spacecraft. Earth gravity force on the spacecraft and the forces acting on the spacecraft balance perfectly in orbits of different altitudes.The same general way that you know how to apply the right force at the right time and in the right direction to transfer from LEO to geostationary orbit, except it's going to be a bigger force to escape the earth's gravity well.
The same thing happens when the spaceship orbits the Sun.
Evidently a spaceship cannot orbit Earth and the Sun at the same time.
A spaceship can only orbit one heavenly body at a time.
So how do you shift from orbit Earth to orbit Sun? You apply a force? But how? When, where, in what direction, how big, for how long, how much fuel used, etc, etc?
The difference is which gravity well has the greater influence.It seems you don't know the difference of a spaceship orbiting Earth and the Sun.Example - no rocket scientist I know can explain how to shift from one orbit around Earth to another orbit around the Sun, or, how to travel safely to the Moon. All info I get are fantasies! Same with this Lone Skum clown.Fundamentally, transferring from earth orbit to moon or sun orbit isn't that much different than transferring from LEO to geostationary orbit. The same problems of knowing exactly where you are in 3D space so that you can apply the right force at the right time exist for both, yet you claim that one is possible but the other isn't.When the spaceship orbits Earth at different altitudes - LEO or GEO - there is balance of the forces between Earth and the spacecraft. Earth gravity force on the spacecraft and the forces acting on the spacecraft balance perfectly in orbits of different altitudes.The same general way that you know how to apply the right force at the right time and in the right direction to transfer from LEO to geostationary orbit, except it's going to be a bigger force to escape the earth's gravity well.
The same thing happens when the spaceship orbits the Sun.
Evidently a spaceship cannot orbit Earth and the Sun at the same time.
A spaceship can only orbit one heavenly body at a time.
So how do you shift from orbit Earth to orbit Sun? You apply a force? But how? When, where, in what direction, how big, for how long, how much fuel used, etc, etc?
So you don't know how to shift from orbit Earth to orbit Sun! You don't know what force to apply! And how! When, where, in what direction, how big, for how long, how much fuel used, etc, etc!If you already know how to transfer from LEO to geostationary orbit, then it isn't that much more difficult to figure out how to transfer from a geocentric orbit to a heliocentric orbit. I've already provided several references that show you how to make the calculations. It isn't my job to spoon feed you.
Reason is that it is not possible.
So you don't know how to shift from orbit Earth to orbit Sun! You don't know what force to apply! And how! When, where, in what direction, how big, for how long, how much fuel used, etc, etc!If you already know how to transfer from LEO to geostationary orbit, then it isn't that much more difficult to figure out how to transfer from a geocentric orbit to a heliocentric orbit. I've already provided several references that show you how to make the calculations. It isn't my job to spoon feed you.
Reason is that it is not possible.
Hm, so you cannot explain how to transfer from a small little LEO (around Earth) to a millions times greater heliocentric orbit (around the Sun)?! Earth gravity force is easy to handle - just jump out of your bed - but Sun gravity force is million times greater and difficult to handle. Have you tried?So you don't know how to shift from orbit Earth to orbit Sun! You don't know what force to apply! And how! When, where, in what direction, how big, for how long, how much fuel used, etc, etc!If you already know how to transfer from LEO to geostationary orbit, then it isn't that much more difficult to figure out how to transfer from a geocentric orbit to a heliocentric orbit. I've already provided several references that show you how to make the calculations. It isn't my job to spoon feed you.
Reason is that it is not possible.
*sigh*Hm, so you cannot explain how to transfer from a small little LEO (around Earth) to a millions times greater heliocentric orbit (around the Sun)?! Earth gravity force is easy to handle - just jump out of your bed - but Sun gravity force is million times greater and difficult to handle. Have you tried?So you don't know how to shift from orbit Earth to orbit Sun! You don't know what force to apply! And how! When, where, in what direction, how big, for how long, how much fuel used, etc, etc!If you already know how to transfer from LEO to geostationary orbit, then it isn't that much more difficult to figure out how to transfer from a geocentric orbit to a heliocentric orbit. I've already provided several references that show you how to make the calculations. It isn't my job to spoon feed you.
Reason is that it is not possible.
See you are assuming he is a rational, thinking human being.*sigh*Hm, so you cannot explain how to transfer from a small little LEO (around Earth) to a millions times greater heliocentric orbit (around the Sun)?! Earth gravity force is easy to handle - just jump out of your bed - but Sun gravity force is million times greater and difficult to handle. Have you tried?So you don't know how to shift from orbit Earth to orbit Sun! You don't know what force to apply! And how! When, where, in what direction, how big, for how long, how much fuel used, etc, etc!If you already know how to transfer from LEO to geostationary orbit, then it isn't that much more difficult to figure out how to transfer from a geocentric orbit to a heliocentric orbit. I've already provided several references that show you how to make the calculations. It isn't my job to spoon feed you.
Reason is that it is not possible.
The earth orbits the sun. Therefore, once you escape the earth's gravity well, you're still in the sun's gravity well, so that means that you're pretty much automatically in a solar orbit. That is unless you can achieve the escape velocity of the sun.
Yes, Earth and other planets orbit the Sun since billions of years but question here is how to transfer a little satellite or spacecraft orbiting Earth at small altitude to orbit the Sun at say 1 Astronomical Unit altitude.*sigh*Hm, so you cannot explain how to transfer from a small little LEO (around Earth) to a millions times greater heliocentric orbit (around the Sun)?! Earth gravity force is easy to handle - just jump out of your bed - but Sun gravity force is million times greater and difficult to handle. Have you tried?So you don't know how to shift from orbit Earth to orbit Sun! You don't know what force to apply! And how! When, where, in what direction, how big, for how long, how much fuel used, etc, etc!If you already know how to transfer from LEO to geostationary orbit, then it isn't that much more difficult to figure out how to transfer from a geocentric orbit to a heliocentric orbit. I've already provided several references that show you how to make the calculations. It isn't my job to spoon feed you.
Reason is that it is not possible.
The earth orbits the sun. Therefore, once you escape the earth's gravity well, you're still in the sun's gravity well, so that means that you're pretty much automatically in a solar orbit. That is unless you can achieve the escape velocity of the sun.
Your proposal that a satellite, by simply escaping Earth gravity, suddenly starts to orbit the Sun far away is preposterous.This completely unsupported statement is preposterous.
Your proposal that a satellite, by simply escaping Earth gravity, suddenly starts to orbit the Sun far away is preposterous.This completely unsupported statement is preposterous.
Your lack of understanding does not constitute evidence.Your proposal that a satellite, by simply escaping Earth gravity, suddenly starts to orbit the Sun far away is preposterous.This completely unsupported statement is preposterous.
Well, think about it. Your spaceship orbits our planet Earth at say 400 km altitude. It has been put in EPO by a rocket. One orbit takes say 90 minutes. It is actually Earth gravity and your forward motion in orbit that keeps you there.
Now you want to change track and start to orbit the Sun at 150 000 000 km altitude taking about a year. You fire a rocket engine for a few minutes and the force puts you in this new orbit. But how?
The object you orbit around - the Sun - is suddenly 375 000 times further away than the Earth.
My understanding is that if you fire a rocket in EPO, you just modify the shape of the orbit around Earth, i.e. you will still orbit Earth.
You cannot suddenly start orbiting the Sun 375 000 times further away. That is really preposterous.
Your proposal that a satellite, by simply escaping Earth gravity, suddenly starts to orbit the Sun far away is preposterous.This completely unsupported statement is preposterous.
You cannot suddenly start orbiting the Sun 375 000 times further away.
Your proposal that a satellite, by simply escaping Earth gravity, suddenly starts to orbit the Sun far away is preposterous.This completely unsupported statement is preposterous.
You cannot suddenly start orbiting the Sun 375 000 times further away.
Well it has really been orbiting the sun the entire time. Also, the sun is much bigger.
You need to get out of your rut and start thinking again, instead of regurgitating your incorrect thoughts from 60 years ago.
OK.Your proposal that a satellite, by simply escaping Earth gravity, suddenly starts to orbit the Sun far away is preposterous.This completely unsupported statement is preposterous.
You cannot suddenly start orbiting the Sun 375 000 times further away.
Well it has really been orbiting the sun the entire time. Also, the sun is much bigger.
You need to get out of your rut and start thinking again, instead of regurgitating your incorrect thoughts from 60 years ago.
Yes, I know that planet Earth with me aboard orbit the Sun in a year, but I do not orbit Earth. I just type this message in peace and quiet sitting on the Earth.
Same with a satellite really orbiting Earth at 400 km altitude and say 7000 m/s speed. It cannot suddenly startorbitingthe Sun 150 000 000 km away by applying a little force on it.Only twerpsSmart people think so since 60 years.
So how do you shift from orbit Earth to orbit Sun? You apply a force? But how? When, where, in what direction, how big, for how long, how much fuel used, etc, etc?
<snip>Based on what?
Your proposal that a satellite, by simply escaping Earth gravity, suddenly starts to orbit the Sun far away is preposterous. You sound like Lone Skum suggesting that his spacecraft started to orbit planet Mars a few weeks ago.
Newton + common sense.<snip>Based on what?
Your proposal that a satellite, by simply escaping Earth gravity, suddenly starts to orbit the Sun far away is preposterous. You sound like Lone Skum suggesting that his spacecraft started to orbit planet Mars a few weeks ago.
Nope. Care to share your evidence here or would you rather continue to fail?Newton + common sense.<snip>Based on what?
Your proposal that a satellite, by simply escaping Earth gravity, suddenly starts to orbit the Sun far away is preposterous. You sound like Lone Skum suggesting that his spacecraft started to orbit planet Mars a few weeks ago.
I explain all at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm - my very popular website with correct info.Nope. Care to share your evidence here or would you rather continue to fail?Newton + common sense.<snip>Based on what?
Your proposal that a satellite, by simply escaping Earth gravity, suddenly starts to orbit the Sun far away is preposterous. You sound like Lone Skum suggesting that his spacecraft started to orbit planet Mars a few weeks ago.
Newton + common sense.<snip>Based on what?
Your proposal that a satellite, by simply escaping Earth gravity, suddenly starts to orbit the Sun far away is preposterous. You sound like Lone Skum suggesting that his spacecraft started to orbit planet Mars a few weeks ago.
Liar. I've read your website. It's worthless and contains no evidence to support your senile ramblings. Prove me wrong. Post your evidence here. Prove you have the money. Without that you are a failure and your challenge is a fraud.I explain all at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm - my very popular website with correct info.Nope. Care to share your evidence here or would you rather continue to fail?Newton + common sense.<snip>Based on what?
Your proposal that a satellite, by simply escaping Earth gravity, suddenly starts to orbit the Sun far away is preposterous. You sound like Lone Skum suggesting that his spacecraft started to orbit planet Mars a few weeks ago.
Yes, I know that planet Earth with me aboard orbit the Sun in a year, but I do not orbit Earth. I just type this message in peace and quiet sitting on the Earth. Same with a satellite really orbiting Earth at 400 km altitude and say 7000 m/s speed. It cannot suddenly start orbiting the Sun 150 000 000 km away by applying a little force on it. Only twerps think so since 60 years.Yes, but a "a satellite really orbiting Earth at 400 km altitude and say 7000 m/s speed" relative to the earth is also travelling with the earth at a mean orbital velocity of about 29,800 m/s around the sun.
Luna 1
Luna 1, .. . . . .. . . . . was the first spacecraft to reach the vicinity of the Earth's Moon, and the first spacecraft to be placed in heliocentric orbit. Intended as an impactor, Luna 1 was launched as part of the Soviet Luna programme in 1959, however due to an incorrectly timed upper stage burn during its launch, it missed the Moon, in the process becoming the first spacecraft to leave geocentric orbit.
But it seems you do not understand what I say. It is proven by your language.Liar. I've read your website. It's worthless and contains no evidence to support your senile ramblings. Prove me wrong. Post your evidence here. Prove you have the money. Without that you are a failure and your challenge is a fraud.I explain all at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm - my very popular website with correct info.Nope. Care to share your evidence here or would you rather continue to fail?Newton + common sense.<snip>Based on what?
Your proposal that a satellite, by simply escaping Earth gravity, suddenly starts to orbit the Sun far away is preposterous. You sound like Lone Skum suggesting that his spacecraft started to orbit planet Mars a few weeks ago.
Yes, I know that planet Earth with me aboard orbit the Sun in a year, but I do not orbit Earth. I just type this message in peace and quiet sitting on the Earth. Same with a satellite really orbiting Earth at 400 km altitude and say 7000 m/s speed. It cannot suddenly start orbiting the Sun 150 000 000 km away by applying a little force on it. Only twerps think so since 60 years.Yes, but a "a satellite really orbiting Earth at 400 km altitude and say 7000 m/s speed" relative to the earth is also travelling with the earth at a mean orbital velocity of about 29,800 m/s around the sun.
So it already has more than enough velocity to orbit the sun. All that is needed is a burn to get away from earth's gravity.
Without bothering to work out the details, a delta V of about 4 km/s from LEO should do it.QuoteLuna 1
Luna 1, .. . . . .. . . . . was the first spacecraft to reach the vicinity of the Earth's Moon, and the first spacecraft to be placed in heliocentric orbit. Intended as an impactor, Luna 1 was launched as part of the Soviet Luna programme in 1959, however due to an incorrectly timed upper stage burn during its launch, it missed the Moon, in the process becoming the first spacecraft to leave geocentric orbit.
It's funny how everybody except the all-knowing Heiwa knows these things.
But it seems you do not understand what I say.Nobody does. Senile babbling.
I do understand it. You say it is impossible but give no evidence to support this. You say you have the money but give no evidence to support your claim.But it seems you do not understand what I say. It is proven by your language.Liar. I've read your website. It's worthless and contains no evidence to support your senile ramblings. Prove me wrong. Post your evidence here. Prove you have the money. Without that you are a failure and your challenge is a fraud.I explain all at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm - my very popular website with correct info.Nope. Care to share your evidence here or would you rather continue to fail?Newton + common sense.<snip>Based on what?
Your proposal that a satellite, by simply escaping Earth gravity, suddenly starts to orbit the Sun far away is preposterous. You sound like Lone Skum suggesting that his spacecraft started to orbit planet Mars a few weeks ago.
If you can apply the right force in the right direction at the right time to transfer from EPO to geostationary orbit, then why shouldn't you be able to apply the right force in the right direction at the right time to transfer from EPO to a heliocentric orbit? Seriously, I want you to give me a valid reason.Yes, I know that planet Earth with me aboard orbit the Sun in a year, but I do not orbit Earth. I just type this message in peace and quiet sitting on the Earth. Same with a satellite really orbiting Earth at 400 km altitude and say 7000 m/s speed. It cannot suddenly start orbiting the Sun 150 000 000 km away by applying a little force on it. Only twerps think so since 60 years.Yes, but a "a satellite really orbiting Earth at 400 km altitude and say 7000 m/s speed" relative to the earth is also travelling with the earth at a mean orbital velocity of about 29,800 m/s around the sun.
So it already has more than enough velocity to orbit the sun. All that is needed is a burn to get away from earth's gravity.
Without bothering to work out the details, a delta V of about 4 km/s from LEO should do it.QuoteLuna 1
Luna 1, .. . . . .. . . . . was the first spacecraft to reach the vicinity of the Earth's Moon, and the first spacecraft to be placed in heliocentric orbit. Intended as an impactor, Luna 1 was launched as part of the Soviet Luna programme in 1959, however due to an incorrectly timed upper stage burn during its launch, it missed the Moon, in the process becoming the first spacecraft to leave geocentric orbit.
It's funny how everybody except the all-knowing Heiwa knows these things.
Well, you have to get away from Earth in the right direction, at the right time using the correct force in a fast EPO to start a heliocentric hyperbolic trajectory (or what NASA call it?) of the Sun far away and ... that you cannot do.
As soon as the force is no longer applied, you continue to orbit ... Earth.You keep saying that, yet a number of probes have escaped earth orbit. Evidently you are wrong.
Only twerps believe in hyperbolic trajectories. It is called ... rocket science.Only a twerp with no training in the field thinks that he understands rocket science better than professional rocket scientists.
No hyperbolic trajectories are needed! In its LEO orbit, the rocket is already orbiting the Sun and just has to escape the earth's gravity well.Yes, I know that planet Earth with me aboard orbit the Sun in a year, but I do not orbit Earth. I just type this message in peace and quiet sitting on the Earth. Same with a satellite really orbiting Earth at 400 km altitude and say 7000 m/s speed. It cannot suddenly start orbiting the Sun 150 000 000 km away by applying a little force on it. Only twerps think so since 60 years.Yes, but a "a satellite really orbiting Earth at 400 km altitude and say 7000 m/s speed" relative to the earth is also travelling with the earth at a mean orbital velocity of about 29,800 m/s around the sun.
So it already has more than enough velocity to orbit the sun. All that is needed is a burn to get away from earth's gravity.
Without bothering to work out the details, a delta V of about 4 km/s from LEO should do it.QuoteLuna 1
Luna 1, .. . . . .. . . . . was the first spacecraft to reach the vicinity of the Earth's Moon, and the first spacecraft to be placed in heliocentric orbit. Intended as an impactor, Luna 1 was launched as part of the Soviet Luna programme in 1959, however due to an incorrectly timed upper stage burn during its launch, it missed the Moon, in the process becoming the first spacecraft to leave geocentric orbit.
It's funny how everybody except the all-knowing Heiwa knows these things.
Well, you have to get away from Earth in the right direction, at the right time using the correct force in a fast EPO to start a heliocentric hyperbolic trajectory (or what NASA call it?) of the Sun far away and ... that you cannot do. As soon as the force is no longer applied, you continue to orbit ... Earth. Only twerps believe in hyperbolic trajectories. It is called ... rocket science. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#OR .
No hyperbolic trajectories are needed! In its LEO orbit, the rocket is already orbiting the Sun and just has to escape the earth's gravity well.Yes, I know that planet Earth with me aboard orbit the Sun in a year, but I do not orbit Earth. I just type this message in peace and quiet sitting on the Earth. Same with a satellite really orbiting Earth at 400 km altitude and say 7000 m/s speed. It cannot suddenly start orbiting the Sun 150 000 000 km away by applying a little force on it. Only twerps think so since 60 years.Yes, but a "a satellite really orbiting Earth at 400 km altitude and say 7000 m/s speed" relative to the earth is also travelling with the earth at a mean orbital velocity of about 29,800 m/s around the sun.
So it already has more than enough velocity to orbit the sun. All that is needed is a burn to get away from earth's gravity.
Without bothering to work out the details, a delta V of about 4 km/s from LEO should do it.QuoteLuna 1
Luna 1, .. . . . .. . . . . was the first spacecraft to reach the vicinity of the Earth's Moon, and the first spacecraft to be placed in heliocentric orbit. Intended as an impactor, Luna 1 was launched as part of the Soviet Luna programme in 1959, however due to an incorrectly timed upper stage burn during its launch, it missed the Moon, in the process becoming the first spacecraft to leave geocentric orbit.
It's funny how everybody except the all-knowing Heiwa knows these things.
Well, you have to get away from Earth in the right direction, at the right time using the correct force in a fast EPO to start a heliocentric hyperbolic trajectory (or what NASA call it?) of the Sun far away and ... that you cannot do. As soon as the force is no longer applied, you continue to orbit ... Earth. Only twerps believe in hyperbolic trajectories. It is called ... rocket science. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#OR .
Stop uttering total nonsense. The Russians did it quite accidently, simply by missing the moon.
Yes yes, I know that if the omniscient Heiwa can't understand something it's totallh impossible.
Luckily there are plenty of twerps in this world who do not claim omniscience like Heiwa - they get out there and do what you call "the impossible".
Little things like:Yup, lucky there are so many twerps around - that really seems to be a badge of honour around here.
- Solar orbits, DSCOVR, etc etc.
- Atmospheric re-entry, Russian Soyuz and Chinese Shenzhou capsules and US "aerodynamic" methods.
- Gravity assist manoeuvres.
- Space-X landing the first stages, mainly quite successfully.
PS Care to calculate the delta V needed to get from a LEO to a Lunar Insertion Orbit?
Plumbing is also impossible.
How the hell do you get water inside of a metal pipe?
They suggest that you send a spacecraft into high speed LEO, EPO or low speed GSO or whatever and then, by applying a force in that orbit to increase speed (Delta-V), you extend the orbit to bring you to the Moon or, you leave the orbit completely, and start traveling in a hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun that will bring you back to Earth after a year for a gravity assist sling shot, bla, bla.Ignoramus! Run away and don't come back till you've learned what a hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun really is:
In astrodynamics or celestial mechanics, a hyperbolic trajectory is the trajectory of any object around a central body with more than enough speed to escape the central object's gravitational pull. The name derives from the fact that according to Newtonian theory such an orbit has the shape of a hyperbola.
Prove it. Post some evidence to support your claims. Post it here. Of course you won't because you are an epic failure. You never provide any evidence you just say it is impossible.No hyperbolic trajectories are needed! In its LEO orbit, the rocket is already orbiting the Sun and just has to escape the earth's gravity well.Yes, I know that planet Earth with me aboard orbit the Sun in a year, but I do not orbit Earth. I just type this message in peace and quiet sitting on the Earth. Same with a satellite really orbiting Earth at 400 km altitude and say 7000 m/s speed. It cannot suddenly start orbiting the Sun 150 000 000 km away by applying a little force on it. Only twerps think so since 60 years.Yes, but a "a satellite really orbiting Earth at 400 km altitude and say 7000 m/s speed" relative to the earth is also travelling with the earth at a mean orbital velocity of about 29,800 m/s around the sun.
So it already has more than enough velocity to orbit the sun. All that is needed is a burn to get away from earth's gravity.
Without bothering to work out the details, a delta V of about 4 km/s from LEO should do it.QuoteLuna 1
Luna 1, .. . . . .. . . . . was the first spacecraft to reach the vicinity of the Earth's Moon, and the first spacecraft to be placed in heliocentric orbit. Intended as an impactor, Luna 1 was launched as part of the Soviet Luna programme in 1959, however due to an incorrectly timed upper stage burn during its launch, it missed the Moon, in the process becoming the first spacecraft to leave geocentric orbit.
It's funny how everybody except the all-knowing Heiwa knows these things.
Well, you have to get away from Earth in the right direction, at the right time using the correct force in a fast EPO to start a heliocentric hyperbolic trajectory (or what NASA call it?) of the Sun far away and ... that you cannot do. As soon as the force is no longer applied, you continue to orbit ... Earth. Only twerps believe in hyperbolic trajectories. It is called ... rocket science. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#OR .
Stop uttering total nonsense. The Russians did it quite accidently, simply by missing the moon.
Yes yes, I know that if the omniscient Heiwa can't understand something it's totallh impossible.
Luckily there are plenty of twerps in this world who do not claim omniscience like Heiwa - they get out there and do what you call "the impossible".
Little things like:Yup, lucky there are so many twerps around - that really seems to be a badge of honour around here.
- Solar orbits, DSCOVR, etc etc.
- Atmospheric re-entry, Russian Soyuz and Chinese Shenzhou capsules and US "aerodynamic" methods.
- Gravity assist manoeuvres.
- Space-X landing the first stages, mainly quite successfully.
PS Care to calculate the delta V needed to get from a LEO to a Lunar Insertion Orbit?
Yes, I describe these twerps at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .
They suggest that you send a spacecraft into high speed LEO, EPO or low speed GSO or whatever and then, by applying a force in that orbit to increase speed (Delta-V), you extend the orbit to bring you to the Moon or, you leave the orbit completely, and start traveling in a hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun that will bring you back to Earth after a year for a gravity assist sling shot, bla, bla.
Do do this you must apply a force in absolutely the right direction and amplitude, at the right time and location, when moving at high speed in your orbit. If you do not do it, you will fly off in the wrong direction. You may then drop back on Earth again, if force was too small, or just fly away and never arrive anywhere, if force was too big, but you will never arrive safely anywhere. But twerps say it very easy - just apply a force and off you go.
Re re-entry and landing after space trips the present, US, Russian and Chinese system is that you carry a 'heat shield' that slows down the spacecraft due to friction with the air in vacuum space (?), so the speed is reduced from say 11 000 m/s to 100 m/s by simple friction, and then you deploy a parachute. The friction heat is take care of by the 'heat shield'.
Of course Gagarin and Glenn 1961/2 didn't have any 'heat shields'! They slowed down using a rocket engine applying a brake force ... but that system was a hoax. You couldn't carry the fuel with you. So Gagarin and Glenn were never in space. They faked it.
But they got away with it ... and there we are today. Same fraud in action. Of course plenty morons believe space travel is feasible and mumble about Delta-V.
But is not so simple as I show at my popular website.
The biggest fraud in space took place with 135 manned US Shuttle missions from 1981 to 2011. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm . NASA suggests that the Shuttle took off 135 times to dock with and build the International Fake/Space Station at enormous costs (two missions crashed) but every mission, including the failed ones, was fake. No Shuttle flow in space ever. All footage of the fake space stations are falsification. There are no pictures of it under construction and ... you cannot dock with something in high speed orbit.
I feel sorry for you believing in rocket science. It is just pseudoscience!
They suggest that you send a spacecraft into high speed LEO, EPO or low speed GSO or whatever and then, by applying a force in that orbit to increase speed (Delta-V), you extend the orbit to bring you to the Moon or, you leave the orbit completely, and start traveling in a hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun that will bring you back to Earth after a year for a gravity assist sling shot, bla, bla.Those sound like exactly the same problems you have when you try to transfer from LEO to geostationary orbit. Why can they solve those problems for one kind of transfer but not another?
Do do this you must apply a force in absolutely the right direction and amplitude, at the right time and location, when moving at high speed in your orbit. If you do not do it, you will fly off in the wrong direction. You may then drop back on Earth again, if force was too small, or just fly away and never arrive anywhere, if force was too big, but you will never arrive safely anywhere. But twerps say it very easy - just apply a force and off you go.
They suggest that you send a spacecraft into high speed LEO, EPO or low speed GSO or whatever and then, by applying a force in that orbit to increase speed (Delta-V), you extend the orbit to bring you to the Moon or, you leave the orbit completely, and start traveling in a hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun that will bring you back to Earth after a year for a gravity assist sling shot, bla, bla.Ignoramus! Run away and don't come back till you've learned what a hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun really is:QuoteIn astrodynamics or celestial mechanics, a hyperbolic trajectory is the trajectory of any object around a central body with more than enough speed to escape the central object's gravitational pull. The name derives from the fact that according to Newtonian theory such an orbit has the shape of a hyperbola.
But what you describe as a "hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun" does sound very a solar orbit
Some course correction burn might be needed to put it into the desired solar orbit depending on whether it is needed inside, on, or outside the earth's orbit.
They suggest that you send a spacecraft into high speed LEO, EPO or low speed GSO or whatever and then, by applying a force in that orbit to increase speed (Delta-V), you extend the orbit to bring you to the Moon or, you leave the orbit completely, and start traveling in a hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun that will bring you back to Earth after a year for a gravity assist sling shot, bla, bla.Those sound like exactly the same problems you have when you try to transfer from LEO to geostationary orbit. Why can they solve those problems for one kind of transfer but not another?
Do do this you must apply a force in absolutely the right direction and amplitude, at the right time and location, when moving at high speed in your orbit. If you do not do it, you will fly off in the wrong direction. You may then drop back on Earth again, if force was too small, or just fly away and never arrive anywhere, if force was too big, but you will never arrive safely anywhere. But twerps say it very easy - just apply a force and off you go.
No, you're the one claiming to be the expert here. Please explain why transferring from LEO to geostationary orbit is easy but transferring from LEO to heliocentric orbit is impossible.They suggest that you send a spacecraft into high speed LEO, EPO or low speed GSO or whatever and then, by applying a force in that orbit to increase speed (Delta-V), you extend the orbit to bring you to the Moon or, you leave the orbit completely, and start traveling in a hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun that will bring you back to Earth after a year for a gravity assist sling shot, bla, bla.Those sound like exactly the same problems you have when you try to transfer from LEO to geostationary orbit. Why can they solve those problems for one kind of transfer but not another?
Do do this you must apply a force in absolutely the right direction and amplitude, at the right time and location, when moving at high speed in your orbit. If you do not do it, you will fly off in the wrong direction. You may then drop back on Earth again, if force was too small, or just fly away and never arrive anywhere, if force was too big, but you will never arrive safely anywhere. But twerps say it very easy - just apply a force and off you go.
Not really - orbiting Earth at small altitude and different angles using Earth as base of navigation seems easy. Earth is close and visible all the time. Arianespace does it all the time ... but only that.
Getting out of Earth orbit to orbit the far away Sun at an altitude 300 000 times greater seems difficult as tha Sun is so far away and sometimes hidden when you are in Earth orbit.
If you apply the orbit transfer force incorrectly you will get lost in space.
But as you know everything and are an expert, you can probably explain it?
Well, it is difficult. Luna 1 tried 1959 to transfer from LEO to an orbit crossing the Moon orbit but failed and entered a heliocentric orbit and was never heard of since, we are told.No, you're the one claiming to be the expert here. Please explain why transferring from LEO to geostationary orbit is easy but transferring from LEO to heliocentric orbit is impossible.They suggest that you send a spacecraft into high speed LEO, EPO or low speed GSO or whatever and then, by applying a force in that orbit to increase speed (Delta-V), you extend the orbit to bring you to the Moon or, you leave the orbit completely, and start traveling in a hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun that will bring you back to Earth after a year for a gravity assist sling shot, bla, bla.Those sound like exactly the same problems you have when you try to transfer from LEO to geostationary orbit. Why can they solve those problems for one kind of transfer but not another?
Do do this you must apply a force in absolutely the right direction and amplitude, at the right time and location, when moving at high speed in your orbit. If you do not do it, you will fly off in the wrong direction. You may then drop back on Earth again, if force was too small, or just fly away and never arrive anywhere, if force was too big, but you will never arrive safely anywhere. But twerps say it very easy - just apply a force and off you go.
Not really - orbiting Earth at small altitude and different angles using Earth as base of navigation seems easy. Earth is close and visible all the time. Arianespace does it all the time ... but only that.
Getting out of Earth orbit to orbit the far away Sun at an altitude 300 000 times greater seems difficult as tha Sun is so far away and sometimes hidden when you are in Earth orbit.
If you apply the orbit transfer force incorrectly you will get lost in space.
But as you know everything and are an expert, you can probably explain it?
NASA has allegedly done many transfers from LEO to heliocentric orbits of different sizes but ... all seem to be fantasies.Seem to be? What leads you to think that?
I have studied some of them and always find that the transfer is just to apply a force and ... MAGIC ... the spacecraft flies off and is never heard from again except in FAKE NEWS bulletins.Maybe you haven't studied them hard enough. It's not as if NASA is going to publish every one of the calculations that they used in a press kit.
It supports my suspicions that rocket science is pseudoscience.Or, maybe rocket science just isn't in your wheelhouse.
But you were claiming that this "hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun that will bring you back to Earth after a year" and now you presentThey suggest that you send a spacecraft into high speed LEO, EPO or low speed GSO or whatever and then, by applying a force in that orbit to increase speed (Delta-V), you extend the orbit to bring you to the Moon or, you leave the orbit completely, and start traveling in a hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun that will bring you back to Earth after a year for a gravity assist sling shot, bla, bla.Ignoramus! Run away and don't come back till you've learned what a hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun really is:QuoteIn astrodynamics or celestial mechanics, a hyperbolic trajectory is the trajectory of any object around a central body with more than enough speed to escape the central object's gravitational pull. The name derives from the fact that according to Newtonian theory such an orbit has the shape of a hyperbola.
But what you describe as a "hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun" does sound very a solar orbit
Some course correction burn might be needed to put it into the desired solar orbit depending on whether it is needed inside, on, or outside the earth's orbit.
Well, NASA suggests that one of their satellites - OSIRIS REx - escaped from orbit Earth to enter a hyperbolic trajectory - i.e. a trajectory of an object around a central body (the Sun) with more than enough speed to escape the central object's, i.e. the Sun's gravitational pull. The name is derived from the fact that according to Newtonian theory such an orbit has the shape of a hyperbola.
In spite of this the satellite returned to Earth after this hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#OR .
I have of course asked the NASA people in charge to explain what it is all about - no response.
OSIRIS REx - escaped from orbit Earth to enter a hyperbolic trajectory - i.e. a trajectory of an object around a central body (the Sun) with more than enough speed to escape the central object's, i.e. the Sun's gravitational pull.So is a which is it? Is a "hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun" one that will "bring you back to Earth after a year" or one that leaves the solar system altogether?[1]
But you were claiming that this "hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun that will bring you back to Earth after a year" and now you presentThey suggest that you send a spacecraft into high speed LEO, EPO or low speed GSO or whatever and then, by applying a force in that orbit to increase speed (Delta-V), you extend the orbit to bring you to the Moon or, you leave the orbit completely, and start traveling in a hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun that will bring you back to Earth after a year for a gravity assist sling shot, bla, bla.Ignoramus! Run away and don't come back till you've learned what a hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun really is:QuoteIn astrodynamics or celestial mechanics, a hyperbolic trajectory is the trajectory of any object around a central body with more than enough speed to escape the central object's gravitational pull. The name derives from the fact that according to Newtonian theory such an orbit has the shape of a hyperbola.
But what you describe as a "hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun" does sound very a solar orbit
Some course correction burn might be needed to put it into the desired solar orbit depending on whether it is needed inside, on, or outside the earth's orbit.
Well, NASA suggests that one of their satellites - OSIRIS REx - escaped from orbit Earth to enter a hyperbolic trajectory - i.e. a trajectory of an object around a central body (the Sun) with more than enough speed to escape the central object's, i.e. the Sun's gravitational pull. The name is derived from the fact that according to Newtonian theory such an orbit has the shape of a hyperbola.
In spite of this the satellite returned to Earth after this hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#OR .
I have of course asked the NASA people in charge to explain what it is all about - no response.QuoteOSIRIS REx - escaped from orbit Earth to enter a hyperbolic trajectory - i.e. a trajectory of an object around a central body (the Sun) with more than enough speed to escape the central object's, i.e. the Sun's gravitational pull.So is a which is it? Is a "hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun" one that will "bring you back to Earth after a year" or one that leaves the solar system altogether?[1]
Go and read Deployment and simulation of the ASTROD-GW formation (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233846827_Deployment_and_simulation_of_the_ASTROD-GW_formation?enrichId=rgreq-de62d70f9bcb657a2466564d8b404133-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzg0NjgyNztBUzo5ODk0OTcxNzI5OTIxN0AxNDAwNjAyODU5OTIw&el=1_x_3&_esc=publicationCoverPdf) and learn a bit about the Delta-V calculations for insertion into various solar orbits.
Caution big sums are involved!
But, just because you don't understand it, doesn't prove it can't be done - it is rocket science after all.
[1] Actually it is not impossible for the "hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun" to "bring you back to Earth" but it I doubt it would take a year to return.
Yes, this US$100 000 000:- OSIRIS REx mission is a funny show - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#OR ! I honestly think it is a 100% fraud. So much money wasted to pick up some regolith!And what does that little rant prove? Nothing!
It contains all the standard NASA magic, impossible tricks performed before - a mysterious lift off, a change of orbit around Earth to one around the Sun, then a gravity assist sling shot, another orbit around the Sun, then a docking with another heavenly body orbiting the Sun, A LANDING, etc. The LANDING on a foreign asteroid will be the big MEDIA thing to entertain all the space twerps of the world. And then the space craft returns to planet Earth ... and lands there. An impossible re-entry and landing in a Utah desert fenced off so nobody can attend!
Look at the people involved. CLOWNS.
Well, just study my findings and think again.Yes, this US$100 000 000:- OSIRIS REx mission is a funny show - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#OR ! I honestly think it is a 100% fraud. So much money wasted to pick up some regolith!And what does that little rant prove? Nothing!
It contains all the standard NASA magic, impossible tricks performed before - a mysterious lift off, a change of orbit around Earth to one around the Sun, then a gravity assist sling shot, another orbit around the Sun, then a docking with another heavenly body orbiting the Sun, A LANDING, etc. The LANDING on a foreign asteroid will be the big MEDIA thing to entertain all the space twerps of the world. And then the space craft returns to planet Earth ... and lands there. An impossible re-entry and landing in a Utah desert fenced off so nobody can attend!
Look at the people involved. CLOWNS.
Why don't you post a few relevant bits here, samplers as it were, so we can see if it won't be one big time waster?Well, just study my findings and think again.Yes, this US$100 000 000:- OSIRIS REx mission is a funny show - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#OR ! I honestly think it is a 100% fraud. So much money wasted to pick up some regolith!And what does that little rant prove? Nothing!
It contains all the standard NASA magic, impossible tricks performed before - a mysterious lift off, a change of orbit around Earth to one around the Sun, then a gravity assist sling shot, another orbit around the Sun, then a docking with another heavenly body orbiting the Sun, A LANDING, etc. The LANDING on a foreign asteroid will be the big MEDIA thing to entertain all the space twerps of the world. And then the space craft returns to planet Earth ... and lands there. An impossible re-entry and landing in a Utah desert fenced off so nobody can attend!
Look at the people involved. CLOWNS.
No, it is better to study my findings at my website. I recommend http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw2.htm#ROS as a starter.Why don't you post a few relevant bits here, samplers as it were, so we can see if it won't be one big time waster?Well, just study my findings and think again.Yes, this US$100 000 000:- OSIRIS REx mission is a funny show - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#OR ! I honestly think it is a 100% fraud. So much money wasted to pick up some regolith!And what does that little rant prove? Nothing!
It contains all the standard NASA magic, impossible tricks performed before - a mysterious lift off, a change of orbit around Earth to one around the Sun, then a gravity assist sling shot, another orbit around the Sun, then a docking with another heavenly body orbiting the Sun, A LANDING, etc. The LANDING on a foreign asteroid will be the big MEDIA thing to entertain all the space twerps of the world. And then the space craft returns to planet Earth ... and lands there. An impossible re-entry and landing in a Utah desert fenced off so nobody can attend!
Look at the people involved. CLOWNS.
From the rubbish you've posted here, I wouldn't be worth the effort. I'd probably find it on a level with you arguments against nuclear detonation.
If only you had some evidence to support your bullshit. You don't of course or you would post it here. Just another example of your failure.But you were claiming that this "hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun that will bring you back to Earth after a year" and now you presentThey suggest that you send a spacecraft into high speed LEO, EPO or low speed GSO or whatever and then, by applying a force in that orbit to increase speed (Delta-V), you extend the orbit to bring you to the Moon or, you leave the orbit completely, and start traveling in a hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun that will bring you back to Earth after a year for a gravity assist sling shot, bla, bla.Ignoramus! Run away and don't come back till you've learned what a hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun really is:QuoteIn astrodynamics or celestial mechanics, a hyperbolic trajectory is the trajectory of any object around a central body with more than enough speed to escape the central object's gravitational pull. The name derives from the fact that according to Newtonian theory such an orbit has the shape of a hyperbola.
But what you describe as a "hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun" does sound very a solar orbit
Some course correction burn might be needed to put it into the desired solar orbit depending on whether it is needed inside, on, or outside the earth's orbit.
Well, NASA suggests that one of their satellites - OSIRIS REx - escaped from orbit Earth to enter a hyperbolic trajectory - i.e. a trajectory of an object around a central body (the Sun) with more than enough speed to escape the central object's, i.e. the Sun's gravitational pull. The name is derived from the fact that according to Newtonian theory such an orbit has the shape of a hyperbola.
In spite of this the satellite returned to Earth after this hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#OR .
I have of course asked the NASA people in charge to explain what it is all about - no response.QuoteOSIRIS REx - escaped from orbit Earth to enter a hyperbolic trajectory - i.e. a trajectory of an object around a central body (the Sun) with more than enough speed to escape the central object's, i.e. the Sun's gravitational pull.So is a which is it? Is a "hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun" one that will "bring you back to Earth after a year" or one that leaves the solar system altogether?[1]
Go and read Deployment and simulation of the ASTROD-GW formation (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233846827_Deployment_and_simulation_of_the_ASTROD-GW_formation?enrichId=rgreq-de62d70f9bcb657a2466564d8b404133-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzg0NjgyNztBUzo5ODk0OTcxNzI5OTIxN0AxNDAwNjAyODU5OTIw&el=1_x_3&_esc=publicationCoverPdf) and learn a bit about the Delta-V calculations for insertion into various solar orbits.
Caution big sums are involved!
But, just because you don't understand it, doesn't prove it can't be done - it is rocket science after all.
[1] Actually it is not impossible for the "hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun" to "bring you back to Earth" but it I doubt it would take a year to return.
Yes, this US$100 000 000:- OSIRIS REx mission is a funny show - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#OR ! I honestly think it is a 100% fraud. So much money wasted to pick up some regolith!
It contains all the standard NASA magic, impossible tricks performed before - a mysterious lift off, a change of orbit around Earth to one around the Sun, then a gravity assist sling shot, another orbit around the Sun, then a docking with another heavenly body orbiting the Sun, A LANDING, etc. The LANDING on a foreign asteroid will be the big MEDIA thing to entertain all the space twerps of the world. And then the space craft returns to planet Earth ... and lands there. An impossible re-entry and landing in a Utah desert fenced off so nobody can attend!
Look at the people involved. CLOWNS.
Thanks for this intelligent post to contribute to a friendly discussion.If only you had some evidence to support your bullshit. You don't of course or you would post it here. Just another example of your failure.But you were claiming that this "hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun that will bring you back to Earth after a year" and now you presentThey suggest that you send a spacecraft into high speed LEO, EPO or low speed GSO or whatever and then, by applying a force in that orbit to increase speed (Delta-V), you extend the orbit to bring you to the Moon or, you leave the orbit completely, and start traveling in a hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun that will bring you back to Earth after a year for a gravity assist sling shot, bla, bla.Ignoramus! Run away and don't come back till you've learned what a hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun really is:QuoteIn astrodynamics or celestial mechanics, a hyperbolic trajectory is the trajectory of any object around a central body with more than enough speed to escape the central object's gravitational pull. The name derives from the fact that according to Newtonian theory such an orbit has the shape of a hyperbola.
But what you describe as a "hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun" does sound very a solar orbit
Some course correction burn might be needed to put it into the desired solar orbit depending on whether it is needed inside, on, or outside the earth's orbit.
Well, NASA suggests that one of their satellites - OSIRIS REx - escaped from orbit Earth to enter a hyperbolic trajectory - i.e. a trajectory of an object around a central body (the Sun) with more than enough speed to escape the central object's, i.e. the Sun's gravitational pull. The name is derived from the fact that according to Newtonian theory such an orbit has the shape of a hyperbola.
In spite of this the satellite returned to Earth after this hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#OR .
I have of course asked the NASA people in charge to explain what it is all about - no response.QuoteOSIRIS REx - escaped from orbit Earth to enter a hyperbolic trajectory - i.e. a trajectory of an object around a central body (the Sun) with more than enough speed to escape the central object's, i.e. the Sun's gravitational pull.So is a which is it? Is a "hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun" one that will "bring you back to Earth after a year" or one that leaves the solar system altogether?[1]
Go and read Deployment and simulation of the ASTROD-GW formation (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233846827_Deployment_and_simulation_of_the_ASTROD-GW_formation?enrichId=rgreq-de62d70f9bcb657a2466564d8b404133-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzg0NjgyNztBUzo5ODk0OTcxNzI5OTIxN0AxNDAwNjAyODU5OTIw&el=1_x_3&_esc=publicationCoverPdf) and learn a bit about the Delta-V calculations for insertion into various solar orbits.
Caution big sums are involved!
But, just because you don't understand it, doesn't prove it can't be done - it is rocket science after all.
[1] Actually it is not impossible for the "hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun" to "bring you back to Earth" but it I doubt it would take a year to return.
Yes, this US$100 000 000:- OSIRIS REx mission is a funny show - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#OR ! I honestly think it is a 100% fraud. So much money wasted to pick up some regolith!
It contains all the standard NASA magic, impossible tricks performed before - a mysterious lift off, a change of orbit around Earth to one around the Sun, then a gravity assist sling shot, another orbit around the Sun, then a docking with another heavenly body orbiting the Sun, A LANDING, etc. The LANDING on a foreign asteroid will be the big MEDIA thing to entertain all the space twerps of the world. And then the space craft returns to planet Earth ... and lands there. An impossible re-entry and landing in a Utah desert fenced off so nobody can attend!
Look at the people involved. CLOWNS.
Prove me wrong, liar. You won't because you are a fraud.
No, it is better to study my findings at my website.No. The discussion is happening here, so it is better for you to provide your evidence here.
No, it is better to study my findings at my website.No. The discussion is happening here, so it is better for you to provide your evidence here.
It's far more effort than it's worth to wade through all of your ramblings, rantings and claims of incredulity to try and find anything resembling evidence on that monstrosity that you call a website.
Well, at least as close to a discussion as can be had with a senile old man like you.No, it is better to study my findings at my website.No. The discussion is happening here, so it is better for you to provide your evidence here.
It's far more effort than it's worth to wade through all of your ramblings, rantings and claims of incredulity to try and find anything resembling evidence on that monstrosity that you call a website.
Discussion? Here? ROTFL.
Your website would be better if you provided any evidence to support your claims.No, it is better to study my findings at my website.No. The discussion is happening here, so it is better for you to provide your evidence here.
It's far more effort than it's worth to wade through all of your ramblings, rantings and claims of incredulity to try and find anything resembling evidence on that monstrosity that you call a website.
Discussion? Here? ROTFL.
Re my website - http://heiwaco.com - it is nothing wrong with it. >2 500 000 visitors have not complained at all. But who are you? A retired NASA SF writer?
?? I was 1 hr in the gym this morning lifting things, chatting with the girls, cycling on a machine burning calories, etc, and then I drove my daughter + family to the airport. And tomorrow there is 2 hrs tennis am and a political party meeting in the evening. I am quite active, you know, and in good shape. Why do you suggest otherwise. You sound like a retired NASA, brainwashed zombie. Are you happy? You sound ... pissed off.Well, at least as close to a discussion as can be had with a senile old man like you.No, it is better to study my findings at my website.No. The discussion is happening here, so it is better for you to provide your evidence here.
It's far more effort than it's worth to wade through all of your ramblings, rantings and claims of incredulity to try and find anything resembling evidence on that monstrosity that you call a website.
Discussion? Here? ROTFL.
Your mind seems to wander a lot! Please stay on topic.?? I was 1 hr in the gym this morning lifting things, chatting with the girls, cycling on a machine burning calories, etc, and then I drove my daughter + family to the airport. And tomorrow there is 2 hrs tennis am and a political party meeting in the evening. I am quite active, you know, and in good shape. Why do you suggest otherwise. You sound like a retired NASA, brainwashed zombie. Are you happy? You sound ... pissed off.Well, at least as close to a discussion as can be had with a senile old man like you.No, it is better to study my findings at my website.No. The discussion is happening here, so it is better for you to provide your evidence here.
It's far more effort than it's worth to wade through all of your ramblings, rantings and claims of incredulity to try and find anything resembling evidence on that monstrosity that you call a website.
Discussion? Here? ROTFL.
And then there is my popular website with 100's of visitors/day, where I explain in detail my findings.
Do you have a website full of shit?
Sub sub sub topic was this senile person that I am not. Why do you worry so much about it?Your mind seems to wander a lot! Please stay on topic.?? I was 1 hr in the gym this morning lifting things, chatting with the girls, cycling on a machine burning calories, etc, and then I drove my daughter + family to the airport. And tomorrow there is 2 hrs tennis am and a political party meeting in the evening. I am quite active, you know, and in good shape. Why do you suggest otherwise. You sound like a retired NASA, brainwashed zombie. Are you happy? You sound ... pissed off.Well, at least as close to a discussion as can be had with a senile old man like you.No, it is better to study my findings at my website.No. The discussion is happening here, so it is better for you to provide your evidence here.
It's far more effort than it's worth to wade through all of your ramblings, rantings and claims of incredulity to try and find anything resembling evidence on that monstrosity that you call a website.
Discussion? Here? ROTFL.
And then there is my popular website with 100's of visitors/day, where I explain in detail my findings.
Do you have a website full of shit?
Topic is Tesla Roadster orbiting mars. I know it gets difficult at your age but try to stay on topic please.Sub sub sub topic was this senile person that I am not. Why do you worry so much about it?Your mind seems to wander a lot! Please stay on topic.?? I was 1 hr in the gym this morning lifting things, chatting with the girls, cycling on a machine burning calories, etc, and then I drove my daughter + family to the airport. And tomorrow there is 2 hrs tennis am and a political party meeting in the evening. I am quite active, you know, and in good shape. Why do you suggest otherwise. You sound like a retired NASA, brainwashed zombie. Are you happy? You sound ... pissed off.Well, at least as close to a discussion as can be had with a senile old man like you.No, it is better to study my findings at my website.No. The discussion is happening here, so it is better for you to provide your evidence here.
It's far more effort than it's worth to wade through all of your ramblings, rantings and claims of incredulity to try and find anything resembling evidence on that monstrosity that you call a website.
Discussion? Here? ROTFL.
And then there is my popular website with 100's of visitors/day, where I explain in detail my findings.
Do you have a website full of shit?
I know. But nothing can orbit Mars after departing Earth. It is my humble contribution to show that Lone Skum is a simple fraud.Topic is Tesla Roadster orbiting mars. I know it gets difficult at your age but try to stay on topic please.Sub sub sub topic was this senile person that I am not. Why do you worry so much about it?Your mind seems to wander a lot! Please stay on topic.?? I was 1 hr in the gym this morning lifting things, chatting with the girls, cycling on a machine burning calories, etc, and then I drove my daughter + family to the airport. And tomorrow there is 2 hrs tennis am and a political party meeting in the evening. I am quite active, you know, and in good shape. Why do you suggest otherwise. You sound like a retired NASA, brainwashed zombie. Are you happy? You sound ... pissed off.Well, at least as close to a discussion as can be had with a senile old man like you.No, it is better to study my findings at my website.No. The discussion is happening here, so it is better for you to provide your evidence here.
It's far more effort than it's worth to wade through all of your ramblings, rantings and claims of incredulity to try and find anything resembling evidence on that monstrosity that you call a website.
Discussion? Here? ROTFL.
And then there is my popular website with 100's of visitors/day, where I explain in detail my findings.
Do you have a website full of shit?
I know. But nothing can orbit Mars after departing Earth. It is my humble contribution to show that Lone Skum is a simple fraud.Topic is Tesla Roadster orbiting mars. I know it gets difficult at your age but try to stay on topic please.Sub sub sub topic was this senile person that I am not. Why do you worry so much about it?Your mind seems to wander a lot! Please stay on topic.?? I was 1 hr in the gym this morning lifting things, chatting with the girls, cycling on a machine burning calories, etc, and then I drove my daughter + family to the airport. And tomorrow there is 2 hrs tennis am and a political party meeting in the evening. I am quite active, you know, and in good shape. Why do you suggest otherwise. You sound like a retired NASA, brainwashed zombie. Are you happy? You sound ... pissed off.Well, at least as close to a discussion as can be had with a senile old man like you.No, it is better to study my findings at my website.No. The discussion is happening here, so it is better for you to provide your evidence here.
It's far more effort than it's worth to wade through all of your ramblings, rantings and claims of incredulity to try and find anything resembling evidence on that monstrosity that you call a website.
Discussion? Here? ROTFL.
And then there is my popular website with 100's of visitors/day, where I explain in detail my findings.
Do you have a website full of shit?
But I show since many years at http://heiwaco.com that Lone Skum and his space travels are a fraud. Only satellites can be sent into orbits and Arianespace does it better.I know. But nothing can orbit Mars after departing Earth. It is my humble contribution to show that Lone Skum is a simple fraud.Topic is Tesla Roadster orbiting mars. I know it gets difficult at your age but try to stay on topic please.Sub sub sub topic was this senile person that I am not. Why do you worry so much about it?Your mind seems to wander a lot! Please stay on topic.?? I was 1 hr in the gym this morning lifting things, chatting with the girls, cycling on a machine burning calories, etc, and then I drove my daughter + family to the airport. And tomorrow there is 2 hrs tennis am and a political party meeting in the evening. I am quite active, you know, and in good shape. Why do you suggest otherwise. You sound like a retired NASA, brainwashed zombie. Are you happy? You sound ... pissed off.Well, at least as close to a discussion as can be had with a senile old man like you.No, it is better to study my findings at my website.No. The discussion is happening here, so it is better for you to provide your evidence here.
It's far more effort than it's worth to wade through all of your ramblings, rantings and claims of incredulity to try and find anything resembling evidence on that monstrosity that you call a website.
Discussion? Here? ROTFL.
And then there is my popular website with 100's of visitors/day, where I explain in detail my findings.
Do you have a website full of shit?
You have not shown that here or anywhere else. You're far from humble. But at least we've got your feeble mind back on topic.
Small victories.
But I show since many years at <> that Lone Skum and his space travels are a fraud.
I do. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htmBut I show since many years at <> that Lone Skum and his space travels are a fraud.
No, you don't.
No you don't. There is no evidence there at all just the ramblings of a moron. Prove me wrong, post some here.I do. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htmBut I show since many years at <> that Lone Skum and his space travels are a fraud.
No, you don't.
Incorrect, I've already seen the botch you make of things like the sling-shot manoeuvre and nuclear detonation so, I'll stick to more exciting things like "watching the grass grow", which it is doing far too rapidly lately!Why don't you post a few relevant bits here, samplers as it were, so we can see if it won't be one big time waster?No, it is better to study my findings at my website. I recommend http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw2.htm#ROS as a starter.
From the rubbish you've posted here, I wouldn't be worth the effort. I'd probably find it on a level with you arguments against nuclear detonation.
If you are interested in nuclear detonations and the emperor Kim III, empress and princess of Pyongyang, you better study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .I seriously doubt it! From the little I have seen, you might know a smidgen about Nuclear Physics but virtually nothing about the actual mechanics of nuclear detonation.
The emperor has no clothes! Like Lone Skum!I think the answer is far more likely that Lone Plumber has such a hatred of all things American that he has lost all ability to see or think objectively.
You don't.I do. <>But I show since many years at <> that Lone Skum and his space travels are a fraud.
No, you don't.
Really?
But I show since many years at http://heiwaco.com that Lone Skum and his space travels are a fraud. Only satellites can be sent into orbits and Arianespace does it better.
So sorry about the late posting, but time zones etc, etc - and I forgot!Incorrect, I've already seen the botch you make of things like the sling-shot manoeuvre and nuclear detonation so, I'll stick to more exciting things like "watching the grass grow", which it is doing far too rapidly lately!Why don't you post a few relevant bits here, samplers as it were, so we can see if it won't be one big time waster?No, it is better to study my findings at my website. I recommend http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw2.htm#ROS as a starter.
From the rubbish you've posted here, I wouldn't be worth the effort. I'd probably find it on a level with you arguments against nuclear detonation.
I understand that Ariane has placed 6910 kg into GEO and not a great deal more delta V is needed to get past the moon from there.
Once in GEO a delta V only 1056 m/s is needed to enter a LTO then another 564 m/s to enter lunar orbit - getting a moderate mass to the moon is no trouble now.
And from GEO a delta V of under 1200 m/s gets the space-craft completely out of the earth's gravity well.
.
Then Falcon Heavy can get 63,800 kg to LEO and the total launch mass of the first US mission to get to the vicinity of the moon, the Juno II, was 55,110 kg.Quote from: HeiwaIf you are interested in nuclear detonations and the emperor Kim III, empress and princess of Pyongyang, you better study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .I seriously doubt it! From the little I have seen, you might know a smidgen about Nuclear Physics but virtually nothing about the actual mechanics of nuclear detonation.Quote from: HeiwaThe emperor has no clothes! Like Lone Skum!I think the answer is far more likely that Lone Plumber has such a hatred of all things American that he has lost all ability to see or think objectively.
Stick to plumbing, you seem to understand that a little better than orbital mechanics, rocket science and Nuclear Physics.
Have fun with your leaky pipes and leaky ideas.
Only twerps believe in Americans on the Moon 1969 and Americans vaporizing Japanese 1945 with atomic bombs.
Orbital dynamics are quite interesting. Imagine what the NASA rocket scientists have come up with.NASA came up with the orbital dynamics that your favorite Arianespace uses to put satellites into geostationary orbit.
Only twerps believe in Americans on the Moon 1969 and Americans vaporizing Japanese 1945 with atomic bombs.
This is incorrect.
Only twerps believe in Americans on the Moon 1969 and Americans vaporizing Japanese 1945 with atomic bombs.
This is incorrect.
Well, I pay you €1M to prove me wrong
Only twerps believe in Americans on the Moon 1969 and Americans vaporizing Japanese 1945 with atomic bombs.
This is incorrect.
Well, I pay you €1M to prove me wrong
This is also incorrect.
At my website I present solid evidence that US human space travel is a 60+ years joke!Only twerps believe in Americans on the Moon 1969 and Americans vaporizing Japanese 1945 with atomic bombs.
This is incorrect.
Well, I pay you €1M to prove me wrong
This is also incorrect.
True, you do always say that. Of course you also always fail to provide any any evidence to support that idiotic claim. You could always prove me wrong but you won't because you are a liar and a fraud.So sorry about the late posting, but time zones etc, etc - and I forgot!Incorrect, I've already seen the botch you make of things like the sling-shot manoeuvre and nuclear detonation so, I'll stick to more exciting things like "watching the grass grow", which it is doing far too rapidly lately!Why don't you post a few relevant bits here, samplers as it were, so we can see if it won't be one big time waster?No, it is better to study my findings at my website. I recommend http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw2.htm#ROS as a starter.
From the rubbish you've posted here, I wouldn't be worth the effort. I'd probably find it on a level with you arguments against nuclear detonation.
I understand that Ariane has placed 6910 kg into GEO and not a great deal more delta V is needed to get past the moon from there.
Once in GEO a delta V only 1056 m/s is needed to enter a LTO then another 564 m/s to enter lunar orbit - getting a moderate mass to the moon is no trouble now.
And from GEO a delta V of under 1200 m/s gets the space-craft completely out of the earth's gravity well.
.
Then Falcon Heavy can get 63,800 kg to LEO and the total launch mass of the first US mission to get to the vicinity of the moon, the Juno II, was 55,110 kg.Quote from: HeiwaIf you are interested in nuclear detonations and the emperor Kim III, empress and princess of Pyongyang, you better study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .I seriously doubt it! From the little I have seen, you might know a smidgen about Nuclear Physics but virtually nothing about the actual mechanics of nuclear detonation.Quote from: HeiwaThe emperor has no clothes! Like Lone Skum!I think the answer is far more likely that Lone Plumber has such a hatred of all things American that he has lost all ability to see or think objectively.
Stick to plumbing, you seem to understand that a little better than orbital mechanics, rocket science and Nuclear Physics.
Have fun with your leaky pipes and leaky ideas.
Interesting figures! Compare with NASA's 1969 figures going to the Moon with Apollo 11 - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm . A magic Saturn V rocket placed an Apollo 11 space craft + rocket third stage - total mass 150-250 tons (!) (nobody knows) in EPO at say 7 000 m/s speed and then dr. Buzz & Co applied delta-V 4 600 m/s to be catapulted to the Moon. During the trip to the Moon speed dropped to 800 m/s when Moon gravity took over so speed increased to >2000 m/s dropping down. Luckily dr. Buzz & Co could brake using a rocket to start orbiting the Moon, etc, bla, bla, bla.
As I always say - you can only put satellites in orbits around Earth and it is an one-way trip. You cannot land anywhere or dock anywhere, e.g. with the fake space station - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm .
Orbital dynamics are quite interesting. Imagine what the NASA rocket scientists have come up with.
Like nuclear physics. There US scientists invented explosive fission 1945 to put fear into us and today Korean emperor Kim III has copied the nonsense - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Only twerps believe in Americans on the Moon 1969 and Americans vaporizing Japanese 1945 with atomic bombs. It was just propaganda.
Well, I also believed the story of Americans pissing on the Moon story 1969. NASA prepared pseudo-scientific reports how it was done with times and locations, speeds and trajectories, fuel used, etc, and everyone believed them.True, you do always say that. Of course you also always fail to provide any any evidence to support that idiotic claim. You could always prove me wrong but you won't because you are a liar and a fraud.So sorry about the late posting, but time zones etc, etc - and I forgot!Incorrect, I've already seen the botch you make of things like the sling-shot manoeuvre and nuclear detonation so, I'll stick to more exciting things like "watching the grass grow", which it is doing far too rapidly lately!Why don't you post a few relevant bits here, samplers as it were, so we can see if it won't be one big time waster?No, it is better to study my findings at my website. I recommend http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw2.htm#ROS as a starter.
From the rubbish you've posted here, I wouldn't be worth the effort. I'd probably find it on a level with you arguments against nuclear detonation.
I understand that Ariane has placed 6910 kg into GEO and not a great deal more delta V is needed to get past the moon from there.
Once in GEO a delta V only 1056 m/s is needed to enter a LTO then another 564 m/s to enter lunar orbit - getting a moderate mass to the moon is no trouble now.
And from GEO a delta V of under 1200 m/s gets the space-craft completely out of the earth's gravity well.
.
Then Falcon Heavy can get 63,800 kg to LEO and the total launch mass of the first US mission to get to the vicinity of the moon, the Juno II, was 55,110 kg.Quote from: HeiwaIf you are interested in nuclear detonations and the emperor Kim III, empress and princess of Pyongyang, you better study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .I seriously doubt it! From the little I have seen, you might know a smidgen about Nuclear Physics but virtually nothing about the actual mechanics of nuclear detonation.Quote from: HeiwaThe emperor has no clothes! Like Lone Skum!I think the answer is far more likely that Lone Plumber has such a hatred of all things American that he has lost all ability to see or think objectively.
Stick to plumbing, you seem to understand that a little better than orbital mechanics, rocket science and Nuclear Physics.
Have fun with your leaky pipes and leaky ideas.
Interesting figures! Compare with NASA's 1969 figures going to the Moon with Apollo 11 - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm . A magic Saturn V rocket placed an Apollo 11 space craft + rocket third stage - total mass 150-250 tons (!) (nobody knows) in EPO at say 7 000 m/s speed and then dr. Buzz & Co applied delta-V 4 600 m/s to be catapulted to the Moon. During the trip to the Moon speed dropped to 800 m/s when Moon gravity took over so speed increased to >2000 m/s dropping down. Luckily dr. Buzz & Co could brake using a rocket to start orbiting the Moon, etc, bla, bla, bla.
As I always say - you can only put satellites in orbits around Earth and it is an one-way trip. You cannot land anywhere or dock anywhere, e.g. with the fake space station - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm .
Orbital dynamics are quite interesting. Imagine what the NASA rocket scientists have come up with.
Like nuclear physics. There US scientists invented explosive fission 1945 to put fear into us and today Korean emperor Kim III has copied the nonsense - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Only twerps believe in Americans on the Moon 1969 and Americans vaporizing Japanese 1945 with atomic bombs. It was just propaganda.
No, of it was so easily proved to be a hoax you would have done so. Instead you just whine and cry when someone asks you for evidence to support your bullshit claims. Before you say it, there is no evidence at your website. Post something here that supports your claim.Well, I also believed the story of Americans pissing on the Moon story 1969. NASA prepared pseudo-scientific reports how it was done with times and locations, speeds and trajectories, fuel used, etc, and everyone believed them.True, you do always say that. Of course you also always fail to provide any any evidence to support that idiotic claim. You could always prove me wrong but you won't because you are a liar and a fraud.So sorry about the late posting, but time zones etc, etc - and I forgot!Incorrect, I've already seen the botch you make of things like the sling-shot manoeuvre and nuclear detonation so, I'll stick to more exciting things like "watching the grass grow", which it is doing far too rapidly lately!Why don't you post a few relevant bits here, samplers as it were, so we can see if it won't be one big time waster?No, it is better to study my findings at my website. I recommend http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw2.htm#ROS as a starter.
From the rubbish you've posted here, I wouldn't be worth the effort. I'd probably find it on a level with you arguments against nuclear detonation.
I understand that Ariane has placed 6910 kg into GEO and not a great deal more delta V is needed to get past the moon from there.
Once in GEO a delta V only 1056 m/s is needed to enter a LTO then another 564 m/s to enter lunar orbit - getting a moderate mass to the moon is no trouble now.
And from GEO a delta V of under 1200 m/s gets the space-craft completely out of the earth's gravity well.
.
Then Falcon Heavy can get 63,800 kg to LEO and the total launch mass of the first US mission to get to the vicinity of the moon, the Juno II, was 55,110 kg.Quote from: HeiwaIf you are interested in nuclear detonations and the emperor Kim III, empress and princess of Pyongyang, you better study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .I seriously doubt it! From the little I have seen, you might know a smidgen about Nuclear Physics but virtually nothing about the actual mechanics of nuclear detonation.Quote from: HeiwaThe emperor has no clothes! Like Lone Skum!I think the answer is far more likely that Lone Plumber has such a hatred of all things American that he has lost all ability to see or think objectively.
Stick to plumbing, you seem to understand that a little better than orbital mechanics, rocket science and Nuclear Physics.
Have fun with your leaky pipes and leaky ideas.
Interesting figures! Compare with NASA's 1969 figures going to the Moon with Apollo 11 - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm . A magic Saturn V rocket placed an Apollo 11 space craft + rocket third stage - total mass 150-250 tons (!) (nobody knows) in EPO at say 7 000 m/s speed and then dr. Buzz & Co applied delta-V 4 600 m/s to be catapulted to the Moon. During the trip to the Moon speed dropped to 800 m/s when Moon gravity took over so speed increased to >2000 m/s dropping down. Luckily dr. Buzz & Co could brake using a rocket to start orbiting the Moon, etc, bla, bla, bla.
As I always say - you can only put satellites in orbits around Earth and it is an one-way trip. You cannot land anywhere or dock anywhere, e.g. with the fake space station - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm .
Orbital dynamics are quite interesting. Imagine what the NASA rocket scientists have come up with.
Like nuclear physics. There US scientists invented explosive fission 1945 to put fear into us and today Korean emperor Kim III has copied the nonsense - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Only twerps believe in Americans on the Moon 1969 and Americans vaporizing Japanese 1945 with atomic bombs. It was just propaganda.
But pseudo rocket science develops with time and to accomplish trips to Mars and beyond today you have the falsify the data in other ways which easily prove that the Moon trip was a hoax.
Yes, yes, yes. It's all fake. Blah, blah, blah.Only twerps believe in Americans on the Moon 1969 and Americans vaporizing Japanese 1945 with atomic bombs.
This is incorrect.
Well, I pay you €1M to prove me wrong
This is also incorrect.
What ever - here is a summary of my findings March 7, 2018:
Like the twerp that you claim I am and having gotten bored watching the grass grow,Stick to plumbing, you seem to understand that a little better than orbital mechanics, rocket science and Nuclear Physics.
Have fun with your leaky pipes and leaky ideas.
As I always say - you can only put satellites in orbits around Earth and it is an one-way trip. You cannot land anywhere or dock anywhere, e.g. with the fake space station - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm.
Only twerps believe in Americans on the Moon 1969. It was just propaganda.
When in space or in orbit the astronuts and kosmoklowns are floating (!) around inside their spacecrafts, we are told. They are weightless (!). Haven't we seen plenty footage of asstronuts floating inside the IFS?Let's look at your ;) wonderful ;) (lack of) understanding of the simplest physics:
This may be true in vacuum space away from heavenly bodies but not in orbit at 400 km altitude. There gravity acceleration is about 3.4 m/s2 or 0.35g pulling you down towards Earth all the time, while you are flying horizontally around Earth at about 7 400 m/s in your orbit ... like in a plane. No centrifugal force is keeping you 'floating'. So inside the IFS all asstronuts should be walking on the surface closest to Earth ... and not be flying or floating around. Any footage of kosmos clowns 'floating' inside the IFS is pure fakery! Only outside the IFS you should be 'floating' around as there is no floor or deck to stand on.
The acceleration of an object moving in a circle can be determined by either two of the following equations.So at an orbital radius of 6766 km and an orbital velocity of 7675 m/s the centripetal acceleration needed to keep the ISS and its occupants in orbit is 76752/(6766 x 1000) or 8.71m/s2.(http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/circles/u6l1e2.gif)
Thanks for visiting my web page about human space travel and what happens on the IFS, the International Faked Space station with plenty astronuts floating around inside like fish in an aquarium. It seems we agree that gravity is positive inside the IFS, i.e. any person there should not be floating around that you do when g = 0 m/s²? So why does the IFS staff float around there on all footage sent down? And how was the IFS screwed together and filled with air? And how do you dock with it? And the toilet? Etc, etc. Only twerps believe that the IFS is real. But thanks for visiting my website. It is really popular.Like the twerp that you claim I am and having gotten bored watching the grass grow,Stick to plumbing, you seem to understand that a little better than orbital mechanics, rocket science and Nuclear Physics.
Have fun with your leaky pipes and leaky ideas.
As I always say - you can only put satellites in orbits around Earth and it is an one-way trip. You cannot land anywhere or dock anywhere, e.g. with the fake space station - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm.
Only twerps believe in Americans on the Moon 1969. It was just propaganda.
I decided to waste time looking at The Human Space Travel Hoaxes 1959-2018 (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm) and utter rubbish it certainly is!
Amid your rants, I hit this little gem!QuoteWhen in space or in orbit the astronuts and kosmoklowns are floating (!) around inside their spacecrafts, we are told. They are weightless (!). Haven't we seen plenty footage of asstronuts floating inside the IFS?Let's look at your ;) wonderful ;) (lack of) understanding of the simplest physics:
This may be true in vacuum space away from heavenly bodies but not in orbit at 400 km altitude. There gravity acceleration is about 3.4 m/s2 or 0.35g pulling you down towards Earth all the time, while you are flying horizontally around Earth at about 7 400 m/s in your orbit ... like in a plane. No centrifugal force is keeping you 'floating'. So inside the IFS all asstronuts should be walking on the surface closest to Earth ... and not be flying or floating around. Any footage of kosmos clowns 'floating' inside the IFS is pure fakery! Only outside the IFS you should be 'floating' around as there is no floor or deck to stand on.
- You state: "This may be true in vacuum space away from heavenly bodies but not in orbit at 400 km altitude. There gravity acceleration is about 3.4 m/s2 or 0.35g pulling you down towards Earth all the time".
Rubbish, if g at sea level (neglecting the rotational component) is 9.83m/s2
then gravity at "at 400 km altitude" is about 9.83 x (Re/(Re + 400))2 m/s2 or about 8.71m/s2 NOT 3.4 m/s2!!!!!.- Then you say, "while you are flying horizontally around Earth at about 7 400 m/s in your orbit ... like in a plane. No centrifugal force is keeping you 'floating'."
I get 7675 m/s, but that doesn't matter.
Sure the ISS is orbiting on a local horizontal, but last I heard the earth was a Globe and to orbit a Globe one must travel in a circle, Duh!
Now have you ever heard that to travel in a circle requires an acceleration normal to the direction of travel.
That acceleration is called the centripetal acceleration.
Maybe it's a long while since you went to school and you have forgotten how to calculate centripetal acceleration,
so here is the Physics Classroom Tutorial on it. Your might read,
Physics Classroom, Physics Tutorial, Lesson 1 - Motion Characteristics for Circular Motion Mathematics of Circular Motion (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-1/Mathematics-of-Circular-Motion)QuoteThe acceleration of an object moving in a circle can be determined by either two of the following equations.So at an orbital radius of 6766 km and an orbital velocity of 7675 m/s the centripetal acceleration needed to keep the ISS and its occupants in orbit is 76752/(6766 x 1000) or 8.71m/s2.(http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/circles/u6l1e2.gif)
And lookey, lookey! The centripetal acceleration is exactly the same as gravity at that altitude.
So what happens is that gravity at 400 km exactly supplies the centripetal acceleration needed to keep the ISS, occupants and any astronauts doing space-walks in orbit.
So in the ISS and the occupants are subject to exactly the same forces and so move as one and hence appear "weightless".
If you are so ignorant of this simple matter, then you have no hope of understanding orbital mechanics,
and I won't waste any more time reading more your total garbage. I'll stick to watching the grass grow!
I guess reading this little bit of The Human Space Travel Hoaxes 1959-2018 (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm) was worth while.
It proves once and for all that you, Mr Anders Björkman, are a total ignorant fraud when it comes to human space travel.
If you wrote "The sky is blue", I'd immediately race outside to double check. Please stick to repairing taps and keep away from any ships I might travel in!
To be called a twerp by you is an honour indeed.
Thanks for visiting my web page about human space travel and what happens on the IFS, the International Faked Space station with plenty astronuts floating around inside like fish in an aquarium. It seems we agree that gravity is positive inside the IFSNo, we do not agree and you don't even have enough understanding of physics to appreciate why!
No, when I am orbiting horizontally on a merry-go-round the centripetal acceleration tries to throw me off. If I turn the merry-go-round 90°, I may fly, when the centripetal acceleration equals gravity acceleration but it is only temporarily before I hit the ground. No, the centripetal acceleration of the faked up space station does not equal gravity acceleration up there. All is 100% fake, including the toilet.Thanks for visiting my web page about human space travel and what happens on the IFS, the International Faked Space station with plenty astronuts floating around inside like fish in an aquarium. It seems we agree that gravity is positive inside the IFSNo, we do not agree and you don't even have enough understanding of physics to appreciate why!
Sure gravity inside the ISS is almost the same as on earth, but the ISS is orbiting in a curved path.
Go and read my post again and learn about centripetal acceleration from say Physics Classroom.
So as I showed in my post the centripetal acceleration exactly counteracts the gravitational acceleration.
I'll post more when I get to a proper computer,but at least now I know that you are total fraud, whether that's through ignorance or intentional is not for me to judge.
No, when I am orbiting horizontally on a merry-go-round the centripetal acceleration tries to throw me off. If I turn the merry-go-round 90°, I may fly, when the centripetal acceleration equals gravity acceleration but it is only temporarily before I hit the ground. No, the centripetal acceleration of the faked up space station does not equal gravity acceleration up there.Garbage! If you can't understand centripetal acceleration you haven't the slightest idea about orbital mechanics, so stop being a totally ignorant hypocrite!
All is 100% fake, including the toilet.Why should I tell you about "the zero gravity toilet!" I don't take orders from the likes of you!
Forget your computer. Tell me about the zero gravity toilet!
Tell me about the zero gravity toilet!It's essentially a high tech shop vac hooked up to a toilet that you pee and poop into.
No, when I am orbiting horizontally on a merry-go-round the centripetal acceleration tries to throw me off. If I turn the merry-go-round 90°, I may fly, when the centripetal acceleration equals gravity acceleration but it is only temporarily before I hit the ground. No, the centripetal acceleration of the faked up space station does not equal gravity acceleration up there.Garbage! If you can't understand centripetal acceleration you haven't the slightest idea about orbital mechanics, so stop being a totally ignorant hypocrite!
What on earth do you think holds the ISS and all the satellites that Ariane launch "up in the sky"?
Well, exactly the same thing holds the astronauts in orbit the ISS. The astronauts and the ISS are orbiting together, so why should the astronauts fall relative to the ISS?Quote from: HeiwaAll is 100% fake, including the toilet.Why should I tell you about "the zero gravity toilet!" I don't take orders from the likes of you!
Forget your computer. Tell me about the zero gravity toilet!
Thanks. Can you provide links to some NASA or Lone Skum technical reports about this contraption. Do you flush it? And how do you regularly clean it?Tell me about the zero gravity toilet!It's essentially a high tech shop vac hooked up to a toilet that you pee and poop into.
Maybe this will help (but I doubt it):Thanks. Can you provide links to some NASA or Lone Skum technical reports about this contraption. Do you flush it? And how do you regularly clean it?Tell me about the zero gravity toilet!It's essentially a high tech shop vac hooked up to a toilet that you pee and poop into.
Thanks markjo.Maybe this will help (but I doubt it):Thanks. Can you provide links to some NASA or Lone Skum technical reports about this contraption. Do you flush it? And how do you regularly clean it?Tell me about the zero gravity toilet!It's essentially a high tech shop vac hooked up to a toilet that you pee and poop into.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070016696.pdf
Why do you care? Are you planning a trip to the ISS where you will have to worry about it?Thanks markjo.Maybe this will help (but I doubt it):Thanks. Can you provide links to some NASA or Lone Skum technical reports about this contraption. Do you flush it? And how do you regularly clean it?Tell me about the zero gravity toilet!It's essentially a high tech shop vac hooked up to a toilet that you pee and poop into.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070016696.pdf
The link is however just a 2007 draft of some space WCS, i.e. Waste Collection Systems and doesn't mention how to use it incl. flushing and cleaning, etc. Haven't you got something better?
I note that 2007 "Most crew rapidly adjust to just the toe bar for standing urination or the thigh restraint(s) for seated operation".In a zero gravity environment, the concepts of standing and upside down kinda lose their meanings. Space toilets are generally designed to be used in the seated position, so I'm not sure why you would want to stand upside down to use it.
Any ideas how you urinate standing upside down in a zero gravity environment?
Is this the system Lone Skum is going to use for his tourist trips around the Moon next year?Not likely. I can't find where SpaceX has revealed their sanitary facilities. Some people think that they might use Apollo or Soyuz type waste collection systems.
How do you not know the ISS is in free fall?Thanks for visiting my web page about human space travel and what happens on the IFS, the International Faked Space station with plenty astronuts floating around inside like fish in an aquarium. It seems we agree that gravity is positive inside the IFS, i.e. any person there should not be floating around that you do when g = 0 m/s²? So why does the IFS staff float around there on all footage sent down? And how was the IFS screwed together and filled with air? And how do you dock with it? And the toilet? Etc, etc. Only twerps believe that the IFS is real. But thanks for visiting my website. It is really popular.Like the twerp that you claim I am and having gotten bored watching the grass grow,Stick to plumbing, you seem to understand that a little better than orbital mechanics, rocket science and Nuclear Physics.
Have fun with your leaky pipes and leaky ideas.
As I always say - you can only put satellites in orbits around Earth and it is an one-way trip. You cannot land anywhere or dock anywhere, e.g. with the fake space station - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm.
Only twerps believe in Americans on the Moon 1969. It was just propaganda.
I decided to waste time looking at The Human Space Travel Hoaxes 1959-2018 (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm) and utter rubbish it certainly is!
Amid your rants, I hit this little gem!QuoteWhen in space or in orbit the astronuts and kosmoklowns are floating (!) around inside their spacecrafts, we are told. They are weightless (!). Haven't we seen plenty footage of asstronuts floating inside the IFS?Let's look at your ;) wonderful ;) (lack of) understanding of the simplest physics:
This may be true in vacuum space away from heavenly bodies but not in orbit at 400 km altitude. There gravity acceleration is about 3.4 m/s2 or 0.35g pulling you down towards Earth all the time, while you are flying horizontally around Earth at about 7 400 m/s in your orbit ... like in a plane. No centrifugal force is keeping you 'floating'. So inside the IFS all asstronuts should be walking on the surface closest to Earth ... and not be flying or floating around. Any footage of kosmos clowns 'floating' inside the IFS is pure fakery! Only outside the IFS you should be 'floating' around as there is no floor or deck to stand on.
- You state: "This may be true in vacuum space away from heavenly bodies but not in orbit at 400 km altitude. There gravity acceleration is about 3.4 m/s2 or 0.35g pulling you down towards Earth all the time".
Rubbish, if g at sea level (neglecting the rotational component) is 9.83m/s2
then gravity at "at 400 km altitude" is about 9.83 x (Re/(Re + 400))2 m/s2 or about 8.71m/s2 NOT 3.4 m/s2!!!!!.- Then you say, "while you are flying horizontally around Earth at about 7 400 m/s in your orbit ... like in a plane. No centrifugal force is keeping you 'floating'."
I get 7675 m/s, but that doesn't matter.
Sure the ISS is orbiting on a local horizontal, but last I heard the earth was a Globe and to orbit a Globe one must travel in a circle, Duh!
Now have you ever heard that to travel in a circle requires an acceleration normal to the direction of travel.
That acceleration is called the centripetal acceleration.
Maybe it's a long while since you went to school and you have forgotten how to calculate centripetal acceleration,
so here is the Physics Classroom Tutorial on it. Your might read,
Physics Classroom, Physics Tutorial, Lesson 1 - Motion Characteristics for Circular Motion Mathematics of Circular Motion (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-1/Mathematics-of-Circular-Motion)QuoteThe acceleration of an object moving in a circle can be determined by either two of the following equations.So at an orbital radius of 6766 km and an orbital velocity of 7675 m/s the centripetal acceleration needed to keep the ISS and its occupants in orbit is 76752/(6766 x 1000) or 8.71m/s2.(http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/circles/u6l1e2.gif)
And lookey, lookey! The centripetal acceleration is exactly the same as gravity at that altitude.
So what happens is that gravity at 400 km exactly supplies the centripetal acceleration needed to keep the ISS, occupants and any astronauts doing space-walks in orbit.
So in the ISS and the occupants are subject to exactly the same forces and so move as one and hence appear "weightless".
If you are so ignorant of this simple matter, then you have no hope of understanding orbital mechanics,
and I won't waste any more time reading more your total garbage. I'll stick to watching the grass grow!
I guess reading this little bit of The Human Space Travel Hoaxes 1959-2018 (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm) was worth while.
It proves once and for all that you, Mr Anders Björkman, are a total ignorant fraud when it comes to human space travel.
If you wrote "The sky is blue", I'd immediately race outside to double check. Please stick to repairing taps and keep away from any ships I might travel in!
To be called a twerp by you is an honour indeed.
Why do you care? Are you planning a trip to the ISS where you will have to worry about it?Thanks markjo.Maybe this will help (but I doubt it):Thanks. Can you provide links to some NASA or Lone Skum technical reports about this contraption. Do you flush it? And how do you regularly clean it?Tell me about the zero gravity toilet!It's essentially a high tech shop vac hooked up to a toilet that you pee and poop into.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070016696.pdf
The link is however just a 2007 draft of some space WCS, i.e. Waste Collection Systems and doesn't mention how to use it incl. flushing and cleaning, etc. Haven't you got something better?I note that 2007 "Most crew rapidly adjust to just the toe bar for standing urination or the thigh restraint(s) for seated operation".In a zero gravity environment, the concepts of standing and upside down kinda lose their meanings. Space toilets are generally designed to be used in the seated position, so I'm not sure why you would want to stand upside down to use it.
Any ideas how you urinate standing upside down in a zero gravity environment?
Are you asking me? The ISS is just a satellite with nobody aboard orbiting Earth.How do you not know the ISS is in free fall?Thanks for visiting my web page about human space travel and what happens on the IFS, the International Faked Space station with plenty astronuts floating around inside like fish in an aquarium. It seems we agree that gravity is positive inside the IFS, i.e. any person there should not be floating around that you do when g = 0 m/s²? So why does the IFS staff float around there on all footage sent down? And how was the IFS screwed together and filled with air? And how do you dock with it? And the toilet? Etc, etc. Only twerps believe that the IFS is real. But thanks for visiting my website. It is really popular.Like the twerp that you claim I am and having gotten bored watching the grass grow,Stick to plumbing, you seem to understand that a little better than orbital mechanics, rocket science and Nuclear Physics.
Have fun with your leaky pipes and leaky ideas.
As I always say - you can only put satellites in orbits around Earth and it is an one-way trip. You cannot land anywhere or dock anywhere, e.g. with the fake space station - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm.
Only twerps believe in Americans on the Moon 1969. It was just propaganda.
I decided to waste time looking at The Human Space Travel Hoaxes 1959-2018 (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm) and utter rubbish it certainly is!
Amid your rants, I hit this little gem!QuoteWhen in space or in orbit the astronuts and kosmoklowns are floating (!) around inside their spacecrafts, we are told. They are weightless (!). Haven't we seen plenty footage of asstronuts floating inside the IFS?Let's look at your ;) wonderful ;) (lack of) understanding of the simplest physics:
This may be true in vacuum space away from heavenly bodies but not in orbit at 400 km altitude. There gravity acceleration is about 3.4 m/s2 or 0.35g pulling you down towards Earth all the time, while you are flying horizontally around Earth at about 7 400 m/s in your orbit ... like in a plane. No centrifugal force is keeping you 'floating'. So inside the IFS all asstronuts should be walking on the surface closest to Earth ... and not be flying or floating around. Any footage of kosmos clowns 'floating' inside the IFS is pure fakery! Only outside the IFS you should be 'floating' around as there is no floor or deck to stand on.
- You state: "This may be true in vacuum space away from heavenly bodies but not in orbit at 400 km altitude. There gravity acceleration is about 3.4 m/s2 or 0.35g pulling you down towards Earth all the time".
Rubbish, if g at sea level (neglecting the rotational component) is 9.83m/s2
then gravity at "at 400 km altitude" is about 9.83 x (Re/(Re + 400))2 m/s2 or about 8.71m/s2 NOT 3.4 m/s2!!!!!.- Then you say, "while you are flying horizontally around Earth at about 7 400 m/s in your orbit ... like in a plane. No centrifugal force is keeping you 'floating'."
I get 7675 m/s, but that doesn't matter.
Sure the ISS is orbiting on a local horizontal, but last I heard the earth was a Globe and to orbit a Globe one must travel in a circle, Duh!
Now have you ever heard that to travel in a circle requires an acceleration normal to the direction of travel.
That acceleration is called the centripetal acceleration.
Maybe it's a long while since you went to school and you have forgotten how to calculate centripetal acceleration,
so here is the Physics Classroom Tutorial on it. Your might read,
Physics Classroom, Physics Tutorial, Lesson 1 - Motion Characteristics for Circular Motion Mathematics of Circular Motion (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-1/Mathematics-of-Circular-Motion)QuoteThe acceleration of an object moving in a circle can be determined by either two of the following equations.So at an orbital radius of 6766 km and an orbital velocity of 7675 m/s the centripetal acceleration needed to keep the ISS and its occupants in orbit is 76752/(6766 x 1000) or 8.71m/s2.(http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/circles/u6l1e2.gif)
And lookey, lookey! The centripetal acceleration is exactly the same as gravity at that altitude.
So what happens is that gravity at 400 km exactly supplies the centripetal acceleration needed to keep the ISS, occupants and any astronauts doing space-walks in orbit.
So in the ISS and the occupants are subject to exactly the same forces and so move as one and hence appear "weightless".
If you are so ignorant of this simple matter, then you have no hope of understanding orbital mechanics,
and I won't waste any more time reading more your total garbage. I'll stick to watching the grass grow!
I guess reading this little bit of The Human Space Travel Hoaxes 1959-2018 (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm) was worth while.
It proves once and for all that you, Mr Anders Björkman, are a total ignorant fraud when it comes to human space travel.
If you wrote "The sky is blue", I'd immediately race outside to double check. Please stick to repairing taps and keep away from any ships I might travel in!
To be called a twerp by you is an honour indeed.
Yes by you were wondering why people look to be in zero g. So I was wondering why you don’t know what freefall is or how objects in freefall react.I know what free fall is. But I do not go to the toilet in free fall. Do you? Standing up pissing? In free fall!
Well, I just quoted the NASA document you linked to about "Most crew rapidly adjust to just the toe bar for standing urination or the thigh restraint(s) for seated operation".Did you miss the part where they pee into a hose?
Thigh restraint(s) for seated operation!
According NASA it seems you need special training for going to the toilet in space. So when Elon Musk, aka Lone Skum, starts transporting paying travelers to Mars he must tell them accordingly.I seriously doubt that anyone on such a trip would forget how to properly use the space toilet more than once.
Imagine if 100 passengers going to Mars on a 2 months trip to Mars forgets restraining their thighs in the loo. The whole space craft will be full of shit and piss flying around.
I describe the funny space toilet problems at my website since many years. It is a pity you haven't noticed it until now. But thanks for the link about pissing into a hose standing up in free fall in space. I had missed that one.Well, I just quoted the NASA document you linked to about "Most crew rapidly adjust to just the toe bar for standing urination or the thigh restraint(s) for seated operation".Did you miss the part where they pee into a hose?
Thigh restraint(s) for seated operation!According NASA it seems you need special training for going to the toilet in space. So when Elon Musk, aka Lone Skum, starts transporting paying travelers to Mars he must tell them accordingly.I seriously doubt that anyone on such a trip would forget how to properly use the space toilet more than once.
Imagine if 100 passengers going to Mars on a 2 months trip to Mars forgets restraining their thighs in the loo. The whole space craft will be full of shit and piss flying around.
Does this mean that you're finally satisfied that NASA successfully figured out how to get astronauts to relieve themselves in space and we can now get back on topic?I describe the funny space toilet problems at my website since many years. It is a pity you haven't noticed it until now. But thanks for the link about pissing into a hose standing up in free fall in space. I had missed that one.Well, I just quoted the NASA document you linked to about "Most crew rapidly adjust to just the toe bar for standing urination or the thigh restraint(s) for seated operation".Did you miss the part where they pee into a hose?
Thigh restraint(s) for seated operation!According NASA it seems you need special training for going to the toilet in space. So when Elon Musk, aka Lone Skum, starts transporting paying travelers to Mars he must tell them accordingly.I seriously doubt that anyone on such a trip would forget how to properly use the space toilet more than once.
Imagine if 100 passengers going to Mars on a 2 months trip to Mars forgets restraining their thighs in the loo. The whole space craft will be full of shit and piss flying around.
And yet you always try to change the subject when asked for evidence. You just continue to lie and fail.No, when I am orbiting horizontally on a merry-go-round the centripetal acceleration tries to throw me off. If I turn the merry-go-round 90°, I may fly, when the centripetal acceleration equals gravity acceleration but it is only temporarily before I hit the ground. No, the centripetal acceleration of the faked up space station does not equal gravity acceleration up there.Garbage! If you can't understand centripetal acceleration you haven't the slightest idea about orbital mechanics, so stop being a totally ignorant hypocrite!
What on earth do you think holds the ISS and all the satellites that Ariane launch "up in the sky"?
Well, exactly the same thing holds the astronauts in orbit the ISS. The astronauts and the ISS are orbiting together, so why should the astronauts fall relative to the ISS?Quote from: HeiwaAll is 100% fake, including the toilet.Why should I tell you about "the zero gravity toilet!" I don't take orders from the likes of you!
Forget your computer. Tell me about the zero gravity toilet!
There is no ISS orbiting Earth. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm .
Only twerps like you believe that the ISS was screwed together between 1998 and 2011 carried into orbit by various rockets and Shuttles and then one day was filled with air so that astronuts could float around inside it and visit "the zero gravity toilet".
That's why I call the ISS IFS - the International Fake Station.
One problem of the IFS is of course the toilet. It doesn't exist. Like the whole thing. Why do you believe in the IFS nonsense? Because you have been told about it and seen some footage of it?
No and yes. Pissing in free fall is not possible. But I love discussing ... even with twerps.Does this mean that you're finally satisfied that NASA successfully figured out how to get astronauts to relieve themselves in space and we can now get back on topic?I describe the funny space toilet problems at my website since many years. It is a pity you haven't noticed it until now. But thanks for the link about pissing into a hose standing up in free fall in space. I had missed that one.Well, I just quoted the NASA document you linked to about "Most crew rapidly adjust to just the toe bar for standing urination or the thigh restraint(s) for seated operation".Did you miss the part where they pee into a hose?
Thigh restraint(s) for seated operation!According NASA it seems you need special training for going to the toilet in space. So when Elon Musk, aka Lone Skum, starts transporting paying travelers to Mars he must tell them accordingly.I seriously doubt that anyone on such a trip would forget how to properly use the space toilet more than once.
Imagine if 100 passengers going to Mars on a 2 months trip to Mars forgets restraining their thighs in the loo. The whole space craft will be full of shit and piss flying around.
You can piss into a bag through a tube connected to a condom that you're wearing, into a diaper or into a specialized vacuum cleaner. Granted, none of those choices seem terribly appealing, but I don't see why any of them should be a problem in free fall.No and yes. Pissing in free fall is not possible. But I love discussing ... even with twerps.Does this mean that you're finally satisfied that NASA successfully figured out how to get astronauts to relieve themselves in space and we can now get back on topic?I describe the funny space toilet problems at my website since many years. It is a pity you haven't noticed it until now. But thanks for the link about pissing into a hose standing up in free fall in space. I had missed that one.Well, I just quoted the NASA document you linked to about "Most crew rapidly adjust to just the toe bar for standing urination or the thigh restraint(s) for seated operation".Did you miss the part where they pee into a hose?
Thigh restraint(s) for seated operation!According NASA it seems you need special training for going to the toilet in space. So when Elon Musk, aka Lone Skum, starts transporting paying travelers to Mars he must tell them accordingly.I seriously doubt that anyone on such a trip would forget how to properly use the space toilet more than once.
Imagine if 100 passengers going to Mars on a 2 months trip to Mars forgets restraining their thighs in the loo. The whole space craft will be full of shit and piss flying around.
You are a twerp.You can piss into a bag through a tube connected to a condom that you're wearing, into a diaper or into a specialized vacuum cleaner. Granted, none of those choices seem terribly appealing, but I don't see why any of them should be a problem in free fall.No and yes. Pissing in free fall is not possible. But I love discussing ... even with twerps.Does this mean that you're finally satisfied that NASA successfully figured out how to get astronauts to relieve themselves in space and we can now get back on topic?I describe the funny space toilet problems at my website since many years. It is a pity you haven't noticed it until now. But thanks for the link about pissing into a hose standing up in free fall in space. I had missed that one.Well, I just quoted the NASA document you linked to about "Most crew rapidly adjust to just the toe bar for standing urination or the thigh restraint(s) for seated operation".Did you miss the part where they pee into a hose?
Thigh restraint(s) for seated operation!According NASA it seems you need special training for going to the toilet in space. So when Elon Musk, aka Lone Skum, starts transporting paying travelers to Mars he must tell them accordingly.I seriously doubt that anyone on such a trip would forget how to properly use the space toilet more than once.
Imagine if 100 passengers going to Mars on a 2 months trip to Mars forgets restraining their thighs in the loo. The whole space craft will be full of shit and piss flying around.
You fail again.Never.
Interesting. You can't find fault with my post, so you resort to calling me a twerp. How does if feel to be out smarted by a twerp?You are a twerp.You can piss into a bag through a tube connected to a condom that you're wearing, into a diaper or into a specialized vacuum cleaner. Granted, none of those choices seem terribly appealing, but I don't see why any of them should be a problem in free fall.No and yes. Pissing in free fall is not possible. But I love discussing ... even with twerps.Does this mean that you're finally satisfied that NASA successfully figured out how to get astronauts to relieve themselves in space and we can now get back on topic?I describe the funny space toilet problems at my website since many years. It is a pity you haven't noticed it until now. But thanks for the link about pissing into a hose standing up in free fall in space. I had missed that one.Well, I just quoted the NASA document you linked to about "Most crew rapidly adjust to just the toe bar for standing urination or the thigh restraint(s) for seated operation".Did you miss the part where they pee into a hose?
Thigh restraint(s) for seated operation!According NASA it seems you need special training for going to the toilet in space. So when Elon Musk, aka Lone Skum, starts transporting paying travelers to Mars he must tell them accordingly.I seriously doubt that anyone on such a trip would forget how to properly use the space toilet more than once.
Imagine if 100 passengers going to Mars on a 2 months trip to Mars forgets restraining their thighs in the loo. The whole space craft will be full of shit and piss flying around.
Yes, I thought you had non twerp IQ~100 until you started talking about pissing up-side down free fall in a hose in space. That really pissed me off. What is your IQ? 60+? You sound like a twerp now.Interesting. You can't find fault with my post, so you resort to calling me a twerp. How does if feel to be out smarted by a twerp?You are a twerp.You can piss into a bag through a tube connected to a condom that you're wearing, into a diaper or into a specialized vacuum cleaner. Granted, none of those choices seem terribly appealing, but I don't see why any of them should be a problem in free fall.No and yes. Pissing in free fall is not possible. But I love discussing ... even with twerps.Does this mean that you're finally satisfied that NASA successfully figured out how to get astronauts to relieve themselves in space and we can now get back on topic?I describe the funny space toilet problems at my website since many years. It is a pity you haven't noticed it until now. But thanks for the link about pissing into a hose standing up in free fall in space. I had missed that one.Well, I just quoted the NASA document you linked to about "Most crew rapidly adjust to just the toe bar for standing urination or the thigh restraint(s) for seated operation".Did you miss the part where they pee into a hose?
Thigh restraint(s) for seated operation!According NASA it seems you need special training for going to the toilet in space. So when Elon Musk, aka Lone Skum, starts transporting paying travelers to Mars he must tell them accordingly.I seriously doubt that anyone on such a trip would forget how to properly use the space toilet more than once.
Imagine if 100 passengers going to Mars on a 2 months trip to Mars forgets restraining their thighs in the loo. The whole space craft will be full of shit and piss flying around.
Always. You never back up your idiotic claims. There is no evidence on your shorty website. You never post any here and you can't even prove you have the money for your fake challenges.You fail again.Never.
Does it?Always. You never back up your idiotic claims. There is no evidence on your shorty website. You never post any here and you can't even prove you have the money for your fake challenges.You fail again.Never.
Even your own government points out what a failure you are.
And he fails again. No surprise there.Does it?Always. You never back up your idiotic claims. There is no evidence on your shorty website. You never post any here and you can't even prove you have the money for your fake challenges.You fail again.Never.
Even your own government points out what a failure you are.
Yes, I thought you had non twerp IQ~100 until you started talking about pissing up-side down free fall in a hose in space. That really pissed me off. What is your IQ? 60+? You sound like a twerp now.Actually, you're the one who who brought up pissing upside down in free fall. I simply told you about 3 ways that it can be done without making a mess. What's wrong, did you have a bad experience with a urine collection bag?
My guess is that is the one aspect of space travel that he wishes was real. So he could swim around in a floating ball of his own piss, or more likely, someone else's.Yes, I thought you had non twerp IQ~100 until you started talking about pissing up-side down free fall in a hose in space. That really pissed me off. What is your IQ? 60+? You sound like a twerp now.Actually, you're the one who who brought up pissing upside down in free fall. I simply told you about 3 ways that it can be done without making a mess. What's wrong, did you have a bad experience with a urine collection bag?
Really What is this?No, when I am orbiting horizontally on a merry-go-round the centripetal acceleration tries to throw me off. If I turn the merry-go-round 90°, I may fly, when the centripetal acceleration equals gravity acceleration but it is only temporarily before I hit the ground. No, the centripetal acceleration of the faked up space station does not equal gravity acceleration up there.Garbage! If you can't understand centripetal acceleration you haven't the slightest idea about orbital mechanics, so stop being a totally ignorant hypocrite!
What on earth do you think holds the ISS and all the satellites that Ariane launch "up in the sky"?
Well, exactly the same thing holds the astronauts in orbit the ISS. The astronauts and the ISS are orbiting together, so why should the astronauts fall relative to the ISS?Quote from: HeiwaAll is 100% fake, including the toilet.Why should I tell you about "the zero gravity toilet!" I don't take orders from the likes of you!
Forget your computer. Tell me about the zero gravity toilet!
There is no ISS orbiting Earth.
ISS passing in front of the moon Nikon P900, Movie Vertigo, Published on Apr 8, 2017 | Nikon P900 Captures ISS Lunar Transit, Reds Rhetoric, Published on Nov 7, 2017 |
You are a twerp.You can piss into a bag through a tube connected to a condom that you're wearing, into a diaper or into a specialized vacuum cleaner. Granted, none of those choices seem terribly appealing, but I don't see why any of them should be a problem in free fall.No and yes. Pissing in free fall is not possible. But I love discussing ... even with twerps.Does this mean that you're finally satisfied that NASA successfully figured out how to get astronauts to relieve themselves in space and we can now get back on topic?I describe the funny space toilet problems at my website since many years. It is a pity you haven't noticed it until now. But thanks for the link about pissing into a hose standing up in free fall in space. I had missed that one.Well, I just quoted the NASA document you linked to about "Most crew rapidly adjust to just the toe bar for standing urination or the thigh restraint(s) for seated operation".Did you miss the part where they pee into a hose?
Thigh restraint(s) for seated operation!According NASA it seems you need special training for going to the toilet in space. So when Elon Musk, aka Lone Skum, starts transporting paying travelers to Mars he must tell them accordingly.I seriously doubt that anyone on such a trip would forget how to properly use the space toilet more than once.
Imagine if 100 passengers going to Mars on a 2 months trip to Mars forgets restraining their thighs in the loo. The whole space craft will be full of shit and piss flying around.
The question is how does a spacecraft move from Earth orbit to Sun orbit. The NASA Deep Space Climate Observatory DSCOVR satellite did just that January-April 2015 similar to Lone Skum's recent trip to Mars. The European Space Agency satellite LISA Pathfinder has done the same thing a little later, i.e. starting December 2015.Translation: I don't understand any of it and because I'm an incurable narcissist then it must mean everybody else is lying!
The DSCOVR satellite orbits the Sun without humans aboard and parallel with planet Earth at a constant distance 91 960 000 miles from the Sun and 1 000 000 miles from Earth taking pictures of the Sun, Earth and the Moon all the time. The Moon is orbiting between 225 622 and 252 088 miles (average 238,857 miles from Earth) - see picture and full description at http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw2.htm#DSCO .
The DSCOVR satellite was sent away at 12 o’clock one day from geostationary orbit planet Earth straight towards the Sun January 2015 to start orbiting Sun instead by applying a rocket force to it to get out of orbit.
It then stopped, after braking for three months, in a magic position between Earth and Sun, we are told, where Earth's and Sun's gravity (forces) are equal. One problem was to find the location to stop and a second problem was fuel/rocket thrust to stop the radial speed completely and reduce the tangential speed (Earth tangential or orbital speed around the Sun is about 30 000 m/s) to stay exactly in location during the one year orbit around the Sun.
The latter it is normally not possible! At that orbital speed you go too slow and will spiral inwards to the Sun. If you go faster (according to Kepler), to keep the distance to the Sun constant, you will soon be far away from Earth.
Reason is that orbital velocity is higher the closer you orbit the Sun. Otherwise you do not orbit.
But there is a loophole, NASA tells us.
If the spacecraft is placed between Sun and Earth, the Earth's gravity pulls it in the opposite direction and cancels some of the pull of the Sun. With a weaker pull towards the Sun, the spacecraft then needs less speed to maintain its orbit around the Sun. The problem is just to find and 'place' the spacecraft in the right position, which NASA has done, bla, bla, bla.
Personally I don’t believe a word of it.
You are a twerp.You can piss into a bag through a tube connected to a condom that you're wearing, into a diaper or into a specialized vacuum cleaner. Granted, none of those choices seem terribly appealing, but I don't see why any of them should be a problem in free fall.No and yes. Pissing in free fall is not possible. But I love discussing ... even with twerps.Does this mean that you're finally satisfied that NASA successfully figured out how to get astronauts to relieve themselves in space and we can now get back on topic?I describe the funny space toilet problems at my website since many years. It is a pity you haven't noticed it until now. But thanks for the link about pissing into a hose standing up in free fall in space. I had missed that one.Well, I just quoted the NASA document you linked to about "Most crew rapidly adjust to just the toe bar for standing urination or the thigh restraint(s) for seated operation".Did you miss the part where they pee into a hose?
Thigh restraint(s) for seated operation!According NASA it seems you need special training for going to the toilet in space. So when Elon Musk, aka Lone Skum, starts transporting paying travelers to Mars he must tell them accordingly.I seriously doubt that anyone on such a trip would forget how to properly use the space toilet more than once.
Imagine if 100 passengers going to Mars on a 2 months trip to Mars forgets restraining their thighs in the loo. The whole space craft will be full of shit and piss flying around.
Please explain why the solution markjo provided is impossible.
When you piss standing up in free fall, i.e. floating in space, the piss applies a force to you, so you move backwards. If your feet are restrained by some straps you will rotate around the straps and piss somewhere else.I think that you vastly overestimate the power of your piss stream vs the strength of your legs and the size of the bathroom on the ISS.
The question is how does a spacecraft move from Earth orbit to Sun orbit. The NASA Deep Space Climate Observatory DSCOVR satellite did just that January-April 2015 similar to Lone Skum's recent trip to Mars. The European Space Agency satellite LISA Pathfinder has done the same thing a little later, i.e. starting December 2015.Yes but you're a moron with nothing to support your bullshit. Also you claimed it was impossible to use a toilet in space. Markjo should you a few ways and you tried to hide behind and insult without refuting anything he said.
The DSCOVR satellite orbits the Sun without humans aboard and parallel with planet Earth at a constant distance 91 960 000 miles from the Sun and 1 000 000 miles from Earth taking pictures of the Sun, Earth and the Moon all the time. The Moon is orbiting between 225 622 and 252 088 miles (average 238,857 miles from Earth) - see picture and full description at http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw2.htm#DSCO .
The DSCOVR satellite was sent away at 12 o’clock one day from geostationary orbit planet Earth straight towards the Sun January 2015 to start orbiting Sun instead by applying a rocket force to it to get out of orbit.
It then stopped, after braking for three months, in a magic position between Earth and Sun, we are told, where Earth's and Sun's gravity (forces) are equal. One problem was to find the location to stop and a second problem was fuel/rocket thrust to stop the radial speed completely and reduce the tangential speed (Earth tangential or orbital speed around the Sun is about 30 000 m/s) to stay exactly in location during the one year orbit around the Sun.
The latter it is normally not possible! At that orbital speed you go too slow and will spiral inwards to the Sun. If you go faster (according to Kepler), to keep the distance to the Sun constant, you will soon be far away from Earth.
Reason is that orbital velocity is higher the closer you orbit the Sun. Otherwise you do not orbit.
But there is a loophole, NASA tells us.
If the spacecraft is placed between Sun and Earth, the Earth's gravity pulls it in the opposite direction and cancels some of the pull of the Sun. With a weaker pull towards the Sun, the spacecraft then needs less speed to maintain its orbit around the Sun. The problem is just to find and 'place' the spacecraft in the right position, which NASA has done, bla, bla, bla.
Personally I don’t believe a word of it.
Dude. He's getting more or less back on topic. We can let the off topic space toilets go.The question is how does a spacecraft move from Earth orbit to Sun orbit. The NASA Deep Space Climate Observatory DSCOVR satellite did just that January-April 2015 similar to Lone Skum's recent trip to Mars. The European Space Agency satellite LISA Pathfinder has done the same thing a little later, i.e. starting December 2015.Yes but you're a moron with nothing to support your bullshit. Also you claimed it was impossible to use a toilet in space. Markjo should you a few ways and you tried to hide behind and insult without refuting anything he said.
The DSCOVR satellite orbits the Sun without humans aboard and parallel with planet Earth at a constant distance 91 960 000 miles from the Sun and 1 000 000 miles from Earth taking pictures of the Sun, Earth and the Moon all the time. The Moon is orbiting between 225 622 and 252 088 miles (average 238,857 miles from Earth) - see picture and full description at http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw2.htm#DSCO .
The DSCOVR satellite was sent away at 12 o’clock one day from geostationary orbit planet Earth straight towards the Sun January 2015 to start orbiting Sun instead by applying a rocket force to it to get out of orbit.
It then stopped, after braking for three months, in a magic position between Earth and Sun, we are told, where Earth's and Sun's gravity (forces) are equal. One problem was to find the location to stop and a second problem was fuel/rocket thrust to stop the radial speed completely and reduce the tangential speed (Earth tangential or orbital speed around the Sun is about 30 000 m/s) to stay exactly in location during the one year orbit around the Sun.
The latter it is normally not possible! At that orbital speed you go too slow and will spiral inwards to the Sun. If you go faster (according to Kepler), to keep the distance to the Sun constant, you will soon be far away from Earth.
Reason is that orbital velocity is higher the closer you orbit the Sun. Otherwise you do not orbit.
But there is a loophole, NASA tells us.
If the spacecraft is placed between Sun and Earth, the Earth's gravity pulls it in the opposite direction and cancels some of the pull of the Sun. With a weaker pull towards the Sun, the spacecraft then needs less speed to maintain its orbit around the Sun. The problem is just to find and 'place' the spacecraft in the right position, which NASA has done, bla, bla, bla.
Personally I don’t believe a word of it.
In other words, you failed again.
No, I just study what NASA and ESA do in space. According NASA/ESA there is a point L1 in space between Earth and Sun, where gravity forces are equal and where a spacecraft can be parked for ever, while orbiting the Sun. And both NASA and ESA have 2015 sent spacecrafts to L1, where they orbit around each other.The question is how does a spacecraft move from Earth orbit to Sun orbit. The NASA Deep Space Climate Observatory DSCOVR satellite did just that January-April 2015 similar to Lone Skum's recent trip to Mars. The European Space Agency satellite LISA Pathfinder has done the same thing a little later, i.e. starting December 2015.Yes but you're a moron with nothing to support your bullshit. Also you claimed it was impossible to use a toilet in space. Markjo should you a few ways and you tried to hide behind and insult without refuting anything he said.
The DSCOVR satellite orbits the Sun without humans aboard and parallel with planet Earth at a constant distance 91 960 000 miles from the Sun and 1 000 000 miles from Earth taking pictures of the Sun, Earth and the Moon all the time. The Moon is orbiting between 225 622 and 252 088 miles (average 238,857 miles from Earth) - see picture and full description at http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw2.htm#DSCO .
The DSCOVR satellite was sent away at 12 o’clock one day from geostationary orbit planet Earth straight towards the Sun January 2015 to start orbiting Sun instead by applying a rocket force to it to get out of orbit.
It then stopped, after braking for three months, in a magic position between Earth and Sun, we are told, where Earth's and Sun's gravity (forces) are equal. One problem was to find the location to stop and a second problem was fuel/rocket thrust to stop the radial speed completely and reduce the tangential speed (Earth tangential or orbital speed around the Sun is about 30 000 m/s) to stay exactly in location during the one year orbit around the Sun.
The latter it is normally not possible! At that orbital speed you go too slow and will spiral inwards to the Sun. If you go faster (according to Kepler), to keep the distance to the Sun constant, you will soon be far away from Earth.
Reason is that orbital velocity is higher the closer you orbit the Sun. Otherwise you do not orbit.
But there is a loophole, NASA tells us.
If the spacecraft is placed between Sun and Earth, the Earth's gravity pulls it in the opposite direction and cancels some of the pull of the Sun. With a weaker pull towards the Sun, the spacecraft then needs less speed to maintain its orbit around the Sun. The problem is just to find and 'place' the spacecraft in the right position, which NASA has done, bla, bla, bla.
Personally I don’t believe a word of it.
In other words, you failed again.
The question is how does a spacecraft move from Earth orbit to Sun orbit. The NASA Deep Space Climate Observatory DSCOVR satellite did just that January-April 2015 similar to Lone Skum's recent trip to Mars. The European Space Agency satellite LISA Pathfinder has done the same thing a little later, i.e. starting December 2015.No, you ignoramus, libration points have been known for over 2 centuries!
The DSCOVR satellite orbits the Sun without humans aboard and parallel with planet Earth at a constant distance 91 960 000 miles from the Sun and 1 000 000 miles from Earth taking pictures of the Sun, Earth and the Moon all the time. The Moon is orbiting between 225 622 and 252 088 miles (average 238,857 miles from Earth) - see picture and full description at http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw2.htm#DSCO .
The DSCOVR satellite was sent away at 12 o’clock one day from geostationary orbit planet Earth straight towards the Sun January 2015 to start orbiting Sun instead by applying a rocket force to it to get out of orbit.
It then stopped, after braking for three months, in a magic position between Earth and Sun, we are told, where Earth's and Sun's gravity (forces) are equal. One problem was to find the location to stop and a second problem was fuel/rocket thrust to stop the radial speed completely and reduce the tangential speed (Earth tangential or orbital speed around the Sun is about 30 000 m/s) to stay exactly in location during the one year orbit around the Sun.
The latter it is normally not possible! At that orbital speed you go too slow and will spiral inwards to the Sun. If you go faster (according to Kepler), to keep the distance to the Sun constant, you will soon be far away from Earth.
Reason is that orbital velocity is higher the closer you orbit the Sun. Otherwise you do not orbit.
But there is a loophole, NASA tells us.
With your ignorance in orbital mechanics means zilch.
If the spacecraft is placed between Sun and Earth, the Earth's gravity pulls it in the opposite direction and cancels some of the pull of the Sun. With a weaker pull towards the Sun, the spacecraft then needs less speed to maintain its orbit around the Sun. The problem is just to find and 'place' the spacecraft in the right position, which NASA has done, bla, bla, bla.
Personally I don’t believe a word of it.
And the "loophole" does not come from NASA, but from Joseph-Louis Lagrange, an 18th-century mathematician.
(https://img.purch.com/rc/300x200/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzA0OS81ODcvb3JpZ2luYWwvbGFncmFuZ2UtcG9pbnRzMS5qcGc=)
Diagram of the Lagrange points associated with the sun-Earth system.Lagrange Points: Parking Places in Space
A Lagrange point is a location in space where the combined gravitational forces of two large bodies, such as Earth and the sun or Earth and the moon, equal the centrifugal force felt by a much smaller third body. The interaction of the forces creates a point of equilibrium where a spacecraft may be "parked" to make observations.
These points are named after Joseph-Louis Lagrange, an 18th-century mathematician who wrote about them in a 1772 paper concerning what he called the "three-body problem." They are also called Lagrangian points and libration points.
Structure of Lagrange points
There are five Lagrange points around major bodies such as a planet or a star. Three of them lie along the line connecting the two large bodies. In the Earth-sun system, for example, the first point, L1, lies between Earth and the sun at about 1 million miles from Earth. L1 gets an uninterrupted view of the sun, and is currently occupied by the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) and the Deep Space Climate Observatory.
Read the rest in Lagrange Points: Parking Places in Space (https://www.space.com/30302-lagrange-points.html)
The question is how does a spacecraft move from Earth orbit to Sun orbit. The NASA Deep Space Climate Observatory DSCOVR satellite did just that January-April 2015 similar to Lone Skum's recent trip to Mars. The European Space Agency satellite LISA Pathfinder has done the same thing a little later, i.e. starting December 2015.No, you ignoramus, libration points have been known for over 2 centuries!
The DSCOVR satellite orbits the Sun without humans aboard and parallel with planet Earth at a constant distance 91 960 000 miles from the Sun and 1 000 000 miles from Earth taking pictures of the Sun, Earth and the Moon all the time. The Moon is orbiting between 225 622 and 252 088 miles (average 238,857 miles from Earth) - see picture and full description at http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw2.htm#DSCO .
The DSCOVR satellite was sent away at 12 o’clock one day from geostationary orbit planet Earth straight towards the Sun January 2015 to start orbiting Sun instead by applying a rocket force to it to get out of orbit.
It then stopped, after braking for three months, in a magic position between Earth and Sun, we are told, where Earth's and Sun's gravity (forces) are equal. One problem was to find the location to stop and a second problem was fuel/rocket thrust to stop the radial speed completely and reduce the tangential speed (Earth tangential or orbital speed around the Sun is about 30 000 m/s) to stay exactly in location during the one year orbit around the Sun.
The latter it is normally not possible! At that orbital speed you go too slow and will spiral inwards to the Sun. If you go faster (according to Kepler), to keep the distance to the Sun constant, you will soon be far away from Earth.
Reason is that orbital velocity is higher the closer you orbit the Sun. Otherwise you do not orbit.
But there is a loophole, NASA tells us.Quote from: HeiwaWith your ignorance in orbital mechanics means zilch.
If the spacecraft is placed between Sun and Earth, the Earth's gravity pulls it in the opposite direction and cancels some of the pull of the Sun. With a weaker pull towards the Sun, the spacecraft then needs less speed to maintain its orbit around the Sun. The problem is just to find and 'place' the spacecraft in the right position, which NASA has done, bla, bla, bla.
Personally I don’t believe a word of it.
So you know so little of orbital mechanics that you don't understand Lagrange points, yet you pretend to debunk such things as DSCOVR, what a total hypocrite!Quote from: Elizabeth HowellAnd the "loophole" does not come from NASA, but from Joseph-Louis Lagrange, an 18th-century mathematician.
(https://img.purch.com/rc/300x200/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzA0OS81ODcvb3JpZ2luYWwvbGFncmFuZ2UtcG9pbnRzMS5qcGc=)
Diagram of the Lagrange points associated with the sun-Earth system.Lagrange Points: Parking Places in Space
A Lagrange point is a location in space where the combined gravitational forces of two large bodies, such as Earth and the sun or Earth and the moon, equal the centrifugal force felt by a much smaller third body. The interaction of the forces creates a point of equilibrium where a spacecraft may be "parked" to make observations.
These points are named after Joseph-Louis Lagrange, an 18th-century mathematician who wrote about them in a 1772 paper concerning what he called the "three-body problem." They are also called Lagrangian points and libration points.
Structure of Lagrange points
There are five Lagrange points around major bodies such as a planet or a star. Three of them lie along the line connecting the two large bodies. In the Earth-sun system, for example, the first point, L1, lies between Earth and the sun at about 1 million miles from Earth. L1 gets an uninterrupted view of the sun, and is currently occupied by the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) and the Deep Space Climate Observatory.
Read the rest in Lagrange Points: Parking Places in Space (https://www.space.com/30302-lagrange-points.html)
Heiwa, do you enjoy demonstrating you ignorance with every post and in every bit of your website that I have wasted my time looking at?
PS Have you worked out how all your Ariane satellites stay up there if centripetal acceleration does not explain it.
Learn some orbital mechanics and then work it out for yourself!
Problem remains how to leave Earth orbit to arrive at this loophole L1 point in Sun orbit.
Do you leave at 12 o'clock and go vertically straight up out of Earth orbit to the Sun or at 6 o'clock in the morning and go tangentially to the Sun? And what force do you apply and what is your departure velocity out of Earth orbit? Another problem is how to find and stop at L1? It seems nobody know how to stop in space.
Earth gravity will of course slow you down during the trip to L1 as soon as the rocket force is no longer applied. If the force is too small, the space craft will come dropping back on Earth. And if it is too strong you will burn up in the Sun. So the rocket force must be in between for a certain arrival speed before L1 and then braking to 0 speed at L1. Any ideas how it is done?
No, I am not sour at all. Just study my website http://heiwaco.com. Why would I be sour?Learn some orbital mechanics and then work it out for yourself!
Problem remains how to leave Earth orbit to arrive at this loophole L1 point in Sun orbit.
Do you leave at 12 o'clock and go vertically straight up out of Earth orbit to the Sun or at 6 o'clock in the morning and go tangentially to the Sun? And what force do you apply and what is your departure velocity out of Earth orbit? Another problem is how to find and stop at L1? It seems nobody know how to stop in space.
Earth gravity will of course slow you down during the trip to L1 as soon as the rocket force is no longer applied. If the force is too small, the space craft will come dropping back on Earth. And if it is too strong you will burn up in the Sun. So the rocket force must be in between for a certain arrival speed before L1 and then braking to 0 speed at L1. Any ideas how it is done?
If you can't understand simple orbital motion, give it away and go back to plumbing!
All you say is, if, if, if! Of course, if you get it wrong it screws up! But all you have is the usual, if Heiwa can't understand it, then it must be fake.
You're just sour because NASA used SpaceX to deliver DSCOVR on a Falcon 9 and not an Ariane rocket - pure unbridled jealousy!
PS Have you worked yet out how all your Ariane satellites stay up there if centripetal acceleration does not explain it.
Please explain why not!PS Have you worked yet out how all your Ariane satellites stay up there if centripetal acceleration does not explain it.Anyway, according my understanding of orbital dynamics it is not possible for a satellite to leave Earth orbit at high radial speed towards the Sun to overcome Earth gravity and a few months later arrive in point L1 in high tangential speed Sun orbit - lined up with Earth.
Please explain why not!PS Have you worked yet out how all your Ariane satellites stay up there if centripetal acceleration does not explain it.Anyway, according my understanding of orbital dynamics it is not possible for a satellite to leave Earth orbit at high radial speed towards the Sun to overcome Earth gravity and a few months later arrive in point L1 in high tangential speed Sun orbit - lined up with Earth.
If you can't explain this, you have no idea is orbital mechanics!
PS Have you worked yet out how all your Ariane satellites stay up there if centripetal acceleration does not explain it.
Just because you can't find Lagrange points doesn't mean that they can't be found. You just have to understand how gravity wells work.Please explain why not!PS Have you worked yet out how all your Ariane satellites stay up there if centripetal acceleration does not explain it.Anyway, according my understanding of orbital dynamics it is not possible for a satellite to leave Earth orbit at high radial speed towards the Sun to overcome Earth gravity and a few months later arrive in point L1 in high tangential speed Sun orbit - lined up with Earth.
If you can't explain this, you have no idea is orbital mechanics!
PS Have you worked yet out how all your Ariane satellites stay up there if centripetal acceleration does not explain it.
Why, flying from Earth orbit to Point L1 orbiting the Sun at high speed and remain there is not possible, is explained at http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw2.htm#DSCO . One reason is that you cannot find the L1 point.
Arianespace SA just sends up satellites into Earth orbits at request of its clients, which are all happy. It is quite easy.Yes, sending up satellites is so easy that even SpaceX can do it for their happy customers. However SpaceX customers are more happy because SpaceX can sometimes recover and reuse their first stage boosters to make the flights a lot cheaper than Arianespace SA.
Just because you can't find Lagrange points doesn't mean that they can't be found. You just have to understand how gravity wells work.Please explain why not!PS Have you worked yet out how all your Ariane satellites stay up there if centripetal acceleration does not explain it.Anyway, according my understanding of orbital dynamics it is not possible for a satellite to leave Earth orbit at high radial speed towards the Sun to overcome Earth gravity and a few months later arrive in point L1 in high tangential speed Sun orbit - lined up with Earth.
If you can't explain this, you have no idea is orbital mechanics!
PS Have you worked yet out how all your Ariane satellites stay up there if centripetal acceleration does not explain it.
Why, flying from Earth orbit to Point L1 orbiting the Sun at high speed and remain there is not possible, is explained at http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw2.htm#DSCO . One reason is that you cannot find the L1 point.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/3d/17/d4/3d17d480e6ce5747d192ad70eb0a1b78--earth-science-teaching-science.jpg)Arianespace SA just sends up satellites into Earth orbits at request of its clients, which are all happy. It is quite easy.Yes, sending up satellites is so easy that even SpaceX can do it for their happy customers. However SpaceX customers are more happy because SpaceX can sometimes recover and reuse their first stage boosters to make the flights a lot cheaper than Arianespace SA.
Well, both NASA and ESA sent spacecrafts to L1 2015 but when you ask for details ... no reply. So I don't believe them.Did you ask the good folks at Arianespace how they put the LISA pathfinder probe at L1? Tell them that you're a shareholder and you demand details, no matter how irrelevant.
Why would they brake to 0 speed? You don't actually think a Lagrange point is stationary do you?
Problem remains how to leave Earth orbit to arrive at this loophole L1 point in Sun orbit.
Do you leave at 12 o'clock and go vertically straight up out of Earth orbit to the Sun or at 6 o'clock in the morning and go tangentially to the Sun? And what force do you apply and what is your departure velocity out of Earth orbit? Another problem is how to find and stop at L1? It seems nobody know how to stop in space.
Earth gravity will of course slow you down during the trip to L1 as soon as the rocket force is no longer applied. If the force is too small, the space craft will come dropping back on Earth. And if it is too strong you will burn up in the Sun. So the rocket force must be in between for a certain arrival speed before L1 and then braking to 0 speed at L1. Any ideas how it is done?
I don't know about you guys, but I don't put a lot of weight in a car commercial.It's way past the admitted "car commercial" from the overly extroverted (show off) Elon Musk and onto Heiwa's total ignorance in "rocket science" and "orbital mechanics".
I don't know about you guys, but I don't put a lot of weight in a car commercial.That's alright, I don't put a lot of weight in self-proclaimed safety at sea experts who think that they know rocket science better than professional rocket scientists.
Your qualifications?Please explain why not!PS Have you worked yet out how all your Ariane satellites stay up there if centripetal acceleration does not explain it.Anyway, according my understanding of orbital dynamics it is not possible for a satellite to leave Earth orbit at high radial speed towards the Sun to overcome Earth gravity and a few months later arrive in point L1 in high tangential speed Sun orbit - lined up with Earth.
If you can't explain this, you have no idea is orbital mechanics!
PS Have you worked yet out how all your Ariane satellites stay up there if centripetal acceleration does not explain it.
Arianespace SA just sends up satellites into Earth orbits at request of its clients, which are all happy. It is quite easy.
My qualifications are at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm . Do you have any?
Anders BjörkmanSo, none with any connection to "rocket science" or "orbital mechanics" - figures, because you obviously understand nothing about either.
M.Sc. Naval Architect and Marine Engineer, runs the Heiwa Co European agency for Safety at Sea since 2000, << no connection with space >>
has more than 46 years experience of oil tanker, passenger ship and ferry design, construction, repairs and operations worldwide, << no connection with space >>
has been a delegate to the IMO for two national administrations and one NGO, << not a qualification and no connection with space >>
has been a speaker at various Safety at Sea and 911 Truth conferences, << not a qualification and no connection with space >>
holds several patents of ship safety,
You state: "This may be true in vacuum space away from heavenly bodies but not in orbit at 400 km altitude. There gravity acceleration is about 3.4 m/s2 or 0.35g pulling you down towards Earth all the time".Read again: Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: ELON MUSK CLAIMS TESLA ROADSTER HAS EXCEEDED MARS ORBIT!!! « Message by rabinoz on March 08, 2018, 10:29:23 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74266.msg2035415;topicseen#msg2035415)
Rubbish, if g at sea level (neglecting the rotational component) is 9.83m/s2
then gravity at "at 400 km altitude" is about 9.83 x (Re/(Re + 400))2 m/s2 or about 8.71m/s2 NOT 3.4 m/s2!!!!!.
Of course to these speed you have to add the cruise speed of the IFS, i.e. say 7 800 m/s. You follow? How much fuel was used to slow down the 94 tons Shuttle from 7 811 m/s to 7 800 m/s is better forgotten. Because you need 8 070 887 000 J energy to do it! 8 GJ energy! If 1 kg fuel can produce 8 MJ brake force, it seems you need 1.000 kg or 1 ton of fuel just to slow down and dock!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Braking only 11 m/s at high speed around 7 800 m/s requires plenty fuel.
I don't know about you guys, but I don't put a lot of weight in a car commercial.I gotta say I love how you run away from questions you can't answer only to show up and try to throw in, what I can only assume, you perceive to be clever insults. Truly a rational and scientific approach. I would expect nothing less from the self proclaimed most influential scientific mind of our generation.
Why would they brake to 0 speed? You don't actually think a Lagrange point is stationary do you?
Problem remains how to leave Earth orbit to arrive at this loophole L1 point in Sun orbit.
Do you leave at 12 o'clock and go vertically straight up out of Earth orbit to the Sun or at 6 o'clock in the morning and go tangentially to the Sun? And what force do you apply and what is your departure velocity out of Earth orbit? Another problem is how to find and stop at L1? It seems nobody know how to stop in space.
Earth gravity will of course slow you down during the trip to L1 as soon as the rocket force is no longer applied. If the force is too small, the space craft will come dropping back on Earth. And if it is too strong you will burn up in the Sun. So the rocket force must be in between for a certain arrival speed before L1 and then braking to 0 speed at L1. Any ideas how it is done?
And you wouldn't travel vertically or tangentially. Travel through space is done with orbits. The simple answer is you would put the object in question into a solar orbit that intersects the Lagrange point and then make whatever speed adjustments are necessary to match the velocity of the Lagrange point in order to park it.
If you want specific details you can research orbital mechanics to get them. The final velocity for L1 won't be too far off from Earth's approximate 30 km/s, though, because it is only a bit more than a million miles away.
Please name a professional rocket scientist that can explain how a satellite orbiting Earth can fly to point L1!I don't know about you guys, but I don't put a lot of weight in a car commercial.That's alright, I don't put a lot of weight in self-proclaimed safety at sea experts who think that they know rocket science better than professional rocket scientists.
LISA Pathfinder belongs to ESA. Arianespace just put LISA into Earth orbit December 2015. After that the alleged rocket scientists at ESA took over and steered LISA to point L1 in Sun orbit. But ESA cannot explain how they did it. Try to call ESA yourself. The telephone number is at my website.Well, both NASA and ESA sent spacecrafts to L1 2015 but when you ask for details ... no reply. So I don't believe them.Did you ask the good folks at Arianespace how they put the LISA pathfinder probe at L1? Tell them that you're a shareholder and you demand details, no matter how irrelevant.
How do all your Ariane satellites stay up there if centripetal acceleration does not explain it?
What "forces acting on it are in balance"?How do all your Ariane satellites stay up there if centripetal acceleration does not explain it?
Arianespace just puts its clients satellites into various orbits around Earth at various speeds, directions and altitudes. That is all. Each satellite then stays in its orbit around Earth because the forces acting on it are in balance.
But ESA cannot explain how they did it.It sounds far more likely that ESA and NASA know exactly how it was done, bit you could not understand it so just hung up the phone to cover your ignorance!
No, they never reply. Try snail mail, e-mail and SMS. Silence. They have PR departments issuing press releases but nobody can answer any questions.But ESA cannot explain how they did it.It sounds far more likely that ESA and NASA know exactly how it was done, bit you could not understand it so just hung up the phone to cover your ignorance!
You simply don't have a clue about orbital mechanics do you?
It seems like you are the one who doesn't have a clue.
You simply don't have a clue about orbital mechanics do you?
Well, I call it orbital dynamics because all objects with mass flying around in space are moving all the time at variable velocities and, e.g. gravity forces depend on the distances between them. It makes navigation difficult.
It seem nobody has a clue about orbital dynamics.
It boggles my mind that you're so proud of your deliberate ignorance. Try reading a book some time.
You simply don't have a clue about orbital mechanics do you?
Well, I call it orbital dynamics because all objects with mass flying around in space are moving all the time at variable velocities and, e.g. gravity forces depend on the distances between them. It makes navigation difficult.
It seem nobody has a clue about orbital dynamics.
Thanks. It is the normal US/NASA garbage but not free but >$100. Haven't you heard of orbital dynamics ? Much more complicated.It boggles my mind that you're so proud of your deliberate ignorance. Try reading a book some time.
You simply don't have a clue about orbital mechanics do you?
Well, I call it orbital dynamics because all objects with mass flying around in space are moving all the time at variable velocities and, e.g. gravity forces depend on the distances between them. It makes navigation difficult.
It seem nobody has a clue about orbital dynamics.
https://www.amazon.com/Orbital-Mechanics-John-Prussing/dp/0199837708
You have 5 million euros for impossible challenges, but you can't afford a textbook? ::) Well, here's one for free:Thanks. It is the normal US/NASA garbage but not free but >$100.It boggles my mind that you're so proud of your deliberate ignorance. Try reading a book some time.
You simply don't have a clue about orbital mechanics do you?
Well, I call it orbital dynamics because all objects with mass flying around in space are moving all the time at variable velocities and, e.g. gravity forces depend on the distances between them. It makes navigation difficult.
It seem nobody has a clue about orbital dynamics.
https://www.amazon.com/Orbital-Mechanics-John-Prussing/dp/0199837708
Haven't you heard of orbital dynamics ? Much more complicated.Dynamics is a subset of mechanics.
Impossible to calculate.Only if you aren't willing to learn.
No mechanics is a subset of dynamics, which you haven't got a clue about.You have 5 million euros for impossible challenges, but you can't afford a textbook? ::) Well, here's one for free:Thanks. It is the normal US/NASA garbage but not free but >$100.It boggles my mind that you're so proud of your deliberate ignorance. Try reading a book some time.
You simply don't have a clue about orbital mechanics do you?
Well, I call it orbital dynamics because all objects with mass flying around in space are moving all the time at variable velocities and, e.g. gravity forces depend on the distances between them. It makes navigation difficult.
It seem nobody has a clue about orbital dynamics.
https://www.amazon.com/Orbital-Mechanics-John-Prussing/dp/0199837708
https://www.pdfdrive.net/orbital-mechanics-for-engineering-students-e1187450.htmlHaven't you heard of orbital dynamics ? Much more complicated.Dynamics is a subset of mechanics.Impossible to calculate.Only if you aren't willing to learn.
Are you sure that you're an engineer?No mechanics is a subset of dynamics, which you haven't got a clue about.You have 5 million euros for impossible challenges, but you can't afford a textbook? ::) Well, here's one for free:Thanks. It is the normal US/NASA garbage but not free but >$100.It boggles my mind that you're so proud of your deliberate ignorance. Try reading a book some time.
You simply don't have a clue about orbital mechanics do you?
Well, I call it orbital dynamics because all objects with mass flying around in space are moving all the time at variable velocities and, e.g. gravity forces depend on the distances between them. It makes navigation difficult.
It seem nobody has a clue about orbital dynamics.
https://www.amazon.com/Orbital-Mechanics-John-Prussing/dp/0199837708
https://www.pdfdrive.net/orbital-mechanics-for-engineering-students-e1187450.htmlHaven't you heard of orbital dynamics ? Much more complicated.Dynamics is a subset of mechanics.Impossible to calculate.Only if you aren't willing to learn.
Dynamics is the branch of applied mathematics (specifically classical mechanics) concerned with the study of forces and torques and their effect on motion...
Why would I waste my money on your garbage?I gave you a link to a free textbook. Why are you afraid to learn something?
I am quite happy with http://heiwaco.com. Nothing wrong there.If you're happy in your ignorance, then there really isn't much use in talking with you, is there?
Everything within 7-8 billion km (at least) is orbiting the Sun, so even if the satellite was also orbiting the Earth, it was always orbiting the Sun. The transfer orbit is a solar orbit, as I indicated above, meaning the satellite would be orbiting the Sun. It's just a more elliptical orbit that will intersect with the more circular L1 orbit. There are many kinds of transfer orbits, and I don't know which they use for an L1 transfer, but the simplest and often most fuel efficient is called a Hohmann Transfer. You could look that up to at least get a general understanding of how a transfer orbit functions.Why would they brake to 0 speed? You don't actually think a Lagrange point is stationary do you?
Problem remains how to leave Earth orbit to arrive at this loophole L1 point in Sun orbit.
Do you leave at 12 o'clock and go vertically straight up out of Earth orbit to the Sun or at 6 o'clock in the morning and go tangentially to the Sun? And what force do you apply and what is your departure velocity out of Earth orbit? Another problem is how to find and stop at L1? It seems nobody know how to stop in space.
Earth gravity will of course slow you down during the trip to L1 as soon as the rocket force is no longer applied. If the force is too small, the space craft will come dropping back on Earth. And if it is too strong you will burn up in the Sun. So the rocket force must be in between for a certain arrival speed before L1 and then braking to 0 speed at L1. Any ideas how it is done?
And you wouldn't travel vertically or tangentially. Travel through space is done with orbits. The simple answer is you would put the object in question into a solar orbit that intersects the Lagrange point and then make whatever speed adjustments are necessary to match the velocity of the Lagrange point in order to park it.
If you want specific details you can research orbital mechanics to get them. The final velocity for L1 won't be too far off from Earth's approximate 30 km/s, though, because it is only a bit more than a million miles away.
The L1 point is orbiting the Sun in one year at a certain velocity. Any satellite at point L1 is thus orbiting the Sun at the same velocity. If the satellite was previously orbiting Earth (orbiting the Sun in one year), it has moved from orbit Earth to orbit Sun.
If the satellite's trajectory between orbit Earth and orbit Sun is another orbit, what was the satellite orbiting around then during the transfer?
When the satellite is orbiting Sun at point L1 its speed relative Earth is zero. But when the satellite was orbiting Earth the relative speed relative Earth was say 7000 m/s. And to get out of orbit Earth the satellite had to speed up considerably relative Earth say to 11 000 m/s.No, you're having some major problems understanding and mixing reference frames. The speed relative to Earth is completely irrelevant when calculating a solar orbit. While it is orbiting Earth, it's speed relative to the Sun is approximately 30 km/s, and when it reaches its L1 orbit will be just slightly below that. Without doing all the calculations, I can't give you the exact trajectories and velocities, but I can tell you that a certain amount of delta V will be required to move the satellite far enough from Earth so that it can be braked to fall into a lower solar orbit. There may be another adjustment required to achieve the transfer ellipse and a final adjustment to park it at L1. Because L1 is not a stable point, there will need to be regular maintenance burns to hold the position.
And then, due to Earth gravity force, the speed relative Earth became 0 upon arrival at point L1.
Have I understood the trip correctly?
LISA Pathfinder belongs to ESA. Arianespace just put LISA into Earth orbit December 2015. After that the alleged rocket scientists at ESA took over and steered LISA to point L1 in Sun orbit. But ESA cannot explain how they did it. Try to call ESA yourself. The telephone number is at my website.
No, they never reply. Try snail mail, e-mail and SMS. Silence. They have PR departments issuing press releases but nobody can answer any questions.Did it occur to you at all that the ESA rocket scientists have more important things to do with their time than teach you 6-8 years of science education over the phone? (or mail, email, or SMS) They are the European Space Agency, not the European Space University.
Nobody here believes you've actually tried to contact them. On the off chance you did I'm sure it came off sounding like a crazed rant. In that case your letters are probably hanging on a bulletin board amusing everyone that passes by.No, they never reply. Try snail mail, e-mail and SMS. Silence. They have PR departments issuing press releases but nobody can answer any questions.But ESA cannot explain how they did it.It sounds far more likely that ESA and NASA know exactly how it was done, bit you could not understand it so just hung up the phone to cover your ignorance!
Translation: I don't have a clue about orbital dynamics and because I'm a narcissist I assume that means nobody else does either.
You simply don't have a clue about orbital mechanics do you?
Well, I call it orbital dynamics because all objects with mass flying around in space are moving all the time at variable velocities and, e.g. gravity forces depend on the distances between them. It makes navigation difficult.
It seem nobody has a clue about orbital dynamics.
Pretty much sums it up.Translation: I don't have a clue about orbital dynamics and because I'm a narcissist I assume that means nobody else does either.
You simply don't have a clue about orbital mechanics do you?
Well, I call it orbital dynamics because all objects with mass flying around in space are moving all the time at variable velocities and, e.g. gravity forces depend on the distances between them. It makes navigation difficult.
It seem nobody has a clue about orbital dynamics.
Did it occur to you at all that the ESA rocket scientists have more important things to do with their time than teach you 6-8 years of science education over the phone? (or mail, email, or SMS) They are the European Space Agency, not the European Space University.
Furthermore, do you believe the people answering the phones or in the PR departments have the knowledge you're looking for anyway?
If you want to know how they did it in more detail than I explained above, you'll need to study some basic physics first (your grasp of reference frames is severely lacking), and then you'll need to learn about actual orbital mechanics. I don't know what your math background is, but there's going to be some pretty high end stuff along the way, so you may need to take some math courses just to be able to handle the science.
Why you expect a busy rocket scientist to hand you this over the phone is completely beyond me...
So there's actually a bit of evidence in support of fakery around this mission. It doesn't lend and validity to the FE but it's interesting.What evidence are you thinking of.
The earth appearing smaller in the photos by SpaceX than the pictures taken by the ISS much further away from earth is a pretty big one.You don't understand how cameras work, do you?
They were probably launching a black budget military satellite and needed a cover that the masses would swallow without question.
Here we are.
Taking a picture from further away usually makes the object photographed smaller.That would depend on the focal lengths of the cameras used. Wide angle lenses can make close things look smaller than telephoto lenses further away.
Usually.
Tell us more about your time served in the military Markjo, tell us why so many long time members here have admitted they are "ex" military.Not much to tell. I was an illustrator in the US Marine Corps back in the '80s. I got out about 2 years before all of the nonsense in Iraq and Kuwait started.
What a strange coincidence that the F.E.S is so full of military industrial congressional media complex spooks.You act like military service is rare in the US. If anything, the Gulf Wars increased recruiting by quite a lot, so there are quite a few military veterans around these days. My older brother is a veteran and so is my sister-in-law's nephew.
Pure coincidence, I am sure.
Pure coincidence.
Naturally, naturally.Ummm... What are you talking about? ???
Just pure coincidence.
Not much to tell. I was an illustrator in the US Marine Corps back in the '80s.Can you do a typical illustration for us?
The earth appearing smaller in the photos by SpaceX than the pictures taken by the ISS much further away from earth is a pretty big one.Wouldn't that depend as much on the optics used as the the distance?
I think you ignored 2 paragraphs of a decent summary of the orbital mechanics with which you were struggling to understand.
Did it occur to you at all that the ESA rocket scientists have more important things to do with their time than teach you 6-8 years of science education over the phone? (or mail, email, or SMS) They are the European Space Agency, not the European Space University.
Furthermore, do you believe the people answering the phones or in the PR departments have the knowledge you're looking for anyway?
If you want to know how they did it in more detail than I explained above, you'll need to study some basic physics first (your grasp of reference frames is severely lacking), and then you'll need to learn about actual orbital mechanics. I don't know what your math background is, but there's going to be some pretty high end stuff along the way, so you may need to take some math courses just to be able to handle the science.
Why you expect a busy rocket scientist to hand you this over the phone is completely beyond me...
Yes, ESA is very busy so you better not disturb them. I describe them at http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw2.htm#ROS and their Rosetta spacecraft. It passed planet Earth on 4 March 2005 and was kicked away to planet Mars, etc, etc, while 1000's of people watched it. Actually, Rosetta arrived from behind Earth and made a 90° turn in front of planet Earth and then went straight for planet Mars. But they cannot explain how it happened. Too busy! ROTFL
They also send plenty people up in space that then lands in Kazakhstan. What a bunch of criminals. I wonder how long they will carry on. What do you think?
They were probably launching a black budget military satellite and needed a cover that the masses would swallow without question.SpaceX has already launched at least 2 secret military satellites. They simply say that the payload is a military secret and they don't show any telemetry of the second stage. No cover needed.
The earth appearing smaller in the photos by SpaceX than the pictures taken by the ISS much further away from earth is a pretty big one.Wouldn't that depend as much on the optics used as the the distance?
They were probably launching a black budget military satellite and needed a cover that the masses would swallow without question.SpaceX has already launched at least 2 secret military satellites. They simply say that the payload is a military secret and they don't show any telemetry of the second stage. No cover needed.
Umm... Do you not understand the difference between a public launch and a secret payload?They were probably launching a black budget military satellite and needed a cover that the masses would swallow without question.SpaceX has already launched at least 2 secret military satellites. They simply say that the payload is a military secret and they don't show any telemetry of the second stage. No cover needed.
I'm sure they always broadcast their secret military launches to their enemies.
How could I be so gullible to think that Military intelligence would keep any secrets from their enemies. Oh man I am gullible lol.
Can you imagine governments not telling all of their enemies the full capabilities and purpose of their tech? What a fantasy lol.Come now. You can troll better than this.
Oh man I can't believe I was so gullible to believe people would keep secrets lol. Everything we need to know is on the news lol.
Lucky you guys are here.
Any competent enemy will have multiple systems that will let them know of launches as well as RADAR tracking it. The launches can't be hidden (and they shouldn't try anyway because if one isn't announced it could be mistaken for a hostile act when observed by said enemies) so they might as well announce it. The payload can still be secret.They were probably launching a black budget military satellite and needed a cover that the masses would swallow without question.SpaceX has already launched at least 2 secret military satellites. They simply say that the payload is a military secret and they don't show any telemetry of the second stage. No cover needed.
I'm sure they always broadcast their secret military launches to their enemies.
How could I be so gullible to think that Military intelligence would keep any secrets from their enemies. Oh man I am gullible lol.
Can you imagine governments not telling all of their enemies the full capabilities and purpose of their tech? What a fantasy lol.
Oh man I can't believe I was so gullible to believe people would keep secrets lol. Everything we need to know is on the news lol.
Lucky you guys are here.
>Radar jamming tech doesn't exist.Who claimed RADAR jamming tech doesn't exist?
Whoa, I thought you were ex military too?
will have multiple systems that will let them know of launches as well as RADAR tracking it.Visual and infrared tracking would still work.
That doesn't make any sense and doesn't address the point at all.The earth appearing smaller in the photos by SpaceX than the pictures taken by the ISS much further away from earth is a pretty big one.Wouldn't that depend as much on the optics used as the the distance?
Nothing but a coincidence surely.
You're bringing about 25% effort shilling and I'm bringing around 40% effort trolling you.No it's really not. You are bringing like 2% effort.
It's enough.
You never bothered learning how to debate except for appeals to authority in the form of telling people to trust the media and Government.Are you under the delusion that what you're doing could even remotely be considered a debate?
I think I know enough physics to recognize that NASA and ESA are simply producing hoaxes in space, i.e. copy each other, which I then explain at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm and sub-pages.I think you ignored 2 paragraphs of a decent summary of the orbital mechanics with which you were struggling to understand.
Did it occur to you at all that the ESA rocket scientists have more important things to do with their time than teach you 6-8 years of science education over the phone? (or mail, email, or SMS) They are the European Space Agency, not the European Space University.
Furthermore, do you believe the people answering the phones or in the PR departments have the knowledge you're looking for anyway?
If you want to know how they did it in more detail than I explained above, you'll need to study some basic physics first (your grasp of reference frames is severely lacking), and then you'll need to learn about actual orbital mechanics. I don't know what your math background is, but there's going to be some pretty high end stuff along the way, so you may need to take some math courses just to be able to handle the science.
Why you expect a busy rocket scientist to hand you this over the phone is completely beyond me...
Yes, ESA is very busy so you better not disturb them. I describe them at http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw2.htm#ROS and their Rosetta spacecraft. It passed planet Earth on 4 March 2005 and was kicked away to planet Mars, etc, etc, while 1000's of people watched it. Actually, Rosetta arrived from behind Earth and made a 90° turn in front of planet Earth and then went straight for planet Mars. But they cannot explain how it happened. Too busy! ROTFL
They also send plenty people up in space that then lands in Kazakhstan. What a bunch of criminals. I wonder how long they will carry on. What do you think?
I think you posted a nonsense rebuttal to a perfectly coherent analysis of the unreasonable expectation you hold that the ESA owes you a personal explanation for the trajectories and procedures without demonstrating why they should waste their time teaching you the science you're lacking in order to understand the explanation even if they were to give it to you.
I think you don't know enough physics to recognize that you are woefully incompetent to the challenge of correctly analyzing the parameters of a space mission. Until you can swallow your pride, ditch your arrogance, and acknowledge that there is a great deal that you don't understand, you will never be able to actually learn and fill in the gaps in your knowledge base. Good luck.
So there's actually a bit of evidence in support of fakery around this mission. It doesn't lend and validity to the FE but it's interesting.So there's actually a bit of evidence in support of your claim that there's any fakery around this mission?
So there's actually a bit of evidence in support of fakery around this mission. It doesn't lend and validity to the FE but it's interesting.So there's actually a bit of evidence in support of your claim that there's any fakery around this mission?
I think I know enough physics to recognize that NASA and ESA are simply producing hoaxes in space, i.e. copy each other,.If you don't even understand centripetal acceleration and the explanation of the apparent "zero g" when in orbit (or free fall - same thing)
I was answering disputeone.<< Irrelevant >>So there's actually a bit of evidence in support of fakery around this mission. It doesn't lend and validity to the FE but it's interesting.So there's actually a bit of evidence in support of your claim that there's any fakery around this mission?
I think I know enough physics to recognize that NASA and ESA are simply producing hoaxes in space, i.e. copy each other,.If you don't even understand centripetal acceleration and the explanation of the apparent "zero g" when in orbit (or free fall - same thing)you clearly don't know enough physics to claim anything about that NASA, SpaceX, ESA, ISRO or JAXA are simply producing hoaxes in space or not!
Incorrect! There is not the slightest problem in using physics to explain "the apparent 'zero g' when in orbit".I think I know enough physics to recognize that NASA and ESA are simply producing hoaxes in space, i.e. copy each other,.If you don't even understand centripetal acceleration and the explanation of the apparent "zero g" when in orbit (or free fall - same thing)you clearly don't know enough physics to claim anything about that NASA, SpaceX, ESA, ISRO or JAXA are simply producing hoaxes in space or not!
Sorry, I know enough about physics to understand that ESA and NASA use pseudoscience with their "zero g" shows in Earth orbits, etc, etc. Just study my website.
Weightlessness in Orbit
Astronauts who are orbiting the Earth often experience sensations of weightlessness. These sensations experienced by orbiting astronauts are the same sensations experienced by anyone who has been temporarily suspended above the seat on an amusement park ride. Not only are the sensations the same (for astronauts and roller coaster riders), but the causes of those sensations of weightlessness are also the same. Unfortunately however, many people have difficulty understanding the causes of weightlessness.
Read the rest of the gripping story in: Lesson 4 - Planetary and Satellite Motion, Weightlessness in Orbit. (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Weightlessness-in-Orbit)
Thanks. However you are off topic. We discuss Lone Skum's faked up launch of his roadster into Mars orbit or similar. Skum is famous for offering people space trips to Mars colonizing the place, etc. http://fortune.com/2017/10/15/elon-musk-reddit-spacex-mars/ . Only twerps believe the nonsense and I describe why at http://heiwaco.com .Incorrect! There is not the slightest problem in using physics to explain "the apparent 'zero g' when in orbit".I think I know enough physics to recognize that NASA and ESA are simply producing hoaxes in space, i.e. copy each other,.If you don't even understand centripetal acceleration and the explanation of the apparent "zero g" when in orbit (or free fall - same thing)you clearly don't know enough physics to claim anything about that NASA, SpaceX, ESA, ISRO or JAXA are simply producing hoaxes in space or not!
Sorry, I know enough about physics to understand that ESA and NASA use pseudoscience with their "zero g" shows in Earth orbits, etc, etc. Just study my website.
So, you have just proved my point. Here's the kiddy's version:QuoteWeightlessness in Orbit
Astronauts who are orbiting the Earth often experience sensations of weightlessness. These sensations experienced by orbiting astronauts are the same sensations experienced by anyone who has been temporarily suspended above the seat on an amusement park ride. Not only are the sensations the same (for astronauts and roller coaster riders), but the causes of those sensations of weightlessness are also the same. Unfortunately however, many people have difficulty understanding the causes of weightlessness.
Read the rest of the gripping story in: Lesson 4 - Planetary and Satellite Motion, Weightlessness in Orbit. (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Weightlessness-in-Orbit)
And that is the problem. You don't. You're having trouble with things I was managing just fine in high school, and I'm not a professional scientist in any field. And by the way, people who learn NEVER "think they know enough". Even in my professional field, with 6 years of formal education and 18 years experience, I am constantly seeking more information to better understand something that I already understand better than an overwhelming majority of people. I will never "know enough" because the only "enough" that is acceptable is "everything" and I don't have the arrogance required to ever make that claim.I think I know enough physics...I think you ignored 2 paragraphs of a decent summary of the orbital mechanics with which you were struggling to understand.
Did it occur to you at all that the ESA rocket scientists have more important things to do with their time than teach you 6-8 years of science education over the phone? (or mail, email, or SMS) They are the European Space Agency, not the European Space University.
Furthermore, do you believe the people answering the phones or in the PR departments have the knowledge you're looking for anyway?
If you want to know how they did it in more detail than I explained above, you'll need to study some basic physics first (your grasp of reference frames is severely lacking), and then you'll need to learn about actual orbital mechanics. I don't know what your math background is, but there's going to be some pretty high end stuff along the way, so you may need to take some math courses just to be able to handle the science.
Why you expect a busy rocket scientist to hand you this over the phone is completely beyond me...
Yes, ESA is very busy so you better not disturb them. I describe them at http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw2.htm#ROS and their Rosetta spacecraft. It passed planet Earth on 4 March 2005 and was kicked away to planet Mars, etc, etc, while 1000's of people watched it. Actually, Rosetta arrived from behind Earth and made a 90° turn in front of planet Earth and then went straight for planet Mars. But they cannot explain how it happened. Too busy! ROTFL
They also send plenty people up in space that then lands in Kazakhstan. What a bunch of criminals. I wonder how long they will carry on. What do you think?
I think you posted a nonsense rebuttal to a perfectly coherent analysis of the unreasonable expectation you hold that the ESA owes you a personal explanation for the trajectories and procedures without demonstrating why they should waste their time teaching you the science you're lacking in order to understand the explanation even if they were to give it to you.
I think you don't know enough physics to recognize that you are woefully incompetent to the challenge of correctly analyzing the parameters of a space mission. Until you can swallow your pride, ditch your arrogance, and acknowledge that there is a great deal that you don't understand, you will never be able to actually learn and fill in the gaps in your knowledge base. Good luck.
Take such simple things like getting away from Earth one way or other and then, after a trip around the Sun taking a year, you return to Earth for a gravity assisted swing-by to fly off to planet Mars for another gravity assisted swing-by to return the Earth again.Do you have a point? You listed a couple examples of things that are perfectly reasonable without any indication of what you think is wrong. Do you not understand gravity assist, and wrongfully conclude then that it's not real? Is it the time involved? No interplanetary space trip is "little", so again, you're having problems with scale. Without looking at the details of the comet rendezvous, I suspect the issues involved were about fuel and efficiency. The comet was likely travelling at a much higher velocity than was practical to accelerate the craft to directly, so they used gravity assists to reach the higher speed. This would save a great deal of fuel, which means a great deal of money in mass that isn't carried away from Earth. The cost is time. It takes time for the craft to go through a trajectory with multiple gravity assists. So what exactly is your objection again?
The ESA show - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw2.htm#ROS - is pure fantasy.
Imagine you take off March 2004, return to Earth March 2005, arrive Mars February 2007, return Earth November 2007 and November 2009, etc, etc, to finally arrive at target comet 67P 2014. Ten years for a little space trip! Reason is, according ESA, that target is moving around all the time, like Earth and Mars, and that the only way is to use gravity assisted swing-byes, bla, bla.
And when you ask in writing for more details of these gravity assisted swing-byes - no reply. And when you call wondering why they don't reply - no reply.Get this through your head. No matter how important you may think you are, they have no responsibility to provide you details of their missions. Even if they had time to waste on individuals who wanted those details, they would likely conclude, correctly, that you don't have the background to understand them. If you want to know how those things work, go to school to learn them. Call a surgeon sometime and ask him or her to explain the intricate details of his or her last heart surgery. When you don't get a response, will you conclude that surgery is a hoax?
And when you ask in writing for more details of these gravity assisted swing-byes - no reply. And when you call wondering why they don't reply - no reply.Get this through your head. No matter how important you may think you are, they have no responsibility to provide you details of their missions. Even if they had time to waste on individuals who wanted those details, they would likely conclude, correctly, that you don't have the background to understand them. If you want to know how those things work, go to school to learn them. Call a surgeon sometime and ask him or her to explain the intricate details of his or her last heart surgery. When you don't get a response, will you conclude that surgery is a hoax?
If you want to learn about something, don't bother the people doing it, they are busy working. Sign up for classes and you'll discover someone whose job is to actually explain things to you. It's a profession. Expecting people to do it for you for free is ridiculous.
Thanks for your advice. But I find i strangeWhat's strange is that you find it strange. ItsRound just explained it to you.
So what advice do you provide to find out about these problems.
Yes, and the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden offers such courses free of charge! See http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#RS . I tried to sign up but nobody was there. Same with Carol Norberg's courses up at Umeà.Thanks for your advice. But I find i strangeWhat's strange is that you find it strange. ItsRound just explained it to you.So what advice do you provide to find out about these problems.
ItsRound just gave you advice. Take a course from someone whose job it is to teach you instead of expecting ESA/NASA to do it for free.
Yes, and the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden offers such courses free of charge! See http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#RS . I tried to sign up but nobody was there. Same with Carol Norberg's courses up at Umeà.Thanks for your advice. But I find i strangeWhat's strange is that you find it strange. ItsRound just explained it to you.So what advice do you provide to find out about these problems.
ItsRound just gave you advice. Take a course from someone whose job it is to teach you instead of expecting ESA/NASA to do it for free.
Gravity assisted sling shot assists: When two objects encounter each other almost head on in space - one small - a spacecraft with speed v - and one big one - a planet with speed U going in the opposite diretion - the small one does not crash on the big one attracted by the big ones gravity but - MAGIC - the small one does a 180° turn around the big one and speeds away in the other direction at increased speed 2U+v. See http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#C1 and http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw2.htm#JTC . I have to admit that after four years at university and almost fifty years professional work in marine transportation I have never encountered such nonsense.Why would you expect to encounter a gravitational slingshot at sea? ???
Re-entries from space: I describe some difficulties at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm#L and http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm#23 and http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#RES . With a bike, car or a ship to stop at reasonable speed you apply a force in the opposite direction, i.e. using a brake on a bike or car or the propeller on a ship. Spacecrafts of all sorts have no such things - they rely on FRICTION/air drag where there is no air and a heat shield that would melt at 200C. I have to admit that after four years at university and almost fifty years professional work in marine transportation I have never encountered such nonsense.Why would you expect to encounter atmospheric reentry at sea? ???
So what advice do you provide to find out about these problems.Have you tried taking a class or reading a textbook on the subject?
translation: I didn't bother to look for information beyond the simplifications and I don't understand these anyway so they must be fake because I'm a narcissist and a pathological liar.And when you ask in writing for more details of these gravity assisted swing-byes - no reply. And when you call wondering why they don't reply - no reply.Get this through your head. No matter how important you may think you are, they have no responsibility to provide you details of their missions. Even if they had time to waste on individuals who wanted those details, they would likely conclude, correctly, that you don't have the background to understand them. If you want to know how those things work, go to school to learn them. Call a surgeon sometime and ask him or her to explain the intricate details of his or her last heart surgery. When you don't get a response, will you conclude that surgery is a hoax?
If you want to learn about something, don't bother the people doing it, they are busy working. Sign up for classes and you'll discover someone whose job is to actually explain things to you. It's a profession. Expecting people to do it for you for free is ridiculous.
Thanks for your advice. But I find i strange that ESA/NASA don't reply when you ask for clarification about
1. Gravity assisted sling shot assists, and
2. Re-entries from space at high speed through the atmosphere and landing,
to enable space travel of all sorts.
There is no real information about these two important maneuvers available anywhere, only strange simplifications, e.g.
Gravity assisted sling shot assists: When two objects encounter each other almost head on in space - one small - a spacecraft with speed v - and one big one - a planet with speed U going in the opposite diretion - the small one does not crash on the big one attracted by the big ones gravity but - MAGIC - the small one does a 180° turn around the big one and speeds away in the other direction at increased speed 2U+v. See http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#C1 and http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw2.htm#JTC . I have to admit that after four years at university and almost fifty years professional work in marine transportation I have never encountered such nonsense.
Re-entries from space: I describe some difficulties at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm#L and http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm#23 and http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#RES . With a bike, car or a ship to stop at reasonable speed you apply a force in the opposite direction, i.e. using a brake on a bike or car or the propeller on a ship. Spacecrafts of all sorts have no such things - they rely on FRICTION/air drag where there is no air and a heat shield that would melt at 200C. I have to admit that after four years at university and almost fifty years professional work in marine transportation I have never encountered such nonsense. Imagine coming in for landing on Earth at >11 000 m/s speed ... and after 15 minutes your speed is 0 ... due to air drag.
So what advice do you provide to find out about these problems.
Yes of course, but I could not find any reliable textbooks on slingshots and re-entries from space. Carol Norberg has wiritten one ... but it is a joke.So what advice do you provide to find out about these problems.Have you tried reading a textbook on the subject?
So no then. You've tried literally nothing and you are out of ideas.Yes of course, but I could not find any reliable textbooks on slingshots and re-entries from space. Carol Norberg has wiritten one ... but it is a joke.So what advice do you provide to find out about these problems.Have you tried reading a textbook on the subject?
What did you learn about slingshots and re-entries from space in the US Marine Corps?
Why is it a joke? Did you find anything wrong with the math or the physics?Yes of course, but I could not find any reliable textbooks on slingshots and re-entries from space. Carol Norberg has wiritten one ... but it is a joke.So what advice do you provide to find out about these problems.Have you tried reading a textbook on the subject?
Yes, all of it. Copy/paste of NASA nonsense. So I contacted Carol and her students at Umeà years ago and invited them to win my €1M space travel Challenge. No replies and most of them disappeared. Strange.Why is it a joke? Did you find anything wrong with the math or the physics?Yes of course, but I could not find any reliable textbooks on slingshots and re-entries from space. Carol Norberg has wiritten one ... but it is a joke.So what advice do you provide to find out about these problems.Have you tried reading a textbook on the subject?
Would you care to provide specific examples?Yes, all of it. Copy/paste of NASA nonsense.Why is it a joke? Did you find anything wrong with the math or the physics?Yes of course, but I could not find any reliable textbooks on slingshots and re-entries from space. Carol Norberg has wiritten one ... but it is a joke.So what advice do you provide to find out about these problems.Have you tried reading a textbook on the subject?
So I contacted Carol and her students at Umeà years ago and invited them to win my €1M space travel Challenge. No replies and most of them disappeared. Strange.Maybe they saw your "popular" website and decided that you are a joke.
As I recall some of Carols students started a space company at Umeà which then went bust. She is a joke. I describe her at my website with photo and all.Would you care to provide specific examples?Yes, all of it. Copy/paste of NASA nonsense.Why is it a joke? Did you find anything wrong with the math or the physics?Yes of course, but I could not find any reliable textbooks on slingshots and re-entries from space. Carol Norberg has wiritten one ... but it is a joke.So what advice do you provide to find out about these problems.Have you tried reading a textbook on the subject?So I contacted Carol and her students at Umeà years ago and invited them to win my €1M space travel Challenge. No replies and most of them disappeared. Strange.Maybe they saw your "popular" website and decided that you are a joke.
But I find it strange...What you find strange is irrelevant. Starting your sentences like this is just an attempt to turn your ignorance into an argument for your misguided conclusions.
But I find it strange that ESA/NASA don't reply when you ask for clarification aboutIt's already been explained to you why this isn't strange. Neither of them are educational institutions and they aren't going to correspond with you about specific details in their work that you aren't qualified to discuss.
1. Gravity assisted sling shot assists, and
2. Re-entries from space at high speed through the atmosphere and landing,
to enable space travel of all sorts.
There is no real information about these two important maneuvers available anywhere, only strange simplifications,Why do you find it so strange that specific details about maneuvers that a tiny fraction of the world's population need to know aren't readily available with 2 minutes of google searching? Despite common hyperbole, not everything can be found on the internet...
I have to admit that after four years at university and almost fifty years professional work in marine transportation I have never encountered such nonsense.Are you genuinely surprised that you never encountered gravity assist or atmospheric reentry during your work in marine transportation? If so, you're a lot dumber than you sound...
So what advice do you provide to find out about these problems.How many times and in how many ways do I need to tell you to enroll in a degree program that will teach you orbital mechanics? If that's too much of a time investment, go to a university that offers such a program and see if you can hire a professor to answer your specific questions individually. If you're very ambitious, you could attempt to do some unguided research, but please note that it may actually involve trips away from your computer to libraries to read actual books. Your ignorance is your own problem. Whatever you do, please stop believing it is ESA/NASA's job to educate you.
Thanks for your suggestion. But haven't you read my http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#RS ?So what advice do you provide to find out about these problems.How many times and in how many ways do I need to tell you to enroll in a degree program that will teach you orbital mechanics? If that's too much of a time investment, go to a university that offers such a program and see if you can hire a professor to answer your specific questions individually. If you're very ambitious, you could attempt to do some unguided research, but please note that it may actually involve trips away from your computer to libraries to read actual books. Your ignorance is your own problem. Whatever you do, please stop believing it is ESA/NASA's job to educate you.
In the business of marine transportation, which I know a little about, we start from A, speed up and then navigate around to suit to finally slow down, stop and land at B to make money.The marine transportation business is a few thousand years older than the space transportation business. However, there are billions of dollars being made in the space transportation business every year, and the market is still growing. Too bad you're too ignorant to see the potential in manned space transportation.
I have heard about Americans flying to the Moon to have a piss there and then going back but nobody has been able to tell me how ... and WHY ... they did it. Why couldn't they just piss on Earth? And did they make any money?Did you ever consider the possibility that government funded pioneering research is not always a money making business?
In the business of marine transportation, which I know a little about, we start from A, speed up and then navigate around to suit to finally slow down, stop and land at B to make money.The marine transportation business is a few thousand years older than the space transportation business. However, there are billions of dollars being made in the space transportation business every year, and the market is still growing. Too bad you're too ignorant to see the potential in manned space transportation.I have heard about Americans flying to the Moon to have a piss there and then going back but nobody has been able to tell me how ... and WHY ... they did it. Why couldn't they just piss on Earth? And did they make any money?Did you ever consider the possibility that government funded pioneering research is not always a money making business?
I suppose that would depend on your definition of "space travel".In the business of marine transportation, which I know a little about, we start from A, speed up and then navigate around to suit to finally slow down, stop and land at B to make money.The marine transportation business is a few thousand years older than the space transportation business. However, there are billions of dollars being made in the space transportation business every year, and the market is still growing. Too bad you're too ignorant to see the potential in manned space transportation.I have heard about Americans flying to the Moon to have a piss there and then going back but nobody has been able to tell me how ... and WHY ... they did it. Why couldn't they just piss on Earth? And did they make any money?Did you ever consider the possibility that government funded pioneering research is not always a money making business?
Hm, is one way satellite launches really space travel?
Exactly - just going round and round in an orbital space merry-go-round around Earth or going to a location in geostationary orbit is not a real journey. There is no return from it.I suppose that would depend on your definition of "space travel".In the business of marine transportation, which I know a little about, we start from A, speed up and then navigate around to suit to finally slow down, stop and land at B to make money.The marine transportation business is a few thousand years older than the space transportation business. However, there are billions of dollars being made in the space transportation business every year, and the market is still growing. Too bad you're too ignorant to see the potential in manned space transportation.I have heard about Americans flying to the Moon to have a piss there and then going back but nobody has been able to tell me how ... and WHY ... they did it. Why couldn't they just piss on Earth? And did they make any money?Did you ever consider the possibility that government funded pioneering research is not always a money making business?
Hm, is one way satellite launches really space travel?
Heiwa, of course nobody tries your challenge, it's been proven to be a fraud.You are wrong as usual. My website is very popular.
Your own website proves you lack the knowledge or intelligence to understand any answers.
It just displays what a failure you are.
If I'm wrong, prove it. Of course you can't because I am not wrong.Heiwa, of course nobody tries your challenge, it's been proven to be a fraud.You are wrong as usual. My website is very popular.
Your own website proves you lack the knowledge or intelligence to understand any answers.
It just displays what a failure you are.
So I pass.If I'm wrong, prove it. Of course you can't because I am not wrong.Heiwa, of course nobody tries your challenge, it's been proven to be a fraud.You are wrong as usual. My website is very popular.
Your own website proves you lack the knowledge or intelligence to understand any answers.
It just displays what a failure you are.
Heiwa, of course nobody tries your challenge, it's been proven to be a fraud.You are wrong as usual. My website is very popular.
Your own website proves you lack the knowledge or intelligence to understand any answers.
It just displays what a failure you are.
A journey is defined as the act of traveling from one place to another. It says nothing about being a round trip.Exactly - just going round and round in an orbital space merry-go-round around Earth or going to a location in geostationary orbit is not a real journey. There is no return from it.Hm, is one way satellite launches really space travel?I suppose that would depend on your definition of "space travel".
My website is very popular.No. Pornhub is a very popular web site. Your site ain't got shit for traffic.
Thank you for admitting your challenge is fake and you lack the knowledge or intelligence to understand actual space flight.So I pass.If I'm wrong, prove it. Of course you can't because I am not wrong.Heiwa, of course nobody tries your challenge, it's been proven to be a fraud.You are wrong as usual. My website is very popular.
Your own website proves you lack the knowledge or intelligence to understand any answers.
It just displays what a failure you are.
Heiwa, of course nobody tries your challenge, it's been proven to be a fraud.You are wrong as usual. My website is very popular.
Your own website proves you lack the knowledge or intelligence to understand any answers.
It just displays what a failure you are.
Not according to an analytics search: https://www.similarweb.com/website/heiwaco.tripod.com#overview
Would you mind releasing your traffic analytics?
Not according to an analytics search: https://www.similarweb.com/website/heiwaco.tripod.com#overview
Would you mind releasing your traffic analytics?
The total is bottom left on the screen.
Strange, it used to be there. The browsers become stranger and stranger.Not according to an analytics search: https://www.similarweb.com/website/heiwaco.tripod.com#overview
Would you mind releasing your traffic analytics?
The total is bottom left on the screen.
No it isn't. Just checked. It's only blank white.
Just checking in. What have I missed?Just the usual.
Thanks for visiting my web page about human space travel and what happens on the IFS, the International Faked Space station with plenty astronuts floating around inside like fish in an aquarium.
When Heiwa said thisI missed that one, thanks! Maybe he'd earn more as a stand-up comedian, that hat would be perfect.Quote from: HeiwaThanks for visiting my web page about human space travel and what happens on the IFS, the International Faked Space station with plenty astronuts floating around inside like fish in an aquarium.
You even have to admit you laughed at the analogy rab.
Anyway Tues, 13 Mar 2018 I had 539 page views and 344 unique visitors filtering off known web crawlers. It was pretty average. If someone links to me it can be much, much more.Not according to an analytics search: https://www.similarweb.com/website/heiwaco.tripod.com#overview
Would you mind releasing your traffic analytics?
The total is bottom left on the screen.
No it isn't. Just checked. It's only blank white.
Anyway Tues, 13 Mar 2018 I had 539 page views and 344 unique visitors filtering off known web crawlers. It was pretty average. If someone links to me it can be much, much more.Not according to an analytics search: https://www.similarweb.com/website/heiwaco.tripod.com#overview
Would you mind releasing your traffic analytics?
The total is bottom left on the screen.
No it isn't. Just checked. It's only blank white.
Anyway Tues, 13 Mar 2018 I had 539 page views and 344 unique visitors filtering off known web crawlers. It was pretty average. If someone links to me it can be much, much more.Not according to an analytics search: https://www.similarweb.com/website/heiwaco.tripod.com#overview
Would you mind releasing your traffic analytics?
The total is bottom left on the screen.
No it isn't. Just checked. It's only blank white.
www.ratemypoo.com
Hopefully that link will get you more hits man. Spread the word
Ok Heiwa. Good luck
Does it help your website if I keep refreshing the page or clicking on links inside it over and over? I can set up a program to continue doing this. Maybe gets you some extra coin for all the hits
But everything you just said there is a lie. You have admitted your challenges are fake, you have been shown multiple errors in your website. You offer no evidence to support your lunacy. You simply fail.Ok Heiwa. Good luck
Does it help your website if I keep refreshing the page or clicking on links inside it over and over? I can set up a program to continue doing this. Maybe gets you some extra coin for all the hits
Such one second repeat visitors I filter off. Like the web crawlers. I am interested in visitors that really study what I write, click on links provided and then return and carry on. I have 10 000's of those visitors.
Purpose of my website is not to make money. Purpose is to inform about governments' cover-ups, propaganda and Fake News. I do this under my own name and do not hide behind corrupt spokes people, etc. I cannot afford to publish lies and fake news.
I know it upsets you that I always tell the truth at my website and here. And that my Challenges are real and legal.But everything you just said there is a lie. You have admitted your challenges are fake, you have been shown multiple errors in your website. You offer no evidence to support your lunacy. You simply fail.Ok Heiwa. Good luck
Does it help your website if I keep refreshing the page or clicking on links inside it over and over? I can set up a program to continue doing this. Maybe gets you some extra coin for all the hits
Such one second repeat visitors I filter off. Like the web crawlers. I am interested in visitors that really study what I write, click on links provided and then return and carry on. I have 10 000's of those visitors.
Purpose of my website is not to make money. Purpose is to inform about governments' cover-ups, propaganda and Fake News. I do this under my own name and do not hide behind corrupt spokes people, etc. I cannot afford to publish lies and fake news.
Of course you could prove me wrong right here. But you won't because you know I am right.
It doesn't upset me because none of that is true. You are a proven liar, repeatedly. Your challenge is fake because you don't have the money. If you did you would publicly prove it. That's how real challenges work. You were literally just proven to be a liar on another thread when you claimed Buzz Aldrin piloted the command module on re-entry.I know it upsets you that I always tell the truth at my website and here. And that my Challenges are real and legal.But everything you just said there is a lie. You have admitted your challenges are fake, you have been shown multiple errors in your website. You offer no evidence to support your lunacy. You simply fail.Ok Heiwa. Good luck
Does it help your website if I keep refreshing the page or clicking on links inside it over and over? I can set up a program to continue doing this. Maybe gets you some extra coin for all the hits
Such one second repeat visitors I filter off. Like the web crawlers. I am interested in visitors that really study what I write, click on links provided and then return and carry on. I have 10 000's of those visitors.
Purpose of my website is not to make money. Purpose is to inform about governments' cover-ups, propaganda and Fake News. I do this under my own name and do not hide behind corrupt spokes people, etc. I cannot afford to publish lies and fake news.
Of course you could prove me wrong right here. But you won't because you know I am right.
But you are upset. I assume you are a poor failure just jealous at me.It doesn't upset me because none of that is true. You are a proven liar, repeatedly. Your challenge is fake because you don't have the money. If you did you would publicly prove it. That's how real challenges work. You were literally just proven to be a liar on another thread when you claimed Buzz Aldrin piloted the command module on re-entry.I know it upsets you that I always tell the truth at my website and here. And that my Challenges are real and legal.But everything you just said there is a lie. You have admitted your challenges are fake, you have been shown multiple errors in your website. You offer no evidence to support your lunacy. You simply fail.Ok Heiwa. Good luck
Does it help your website if I keep refreshing the page or clicking on links inside it over and over? I can set up a program to continue doing this. Maybe gets you some extra coin for all the hits
Such one second repeat visitors I filter off. Like the web crawlers. I am interested in visitors that really study what I write, click on links provided and then return and carry on. I have 10 000's of those visitors.
Purpose of my website is not to make money. Purpose is to inform about governments' cover-ups, propaganda and Fake News. I do this under my own name and do not hide behind corrupt spokes people, etc. I cannot afford to publish lies and fake news.
Of course you could prove me wrong right here. But you won't because you know I am right.
You just keep failing.
Okay that one was actually really funny. It's hilarious that you think anyone would be jealous of you. You are a proven liar and have, over hundreds of posts failed to show a single piece of evidence to support your claims. You have admitted your challenges are fake, and you mock people you have never met after they die, thus mocking those who loved them.But you are upset. I assume you are a poor failure just jealous at me.It doesn't upset me because none of that is true. You are a proven liar, repeatedly. Your challenge is fake because you don't have the money. If you did you would publicly prove it. That's how real challenges work. You were literally just proven to be a liar on another thread when you claimed Buzz Aldrin piloted the command module on re-entry.I know it upsets you that I always tell the truth at my website and here. And that my Challenges are real and legal.But everything you just said there is a lie. You have admitted your challenges are fake, you have been shown multiple errors in your website. You offer no evidence to support your lunacy. You simply fail.Ok Heiwa. Good luck
Does it help your website if I keep refreshing the page or clicking on links inside it over and over? I can set up a program to continue doing this. Maybe gets you some extra coin for all the hits
Such one second repeat visitors I filter off. Like the web crawlers. I am interested in visitors that really study what I write, click on links provided and then return and carry on. I have 10 000's of those visitors.
Purpose of my website is not to make money. Purpose is to inform about governments' cover-ups, propaganda and Fake News. I do this under my own name and do not hide behind corrupt spokes people, etc. I cannot afford to publish lies and fake news.
Of course you could prove me wrong right here. But you won't because you know I am right.
You just keep failing.
Well you have just proven you are a twerp. Why do you make up all your fantasies?Okay that one was actually really funny. It's hilarious that you think anyone would be jealous of you. You are a proven liar and have, over hundreds of posts failed to show a single piece of evidence to support your claims. You have admitted your challenges are fake, and you mock people you have never met after they die, thus mocking those who loved them.But you are upset. I assume you are a poor failure just jealous at me.It doesn't upset me because none of that is true. You are a proven liar, repeatedly. Your challenge is fake because you don't have the money. If you did you would publicly prove it. That's how real challenges work. You were literally just proven to be a liar on another thread when you claimed Buzz Aldrin piloted the command module on re-entry.I know it upsets you that I always tell the truth at my website and here. And that my Challenges are real and legal.But everything you just said there is a lie. You have admitted your challenges are fake, you have been shown multiple errors in your website. You offer no evidence to support your lunacy. You simply fail.Ok Heiwa. Good luck
Does it help your website if I keep refreshing the page or clicking on links inside it over and over? I can set up a program to continue doing this. Maybe gets you some extra coin for all the hits
Such one second repeat visitors I filter off. Like the web crawlers. I am interested in visitors that really study what I write, click on links provided and then return and carry on. I have 10 000's of those visitors.
Purpose of my website is not to make money. Purpose is to inform about governments' cover-ups, propaganda and Fake News. I do this under my own name and do not hide behind corrupt spokes people, etc. I cannot afford to publish lies and fake news.
Of course you could prove me wrong right here. But you won't because you know I am right.
You just keep failing.
No, you are garbage and no one is jealous of you.
You're confused. You are the one who makes up fantasies and never offers any evidence. I just point that out.Well you have just proven you are a twerp. Why do you make up all your fantasies?Okay that one was actually really funny. It's hilarious that you think anyone would be jealous of you. You are a proven liar and have, over hundreds of posts failed to show a single piece of evidence to support your claims. You have admitted your challenges are fake, and you mock people you have never met after they die, thus mocking those who loved them.But you are upset. I assume you are a poor failure just jealous at me.It doesn't upset me because none of that is true. You are a proven liar, repeatedly. Your challenge is fake because you don't have the money. If you did you would publicly prove it. That's how real challenges work. You were literally just proven to be a liar on another thread when you claimed Buzz Aldrin piloted the command module on re-entry.I know it upsets you that I always tell the truth at my website and here. And that my Challenges are real and legal.But everything you just said there is a lie. You have admitted your challenges are fake, you have been shown multiple errors in your website. You offer no evidence to support your lunacy. You simply fail.Ok Heiwa. Good luck
Does it help your website if I keep refreshing the page or clicking on links inside it over and over? I can set up a program to continue doing this. Maybe gets you some extra coin for all the hits
Such one second repeat visitors I filter off. Like the web crawlers. I am interested in visitors that really study what I write, click on links provided and then return and carry on. I have 10 000's of those visitors.
Purpose of my website is not to make money. Purpose is to inform about governments' cover-ups, propaganda and Fake News. I do this under my own name and do not hide behind corrupt spokes people, etc. I cannot afford to publish lies and fake news.
Of course you could prove me wrong right here. But you won't because you know I am right.
You just keep failing.
No, you are garbage and no one is jealous of you.
Me confused? With a popular website http://heiwaco.com . No, you are sick with your nonsense posts. Just carry on. You will not get better.You're confused. You are the one who makes up fantasies and never offers any evidence. I just point that out.Well you have just proven you are a twerp. Why do you make up all your fantasies?Okay that one was actually really funny. It's hilarious that you think anyone would be jealous of you. You are a proven liar and have, over hundreds of posts failed to show a single piece of evidence to support your claims. You have admitted your challenges are fake, and you mock people you have never met after they die, thus mocking those who loved them.But you are upset. I assume you are a poor failure just jealous at me.It doesn't upset me because none of that is true. You are a proven liar, repeatedly. Your challenge is fake because you don't have the money. If you did you would publicly prove it. That's how real challenges work. You were literally just proven to be a liar on another thread when you claimed Buzz Aldrin piloted the command module on re-entry.I know it upsets you that I always tell the truth at my website and here. And that my Challenges are real and legal.But everything you just said there is a lie. You have admitted your challenges are fake, you have been shown multiple errors in your website. You offer no evidence to support your lunacy. You simply fail.Ok Heiwa. Good luck
Does it help your website if I keep refreshing the page or clicking on links inside it over and over? I can set up a program to continue doing this. Maybe gets you some extra coin for all the hits
Such one second repeat visitors I filter off. Like the web crawlers. I am interested in visitors that really study what I write, click on links provided and then return and carry on. I have 10 000's of those visitors.
Purpose of my website is not to make money. Purpose is to inform about governments' cover-ups, propaganda and Fake News. I do this under my own name and do not hide behind corrupt spokes people, etc. I cannot afford to publish lies and fake news.
Of course you could prove me wrong right here. But you won't because you know I am right.
You just keep failing.
No, you are garbage and no one is jealous of you.
You have never proved me wrong. Fail.
You don't always tell the truth. I've proved that. If you like I could link the posts.I know it upsets you that I always tell the truth at my website and here. And that my Challenges are real and legal.But everything you just said there is a lie. You have admitted your challenges are fake, you have been shown multiple errors in your website. You offer no evidence to support your lunacy. You simply fail.Ok Heiwa. Good luck
Does it help your website if I keep refreshing the page or clicking on links inside it over and over? I can set up a program to continue doing this. Maybe gets you some extra coin for all the hits
Such one second repeat visitors I filter off. Like the web crawlers. I am interested in visitors that really study what I write, click on links provided and then return and carry on. I have 10 000's of those visitors.
Purpose of my website is not to make money. Purpose is to inform about governments' cover-ups, propaganda and Fake News. I do this under my own name and do not hide behind corrupt spokes people, etc. I cannot afford to publish lies and fake news.
Of course you could prove me wrong right here. But you won't because you know I am right.
My website http://heiwaco.com is quite popular and I do not publish any lies there under my own name. Why would I? Or can I? And it is great fun. Plenty brain damaged morons, zombies and twerps get upset and moan and groan.You don't always tell the truth. I've proved that. If you like I could link the posts.I know it upsets you that I always tell the truth at my website and here. And that my Challenges are real and legal.But everything you just said there is a lie. You have admitted your challenges are fake, you have been shown multiple errors in your website. You offer no evidence to support your lunacy. You simply fail.Ok Heiwa. Good luck
Does it help your website if I keep refreshing the page or clicking on links inside it over and over? I can set up a program to continue doing this. Maybe gets you some extra coin for all the hits
Such one second repeat visitors I filter off. Like the web crawlers. I am interested in visitors that really study what I write, click on links provided and then return and carry on. I have 10 000's of those visitors.
Purpose of my website is not to make money. Purpose is to inform about governments' cover-ups, propaganda and Fake News. I do this under my own name and do not hide behind corrupt spokes people, etc. I cannot afford to publish lies and fake news.
Of course you could prove me wrong right here. But you won't because you know I am right.
Your website only puts forth your conclusions. Not once to you actually show what is wrong with existing theory or calculations. You simply say they're wrong and put forth someone else's theory, your own calculations, and your own conclusions. Not once do you put forth an existing calculation and show what's wrong with it.
Your website here's why I'm right. It does not show why anything else is wrong. I'm wondering if you even get why that's important.
Mike
More LIES from Heiwa. You were shown just in the last day to have posted lies. You're not fooling anyone except yourself.My website http://heiwaco.com is quite popular and I do not publish any lies there under my own name. Why would I? Or can I? And it is great fun. Plenty brain damaged morons, zombies and twerps get upset and moan and groan.You don't always tell the truth. I've proved that. If you like I could link the posts.I know it upsets you that I always tell the truth at my website and here. And that my Challenges are real and legal.But everything you just said there is a lie. You have admitted your challenges are fake, you have been shown multiple errors in your website. You offer no evidence to support your lunacy. You simply fail.Ok Heiwa. Good luck
Does it help your website if I keep refreshing the page or clicking on links inside it over and over? I can set up a program to continue doing this. Maybe gets you some extra coin for all the hits
Such one second repeat visitors I filter off. Like the web crawlers. I am interested in visitors that really study what I write, click on links provided and then return and carry on. I have 10 000's of those visitors.
Purpose of my website is not to make money. Purpose is to inform about governments' cover-ups, propaganda and Fake News. I do this under my own name and do not hide behind corrupt spokes people, etc. I cannot afford to publish lies and fake news.
Of course you could prove me wrong right here. But you won't because you know I am right.
Your website only puts forth your conclusions. Not once to you actually show what is wrong with existing theory or calculations. You simply say they're wrong and put forth someone else's theory, your own calculations, and your own conclusions. Not once do you put forth an existing calculation and show what's wrong with it.
Your website here's why I'm right. It does not show why anything else is wrong. I'm wondering if you even get why that's important.
Mike
Why would I? Or can I? And it is great fun.
http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#B is quite funny!Why would I? Or can I? And it is great fun.
Shut the fuck up.
http://heiwaco.***/moontravel.htm#B is a master piece of mine.I put out a better master piece every morning but instead of putting it on my website I just flush it.
You went from being a laughing stock to mocking a man's death.
Shut the fuck up.
You went from being a laughing stock to mocking a man's death.
Shut the fuck up.
Is Lone Skum dead? I didn't know that.
And your language. Where did you learn it?
Right. He wants us to believe that he was a sailor, but he doesn't know where salty talk comes from. ::)You went from being a laughing stock to mocking a man's death.
Shut the fuck up.
Is Lone Skum dead? I didn't know that.
And your language. Where did you learn it?
Oh come on. Like you don't curse.
He wants us to believe he is nice then insults people in nearly every post.Right. He wants us to believe that he was a sailor, but he doesn't know where salty talk comes from. ::)You went from being a laughing stock to mocking a man's death.
Shut the fuck up.
Is Lone Skum dead? I didn't know that.
And your language. Where did you learn it?
Oh come on. Like you don't curse.
He wants us to believe he is nice then insults people in nearly every post.
He wants us to believe he is intelligent but he lied about his IQ and proves he is incapable of research.
He wants us to believe he is rich but he refuses to post the tiniest shred of proof.
He wants us to believe he is attractive then he posts creepy pictures that look more like the guy you tell your kids to avoid.
Does ANYONE here besides Heiwa believe he is any of those things?
http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#B is a master piece of mine.Finally, something we can all agree on!
Thanks for linking to my master piece http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#B . It is brilliant, isn’t it?I already agreed that it was a masterpiece of deception.
No, I, Heiwa, never say that, what I do not understand must be faked. I explain why it is faked at http://heiwaco.comYou think you are so smart because you think that you understand all these things, but you obviously do not!
Why do think I am the smartest person in the world? Aren’t you smarter?
It seems we agree that satellites can orbit Earth. Good. But don’t you agree that up there in vacuum space and exposed to the radiation of the Sun, any human will be tanned, roasted, vaporized and killed immediately? No atmosphere or clouds or sun shades to shield you.
Thanks again for visiting my website. It is highly appreciated. You are serious.Yes, I seriously believe that much of your site is totally incorrect garbage and from what I've read on other forums, my opinion is shared by many others.
No, I, Heiwa, never say that, what I do not understand must be faked. I explain why it is faked at http://heiwaco.comIn a single paragraph on this forum you presented five pieces of information as fact, when in truth, everything except your identification of the camera was false. If a 20% rate of accuracy is representative of your general knowledge base, why would anyone bother with your website? It's reasonable to assume that 80% of it is incorrect, and that doesn't even address places where you draw inappropriate conclusions from the 20% of the facts that you may have gotten correct.
Glenn was traveling backwards with a control stick between his legs. His capsule had a rocket engine facing forward for braking and maybe Glenn used the control stick to fire this engine. Glenn had also 25 buttons to push to land backwards but I don't know what they were for. He had a little window to look through and he used an upgraded Minolta Hi-Matic taking photos of the Earth below. The capsule was not full of pressurized air so there was need for an airtight space suit/helmet with gloves. How he could take photos with those gloves is a mystery.Amazing how in an age when information is so available you manage to get nothing right. The only stick between his legs was the one he was born with. The control stick off to his side was used to control the attitude of the capsule and had nothing to do with firing the engine.
What a stupid story. Only twerps believe it.
The capsule had an escape tower for launch with a rocket on the forward part of the capsule and a retrorocket pack attached to the heat shield. It was pushed into orbit by an Atlas rocket, also from behind the heat shield. Three rocket engines and not one of them "faced forward". The escape tower was jettisoned after launch, the Atlas rocket was jettisoned after giving the capsule orbital velocity. The retropack was the only rocket engine on the capsule once he was in orbit and it was attached to the back, over the heat shield.
There were 120 controls, not 25, although only 55 were switches, if that was what you meant by buttons, but 55 still isn't 25. At least you acknowledge you don't know what they were for.
The Mercury capsules were pressurized to 5.5 psi of pure oxygen. The pressure suits on a separate oxygen supply were there as a backup in case of a loss of pressure in the cabin or a fire, which would be extinguished by venting cabin oxygen. Most of the time, the pilots actually flew with their helmets open and suits consequently not pressurized.
I didn't look up any of the camera information, but if the operation is a mystery to you it's only because you didn't do any research either. It is likely he was able to operate the camera with gloves because of practice and training, or with modifications made to the camera to make it easier with gloves. It is also possible he simply removed his gloves to take pictures, as his suit wasn't pressurized anyway and the cabin was perfectly safe without his suit.
The history of Mercury, and the rest of the space program, is well documented. It's not a "story", stupid or otherwise. Only ignorant jackasses question it, and only then on the ridiculous basis of "I don't understand it so it must be false." I'm happy to educate you, but I can't learn for you. At some point you have to open your own mind and actually process the information.
Quote from: HeiwaIt seems we agree that satellites can orbit Earth. Good. But don’t you agree that up there in vacuum space and exposed to the radiation of the Sun, any human will be tanned, roasted, vaporized and killed immediately? No atmosphere or clouds or sun shades to shield you.
No, not that severe.
The actual intensity outside the atmosphere is about 1366 W/m2 and is about 1000W/m2 on earth when the sun is directly overhead.
Of course, outside the atmosphere there is much more damaging UV and shorter wavelength radiation, but nobody is ever going to be exposed directly to that.
Anyone "in space" will be in a spacecraft or in a protective suit. Radiation is still a serious hazard though, especially from solar flares.
Don’t you know that radiation inside a spacecraft orbiting Earth originates from:Quote from: HeiwaIt seems we agree that satellites can orbit Earth. Good. But don’t you agree that up there in vacuum space and exposed to the radiation of the Sun, any human will be tanned, roasted, vaporized and killed immediately? No atmosphere or clouds or sun shades to shield you.
No, not that severe.
The actual intensity outside the atmosphere is about 1366 W/m2 and is about 1000W/m2 on earth when the sun is directly overhead.
Of course, outside the atmosphere there is much more damaging UV and shorter wavelength radiation, but nobody is ever going to be exposed directly to that.
Anyone "in space" will be in a spacecraft or in a protective suit. Radiation is still a serious hazard though, especially from solar flares.
Why bother trying to actually figure out precisely what the conditions are out there. Just use common sense to assume that they are very bad and thus no one could survive. Based on that, anyone who says it is possible is a liar. Nothing hard to understand about it.
Care to back up that bullshit by posting some evidence here or would you rather continue to fail.Don’t you know that radiation inside a spacecraft orbiting Earth originates from:Quote from: HeiwaIt seems we agree that satellites can orbit Earth. Good. But don’t you agree that up there in vacuum space and exposed to the radiation of the Sun, any human will be tanned, roasted, vaporized and killed immediately? No atmosphere or clouds or sun shades to shield you.
No, not that severe.
The actual intensity outside the atmosphere is about 1366 W/m2 and is about 1000W/m2 on earth when the sun is directly overhead.
Of course, outside the atmosphere there is much more damaging UV and shorter wavelength radiation, but nobody is ever going to be exposed directly to that.
Anyone "in space" will be in a spacecraft or in a protective suit. Radiation is still a serious hazard though, especially from solar flares.
Why bother trying to actually figure out precisely what the conditions are out there. Just use common sense to assume that they are very bad and thus no one could survive. Based on that, anyone who says it is possible is a liar. Nothing hard to understand about it.
1. Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) – charged particles from the Universe
2. Earth’s Radiation Belts (ERBs) – energetic electrons and protons
3. Solar Particle Events (SPE) – intense solar flare particles
(http://heiwaco.com/SPRAD.jpg)
Such GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations kill any asstronut exposed to it after 1 second. Luckily all US manned space trips 1962-2018 took place at Hollywood, CA, so nobody got hurt.
There is no business like space radiation business I know ...
Are you sure you have not been exposed to GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations that kill any asstronut exposed to it after 1 second? Luckily all US manned space trips 1962-2018 took place at Hollywood, CA, so nobody got hurt ... so you don't have to worry.Care to back up that bullshit by posting some evidence here or would you rather continue to fail.Don’t you know that radiation inside a spacecraft orbiting Earth originates from:Quote from: HeiwaIt seems we agree that satellites can orbit Earth. Good. But don’t you agree that up there in vacuum space and exposed to the radiation of the Sun, any human will be tanned, roasted, vaporized and killed immediately? No atmosphere or clouds or sun shades to shield you.
No, not that severe.
The actual intensity outside the atmosphere is about 1366 W/m2 and is about 1000W/m2 on earth when the sun is directly overhead.
Of course, outside the atmosphere there is much more damaging UV and shorter wavelength radiation, but nobody is ever going to be exposed directly to that.
Anyone "in space" will be in a spacecraft or in a protective suit. Radiation is still a serious hazard though, especially from solar flares.
Why bother trying to actually figure out precisely what the conditions are out there. Just use common sense to assume that they are very bad and thus no one could survive. Based on that, anyone who says it is possible is a liar. Nothing hard to understand about it.
1. Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) – charged particles from the Universe
2. Earth’s Radiation Belts (ERBs) – energetic electrons and protons
3. Solar Particle Events (SPE) – intense solar flare particles
(http://heiwaco.com/SPRAD.jpg)
Such GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations kill any asstronut exposed to it after 1 second. Luckily all US manned space trips 1962-2018 took place at Hollywood, CA, so nobody got hurt.
There is no business like space radiation business I know ...
Such GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations kill any asstronut exposed to it after 1 second.Oops, there's some more of your misinformation. 5 Sv is a lethal dose, but death will come most likely within 2 weeks. 10 Sv is a lethal dose, with death in about 1 hour. 3-3.5 Sv is a 50% death rate in 60 days.
Such GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations kill any asstronut exposed to it after 1 second.Oops, there's some more of your misinformation. 5 Sv is a lethal dose, but death will come most likely within 2 weeks. 10 Sv is a lethal dose, with death in about 1 hour. 3-3.5 Sv is a 50% death rate in 60 days.
9 days of Apollo 14 had a dosage of 11.4 mSv, or about 0.2% of the lethal dose for death within 2 weeks (0.1% of the lethal dose in 1 hour).
6 months on the ISS is a dosage of about 160 mSv, or about 3% of the lethal dose for death within 2 weeks (1.5% of the lethal dose in 1 hour.
As you can see, days to the moon, or months in orbit, neither exposes astronauts to anywhere near enough to a lethal dose in an hour, let alone a second.
More Heiwa misinformation corrected. You can feel free to fix any of the inaccuracies on your website with my information without crediting me. It's enough for me just to know that there is a little less ignorance in the world.
It's not like that at all, actually. Wrong again. I gave you the numbers above. If you think they are in error (they're not) you're welcome to dispute them. But mindlessly reasserting something that is demonstrably false is really dumb. Are you dumb? Don't answer that, let your actions speak for you...Such GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations kill any asstronut exposed to it after 1 second.Oops, there's some more of your misinformation. 5 Sv is a lethal dose, but death will come most likely within 2 weeks. 10 Sv is a lethal dose, with death in about 1 hour. 3-3.5 Sv is a 50% death rate in 60 days.
9 days of Apollo 14 had a dosage of 11.4 mSv, or about 0.2% of the lethal dose for death within 2 weeks (0.1% of the lethal dose in 1 hour).
6 months on the ISS is a dosage of about 160 mSv, or about 3% of the lethal dose for death within 2 weeks (1.5% of the lethal dose in 1 hour.
As you can see, days to the moon, or months in orbit, neither exposes astronauts to anywhere near enough to a lethal dose in an hour, let alone a second.
More Heiwa misinformation corrected. You can feel free to fix any of the inaccuracies on your website with my information without crediting me. It's enough for me just to know that there is a little less ignorance in the world.
No, GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations in space heat you up in seconds regardless of protection suits. It is like being a live lobster put in pot of boiling water.
No, GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations in space heat you up in seconds regardless of protection suits. It is like being a live lobster put in pot of boiling water. Not pleasant for the lobster, but we who love boiled lobster - with champagne and caviar + nice company - cannot care less.Anders, do you understand anything at all about dosage?
Yes. Why do ask stupid questions all the time?No, GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations in space heat you up in seconds regardless of protection suits. It is like being a live lobster put in pot of boiling water. Not pleasant for the lobster, but we who love boiled lobster - with champagne and caviar + nice company - cannot care less.Anders, do you understand anything at all about dosage?
What dosage of radiation is required to kill someone in a few seconds?Yes. Why do ask stupid questions all the time?No, GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations in space heat you up in seconds regardless of protection suits. It is like being a live lobster put in pot of boiling water. Not pleasant for the lobster, but we who love boiled lobster - with champagne and caviar + nice company - cannot care less.Anders, do you understand anything at all about dosage?
What dosage of radiation is required to kill someone in a few seconds?Yes. Why do ask stupid questions all the time?No, GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations in space heat you up in seconds regardless of protection suits. It is like being a live lobster put in pot of boiling water. Not pleasant for the lobster, but we who love boiled lobster - with champagne and caviar + nice company - cannot care less.Anders, do you understand anything at all about dosage?
Also, broiled lobster is much tastier than boiled.
What's wrong? Are you too stupid to answer my stupid questions?What dosage of radiation is required to kill someone in a few seconds?Yes. Why do ask stupid questions all the time?No, GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations in space heat you up in seconds regardless of protection suits. It is like being a live lobster put in pot of boiling water. Not pleasant for the lobster, but we who love boiled lobster - with champagne and caviar + nice company - cannot care less.Anders, do you understand anything at all about dosage?
Also, broiled lobster is much tastier than boiled.
Yes, yes. Why do ask stupid questions all the time?
That's a no then. As always you fail to support your nonsense with evidence. More failure. No surprise.Are you sure you have not been exposed to GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations that kill any asstronut exposed to it after 1 second? Luckily all US manned space trips 1962-2018 took place at Hollywood, CA, so nobody got hurt ... so you don't have to worry.Care to back up that bullshit by posting some evidence here or would you rather continue to fail.Don’t you know that radiation inside a spacecraft orbiting Earth originates from:Quote from: HeiwaIt seems we agree that satellites can orbit Earth. Good. But don’t you agree that up there in vacuum space and exposed to the radiation of the Sun, any human will be tanned, roasted, vaporized and killed immediately? No atmosphere or clouds or sun shades to shield you.
No, not that severe.
The actual intensity outside the atmosphere is about 1366 W/m2 and is about 1000W/m2 on earth when the sun is directly overhead.
Of course, outside the atmosphere there is much more damaging UV and shorter wavelength radiation, but nobody is ever going to be exposed directly to that.
Anyone "in space" will be in a spacecraft or in a protective suit. Radiation is still a serious hazard though, especially from solar flares.
Why bother trying to actually figure out precisely what the conditions are out there. Just use common sense to assume that they are very bad and thus no one could survive. Based on that, anyone who says it is possible is a liar. Nothing hard to understand about it.
1. Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) – charged particles from the Universe
2. Earth’s Radiation Belts (ERBs) – energetic electrons and protons
3. Solar Particle Events (SPE) – intense solar flare particles
(http://heiwaco.com/SPRAD.jpg)
Such GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations kill any asstronut exposed to it after 1 second. Luckily all US manned space trips 1962-2018 took place at Hollywood, CA, so nobody got hurt.
There is no business like space radiation business I know ...
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/pclnwb3x1z9nhni/Sarcasm%20151117_LEX_emoji-oxford-dictionary-word-of-year.jpg.CROP.rectangle2-mediumsmall.jpg?dl=1) Common sense is so reliable isn't it? (https://www.dropbox.com/s/pclnwb3x1z9nhni/Sarcasm%20151117_LEX_emoji-oxford-dictionary-word-of-year.jpg.CROP.rectangle2-mediumsmall.jpg?dl=1)Quote from: HeiwaIt seems we agree that satellites can orbit Earth. Good. But don’t you agree that up there in vacuum space and exposed to the radiation of the Sun, any human will be tanned, roasted, vaporized and killed immediately? No atmosphere or clouds or sun shades to shield you.
No, not that severe.
The actual intensity outside the atmosphere is about 1366 W/m2 and is about 1000W/m2 on earth when the sun is directly overhead.
Of course, outside the atmosphere there is much more damaging UV and shorter wavelength radiation, but nobody is ever going to be exposed directly to that.
Anyone "in space" will be in a spacecraft or in a protective suit. Radiation is still a serious hazard though, especially from solar flares.
Why bother trying to actually figure out precisely what the conditions are out there. Just use common sense to assume that they are very bad and thus no one could survive. Based on that, anyone who says it is possible is a liar. Nothing hard to understand about it.
Take a look atQuote from: Einstein, possiblyCommon senseSo, did Einstein mean that the earth is flat or that we sometimes have to go past our common sense?
“Common sense is a set of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.”
“Common sense is what tells us the earth is flat.”
From: 75 Albert Einstein quotes — inspirational and thought provoking (http://thoughtbrick.com/quotes/75-albert-einstein-quotes-inspirational-and-thought-provoking/)
A few other quotes about common sense:QuoteCommon-sense is part of the home-made ideology of those who have been deprived of fundamental learning, of those who have been kept ignorant.JOHN BERGER, A Fortunate ManCommon sense is judgment without reflection, shared by an entire class, an entire nation, or the entire human race.GIAMBATTISTA VICO, The New ScienceCommon-sense appears to be only another name for the thoughtlessness of the unthinking. It is made of the prejudices of childhood, the idiosyncrasies of individual character and the opinion of the newspapers.W. SOMERSET MAUGHAM, A Writer's NotebookCommon sense tells us that the world is flat, that the sun goes around the earth, that heavy bodies always fall faster than light bodies, that boats made of iron will sink.STUART CHASE, The Proper Study of MankindSelected from: COMMON SENSE QUOTES, quotations about common sense (http://www.notable-quotes.com/c/common_sense_quotes.html)
Do you know the answer to the question or not?What dosage of radiation is required to kill someone in a few seconds?Yes. Why do ask stupid questions all the time?No, GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations in space heat you up in seconds regardless of protection suits. It is like being a live lobster put in pot of boiling water. Not pleasant for the lobster, but we who love boiled lobster - with champagne and caviar + nice company - cannot care less.Anders, do you understand anything at all about dosage?
Also, broiled lobster is much tastier than boiled.
Yes, yes. Why do ask stupid questions all the time?
The answer, of course, is common sense. Since you don't agree with him you clearly don't have it, ergo you are a stupid twerp.Do you know the answer to the question or not?What dosage of radiation is required to kill someone in a few seconds?Yes. Why do ask stupid questions all the time?No, GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations in space heat you up in seconds regardless of protection suits. It is like being a live lobster put in pot of boiling water. Not pleasant for the lobster, but we who love boiled lobster - with champagne and caviar + nice company - cannot care less.Anders, do you understand anything at all about dosage?
Also, broiled lobster is much tastier than boiled.
Yes, yes. Why do ask stupid questions all the time?
No, it was a little test. There is no GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations at all. It is just another NASA science fiction pseudo invention from 2001 to enable fake asstronuts to screw together the International Fake/Space Station in LEO. You are not very bright, are you!That's a no then. As always you fail to support your nonsense with evidence. More failure. No surprise.Are you sure you have not been exposed to GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations that kill any asstronut exposed to it after 1 second? Luckily all US manned space trips 1962-2018 took place at Hollywood, CA, so nobody got hurt ... so you don't have to worry.Care to back up that bullshit by posting some evidence here or would you rather continue to fail.Don’t you know that radiation inside a spacecraft orbiting Earth originates from:Quote from: HeiwaIt seems we agree that satellites can orbit Earth. Good. But don’t you agree that up there in vacuum space and exposed to the radiation of the Sun, any human will be tanned, roasted, vaporized and killed immediately? No atmosphere or clouds or sun shades to shield you.
No, not that severe.
The actual intensity outside the atmosphere is about 1366 W/m2 and is about 1000W/m2 on earth when the sun is directly overhead.
Of course, outside the atmosphere there is much more damaging UV and shorter wavelength radiation, but nobody is ever going to be exposed directly to that.
Anyone "in space" will be in a spacecraft or in a protective suit. Radiation is still a serious hazard though, especially from solar flares.
Why bother trying to actually figure out precisely what the conditions are out there. Just use common sense to assume that they are very bad and thus no one could survive. Based on that, anyone who says it is possible is a liar. Nothing hard to understand about it.
1. Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) – charged particles from the Universe
2. Earth’s Radiation Belts (ERBs) – energetic electrons and protons
3. Solar Particle Events (SPE) – intense solar flare particles
(http://heiwaco.com/SPRAD.jpg)
Such GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations kill any asstronut exposed to it after 1 second. Luckily all US manned space trips 1962-2018 took place at Hollywood, CA, so nobody got hurt.
There is no business like space radiation business I know ...
Oh look, heiwa has, as always, failed to show any evidence to support his moronic claims. Nothing. Not one single thing.No, it was a little test. There is no GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations at all. It is just another NASA science fiction pseudo invention from 2001 to enable fake asstronuts to screw together the International Fake/Space Station in LEO. You are not very bright, are you!That's a no then. As always you fail to support your nonsense with evidence. More failure. No surprise.Are you sure you have not been exposed to GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations that kill any asstronut exposed to it after 1 second? Luckily all US manned space trips 1962-2018 took place at Hollywood, CA, so nobody got hurt ... so you don't have to worry.Care to back up that bullshit by posting some evidence here or would you rather continue to fail.Don’t you know that radiation inside a spacecraft orbiting Earth originates from:Quote from: HeiwaIt seems we agree that satellites can orbit Earth. Good. But don’t you agree that up there in vacuum space and exposed to the radiation of the Sun, any human will be tanned, roasted, vaporized and killed immediately? No atmosphere or clouds or sun shades to shield you.
No, not that severe.
The actual intensity outside the atmosphere is about 1366 W/m2 and is about 1000W/m2 on earth when the sun is directly overhead.
Of course, outside the atmosphere there is much more damaging UV and shorter wavelength radiation, but nobody is ever going to be exposed directly to that.
Anyone "in space" will be in a spacecraft or in a protective suit. Radiation is still a serious hazard though, especially from solar flares.
Why bother trying to actually figure out precisely what the conditions are out there. Just use common sense to assume that they are very bad and thus no one could survive. Based on that, anyone who says it is possible is a liar. Nothing hard to understand about it.
1. Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) – charged particles from the Universe
2. Earth’s Radiation Belts (ERBs) – energetic electrons and protons
3. Solar Particle Events (SPE) – intense solar flare particles
(http://heiwaco.com/SPRAD.jpg)
Such GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations kill any asstronut exposed to it after 1 second. Luckily all US manned space trips 1962-2018 took place at Hollywood, CA, so nobody got hurt.
There is no business like space radiation business I know ...
It is like being a live lobster put in pot of boiling water. Not pleasant for the lobster, but we who love boiled lobster - with champagne and caviar + nice company - cannot care less.
It is like being a live lobster put in pot of boiling water. Not pleasant for the lobster, but we who love boiled lobster - with champagne and caviar + nice company - cannot care less.
What a fuckin' cretin.
You wrap a bug in kelp and steam it over boiling sea water.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Of course I know that!Don’t you know that radiation inside a spacecraft orbiting Earth originates from:Quote from: HeiwaBut don’t you agree that up there in vacuum space and exposed to the radiation of the Sun, any human will be tanned, roasted, vaporized and killed immediately? No atmosphere or clouds or sun shades to shield you.
No, not that severe.
The actual intensity outside the atmosphere is about 1366 W/m2 and is about 1000W/m2 on earth when the sun is directly overhead.
Of course, outside the atmosphere there is much more damaging UV and shorter wavelength radiation, but nobody is ever going to be exposed directly to that.
Anyone "in space" will be in a spacecraft or in a protective suit. Radiation is still a serious hazard though, especially from solar flares.
1. Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) – charged particles from the Universe
2. Earth’s Radiation Belts (ERBs) – energetic electrons and protons
3. Solar Particle Events (SPE) – intense solar flare particles
Such GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations kill any asstronut exposed to it after 1 second.Total idiotic garbage!
Luckily all US manned space trips 1962-2018 took place at Hollywood, CA, so nobody got hurt.Oh, aren't you just the smartest! And when were you last in space to measure all this radiation - too recently it appears, as you clearly haven't recovered yet.
There is no business like space radiation business I know ...
Estimates are that humans unshielded in interplanetary space would receive annually roughly 400 to 900 mSv (compared to 2.4 mSv on Earth) and that a Mars mission (12 months in flight and 18 months on Mars) might expose shielded astronauts to roughly 500 to 1000 mSv.[27] These doses approach the 1 to 4 Sv career limits advised by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) for low Earth orbit activities in 1989, and the more recent NCRP recommendations of 0.5 to 2 Sv in 2000 based on updated information on dose to risk conversion factors. Dose limits depend on age at exposure and sex due to difference in suspetability with age, the added risks of breast and ovarian cancers to women, and the variability of cancer risks such as lung cancer between men and women.The extra dosage from GCR during the short lunar missions is not significant, but does become of great concern in longer mission such as to Mars (if it ever happens).
Mr Anders Björkman, the world might be a better place if you sat in your bathtub sinking all your toy boatsBoats don't sink.
Unless the "Bow Visor" (which Heiwa claims is just "decorative fairing") falls off, exposing the vehicle ramp to the 14 m waves.Mr Anders Björkman, the world might be a better place if you sat in your bathtub sinking all your toy boatsBoats don't sink.
Any proof you have of boats sinking is a joke. Only twerps believe it. Common sense will tell you that if something floats, it floats. I doesn't float one minute and sink the next. Have you ever seen an iceberg sink?Unless the "Bow Visor" (which Heiwa claims is just "decorative fairing") falls off, exposing the vehicle ramp to the 14 m waves.Mr Anders Björkman, the world might be a better place if you sat in your bathtub sinking all your toy boatsBoats don't sink.Of course, Heiwa is the expert (as he pretends to be on nuclear ignition and space flight), so what would we ignorants know?
MS Estonia, moment of bow visor separation - simulation, Michał Niewczas
It is like being a live lobster put in pot of boiling water. Not pleasant for the lobster, but we who love boiled lobster - with champagne and caviar + nice company - cannot care less.
What a fuckin' cretin.
You wrap a bug in kelp and steam it over boiling sea water.
How long? I just boil em 'til they turn orange.
Also, what's the joke? I don't get it either.
Only twerps believe itNo, problem, I admitted I was a twerp long ago, so I can believe it and even believe that humans can go into space and survive re-entry. In fact:
Common sense will tell you that if something floats, it floats. I doesn't float one minute and sink the next.:-[ Titanic, iceberg :-[
Have you ever seen an iceberg sink?I've never seen an ice-berg, other than in a very cold part frozen lake in Norway.
The Titanic was an elaborate hoax. Only twerps believe it.Only twerps believe itNo, problem, I admitted I was a twerp long ago, so I can believe it and even believe that humans can go into space and survive re-entry. In fact:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/0r01klnpv81evvl/Sometimes%20I%27ve%20believed%20as%20many%20as%206%20IMPOSSIBLE%20Things%20before%20breakfast.jpg?dl=1)Quote from: BootsCommon sense will tell you that if something floats, it floats. I doesn't float one minute and sink the next.:-[ Titanic, iceberg :-[Quote from: BootsHave you ever seen an iceberg sink?I've never seen an ice-berg, other than in a very cold part frozen lake in Norway.
The Titanic was an elaborate hoax. Only twerps believe it.;) You're addressing the original twerp and proud of it! ;)
No, it was a little test. There is no GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations at all. It is just another NASA science fiction pseudo invention from 2001 to enable fake asstronuts to screw together the International Fake/Space Station in LEO. You are not very bright, are you!And you are a sick ignorant liar,
No, it was a little test. There is no GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations at all. It is just another NASA science fiction pseudo invention from 2001 to enable fake asstronuts to screw together the International Fake/Space Station in LEO. You are not very bright, are you!And you are a sick ignorant liar,
Have a nice day.
?? - Why would I present any sick, ignorant lies at my website?Because it boosts your sick, twisted ego to pretend you know what you're talking about.
No, not at all. I only published some correct info about safety at sea back in 1996 which upset plenty corrupt people ... so I just decided to carry on supported by plenty real people at http://heiwaco.com. Then I got involved with the Stalin atomic bomb 1949. I met people who had assisted in that communist hoax, which reminded me about my time In Japan. It seems no atomic bombs were ever dropped on Japan.?? - Why would I present any sick, ignorant lies at my website?Because it boosts your sick, twisted ego to pretend you know what you're talking about.
AbsloutelyNo, not at all.?? - Why would I present any sick, ignorant lies at my website?Because it boosts your sick, twisted ego to pretend you know what you're talking about.
No one knows why you do it but you do it but you doNo, it was a little test. There is no GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations at all. It is just another NASA science fiction pseudo invention from 2001 to enable fake asstronuts to screw together the International Fake/Space Station in LEO. You are not very bright, are you!And you are a sick ignorant liar,
Have a nice day.
?? - Why would I present any sick, ignorant lies at my website http://heiwaco.com ?
But thanks - I have a sunny day improving it.
But you are supposed to know everything.No one knows why you do it but you do it but you doNo, it was a little test. There is no GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations at all. It is just another NASA science fiction pseudo invention from 2001 to enable fake asstronuts to screw together the International Fake/Space Station in LEO. You are not very bright, are you!And you are a sick ignorant liar,
Have a nice day.
?? - Why would I present any sick, ignorant lies at my website http://heiwaco.com ?
But thanks - I have a sunny day improving it.
No you are the one that claims to be an expert in pretty much everything. I'm the on that asks for your evidence. The you run away and fail to produce it. You are a liar, a coward, a fraud, and a failure. Prove me wrong.But you are supposed to know everything.No one knows why you do it but you do it but you doNo, it was a little test. There is no GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations at all. It is just another NASA science fiction pseudo invention from 2001 to enable fake asstronuts to screw together the International Fake/Space Station in LEO. You are not very bright, are you!And you are a sick ignorant liar,
Have a nice day.
?? - Why would I present any sick, ignorant lies at my website http://heiwaco.com ?
But thanks - I have a sunny day improving it.
It seems you are not capable to understand my evidence at http://heiwaco.com ! I don't run away from anyone. Are you mentally and physically fit?No you are the one that claims to be an expert in pretty much everything. I'm the on that asks for your evidence. The you run away and fail to produce it. You are a liar, a coward, a fraud, and a failure. Prove me wrong.But you are supposed to know everything.No one knows why you do it but you do it but you doNo, it was a little test. There is no GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations at all. It is just another NASA science fiction pseudo invention from 2001 to enable fake asstronuts to screw together the International Fake/Space Station in LEO. You are not very bright, are you!And you are a sick ignorant liar,
Have a nice day.
?? - Why would I present any sick, ignorant lies at my website http://heiwaco.com ?
But thanks - I have a sunny day improving it.
Thanks for proving me right. You have again failed to post any evidence to support anything here, in this site. You have failed to prove you have the money. You just run away.It seems you are not capable to understand my evidence at http://heiwaco.com ! I don't run away from anyone. Are you mentally and physically fit?No you are the one that claims to be an expert in pretty much everything. I'm the on that asks for your evidence. The you run away and fail to produce it. You are a liar, a coward, a fraud, and a failure. Prove me wrong.But you are supposed to know everything.No one knows why you do it but you do it but you doNo, it was a little test. There is no GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations at all. It is just another NASA science fiction pseudo invention from 2001 to enable fake asstronuts to screw together the International Fake/Space Station in LEO. You are not very bright, are you!And you are a sick ignorant liar,
Have a nice day.
?? - Why would I present any sick, ignorant lies at my website http://heiwaco.com ?
But thanks - I have a sunny day improving it.
It seems plenty twerps her are not capable to understand my evidence
It seems plenty twerps her are not capable to understand my evidence at http://heiwaco.com ! Are they all mentally and physically unfit?No, only you. You just keep failing to produce any evidence. Are really to stupid to see that?
It seems plenty twerps her are not capable to understand my evidence at http://heiwaco.com ! Are they all mentally and physically unfit?I can't think why, but your persistent "invitations" to http://heiwaco.com (http://www.howtoarguewithanidiot.com/) bring this to mind!
The Spider and the Fly
A FABLE
by Mary Howitt (1799-1888)
“Will you walk into my parlor?” said the spider to the fly;
“’Tis the prettiest little parlor that ever you did spy.
The way into my parlor is up a winding stair,
And I have many pretty things to show when you are there.”
“O no, no,” said the little fly, “to ask me is in vain,
For who goes up your winding stair can ne’er come down again.”
“I’m sure you must be weary, dear, with soaring up so high;
Will you rest upon my little bed?” said the spider to the fly.
“There are pretty curtains drawn around, the sheets are fine and thin,
And if you like to rest awhile, I’ll snugly tuck you in.”
“O no, no,” said the little fly, “for I’ve often heard it said,
They never, never wake again, who sleep upon your bed.”
Said the cunning spider to the fly, “Dear friend, what shall I do,
To prove the warm affection I’ve always felt for you?
I have within my pantry good store of all that’s nice;
I’m sure you’re very welcome; will you please to take a slice?”
“O no, no,” said the little fly, “kind sir, that cannot be;
I’ve heard what’s in your pantry, and I do not wish to see.”
“Sweet creature!” said the spider, “You’re witty and you’re wise!
How handsome are your gauzy wings, how brilliant are your eyes!
I have a little looking-glass upon my parlor shelf,
If you’ll step in one moment, dear, you shall behold yourself.”
“I thank you, gentle sir,” she said, “for what you’re pleased to say,
And bidding you good-morning now, I’ll call another day.”
The spider turned him round about, and went into his den,
For well he knew the silly fly would soon be back again:
So he wove a subtle web, in a little corner sly,
And set his table ready to dine upon the fly.
Then he came out to his door again, and merrily did sing
“Come hither, hither, pretty fly, with the pearl and silver wing:
Your robes are green and purple; there’s a crest upon your head;
Your eyes are like the diamond bright, but mine are dull as lead.”
Alas, alas! how very soon this silly little fly,
Hearing his wily flattering words, came slowly flitting by.
With buzzing wings she hung aloft, then near and nearer drew
Thinking only of her brilliant eyes, and green and purple hue;
Thinking only of her crested head — poor foolish thing! At last,
Up jumped the cunning spider, and fiercely held her fast.
He dragged her up his winding stair, into his dismal den,
Within his little parlor; but she ne’er came out again!
And now, dear little children, who may this story read,
To idle, silly, flattering words, I pray you ne’er give heed;
Unto an evil counselor close heart, and ear, and eye,
And take a lesson from this tale of the Spider and the Fly.
So, where are we now?
Heiwa smiling and everyone else smashing their face into a brick wall?
That Heiwa is so dumb! ;D
No. I just present my evidence at http://heiwaco.com . It is my very popular website. Same as http://heiwaco.tripod.com . Free of charge and no adverts and publicity except of/by me.It seems plenty twerps her are not capable to understand my evidence at http://heiwaco.com ! Are they all mentally and physically unfit?No, only you. You just keep failing to produce any evidence. Are really to stupid to see that?
I just present my evidence at http://heiwasshit.com .This is incorrect.
And you have predictably failed again. Show your evidence here where you made the claims. Prove you have the money here, where you shill your fake challenges or admit you are a fraud and shut the fuck up you worthless pile of shit.No. I just present my evidence at http://heiwaco.com . It is my very popular website. Same as http://heiwaco.tripod.com . Free of charge and no adverts and publicity except of/by me.It seems plenty twerps her are not capable to understand my evidence at http://heiwaco.com ! Are they all mentally and physically unfit?No, only you. You just keep failing to produce any evidence. Are really to stupid to see that?
Your website is not popular at all. Even if we accept the numbers you provided us, yours would be one of the lowest traffic websites of the internet. It doesn't even rank high enough to make it to bottom one percent.No. I just present my evidence at http://heiwaco.com . It is my very popular website. Same as http://heiwaco.tripod.com . Free of charge and no adverts and publicity except of/by me.It seems plenty twerps her are not capable to understand my evidence at http://heiwaco.com ! Are they all mentally and physically unfit?No, only you. You just keep failing to produce any evidence. Are really to stupid to see that?
Mikrobrain! Of course my website http://heiwaco.com is popular with plenty visitors. Why do you suggest otherwise?Your website is not popular at all. Even if we accept the numbers you provided us, yours would be one of the lowest traffic websites of the internet. It doesn't even rank high enough to make it to bottom one percent.No. I just present my evidence at http://heiwaco.com . It is my very popular website. Same as http://heiwaco.tripod.com . Free of charge and no adverts and publicity except of/by me.It seems plenty twerps her are not capable to understand my evidence at http://heiwaco.com ! Are they all mentally and physically unfit?No, only you. You just keep failing to produce any evidence. Are really to stupid to see that?
Using your own numbers it's a lie to say it's "very popular" or "wildly popular”. Stop lying.
Mike
Mikrobrain! Of course my website http://heiwashite.com is popular with plenty visitors. Why do you suggest otherwise?He just explained why and you completely ignored it. Or didn't comprehend it. At your age who can blame you for not understanding even simple explanations.
Translation: It must be popular! It is my only reason for posting so that more traffic will go there and I can get excited about my paltry number of hits! I'm only here for attention anyway!Mikrobrain! Of course my website http://heiwaco.com is popular with plenty visitors. Why do you suggest otherwise?Your website is not popular at all. Even if we accept the numbers you provided us, yours would be one of the lowest traffic websites of the internet. It doesn't even rank high enough to make it to bottom one percent.No. I just present my evidence at http://heiwaco.com . It is my very popular website. Same as http://heiwaco.tripod.com . Free of charge and no adverts and publicity except of/by me.It seems plenty twerps her are not capable to understand my evidence at http://heiwaco.com ! Are they all mentally and physically unfit?No, only you. You just keep failing to produce any evidence. Are really to stupid to see that?
Using your own numbers it's a lie to say it's "very popular" or "wildly popular”. Stop lying.
Mike
Apparently you're still brain damaged because I explained in my post why. You posted what your numbers are and they prove your site is NOT popular.Mikrobrain! Of course my website http://heiwaco.com is popular with plenty visitors. Why do you suggest otherwise?Your website is not popular at all. Even if we accept the numbers you provided us, yours would be one of the lowest traffic websites of the internet. It doesn't even rank high enough to make it to bottom one percent.No. I just present my evidence at http://heiwaco.com . It is my very popular website. Same as http://heiwaco.tripod.com . Free of charge and no adverts and publicity except of/by me.It seems plenty twerps her are not capable to understand my evidence at http://heiwaco.com ! Are they all mentally and physically unfit?No, only you. You just keep failing to produce any evidence. Are really to stupid to see that?
Using your own numbers it's a lie to say it's "very popular" or "wildly popular”. Stop lying.
Mike
Well, those numbers were probably pretty good back in the dialup BBS days.Your website is not popular at all. Even if we accept the numbers you provided us, yours would be one of the lowest traffic websites of the internet. It doesn't even rank high enough to make it to bottom one percent.No. I just present my evidence at http://heiwaco.com . It is my very popular website. Same as http://heiwaco.tripod.com . Free of charge and no adverts and publicity except of/by me.It seems plenty twerps her are not capable to understand my evidence at http://heiwaco.com ! Are they all mentally and physically unfit?No, only you. You just keep failing to produce any evidence. Are really to stupid to see that?
Using your own numbers it's a lie to say it's "very popular" or "wildly popular”. Stop lying.
Mike
Apparently you're still brain damaged because I explained in my post why. You posted what your numbers are and they prove your site is NOT popular.Mikrobrain! Of course my website http://heiwaco.com is popular with plenty visitors. Why do you suggest otherwise?Your website is not popular at all. Even if we accept the numbers you provided us, yours would be one of the lowest traffic websites of the internet. It doesn't even rank high enough to make it to bottom one percent.No. I just present my evidence at http://heiwaco.com . It is my very popular website. Same as http://heiwaco.tripod.com . Free of charge and no adverts and publicity except of/by me.It seems plenty twerps her are not capable to understand my evidence at http://heiwaco.com ! Are they all mentally and physically unfit?No, only you. You just keep failing to produce any evidence. Are really to stupid to see that?
Using your own numbers it's a lie to say it's "very popular" or "wildly popular”. Stop lying.
Mike
Is that too hard for you to understand?
Mike
No. My website is about safety at sea, which is not popular, but my website is popular as it is about a not popular subject. Do you follow?
I kinda disagree. When I did dial up in the '80s the BBSs was on had more people visiting in a hour then he counts in a month. Even a bulletin boards with ten sockets (which was a lot in the mid-late '80s) with a 300 baud modem and kermit could do more traffic that Heiwa.Well, those numbers were probably pretty good back in the dialup BBS days.Your website is not popular at all. Even if we accept the numbers you provided us, yours would be one of the lowest traffic websites of the internet. It doesn't even rank high enough to make it to bottom one percent.No. I just present my evidence at http://heiwaco.com . It is my very popular website. Same as http://heiwaco.tripod.com . Free of charge and no adverts and publicity except of/by me.It seems plenty twerps her are not capable to understand my evidence at http://heiwaco.com ! Are they all mentally and physically unfit?No, only you. You just keep failing to produce any evidence. Are really to stupid to see that?
Using your own numbers it's a lie to say it's "very popular" or "wildly popular”. Stop lying.
Mike
So, your website is not popular because of the number of visits but is because you say it is.Apparently you're still brain damaged because I explained in my post why. You posted what your numbers are and they prove your site is NOT popular.Mikrobrain! Of course my website http://heiwaco.com is popular with plenty visitors. Why do you suggest otherwise?Your website is not popular at all. Even if we accept the numbers you provided us, yours would be one of the lowest traffic websites of the internet. It doesn't even rank high enough to make it to bottom one percent.No. I just present my evidence at http://heiwaco.com . It is my very popular website. Same as http://heiwaco.tripod.com . Free of charge and no adverts and publicity except of/by me.It seems plenty twerps her are not capable to understand my evidence at http://heiwaco.com ! Are they all mentally and physically unfit?No, only you. You just keep failing to produce any evidence. Are really to stupid to see that?
Using your own numbers it's a lie to say it's "very popular" or "wildly popular”. Stop lying.
Mike
Is that too hard for you to understand?
Mike
No. My website is about safety at sea, which is not popular, but my website is popular as it is about a not popular subject. Do you follow?
I will explain. There is a united nations organization about safety at sea. The International Maritime Organization, IMO. At London. It arranges meetings for its members (UN countries) and interested parties. They discuss a lot and agree things. But in the end all IMO members do what they like.
An example. An American owned cruise ship M/S Costa Concordia under Italian flag of convenience with mostly underpaid Asians running it! It contacted a little rock 2012. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm . Immediately there is no light aboard and it is decided to abandon ship. First off the ship are the underpaid Asians. And then the ship sank. No underpaid Asians died.
And whose fault was it. The Master 100%. IMO thought it was fantastic! But not me.
Etc, etc.
That's why I am popular. I know you have spent time under sea as an underpaid, brain damaged, white trash sailor so I understand you don't like me an me my website.
I kinda disagree. When I did dial up in the '80s the BBSs was on had more people visiting in a hour then he counts in a month. Even a bulletin boards with ten sockets (which was a lot in the mid-late '80s) with a 300 baud modem and kermit could do more traffic that Heiwa.Well, those numbers were probably pretty good back in the dialup BBS days.Your website is not popular at all. Even if we accept the numbers you provided us, yours would be one of the lowest traffic websites of the internet. It doesn't even rank high enough to make it to bottom one percent.No. I just present my evidence at http://heiwaco.com . It is my very popular website. Same as http://heiwaco.tripod.com . Free of charge and no adverts and publicity except of/by me.It seems plenty twerps her are not capable to understand my evidence at http://heiwaco.com ! Are they all mentally and physically unfit?No, only you. You just keep failing to produce any evidence. Are really to stupid to see that?
Using your own numbers it's a lie to say it's "very popular" or "wildly popular”. Stop lying.
Mike
The data I'd like to see from Anders is:
- How many page visits
- How many page views per visits per person
- How many page views per visit
- How many visits are passers-by (one visit in a month)
- How many regular visitors
Mike
I kinda disagree. When I did dial up in the '80s the BBSs was on had more people visiting in a hour then he counts in a month. Even a bulletin boards with ten sockets (which was a lot in the mid-late '80s) with a 300 baud modem and kermit could do more traffic that Heiwa.Well, those numbers were probably pretty good back in the dialup BBS days.Your website is not popular at all. Even if we accept the numbers you provided us, yours would be one of the lowest traffic websites of the internet. It doesn't even rank high enough to make it to bottom one percent.No. I just present my evidence at http://heiwaco.com . It is my very popular website. Same as http://heiwaco.tripod.com . Free of charge and no adverts and publicity except of/by me.It seems plenty twerps her are not capable to understand my evidence at http://heiwaco.com ! Are they all mentally and physically unfit?No, only you. You just keep failing to produce any evidence. Are really to stupid to see that?
Using your own numbers it's a lie to say it's "very popular" or "wildly popular”. Stop lying.
Mike
The data I'd like to see from Anders is:
- How many page visits
- How many page views per visits per person
- How many page views per visit
- How many visits are passers-by (one visit in a month)
- How many regular visitors
Mike
I thought you already had this info when announcing my website wasn't popular. Previously the total number of visitors to my site was shown in a little box bottom right but it seems that app is deactivated. But I have 100's of daily visitors and page views and a nice feed back from my visitors.
Previously the total number of visitors to my site was shown in a little box bottom right but it seems that app is deactivated.
But mikrobrain is a twerp that doesn't understand much about it, so I pass.I kinda disagree. When I did dial up in the '80s the BBSs was on had more people visiting in a hour then he counts in a month. Even a bulletin boards with ten sockets (which was a lot in the mid-late '80s) with a 300 baud modem and kermit could do more traffic that Heiwa.Well, those numbers were probably pretty good back in the dialup BBS days.Your website is not popular at all. Even if we accept the numbers you provided us, yours would be one of the lowest traffic websites of the internet. It doesn't even rank high enough to make it to bottom one percent.No. I just present my evidence at http://heiwaco.com . It is my very popular website. Same as http://heiwaco.tripod.com . Free of charge and no adverts and publicity except of/by me.It seems plenty twerps her are not capable to understand my evidence at http://heiwaco.com ! Are they all mentally and physically unfit?No, only you. You just keep failing to produce any evidence. Are really to stupid to see that?
Using your own numbers it's a lie to say it's "very popular" or "wildly popular”. Stop lying.
Mike
The data I'd like to see from Anders is:
- How many page visits
- How many page views per visits per person
- How many page views per visit
- How many visits are passers-by (one visit in a month)
- How many regular visitors
Mike
I thought you already had this info when announcing my website wasn't popular. Previously the total number of visitors to my site was shown in a little box bottom right but it seems that app is deactivated. But I have 100's of daily visitors and page views and a nice feed back from my visitors.
You misunderstand. He wants to see the data from you
Telling us you have hundreds of daily visitors is not data.
But mikrobrain is a twerp that doesn't understand much about it, so I pass.
And you continue to fail. With every post you prove to the world you are a lying idiot who can only fail when asked the simplest of questions.But mikrobrain is a twerp that doesn't understand much about it, so I pass.I kinda disagree. When I did dial up in the '80s the BBSs was on had more people visiting in a hour then he counts in a month. Even a bulletin boards with ten sockets (which was a lot in the mid-late '80s) with a 300 baud modem and kermit could do more traffic that Heiwa.Well, those numbers were probably pretty good back in the dialup BBS days.Your website is not popular at all. Even if we accept the numbers you provided us, yours would be one of the lowest traffic websites of the internet. It doesn't even rank high enough to make it to bottom one percent.No. I just present my evidence at http://heiwaco.com . It is my very popular website. Same as http://heiwaco.tripod.com . Free of charge and no adverts and publicity except of/by me.It seems plenty twerps her are not capable to understand my evidence at http://heiwaco.com ! Are they all mentally and physically unfit?No, only you. You just keep failing to produce any evidence. Are really to stupid to see that?
Using your own numbers it's a lie to say it's "very popular" or "wildly popular”. Stop lying.
Mike
The data I'd like to see from Anders is:
- How many page visits
- How many page views per visits per person
- How many page views per visit
- How many visits are passers-by (one visit in a month)
- How many regular visitors
Mike
I thought you already had this info when announcing my website wasn't popular. Previously the total number of visitors to my site was shown in a little box bottom right but it seems that app is deactivated. But I have 100's of daily visitors and page views and a nice feed back from my visitors.
You misunderstand. He wants to see the data from you
Telling us you have hundreds of daily visitors is not data.
I understand it much better than you do. You’re passing because you don’t have a clue what I’m asking.But mikrobrain is a twerp that doesn't understand much about it, so I pass.I kinda disagree. When I did dial up in the '80s the BBSs was on had more people visiting in a hour then he counts in a month. Even a bulletin boards with ten sockets (which was a lot in the mid-late '80s) with a 300 baud modem and kermit could do more traffic that Heiwa.Well, those numbers were probably pretty good back in the dialup BBS days.Your website is not popular at all. Even if we accept the numbers you provided us, yours would be one of the lowest traffic websites of the internet. It doesn't even rank high enough to make it to bottom one percent.No. I just present my evidence at http://heiwaco.com . It is my very popular website. Same as http://heiwaco.tripod.com . Free of charge and no adverts and publicity except of/by me.It seems plenty twerps her are not capable to understand my evidence at http://heiwaco.com ! Are they all mentally and physically unfit?No, only you. You just keep failing to produce any evidence. Are really to stupid to see that?
Using your own numbers it's a lie to say it's "very popular" or "wildly popular”. Stop lying.
Mike
The data I'd like to see from Anders is:
- How many page visits
- How many page views per visits per person
- How many page views per visit
- How many visits are passers-by (one visit in a month)
- How many regular visitors
Mike
I thought you already had this info when announcing my website wasn't popular. Previously the total number of visitors to my site was shown in a little box bottom right but it seems that app is deactivated. But I have 100's of daily visitors and page views and a nice feed back from my visitors.
You misunderstand. He wants to see the data from you
Telling us you have hundreds of daily visitors is not data.
I understand it much better than you do. You’re passing because you don’t have a clue what I’m asking.But mikrobrain is a twerp that doesn't understand much about it, so I pass.I kinda disagree. When I did dial up in the '80s the BBSs was on had more people visiting in a hour then he counts in a month. Even a bulletin boards with ten sockets (which was a lot in the mid-late '80s) with a 300 baud modem and kermit could do more traffic that Heiwa.Well, those numbers were probably pretty good back in the dialup BBS days.Your website is not popular at all. Even if we accept the numbers you provided us, yours would be one of the lowest traffic websites of the internet. It doesn't even rank high enough to make it to bottom one percent.No. I just present my evidence at http://heiwaco.com . It is my very popular website. Same as http://heiwaco.tripod.com . Free of charge and no adverts and publicity except of/by me.It seems plenty twerps her are not capable to understand my evidence at http://heiwaco.com ! Are they all mentally and physically unfit?No, only you. You just keep failing to produce any evidence. Are really to stupid to see that?
Using your own numbers it's a lie to say it's "very popular" or "wildly popular”. Stop lying.
Mike
The data I'd like to see from Anders is:
- How many page visits
- How many page views per visits per person
- How many page views per visit
- How many visits are passers-by (one visit in a month)
- How many regular visitors
Mike
I thought you already had this info when announcing my website wasn't popular. Previously the total number of visitors to my site was shown in a little box bottom right but it seems that app is deactivated. But I have 100's of daily visitors and page views and a nice feed back from my visitors.
You misunderstand. He wants to see the data from you
Telling us you have hundreds of daily visitors is not data.
I didn’t want the total number of visits per day. That’s a meaningless number. I was looking for the actual data breakdown.
Keep calling me names...it seems it’s the only thing you’re good at but at least I understand the basics of website metrics.
Do you know any of this information or not? What the heck kind of engineer can’t handle simple data analysis?
- How many page visits per month
- How many page visits per person (unique IP) per month
- How many page views per visit
- How many visits are passers-by (one visit in a month)
- How many regular visitors
Do you even know what any of this means?
Mike
"Elon MuskAnd the whole of the twitter tweet
✔
@elonmusk
Third burn successful. Exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt.
9:46 PM - Feb 6, 2018
197K
46.1K people are talking about this"
Elon MuskI do think that with Elon Musk showing the predicted orbit, we can assume that we he tweeted
@elonmusk
Third burn successful. Exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/eahpdbqlhjuustr/Elon%20Musk%20Tesla%20Predicted%20Orbit.png?dl=1)
"Elon MuskAnd the whole of the twitter tweet
✔
@elonmusk
Third burn successful. Exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt.
9:46 PM - Feb 6, 2018
197K
46.1K people are talking about this"Quote from: Elon MuskElon MuskI do think that with Elon Musk showing the predicted orbit, we can assume that we he tweeted
@elonmusk
Third burn successful. Exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/eahpdbqlhjuustr/Elon%20Musk%20Tesla%20Predicted%20Orbit.png?dl=1)
"Third burn successful. Exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt" he meant that
"Third burn successful. And orbit exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt".
I do think that Elon Musk knows just a little more about orbits than totallackey, who denies space travel entirely.
So what was the departure speed leaving Earth, where is the roadster today and when will it return to Earth orbit and start a second tour?
Go and find out for yourself, Where is Starman going to be in the future? (http://www.whereisroadster.com/charts/)."Elon MuskAnd the whole of the twitter tweet
✔
@elonmusk
Third burn successful. Exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt.
9:46 PM - Feb 6, 2018
197K
46.1K people are talking about this"Quote from: Elon MuskElon MuskI do think that with Elon Musk showing the predicted orbit, we can assume that we he tweeted
@elonmusk
Third burn successful. Exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/eahpdbqlhjuustr/Elon%20Musk%20Tesla%20Predicted%20Orbit.png?dl=1)
"Third burn successful. Exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt" he meant that
"Third burn successful. And orbit exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt".
I do think that Elon Musk knows just a little more about orbits than totallackey, who denies space travel entirely.
Interesting. So what was the departure speed leaving Earth, where is the roadster today and when will it return to Earth orbit and start a second tour?
Thanks - so Elon Musk's, aka Lone Skum's, roadster will pass Mars orbit 17 July 2018 ... a location at which Mars will be 19 May 2018, i.e. two months earlier.Go and find out for yourself, Where is Starman going to be in the future? (http://www.whereisroadster.com/charts/)."Elon MuskAnd the whole of the twitter tweet
✔
@elonmusk
Third burn successful. Exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt.
9:46 PM - Feb 6, 2018
197K
46.1K people are talking about this"Quote from: Elon MuskElon MuskI do think that with Elon Musk showing the predicted orbit, we can assume that we he tweeted
@elonmusk
Third burn successful. Exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/eahpdbqlhjuustr/Elon%20Musk%20Tesla%20Predicted%20Orbit.png?dl=1)
"Third burn successful. Exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt" he meant that
"Third burn successful. And orbit exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt".
I do think that Elon Musk knows just a little more about orbits than totallackey, who denies space travel entirely.
Interesting. So what was the departure speed leaving Earth, where is the roadster today and when will it return to Earth orbit and start a second tour?
Well Heiwa, AKA Anders the Jerkman, that's for me to know and you the self-proclaimed space expert to work out.Go and find out for yourself, Where is Starman going to be in the future? (http://www.whereisroadster.com/charts/).Thanks - so Elon Musk's, aka Lone Skum's, roadster will pass Mars orbit 17 July 2018 ... a location at which Mars will be 19 May 2018, i.e. two months earlier.
What to do? Speed up the roadster or slow down planet Mars?
What do you suggest?
I'm sure that you, the orbital-dynamics expert here could work it the best time.
I'm sure that you, the orbital-dynamics expert here could work it the best time.
Orbital dynamics expert who can't even calculate the two delta-Vs needed to transfer from a circular LEO at 200 km to a circular GEO. ;D ;D ;D
So this Elon Musk is just a fraud inventing things.
You're a liar. Yo don't explain it at all you just make the claim it's impossible. Prove me wrong and post your evidence here.I'm sure that you, the orbital-dynamics expert here could work it the best time.
Orbital dynamics expert who can't even calculate the two delta-Vs needed to transfer from a circular LEO at 200 km to a circular GEO. ;D ;D ;D
Actually you only need one delta-v or speed change by applying a force to go from LEO to GEO but you better take it easy and do it in steps.
However, there is no way you can ever leave LEO or GEO or fly somewhere else - I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#B .
So this Elon Musk is just a fraud inventing things.
No, twerps are always wrong and cannot understand it. That's why you are a twerp!You're a liar. Yo don't explain it at all you just make the claim it's impossible. Prove me wrong and post your evidence here.I'm sure that you, the orbital-dynamics expert here could work it the best time.
Orbital dynamics expert who can't even calculate the two delta-Vs needed to transfer from a circular LEO at 200 km to a circular GEO. ;D ;D ;D
Actually you only need one delta-v or speed change by applying a force to go from LEO to GEO but you better take it easy and do it in steps.
However, there is no way you can ever leave LEO or GEO or fly somewhere else - I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#B .
So this Elon Musk is just a fraud inventing things.
Or continue to be the pathetic failure you have already proven yourself to be.
More failure. What a surprise. Maybe some day you will actually post some evidence to support your bullshit or prove your challenges are not fake.No, twerps are always wrong and cannot understand it. That's why you are a twerp!You're a liar. Yo don't explain it at all you just make the claim it's impossible. Prove me wrong and post your evidence here.I'm sure that you, the orbital-dynamics expert here could work it the best time.
Orbital dynamics expert who can't even calculate the two delta-Vs needed to transfer from a circular LEO at 200 km to a circular GEO. ;D ;D ;D
Actually you only need one delta-v or speed change by applying a force to go from LEO to GEO but you better take it easy and do it in steps.
However, there is no way you can ever leave LEO or GEO or fly somewhere else - I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#B .
So this Elon Musk is just a fraud inventing things.
Or continue to be the pathetic failure you have already proven yourself to be.
I'm sure that you, the orbital-dynamics expert here could work it the best time.
Orbital dynamics expert who can't even calculate the two delta-Vs needed to transfer from a circular LEO at 200 km to a circular GEO. ;D ;D ;D
Actually you only need one delta-v or speed change by applying a force to go from LEO to GEO but you better take it easy and do it in steps.
Yes - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#B is pretty good.I'm sure that you, the orbital-dynamics expert here could work it the best time.
Orbital dynamics expert who can't even calculate the two delta-Vs needed to transfer from a circular LEO at 200 km to a circular GEO. ;D ;D ;D
Actually you only need one delta-v or speed change by applying a force to go from LEO to GEO but you better take it easy and do it in steps.
So far so good! Now, calculate the delta-V needed to transfer from a circular LEO at 200 km to a circular GEO or admit you don't know that much about orbital mechanics.
Yes<>is pretty good.I'm sure that you, the orbital-dynamics expert here could work it the best time.
Orbital dynamics expert who can't even calculate the two delta-Vs needed to transfer from a circular LEO at 200 km to a circular GEO. ;D ;D ;D
Actually you only need one delta-v or speed change by applying a force to go from LEO to GEO but you better take it easy and do it in steps.
So far so good! Now, calculate the delta-V needed to transfer from a circular LEO at 200 km to a circular GEO or admit you don't know that much about orbital mechanics.
Of course he doesn't know anything about orbital mechanics. That's why he never posts any sort of evidence here. He's a fraudYes<>is pretty good.I'm sure that you, the orbital-dynamics expert here could work it the best time.
Orbital dynamics expert who can't even calculate the two delta-Vs needed to transfer from a circular LEO at 200 km to a circular GEO. ;D ;D ;D
Actually you only need one delta-v or speed change by applying a force to go from LEO to GEO but you better take it easy and do it in steps.
So far so good! Now, calculate the delta-V needed to transfer from a circular LEO at 200 km to a circular GEO or admit you don't know that much about orbital mechanics.
No. It's not. Now do the damn calculation or admit you don't know that much about orbital mechanics.
Heiwa, would you be able to calculate the two delta-Vs needed to transfer from a circular LEO at 200 km to a circular GEO?No.
It is good at showing you haven't a clue what you're talking about and all your claims rest on you saying it is impossible without showing why. Everyone knows you're a joke Heiwa.Yes - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#B is pretty good.I'm sure that you, the orbital-dynamics expert here could work it the best time.
Orbital dynamics expert who can't even calculate the two delta-Vs needed to transfer from a circular LEO at 200 km to a circular GEO. ;D ;D ;D
Actually you only need one delta-v or speed change by applying a force to go from LEO to GEO but you better take it easy and do it in steps.
So far so good! Now, calculate the delta-V needed to transfer from a circular LEO at 200 km to a circular GEO or admit you don't know that much about orbital mechanics.
Incorrect! You need two burns.I'm sure that you, the orbital-dynamics expert here could work it the best time.
Orbital dynamics expert who can't even calculate the two delta-Vs needed to transfer from a circular LEO at 200 km to a circular GEO. ;D ;D ;D
Actually you only need one delta-v or speed change by applying a force to go from LEO to GEO but you better take it easy and do it in steps.
Incorrect! You need two burns.I'm sure that you, the orbital-dynamics expert here could work it the best time.
Orbital dynamics expert who can't even calculate the two delta-Vs needed to transfer from a circular LEO at 200 km to a circular GEO. ;D ;D ;D
Actually you only need one delta-v or speed change by applying a force to go from LEO to GEO but you better take it easy and do it in steps.
You need one delta-V to change from a circular LEO into an elliptical Hohmann transfer orbit (the GTO) with perigee at the LEO altitude and an apogee at the GEO altitude.
Then you need another delta-V to change from the Hohmann transfer orbit into the circular orbit the GEO altitude.
Try another guess!
Still incorrect. One burn can take the rocket from a circular LEO to an elliptical Hohmann transfer orbit.Incorrect! You need two burns.
You need one delta-V to change from a circular LEO into an elliptical Hohmann transfer orbit (the GTO) with perigee at the LEO altitude and an apogee at the GEO altitude.
Then you need another delta-V to change from the Hohmann transfer orbit into the circular orbit the GEO altitude.
Try another guess!
No, only one burn is required to catapult you to GEO. Compare how some well known assholes were catapulted to the Moon - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#EV2 .
Ariane 5Now only one more burn is needed to transfer from the elliptical GTO to the circular GEO.
10 t PAYLOAD TO GTO
20 t PAYLOAD TO LEO
Compare how some well known assholes were catapulted to the Moon
Still incorrect. One burn can take the rocket from a circular LEO to an elliptical Hohmann transfer orbit.Incorrect! You need two burns.
You need one delta-V to change from a circular LEO into an elliptical Hohmann transfer orbit (the GTO) with perigee at the LEO altitude and an apogee at the GEO altitude.
Then you need another delta-V to change from the Hohmann transfer orbit into the circular orbit the GEO altitude.
Try another guess!
No, only one burn is required to catapult you to GEO. Compare how some well known assholes were catapulted to the Moon - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#EV2 .
But when the rocket reaches the altitude of the GEO it is still in an elliptical orbit so will return to the GEO altitude at its perigee.
Hence another burn is needed at the GEO altitude to put the rocket into the circular GEO as required.
And I'm not going to your silly site just to learn why you can't understand simple orbital mechanics.
What might confuse you is that Ariane specify their rocket capabilities as:QuoteAriane 5Now only one more burn is needed to transfer from the elliptical GTO to the circular GEO.
10 t PAYLOAD TO GTO
20 t PAYLOAD TO LEO
The difference between the 20 t to LEO and the 10 t to GTO is approximately the fuel needed to transfer from a GEO to the elliptical GTO.
Tell me the Isp of that stage of the Ariane 5 and the LEO altitude Ariane use and I'll check that fuel use.
With a guess or two, 360 s and 200 km seems to fit and I think an Isp of 360 s is easily achievable with LH2/LOX.
Well, if you are clever you only need one burn to move from LEO to GEO, i.e. to get out of LEO. When you are at GEO your arrival speed/direction should be the correct one, so no no extra burn should be required there.If you are clever you should explain how this can be achieved with one burn instead of just stating it can be done. But I doubt you're able to explain much of anything regarding orbital mechanics. Nothing so far anyway, here or anywhere else. Bald statements are not explanations.
Well, if you are clever you only need one burn to move from LEO to GEO, i.e. to get out of LEO. When you are at GEO your arrival speed/direction should be the correct one, so no no extra burn should be required there.Really? I will accept that a rocket can reach GEO altitude with the correct direction.
You know, space travel is quite complicated, so I always recommend direct one-way trips to any target orbit around Earth Arianespace style.Yes, I guess that's why you can't understand it.
Anything else is impossible ... including docking with this International Fake Station orbiting above us.Do you mean that your "own" Ariane experts are deceiving us in the Ariane5_Users-Manual_October2016.pdf (http://www.arianespace.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Ariane5_Users-Manual_October2016.pdf)?
Performance and launch missionSo note that Arianespace themselves claim that the Ariane 5/ECA can send:
2.4. General performance data
2.4.1. Geosynchronous transfer orbit missions(*) corresponding to 35786 km at first apogee
- Inclination i = 6 deg
- Altitude of perigee Zp = 250 km
- Altitude of apogee Za = 35943 km (*)
Injection is defined as the end of the upper stage shutdown.
The heavy lift capability of the launcher, . . . . . . . . . . .enables Ariane 5 to carry any type of spacecraft, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to the tallest and heaviest ones (9500 kg or even more), . . . . . . . . . towards the standard GTO.
2.4.3. Elliptical orbit missions
Here are some examples of performance estimate with A5ECA for different elliptical missions:
Injection towards the L2 Lagrangian point of the Sun/Earth system:
- apogee altitude 1,300,000 km
- perigee altitude 320 km
- performance 6.6 t
Injection towards the Moon:
- apogee altitude 385,600 km
- perigee altitude 300 km
- performance 7 t
2.4.5. International Space Station orbit
Ariane 5 equipped with a storable propellant upper stage in the ES version can serve the
International Space Station with the Automated Transfer Vehicle, on a Low Earth Circular
orbit:The performance varies between 19 and 21 t, depending on the specific mission.
- altitude range between 200 and 400 km
- inclination = 51.6 deg
From: Ariane5_Users-Manual_October2016.pdf (http://www.arianespace.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Ariane5_Users-Manual_October2016.pdf)
Extracts from Ariane 5 User’s Manual Issue 5 Revision 2Thanks for reminding me. But Arianespace has only sent their rockets into the sky and what the clients do later with the payload is not their business.Quote from: Arianespace, Roland LAGIER, Senior Vice president Chief technical officerPerformance and launch missionSo note that Arianespace themselves claim that the Ariane 5/ECA can send:
2.4. General performance data
2.4.1. Geosynchronous transfer orbit missions(*) corresponding to 35786 km at first apogee
- Inclination i = 6 deg
- Altitude of perigee Zp = 250 km
- Altitude of apogee Za = 35943 km (*)
Injection is defined as the end of the upper stage shutdown.
The heavy lift capability of the launcher, . . . . . . . . . . .enables Ariane 5 to carry any type of spacecraft, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to the tallest and heaviest ones (9500 kg or even more), . . . . . . . . . towards the standard GTO.
2.4.3. Elliptical orbit missions
Here are some examples of performance estimate with A5ECA for different elliptical missions:
Injection towards the L2 Lagrangian point of the Sun/Earth system:
- apogee altitude 1,300,000 km
- perigee altitude 320 km
- performance 6.6 t
Injection towards the Moon:
- apogee altitude 385,600 km
- perigee altitude 300 km
- performance 7 t
2.4.5. International Space Station orbit
Ariane 5 equipped with a storable propellant upper stage in the ES version can serve the
International Space Station with the Automated Transfer Vehicle, on a Low Earth Circular
orbit:The performance varies between 19 and 21 t, depending on the specific mission.
- altitude range between 200 and 400 km
- inclination = 51.6 deg
From: Ariane5_Users-Manual_October2016.pdf (http://www.arianespace.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Ariane5_Users-Manual_October2016.pdf)
- 19 to 21 tonnes for re-fuelling the International Space Station with the Automated Transfer Vehicle, on a Low Earth Circular orbit,
- 9500 kg or even more towards the standard GTO,
- 7 tonnes towards the Moon and
- 6.6 tonnes towards the L2 Lagrangian point of the Sun/Earth system.
Thanks for reminding me. But Arianespace has only sent their rockets into the sky and what the clients do later with the payload is not their business.In other words you claim that Arianespace are deceiving their clients about the capabilities of the Arians 5/ECA.
2.4.5. International Space Station orbitI believe that is all Arianespace hardware, right to the ISS doorstep, as it were.
Ariane 5 equipped with a storable propellant upper stage in the ES version can serve the
International Space Station with the Automated Transfer Vehicle, on a Low Earth Circular
orbit:The performance varies between 19 and 21 t, depending on the specific mission.
- altitude range between 200 and 400 km
- inclination = 51.6 deg
BTW - what is your business?My business is none of your business. ;) If I tell you I'll have to . . . . . . ;)
translation: even after being explained to how two burns are needed, I'm doubling down and STILL claiming only one proving I know next to nothing about how orbital mechanics work.Still incorrect. One burn can take the rocket from a circular LEO to an elliptical Hohmann transfer orbit.Incorrect! You need two burns.
You need one delta-V to change from a circular LEO into an elliptical Hohmann transfer orbit (the GTO) with perigee at the LEO altitude and an apogee at the GEO altitude.
Then you need another delta-V to change from the Hohmann transfer orbit into the circular orbit the GEO altitude.
Try another guess!
No, only one burn is required to catapult you to GEO. Compare how some well known assholes were catapulted to the Moon - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#EV2 .
But when the rocket reaches the altitude of the GEO it is still in an elliptical orbit so will return to the GEO altitude at its perigee.
Hence another burn is needed at the GEO altitude to put the rocket into the circular GEO as required.
And I'm not going to your silly site just to learn why you can't understand simple orbital mechanics.
What might confuse you is that Ariane specify their rocket capabilities as:QuoteAriane 5Now only one more burn is needed to transfer from the elliptical GTO to the circular GEO.
10 t PAYLOAD TO GTO
20 t PAYLOAD TO LEO
The difference between the 20 t to LEO and the 10 t to GTO is approximately the fuel needed to transfer from a GEO to the elliptical GTO.
Tell me the Isp of that stage of the Ariane 5 and the LEO altitude Ariane use and I'll check that fuel use.
With a guess or two, 360 s and 200 km seems to fit and I think an Isp of 360 s is easily achievable with LH2/LOX.
Well, if you are clever you only need one burn to move from LEO to GEO, i.e. to get out of LEO. When you are at GEO your arrival speed/direction should be the correct one, so no no extra burn should be required there. You know, space travel is quite complicated, so I always recommend direct one-way trips to any target orbit around Earth Arianespace style. Anything else is impossible ... including docking with this International Fake Station orbiting above us.
Well, if you are clever you only need one burn to move from LEO to GEO, i.e. to get out of LEO.Or, if you have some knowledge of orbital mechanics, you never put your geostationary satellite into LEO in the first place. You launch directly into your transfer orbit and then circularize your orbit when you hit apogee.
LOLHeiwa, would you be able to calculate the two delta-Vs needed to transfer from a circular LEO at 200 km to a circular GEO?No.
Well, if you are clever you only need one burn to move from LEO to GEO, i.e. to get out of LEO.Or, if you have some knowledge of orbital mechanics, you never put your geostationary satellite into LEO in the first place. You launch directly into your transfer orbit and then circularize your orbit when you hit apogee.
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/20140116-how-to-get-a-satellite-to-gto.html
No, it's just to show you that you don't know as much about putting satellites into orbit as you think you do.Well, if you are clever you only need one burn to move from LEO to GEO, i.e. to get out of LEO.Or, if you have some knowledge of orbital mechanics, you never put your geostationary satellite into LEO in the first place. You launch directly into your transfer orbit and then circularize your orbit when you hit apogee.
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/20140116-how-to-get-a-satellite-to-gto.html
Thanks for the link. If it will help you win my Challenge to go to the Moon and/or Mars or just to GSO is not certain.
It seems NASA/ESA always puts their spacecrafts in some sort of high speed parking orbit before blasting off to the target in our solar system, i.e. getting away from the parking orbit. But then it is unclear what they do. How to decide the location, time, direction, force and duration of the burn. It is very easy to go off in the wrong direction with the wrong start speed and then you are lost for ever. There are no good explanations available. It is just done.Or, maybe the explanations are just too complicated for you to understand. After all, there is a reason that the term "rocket science" is used to describe very difficult things.
No, it's just to show you that you don't know as much about putting satellites into orbit as you think you do.Well, if you are clever you only need one burn to move from LEO to GEO, i.e. to get out of LEO.Or, if you have some knowledge of orbital mechanics, you never put your geostationary satellite into LEO in the first place. You launch directly into your transfer orbit and then circularize your orbit when you hit apogee.
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/20140116-how-to-get-a-satellite-to-gto.html
Thanks for the link. If it will help you win my Challenge to go to the Moon and/or Mars or just to GSO is not certain.It seems NASA/ESA always puts their spacecrafts in some sort of high speed parking orbit before blasting off to the target in our solar system, i.e. getting away from the parking orbit. But then it is unclear what they do. How to decide the location, time, direction, force and duration of the burn. It is very easy to go off in the wrong direction with the wrong start speed and then you are lost for ever. There are no good explanations available. It is just done.Or, maybe the explanations are just too complicated for you to understand. After all, there is a reason that the term "rocket science" is used to describe very difficult things.
I doubt the NASA/ESA explanations are too complicated for me to understand.
LOLHeiwa, would you be able to calculate the two delta-Vs needed to transfer from a circular LEO at 200 km to a circular GEO?No.
If only you some evidence to support your empty claims. There is none at your website. And you have never proven you have the money so your challenges are fake and you are a liar and a fraud.No, it's just to show you that you don't know as much about putting satellites into orbit as you think you do.Well, if you are clever you only need one burn to move from LEO to GEO, i.e. to get out of LEO.Or, if you have some knowledge of orbital mechanics, you never put your geostationary satellite into LEO in the first place. You launch directly into your transfer orbit and then circularize your orbit when you hit apogee.
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/20140116-how-to-get-a-satellite-to-gto.html
Thanks for the link. If it will help you win my Challenge to go to the Moon and/or Mars or just to GSO is not certain.It seems NASA/ESA always puts their spacecrafts in some sort of high speed parking orbit before blasting off to the target in our solar system, i.e. getting away from the parking orbit. But then it is unclear what they do. How to decide the location, time, direction, force and duration of the burn. It is very easy to go off in the wrong direction with the wrong start speed and then you are lost for ever. There are no good explanations available. It is just done.Or, maybe the explanations are just too complicated for you to understand. After all, there is a reason that the term "rocket science" is used to describe very difficult things.
I doubt the NASA/ESA explanations are too complicated for me to understand. It is a great show! I explain it at http://heiwaco.com
Fake space trips since 60 years.
Fake atomic bombs since 73 years.
All under the supervision of a US POTUS. They are clowns that I do not take serious. I just laugh at and feel sorry for them. I know it upsets plenty American twerps. Nothing I can do about it than to ... smile.
Fake space trips since 60 years.How many years do they have to do space trips before you finally believe that they're real?
translation: I don't understand it so it must be fake!Well, if you are clever you only need one burn to move from LEO to GEO, i.e. to get out of LEO.Or, if you have some knowledge of orbital mechanics, you never put your geostationary satellite into LEO in the first place. You launch directly into your transfer orbit and then circularize your orbit when you hit apogee.
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/20140116-how-to-get-a-satellite-to-gto.html
Thanks for the link. If it will help you win my Challenge to go to the Moon and/or Mars or just to GSO is not certain.
It seems NASA/ESA always puts their spacecrafts in some sort of high speed parking orbit before blasting off to the target in our solar system, i.e. getting away from the parking orbit. But then it is unclear what they do. How to decide the location, time, direction, force and duration of the burn. It is very easy to go off in the wrong direction with the wrong start speed and then you are lost for ever. There are no good explanations available. It is just done.
It is one reason I have concluded that all NASA/ESA space flights are100% fantasies - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .
Same with the atomic bomb. One reason why 'Tower' Trump is so upset today and screaming, shouting and dismissing staff members every day is that he has found out that the US nuclear weapons are just fantasies. If Donald is going to win a war it has to be on the ground. I note that POTUS has just withdrawn his poor soldiers from Syria. Another lost US war.
You are not very bright are you! The only space trips possible are one-way satellites catapulted into orbits around Earth. That is all! The rest is fake. Imagine when POTUS Donald found last year at that he had to appoint new criminals to run NASA and to talk to asstronuts sitting in a cellar somewhere. What a disappointment.Fake space trips since 60 years.How many years do they have to do space trips before you finally believe that they're real?
LOLHeiwa, would you be able to calculate the two delta-Vs needed to transfer from a circular LEO at 200 km to a circular GEO?No.
You are not very bright are you! The only space trips possible are one-way satellites catapulted into orbits around Earth. That is all! The rest is fake. Imagine when POTUS Donald found last year at that he had to appoint new criminals to run NASA and to talk to asstronuts sitting in a cellar somewhere. What a disappointment.Incorrect!
But the show must go on. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com . Americans are really stupid. They believe anything a clown on TV trumpets. I find it hilarious.
But the show must go on. I describe it at ... Americans are really stupid. They believe anything a clown on TV trumpets. I find it hilarious.But it's not just the Americans that are being fooled. It's the whole world that's stupid enough to believe that manned space flight is possible. I find it hard to believe that the whole world is stupid enough to be fooled for so long, including the French and the Swedes.
Did you forget the claimed capabilities of "your own" company Arianespace?You are not very bright are you! The only space trips possible are one-way satellites catapulted into orbits around Earth. That is all! The rest is fake. Imagine when POTUS Donald found last year at that he had to appoint new criminals to run NASA and to talk to asstronuts sitting in a cellar somewhere. What a disappointment.Fake space trips since 60 years.How many years do they have to do space trips before you finally believe that they're real?
But the show must go on. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com . Americans are really stupid. They believe anything a clown on TV trumpets. I find it hilarious.
Extracts from Ariane 5 User’s Manual Issue 5 Revision 2Just ask yourself, "Would a highly reputable company like Arianspace specifically claim that they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to a non-existent International Space Station?" - give us a break!Quote from: Arianespace, Roland LAGIER, Senior Vice president Chief technical officerPerformance and launch mission
2.4. General performance data
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.3. Elliptical orbit missions
Here are some examples of performance estimate with A5ECA for different elliptical missions:
Injection towards the L2 Lagrangian point of the Sun/Earth system:
- apogee altitude 1,300,000 km
- perigee altitude 320 km
- performance 6.6 tonnes
Injection towards the Moon:
- apogee altitude 385,600 km
- perigee altitude 300 km
- performance 7 tonnes
2.4.5. International Space Station orbit
Ariane 5 equipped with a storable propellant upper stage in the ES version can serve the
International Space Station with the Automated Transfer Vehicle, on a Low Earth Circular
orbit:The performance varies between 19 and 21 tonnes, depending on the specific mission.
- altitude range between 200 and 400 km
- inclination = 51.6 deg.
From: Ariane5_Users-Manual_October2016.pdf (http://www.arianespace.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Ariane5_Users-Manual_October2016.pdf)
Did you forget the claimed capabilities of "your own" company Arianespace?You are not very bright are you! The only space trips possible are one-way satellites catapulted into orbits around Earth. That is all! The rest is fake. Imagine when POTUS Donald found last year at that he had to appoint new criminals to run NASA and to talk to asstronuts sitting in a cellar somewhere. What a disappointment.Fake space trips since 60 years.How many years do they have to do space trips before you finally believe that they're real?
But the show must go on. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com . Americans are really stupid. They believe anything a clown on TV trumpets. I find it hilarious.
Let me remind you:Extracts from Ariane 5 User’s Manual Issue 5 Revision 2Just ask yourself, "Would a highly reputable company like Arianspace specifically claim that they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to a non-existent International Space Station?" - give us a break!Quote from: Arianespace, Roland LAGIER, Senior Vice president Chief technical officerPerformance and launch mission
2.4. General performance data
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.3. Elliptical orbit missions
Here are some examples of performance estimate with A5ECA for different elliptical missions:
Injection towards the L2 Lagrangian point of the Sun/Earth system:
- apogee altitude 1,300,000 km
- perigee altitude 320 km
- performance 6.6 tonnes
Injection towards the Moon:
- apogee altitude 385,600 km
- perigee altitude 300 km
- performance 7 tonnes
2.4.5. International Space Station orbit
Ariane 5 equipped with a storable propellant upper stage in the ES version can serve the
International Space Station with the Automated Transfer Vehicle, on a Low Earth Circular
orbit:The performance varies between 19 and 21 tonnes, depending on the specific mission.
- altitude range between 200 and 400 km
- inclination = 51.6 deg.
From: Ariane5_Users-Manual_October2016.pdf (http://www.arianespace.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Ariane5_Users-Manual_October2016.pdf)
So which is it to be Mr Anders Björkman (alias Heiwa when trying to deceive people)?The claims of Arianspace seem totally in agreement with the very rough calculations I have made and with the missions of the ISRO, JAXA, ROSCOSMOS, ESA, CNSA and even NASA.
- Are you totally ignorant of rockets, space travel, orbital mechanics and orbital dynamics?
- Are you deceiving us in your claims about rockets, space travel, orbital mechanics and orbital dynamics?
- Is Arianspace, and in particular Roland LAGIER, Senior Vice president Chief technical officer, deceiving you and all their prospective customers about the capabilities of the Ariane 5 system?
Hence I respectfully suggest that the only possibilities are either (1) or (2).
So please tell us whether you are simply totally ignorant on any of these matters or intentionally trying to deceive us and all the rest of your readers?
I see no other possible choice for you because most your claims are simply wrong!
I'll be charitable and assume your total ignorance on these matters and suggest you return to fixing leaky taps on leaky ships.
It seems that Arianespace just puts the payload in LEO
You fail and fail and fail and you call other people not bright? There is no evidence at your website. You have never posted any here. Your challenge is a fake and you are a fraud. You are too stupid to understand these things so you think they must be fake.You are not very bright are you! The only space trips possible are one-way satellites catapulted into orbits around Earth. That is all! The rest is fake. Imagine when POTUS Donald found last year at that he had to appoint new criminals to run NASA and to talk to asstronuts sitting in a cellar somewhere. What a disappointment.Fake space trips since 60 years.How many years do they have to do space trips before you finally believe that they're real?
But the show must go on. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com . Americans are really stupid. They believe anything a clown on TV trumpets. I find it hilarious.
So sorry about shouting, but in your declining years you seem to be getting a little hard of hearing!Just ask yourself, "Would a highly reputable company like Arianspace specifically claim that they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to a non-existent International Space Station?" - give us a break!
So which is it to be Mr Anders Björkman (alias Heiwa when trying to deceive people)?The claims of Arianspace seem totally in agreement with the very rough calculations I have made and with the missions of the ISRO, JAXA, ROSCOSMOS, ESA, CNSA and even NASA.
- Are you totally ignorant of rockets, space travel, orbital mechanics and orbital dynamics?
- Are you deceiving us in your claims about rockets, space travel, orbital mechanics and orbital dynamics?
- Is Arianspace, and in particular Roland LAGIER, Senior Vice president Chief technical officer, deceiving you and all their prospective customers about the capabilities of the Ariane 5 system?
Hence I respectfully suggest that the only possibilities are either (1) or (2).
So please tell us whether you are simply totally ignorant on any of these matters or intentionally trying to deceive us and all the rest of your readers?
I see no other possible choice for you because most your claims are simply wrong!
I'll be charitable and assume your total ignorance on these matters and suggest you return to fixing leaky taps on leaky ships.
Thanks for reminding me. I mention the three Arianespace cases at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .
It seems that Arianespace just puts the payload in LEO - the clients, i.e. ISRO, JAXA, ROSCOSMOS, ESA, CNSA and NASA, then take over (the hoax) and say that the payload got to the final destinations assisted by JPL.
Well it is the stupid Americans that invented a fake atomic bomb 1945 and fake human space travel starting 1962 even if the communists were a year ahead with Gagarin. But the 100% fake Apollo show was 100% American. And look at the present POTUS - Groucho Marx or what he calls himself. A stupid clown. Not very much better than the stupid actors Obama and Reagan. Not to forget the stupid Bushes. What a show. Pure Hollywood.But the show must go on. I describe it at ... Americans are really stupid. They believe anything a clown on TV trumpets. I find it hilarious.But it's not just the Americans that are being fooled. It's the whole world that's stupid enough to believe that manned space flight is possible. I find it hard to believe that the whole world is stupid enough to be fooled for so long, including the French and the Swedes.
It seems that Arianespace just puts the payload in LEO
Would a highly reputable company like Arianspace specifically claim that they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to a non-existent International Space Station?
Have you ever read your "own company's" User Manual for the Ariane 5?It seems that Arianespace just puts the payload in LEO
Would a highly reputable company like Arianspace specifically claim that they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to a non-existent International Space Station?
No. I doubt Arianespace claims they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of anything to this fake ISS. The ISS is just an unmanned silver balloon shaped satellite and docking with it in space is impossible. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . You really should study what I write.
Ariane 5That seems extremely clear and explicit.
User’s Manual
Issue 5 Revision 2
2.4. General performance data
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.5. International Space Station orbit
Ariane 5 equipped with a storable propellant upper stage in the ES version can serve the
International Space Station with the Automated Transfer Vehicle, on a Low Earth Circular
orbit:
• altitude range between 200 and 400 km
• inclination = 51.6 deg
The performance varies between 19 and 21 t, depending on the specific mission.
Ariane 5 lifts off with record-setting Automated Transfer Vehicle payloadWould you doubt anything the People's Daily said?
PARIS, June 6 (Xinhua) -- The record-breaking Ariane 5 has successfully lifted off from the Spaceport in French Guiana at 21:52 GMT Wednesday with a heavy-lift mission to orbit Europe's fourth Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV-4) for servicing of the International Space Station, media reported on Thursday.
This new launch mission, designed Flight VA213 in Arianespace's series, used an Ariane 5 ES version equipped with a storable propellant upper stage, with a flight time of just over one hour.
During the mission, the upper stage performed two burns that were separated by a ballistic coast phase, after which the ATV was injected into a circular orbit at 260 km altitude, about 64 minutes after liftoff.
"I am delighted with this success, the 69th launch of an Ariane 5 and - as importantly - the 55th consecutive success for this launcher, which continues to set records not only for reliability, but also for its availability - as demonstrated once again with a perfect countdown this evening," said Stephane Israel, Arianespace Chairman and CEO from the Spaceport's control room.
The Ariane vehicle delivered a total lift performance of 20,252 kg, which included 19,887 kg for ATV, making this resupply spacecraft the largest payload ever to be orbited by an Ariane launcher.
The ATV-4, orbited by Ariane 5 and named after German-born physicist Albert Einstein, carries a record payload of 2,480 kg dry cargo with more than 1400 items.
See more in: Ariane 5 lifts off with record-setting Automated Transfer Vehicle payload (http://en.people.cn/202936/8275573.html)
Yes, Arianespace just puts their clients spacecrafts/payloads in any orbit around Earth. What the client does with it afterwards, after having paid Arianespace, is better forgotten.Have you ever read your "own company's" User Manual for the Ariane 5?It seems that Arianespace just puts the payload in LEO
Would a highly reputable company like Arianspace specifically claim that they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to a non-existent International Space Station?
No. I doubt Arianespace claims they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of anything to this fake ISS. The ISS is just an unmanned silver balloon shaped satellite and docking with it in space is impossible. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . You really should study what I write.Quote from: Roland LAGIER, Senior Vice president Chief technical officerAriane 5That seems extremely clear and explicit.
User’s Manual
Issue 5 Revision 2
2.4. General performance data
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.5. International Space Station orbit
Ariane 5 equipped with a storable propellant upper stage in the ES version can serve the
International Space Station with the Automated Transfer Vehicle, on a Low Earth Circular
orbit:
• altitude range between 200 and 400 km
• inclination = 51.6 deg
The performance varies between 19 and 21 t, depending on the specific mission.
Are you accusing Roland LAGIER, Senior Vice president Chief technical officer of intentionally deceiving the customers of Arianespace?
You might like:QuoteAriane 5 lifts off with record-setting Automated Transfer Vehicle payloadWould you doubt anything the People's Daily said?
PARIS, June 6 (Xinhua) -- The record-breaking Ariane 5 has successfully lifted off from the Spaceport in French Guiana at 21:52 GMT Wednesday with a heavy-lift mission to orbit Europe's fourth Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV-4) for servicing of the International Space Station, media reported on Thursday.
This new launch mission, designed Flight VA213 in Arianespace's series, used an Ariane 5 ES version equipped with a storable propellant upper stage, with a flight time of just over one hour.
During the mission, the upper stage performed two burns that were separated by a ballistic coast phase, after which the ATV was injected into a circular orbit at 260 km altitude, about 64 minutes after liftoff.
"I am delighted with this success, the 69th launch of an Ariane 5 and - as importantly - the 55th consecutive success for this launcher, which continues to set records not only for reliability, but also for its availability - as demonstrated once again with a perfect countdown this evening," said Stephane Israel, Arianespace Chairman and CEO from the Spaceport's control room.
The Ariane vehicle delivered a total lift performance of 20,252 kg, which included 19,887 kg for ATV, making this resupply spacecraft the largest payload ever to be orbited by an Ariane launcher.
The ATV-4, orbited by Ariane 5 and named after German-born physicist Albert Einstein, carries a record payload of 2,480 kg dry cargo with more than 1400 items.
See more in: Ariane 5 lifts off with record-setting Automated Transfer Vehicle payload (http://en.people.cn/202936/8275573.html)
Care to try again?
Good answer Heiwa. Let's try again:YesWould a highly reputable company like Arianspace specifically claim that they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to a non-existent International Space Station?
No.QuoteUser’s Manual
Issue 5 Revision 2
2.4. General performance data
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.5. International Space Station orbit
Ariane 5 equipped with a storable propellant upper stage in the ES version can serve the
International Space Station with the Automated Transfer Vehicle[/i], on a Low Earth Circular
orbit:
• altitude range between 200 and 400 km
• inclination = 51.6 deg
The performance varies between 19 and 21 t, depending on the specific mission.
Care to try again?
Yes, Arianespace just puts their clients spacecrafts/payloads in any orbit around Earth. What the client does with it afterwards, after having paid Arianespace, is better forgotten.So you are accusing
Reason is that you/they cannot get out of the orbit or dock with something else in orbit.
Of course all Arianespace clients are criminals promoting fake space travel of all sorts. But it doesn't make Arianespace criminal - it just sends spacecrafts one-way into orbits.
I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm - you should really study it.
I don't accuse M. R. Lagier of anything. I have never heard of him and don't know him. I am just a shareholder of Airbus NV that has interests in Arianespace. I run my own business described at http://heiwaco.com . Being intellectually honest, quite good looking and rich I have no problems at all.Yes, Arianespace just puts their clients spacecrafts/payloads in any orbit around Earth. What the client does with it afterwards, after having paid Arianespace, is better forgotten.So you are accusing
Reason is that you/they cannot get out of the orbit or dock with something else in orbit.
Of course all Arianespace clients are criminals promoting fake space travel of all sorts. But it doesn't make Arianespace criminal - it just sends spacecrafts one-way into orbits.
I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm - you should really study it.Roland LAGIER, Senior Vice president Chief technical officer of intentionally deceiving the customers of Arianespace?
Your stupid website neither proves anything nor even provides any evidence.It's no more than you claiming that things "can't be done" simply because you don't understand it.With your proven ignorance and inability to calculate the simplest of orbital problems I haven't the slightest problem believing that you don't know how these things are done. But your not understanding these things proves nothing!
There are numerous people that understand rockets, orbital mechanics, orbital dynamics and astronomy far better that you!
I don't claim to be one of those but I do wish you would stop pretending that you know anything about these topics when you provably do not!
It is not Roland LAGIER, Senior Vice president Chief technical officer of Arianespace deceiving anyone, it is you, Mr Anders Björkman.
And lots of others on the WWW seem to think the same about you, funny that!
Don't bother replying unless you have something useful to say, I've had quite enough of your pretence at knowledge you clearly do not have!
More empty claims with a complete failure to show any evidence at all. You're a fraud and a liar. Prove me wrong.Well it is the stupid Americans that invented a fake atomic bomb 1945 and fake human space travel starting 1962 even if the communists were a year ahead with Gagarin. But the 100% fake Apollo show was 100% American. And look at the present POTUS - Groucho Marx or what he calls himself. A stupid clown. Not very much better than the stupid actors Obama and Reagan. Not to forget the stupid Bushes. What a show. Pure Hollywood.But the show must go on. I describe it at ... Americans are really stupid. They believe anything a clown on TV trumpets. I find it hilarious.But it's not just the Americans that are being fooled. It's the whole world that's stupid enough to believe that manned space flight is possible. I find it hard to believe that the whole world is stupid enough to be fooled for so long, including the French and the Swedes.
I don't accuse M. R. Lagier of anything. I have never heard of him and don't know him. I am just a shareholder of Airbus NV that has interests in Arianespace. I run my own business described at http://heiwaco.com . Being intellectually honest, quite good looking and rich I have no problems at all.Clearly you haven't even bothered to read the Ariane 5 User Manual.
Of course my work and findings upset plenty peoplewith your totally unfounded and unsupported claims that reflect nothing more that your own total inability to understand:
so I publish warnings at my web site start pages. You sound like an illiterate twerp. Wasn't modern Australia founded by such creatures that were deported from Europe?You are provably incorrect with your accusation that I "sound like an illiterate twerp"! I can easily see through the ignorant rubbish that you write.
But I'm afraid that you sound like an ignorant know-it-all, but each to his own opinion.That may be, but in this case I suspect that your opinion is shared by most, if not all, the posters on this site.
Thanks for your family history and that you are dual. I have a friend, WASP type, that happened to be born in Hongkong by a father born in China but he considered himself English after Eton and all that rubbish learning to talk through the nose, until he tried to renew his passport. He could not be dual - born at HK he must be Hongkongish.I don't accuse M. R. Lagier of anything. I have never heard of him and don't know him. I am just a shareholder of Airbus NV that has interests in Arianespace. I run my own business described at http://heiwaco.com . Being intellectually honest, quite good looking and rich I have no problems at all.Clearly you haven't even bothered to read the Ariane 5 User Manual.
Your claims were tantamount to asserting that Arianespace were deceiving customers in the Ariane 5 User Manual and M. R. Lagier signed that report off.Quote from: HeiwaOf course my work and findings upset plenty peoplewith your totally unfounded and unsupported claims that reflect nothing more that your own total inability to understand:
- Nuclear physics and engineering,
- Rocket "Science",
- Orbital mechanics and orbital dynamics or
- Astronomy as it relates to the motions of the earth, moon and otner planets.
Quote from: Heiwaso I publish warnings at my web site start pages. You sound like an illiterate twerp. Wasn't modern Australia founded by such creatures that were deported from Europe?You are provably incorrect with your accusation that I "sound like an illiterate twerp"! I can easily see through the ignorant rubbish that you write.
But I'm afraid that you sound like an ignorant know-it-all, but each to his own opinion.
Many convicts were deported for little things like stealing a loaf of bread. But so far, unluckily, I haven't managed to trace any convicts in my background.
My mother's side is, for better or worse, entirely English and Scottish and, again for better or worse, I happen to be dual English/Australian.
And my father's side comes from Ireland and that great-grandfather was the fireman on the escort train in the capture of Ned Kelly.
So, unluckily no convict blood! It might have helped in dealing with a fraud like yourself!
Now run away and find someone gullible enough to believe your twaddle!
Of course all Arianespace clients are criminals promoting fake space travel of all sorts. But it doesn't make Arianespace criminal - it just sends spacecrafts one-way into orbits.Of course it makes Arianespace a criminal when they help criminal clients commit their crimes. You can take you pick of being an accessory to the crime, aiding and abetting the criminal clients or conspiracy to commit a crime.
<< Heiwa's rantings deleted >>Try, "This Anders Björkman, alias Heiwa, sounds like a criminal and fugitive from the FBI, with no knowledge about orbital mechanics, orbital dynamics and rocket science, etc." and all his writings on http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm clearly demonstrate this.
Yes, Arianespace is in trouble assisting NASA and ESA to launch fake spacecrafts into the solar system. I expose the NASA and ESA criminals at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .Of course all Arianespace clients are criminals promoting fake space travel of all sorts. But it doesn't make Arianespace criminal - it just sends spacecrafts one-way into orbits.Of course it makes Arianespace a criminal when they help criminal clients commit their crimes. You can take you pick of being an accessory to the crime, aiding and abetting the criminal clients or conspiracy to commit a crime.
I only agree with Arianespace that all space trips are one-way into Earth orbits and that you are then stuck there and cannot go any furtherProvide a quote from Arianespace stating the above. I'll bet you can't. More LIES from Heiwa!
Care to read this again or is reading also ootside your abilities now?Yes, Arianespace is in trouble assisting NASA and ESA to launch fake spacecrafts into the solar system. I expose the NASA and ESA criminals at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .Of course all Arianespace clients are criminals promoting fake space travel of all sorts. But it doesn't make Arianespace criminal - it just sends spacecrafts one-way into orbits.Of course it makes Arianespace a criminal when they help criminal clients commit their crimes. You can take you pick of being an accessory to the crime, aiding and abetting the criminal clients or conspiracy to commit a crime.
There is no biz like the zpaze biz, as we say, where criminals gather. You seem to know it!
Launching satellites into Earth orbits is however possible and legal and Arianespace is #1 there.
Have you ever read your "own company's" User Manual for the Ariane 5?Quote from: Roland LAGIER, Senior Vice president Chief technical officerAriane 5That seems extremely clear and explicit.
User’s Manual
Issue 5 Revision 2
2.4. General performance data
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.5. International Space Station orbit
Ariane 5 equipped with a storable propellant upper stage in the ES version can serve the
International Space Station with the Automated Transfer Vehicle, on a Low Earth Circular
orbit:
• altitude range between 200 and 400 km
• inclination = 51.6 deg
The performance varies between 19 and 21 t, depending on the specific mission.
Are you accusing Roland LAGIER, Senior Vice president Chief technical officer of intentionally deceiving the customers of Arianespace?
You might like:QuoteAriane 5 lifts off with record-setting Automated Transfer Vehicle payload
PARIS, June 6 (Xinhua) -- The record-breaking Ariane 5 has successfully lifted off from the Spaceport in French Guiana at 21:52 GMT Wednesday with a heavy-lift mission to orbit Europe's fourth Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV-4) for servicing of the International Space Station, media reported on Thursday.
This new launch mission, designed Flight VA213 in Arianespace's series, used an Ariane 5 ES version equipped with a storable propellant upper stage, with a flight time of just over one hour.
During the mission, the upper stage performed two burns that were separated by a ballistic coast phase, after which the ATV was injected into a circular orbit at 260 km altitude, about 64 minutes after liftoff.
"I am delighted with this success, the 69th launch of an Ariane 5 and - as importantly - the 55th consecutive success for this launcher, which continues to set records not only for reliability, but also for its availability - as demonstrated once again with a perfect countdown this evening," said Stephane Israel, Arianespace Chairman and CEO from the Spaceport's control room.
The Ariane vehicle delivered a total lift performance of 20,252 kg, which included 19,887 kg for ATV, making this resupply spacecraft the largest payload ever to be orbited by an Ariane launcher.
The ATV-4, orbited by Ariane 5 and named after German-born physicist Albert Einstein, carries a record payload of 2,480 kg dry cargo with more than 1400 items.
See more in: Ariane 5 lifts off with record-setting Automated Transfer Vehicle payload (http://en.people.cn/202936/8275573.html)
Care to try again?
Care to read this again or is reading also ootside your abilities now?Yes, Arianespace is in trouble assisting NASA and ESA to launch fake spacecrafts into the solar system. I expose the NASA and ESA criminals at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .Of course all Arianespace clients are criminals promoting fake space travel of all sorts. But it doesn't make Arianespace criminal - it just sends spacecrafts one-way into orbits.Of course it makes Arianespace a criminal when they help criminal clients commit their crimes. You can take you pick of being an accessory to the crime, aiding and abetting the criminal clients or conspiracy to commit a crime.
There is no biz like the zpaze biz, as we say, where criminals gather. You seem to know it!
Launching satellites into Earth orbits is however possible and legal and Arianespace is #1 there.Have you ever read your "own company's" User Manual for the Ariane 5?Quote from: Roland LAGIER, Senior Vice president Chief technical officerAriane 5That seems extremely clear and explicit.
User’s Manual
Issue 5 Revision 2
2.4. General performance data
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.5. International Space Station orbit
Ariane 5 equipped with a storable propellant upper stage in the ES version can serve the
International Space Station with the Automated Transfer Vehicle, on a Low Earth Circular
orbit:
• altitude range between 200 and 400 km
• inclination = 51.6 deg
The performance varies between 19 and 21 t, depending on the specific mission.
Are you accusing Roland LAGIER, Senior Vice president Chief technical officer of intentionally deceiving the customers of Arianespace?
You might like:QuoteAriane 5 lifts off with record-setting Automated Transfer Vehicle payload
PARIS, June 6 (Xinhua) -- The record-breaking Ariane 5 has successfully lifted off from the Spaceport in French Guiana at 21:52 GMT Wednesday with a heavy-lift mission to orbit Europe's fourth Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV-4) for servicing of the International Space Station, media reported on Thursday.
This new launch mission, designed Flight VA213 in Arianespace's series, used an Ariane 5 ES version equipped with a storable propellant upper stage, with a flight time of just over one hour.
During the mission, the upper stage performed two burns that were separated by a ballistic coast phase, after which the ATV was injected into a circular orbit at 260 km altitude, about 64 minutes after liftoff.
"I am delighted with this success, the 69th launch of an Ariane 5 and - as importantly - the 55th consecutive success for this launcher, which continues to set records not only for reliability, but also for its availability - as demonstrated once again with a perfect countdown this evening," said Stephane Israel, Arianespace Chairman and CEO from the Spaceport's control room.
The Ariane vehicle delivered a total lift performance of 20,252 kg, which included 19,887 kg for ATV, making this resupply spacecraft the largest payload ever to be orbited by an Ariane launcher.
The ATV-4, orbited by Ariane 5 and named after German-born physicist Albert Einstein, carries a record payload of 2,480 kg dry cargo with more than 1400 items.
See more in: Ariane 5 lifts off with record-setting Automated Transfer Vehicle payload (http://en.people.cn/202936/8275573.html)
Care to try again?
So you admit that Arianespace is a criminal organization. Good to hear that we have that sorted.Yes, Arianespace is in trouble assisting NASA and ESA to launch fake spacecrafts into the solar system. I expose the NASA and ESA criminals at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .Of course all Arianespace clients are criminals promoting fake space travel of all sorts. But it doesn't make Arianespace criminal - it just sends spacecrafts one-way into orbits.Of course it makes Arianespace a criminal when they help criminal clients commit their crimes. You can take you pick of being an accessory to the crime, aiding and abetting the criminal clients or conspiracy to commit a crime.
There is no biz like the zpaze biz, as we say, where criminals gather. You seem to know it!
Launching satellites into Earth orbits is however possible and legal and Arianespace is #1 there.I don't know about that. In a few hours SpaceX is going to attempt their second launch in 4 days (using both previously flown booster and Dragon capsule) and 7th launch so far this year. How many rockets has Arinespace launched so far this year?
Are you working for XpaceS?So you admit that Arianespace is a criminal organization. Good to hear that we have that sorted.Yes, Arianespace is in trouble assisting NASA and ESA to launch fake spacecrafts into the solar system. I expose the NASA and ESA criminals at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .Of course all Arianespace clients are criminals promoting fake space travel of all sorts. But it doesn't make Arianespace criminal - it just sends spacecrafts one-way into orbits.Of course it makes Arianespace a criminal when they help criminal clients commit their crimes. You can take you pick of being an accessory to the crime, aiding and abetting the criminal clients or conspiracy to commit a crime.
There is no biz like the zpaze biz, as we say, where criminals gather. You seem to know it!Launching satellites into Earth orbits is however possible and legal and Arianespace is #1 there.I don't know about that. In a few hours SpaceX is going to attempt their second launch in 4 days (using both previously flown booster and Dragon capsule) and 7th launch so far this year. How many rockets has Arinespace launched so far this year?
What you don't have is any evidence to support your bullshit. There is none on your site and you have never posted any here. You are a liar, a fraud and a failure.It seems that Arianespace just puts the payload in LEO
Would a highly reputable company like Arianspace specifically claim that they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to a non-existent International Space Station?
No. I doubt Arianespace claims they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of anything to this fake ISS. The ISS is just an unmanned silver balloon shaped satellite and docking with it in space is impossible. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . You really should study what I write.
Irrelevant. However, it is fun to point out that SpaceX has launched as many rockets in the first three months of this year as Arinespace did during all of last year.Are you working for XpaceS?So you admit that Arianespace is a criminal organization. Good to hear that we have that sorted.Yes, Arianespace is in trouble assisting NASA and ESA to launch fake spacecrafts into the solar system. I expose the NASA and ESA criminals at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .Of course all Arianespace clients are criminals promoting fake space travel of all sorts. But it doesn't make Arianespace criminal - it just sends spacecrafts one-way into orbits.Of course it makes Arianespace a criminal when they help criminal clients commit their crimes. You can take you pick of being an accessory to the crime, aiding and abetting the criminal clients or conspiracy to commit a crime.
There is no biz like the zpaze biz, as we say, where criminals gather. You seem to know it!Launching satellites into Earth orbits is however possible and legal and Arianespace is #1 there.I don't know about that. In a few hours SpaceX is going to attempt their second launch in 4 days (using both previously flown booster and Dragon capsule) and 7th launch so far this year. How many rockets has Arinespace launched so far this year?
Any launches to the IFS are fake.Which is why Arinespace only did 5 of them, right? ::)
Any launches to the IFS are fake. There is no IFS. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htmAgreed, there is no International Fake Station and that is why any launches to the International Fake Station are fake.
ISS through telescope, Trackingstation1 ISS over Munich through the 80cm telescope of the Public Observatory in Munich, 9. July 2010. | ISS Through 5 inches telescope, Heyhou! |
| (http://wwwcdn.skyandtelescope.com/wp-content/uploads/2014-11-05_5459833c98901_ISS4-9-14b.jpg) Photographer: Mark Connolly Email: mark_k_connolly@msn.com Location of photo: United States From: SKY & TELESCOPE, International Space Station (http://www.skyandtelescope.com/online-gallery/international-space-station-4/) |
Yes, twerps believe in photos of all sorts including the ones of their 400+ tons heavy International Space Station allegedly orbiting Earth in 90 minutes since many years. The funny thing is that there exist no photos of this monster being screwed together and finally filled with air to allow asstronuts to swim around inside. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htmAny launches to the IFS are fake. There is no IFS. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htmAgreed, there is no International Fake Station and that is why any launches to the International Fake Station are fake.
Even a child could work that one out.
But there is a real International Space Station.Hence Arianespace, SpaceX and ROSCOSMOS launch supplies and crew to the real International Space Station.
ISS through telescope, Trackingstation1
ISS over Munich through the 80cm telescope
of the Public Observatory in Munich, 9. July 2010.
ISS Through 5 inches telescope, Heyhou!
(http://wwwcdn.skyandtelescope.com/wp-content/uploads/2014-11-05_5459833c98901_ISS4-9-14b.jpg)
Photographer: Mark Connolly
Email: mark_k_connolly@msn.com
Location of photo: United States
From: SKY & TELESCOPE, International Space Station (http://www.skyandtelescope.com/online-gallery/international-space-station-4/)
Those photos sure look like real International Space Station and and not the FAKE Heiwa's International Fake Station.
Yes, twerps believe in photos of all sorts including the ones of their 400+ tons heavy International Space Station allegedly orbiting Earth in 90 minutes since many years. The funny thing is that there exist no photos of this monster being screwed together and finally filled with air to allow asstronuts to swim around inside. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htmWhat are you talking about? The ISS was "filled with air" and inhabited a little less than two years after the first two modules were joined. And there are tons of photos and videos of the station during various phases of construction.
yet more proof of Heiwa's shoddy research.Yes, twerps believe in photos of all sorts including the ones of their 400+ tons heavy International Space Station allegedly orbiting Earth in 90 minutes since many years. The funny thing is that there exist no photos of this monster being screwed together and finally filled with air to allow asstronuts to swim around inside. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htmWhat are you talking about? The ISS was "filled with air" and inhabited a little less than two years after the first two modules were joined. And there are tons of photos and videos of the station during various phases of construction.
Here's a video of the first two modules being joined:
How do you explain those photos? How do you explain that anyone who wants and see it go over head? How do you explain that we can us our telescopes to take pictures of it?Yes, twerps believe in photos of all sorts including the ones of their 400+ tons heavy International Space Station allegedly orbiting Earth in 90 minutes since many years. The funny thing is that there exist no photos of this monster being screwed together and finally filled with air to allow asstronuts to swim around inside. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htmAny launches to the IFS are fake. There is no IFS. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htmAgreed, there is no International Fake Station and that is why any launches to the International Fake Station are fake.
Even a child could work that one out.
But there is a real International Space Station.Hence Arianespace, SpaceX and ROSCOSMOS launch supplies and crew to the real International Space Station.
ISS through telescope, Trackingstation1
ISS over Munich through the 80cm telescope
of the Public Observatory in Munich, 9. July 2010.
ISS Through 5 inches telescope, Heyhou!
(http://wwwcdn.skyandtelescope.com/wp-content/uploads/2014-11-05_5459833c98901_ISS4-9-14b.jpg)
Photographer: Mark Connolly
Email: mark_k_connolly@msn.com
Location of photo: United States
From: SKY & TELESCOPE, International Space Station (http://www.skyandtelescope.com/online-gallery/international-space-station-4/)
Those photos sure look like real International Space Station and and not the FAKE Heiwa's International Fake Station.
How do you explain those photos? How do you explain that anyone who wants and see it go over head? How do you explain that we can us our telescopes to take pictures of it?Yes, twerps believe in photos of all sorts including the ones of their 400+ tons heavy International Space Station allegedly orbiting Earth in 90 minutes since many years. The funny thing is that there exist no photos of this monster being screwed together and finally filled with air to allow asstronuts to swim around inside. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htmAny launches to the IFS are fake. There is no IFS. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htmAgreed, there is no International Fake Station and that is why any launches to the International Fake Station are fake.
Even a child could work that one out.
But there is a real International Space Station.Hence Arianespace, SpaceX and ROSCOSMOS launch supplies and crew to the real International Space Station.
ISS through telescope, Trackingstation1
ISS over Munich through the 80cm telescope
of the Public Observatory in Munich, 9. July 2010.
ISS Through 5 inches telescope, Heyhou!
(http://wwwcdn.skyandtelescope.com/wp-content/uploads/2014-11-05_5459833c98901_ISS4-9-14b.jpg)
Photographer: Mark Connolly
Email: mark_k_connolly@msn.com
Location of photo: United States
From: SKY & TELESCOPE, International Space Station (http://www.skyandtelescope.com/online-gallery/international-space-station-4/)
Those photos sure look like real International Space Station and and not the FAKE Heiwa's International Fake Station.
How do you explain away any of that because it's a fact that we can do all of those things?
And, don't send us to your website because you don't explain any of those things. I already checked going back several years on the archive so don't even bother bringing you silly little site up.
Mike
Anders, you do realize that the ISS is visible from France on a fairly regular basis, don't you? If you're as rich as you claim that you are, then you should already have a nice pair of binoculars. That means that you should be able to watch the ISS yourself. Or are you afraid to look at the ISS with your own eyes?Yes, I describe it at my website. The ISS is just an unmanned satellite - balloon shaped with silver color - easy to spot. I have seen it many times.
Then why do you say that the pictures that Rab showed you are fake if you agree that there is a satellite shaped like the ISS in orbit?Anders, you do realize that the ISS is visible from France on a fairly regular basis, don't you? If you're as rich as you claim that you are, then you should already have a nice pair of binoculars. That means that you should be able to watch the ISS yourself. Or are you afraid to look at the ISS with your own eyes?Yes, I describe it at my website. The ISS is just an unmanned satellite - balloon shaped with silver color - easy to spot. I have seen it many times.
That's just a stupid statement but that's par for the course coming from you. You didn't even try to take a picture so until you try you can't say they're fake. Until you do it yourself every time you say they're fake you're lying. I've seen the ISS through a telescope and it's spectacular.How do you explain those photos? How do you explain that anyone who wants and see it go over head? How do you explain that we can us our telescopes to take pictures of it?Yes, twerps believe in photos of all sorts including the ones of their 400+ tons heavy International Space Station allegedly orbiting Earth in 90 minutes since many years. The funny thing is that there exist no photos of this monster being screwed together and finally filled with air to allow asstronuts to swim around inside. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htmAny launches to the IFS are fake. There is no IFS. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htmAgreed, there is no International Fake Station and that is why any launches to the International Fake Station are fake.
Even a child could work that one out.
But there is a real International Space Station.Hence Arianespace, SpaceX and ROSCOSMOS launch supplies and crew to the real International Space Station.
ISS through telescope, Trackingstation1
ISS over Munich through the 80cm telescope
of the Public Observatory in Munich, 9. July 2010.
ISS Through 5 inches telescope, Heyhou!
(http://wwwcdn.skyandtelescope.com/wp-content/uploads/2014-11-05_5459833c98901_ISS4-9-14b.jpg)
Photographer: Mark Connolly
Email: mark_k_connolly@msn.com
Location of photo: United States
From: SKY & TELESCOPE, International Space Station (http://www.skyandtelescope.com/online-gallery/international-space-station-4/)
Those photos sure look like real International Space Station and and not the FAKE Heiwa's International Fake Station.
How do you explain away any of that because it's a fact that we can do all of those things?
And, don't send us to your website because you don't explain any of those things. I already checked going back several years on the archive so don't even bother bringing you silly little site up.
Mike
You ask - How do you explain those photos?
Easy - they are all fakes.
I have seen the ISS myself flying across the sky in the setting sun. It looked like a silver, balloon shaped satellite. It cannot be manned as there are no means for any person aboard to safely return to Earth.Then why do you say that the pictures that Rab showed you are fake if you agree that there is a satellite shaped like the ISS in orbit?Anders, you do realize that the ISS is visible from France on a fairly regular basis, don't you? If you're as rich as you claim that you are, then you should already have a nice pair of binoculars. That means that you should be able to watch the ISS yourself. Or are you afraid to look at the ISS with your own eyes?Yes, I describe it at my website. The ISS is just an unmanned satellite - balloon shaped with silver color - easy to spot. I have seen it many times.
Anyone else imagine Heiwa throwing a tantrum when his nurses tell him he can't have cookies for dinner?I do, but I don't think he wants anyone else to know, so he pretends he's dancing instead of having a tantrum. Like this:
I explain more at http://heiwaco.comHow many times do you have to have hammered home that you do not explain more at http://heiwaco.com.
Anyone else imagine Heiwa throwing a tantrum when his nurses tell him he can't have cookies for dinner?I do, but I don't think he wants anyone else to know, so he pretends he's dancing instead of having a tantrum. Like this:
(https://media.giphy.com/media/r52xR8XLhq1Zm/giphy.gif)
I am not deceiving anybody. I just present my findings ... and I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong. It upsets plenty twerps ... and that's one of my objectives.I explain more at http://heiwaco.comHow many times do you have to have hammered home that you do not explain more at http://heiwaco.com.
All you explain there is you cannot understand all these things. So stop trying to deceive everybody.
You must have a poor memory if you keep posting the same old hog-wash page after page.
I guess a poor short term memory is an expected end result of early onset dementia.
I am not deceiving anybody. I just present my findings ... and I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong. It upsets plenty twerps ... and that's one of my objectives.I repeat, "stop trying to deceive everybody" by pretending that you know what you are talking about and you clearly do not!
Well, I don' say things. I write things at http://heiwaco com . Just copy/paste what I write and we can discuss.I am not deceiving anybody. I just present my findings ... and I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong. It upsets plenty twerps ... and that's one of my objectives.I repeat, "stop trying to deceive everybody" by pretending that you know what you are talking about and you clearly do not!
I will grant that this deception is probably quite innocent on your part because you are so ignorant that you don't realise how ridiculous the things you say really are.
But Thomas Gray wrote: "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise" - you must live a life of pure bliss!
Your challenge is a fake. You don't have the money. Until you publicly prove you have the money you are just anothe fraud and failure. Prove me wrong.I am not deceiving anybody. I just present my findings ... and I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong. It upsets plenty twerps ... and that's one of my objectives.I explain more at http://heiwaco.comHow many times do you have to have hammered home that you do not explain more at http://heiwaco.com.
All you explain there is you cannot understand all these things. So stop trying to deceive everybody.
You must have a poor memory if you keep posting the same old hog-wash page after page.
I guess a poor short term memory is an expected end result of early onset dementia.
No! I invited you to my office and you didn't show up. I know it was difficult. I am on the 6th floor and you got lost in the cellar. There is no cellar in my house.Your challenge is a fake. You don't have the money. Until you publicly prove you have the money you are just anothe fraud and failure. Prove me wrong.I am not deceiving anybody. I just present my findings ... and I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong. It upsets plenty twerps ... and that's one of my objectives.I explain more at http://heiwaco.comHow many times do you have to have hammered home that you do not explain more at http://heiwaco.com.
All you explain there is you cannot understand all these things. So stop trying to deceive everybody.
You must have a poor memory if you keep posting the same old hog-wash page after page.
I guess a poor short term memory is an expected end result of early onset dementia.
Until you publicly prove you have the money your challenge is fake and you are a fraud.No! I invited you to my office and you didn't show up. I know it was difficult. I am on the 6th floor and you got lost in the cellar. There is no cellar in my house.Your challenge is a fake. You don't have the money. Until you publicly prove you have the money you are just anothe fraud and failure. Prove me wrong.I am not deceiving anybody. I just present my findings ... and I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong. It upsets plenty twerps ... and that's one of my objectives.I explain more at http://heiwaco.comHow many times do you have to have hammered home that you do not explain more at http://heiwaco.com.
All you explain there is you cannot understand all these things. So stop trying to deceive everybody.
You must have a poor memory if you keep posting the same old hog-wash page after page.
I guess a poor short term memory is an expected end result of early onset dementia.
Until you publicly prove you have the money your challenge is fake and you are a fraud.No! I invited you to my office and you didn't show up. I know it was difficult. I am on the 6th floor and you got lost in the cellar. There is no cellar in my house.Your challenge is a fake. You don't have the money. Until you publicly prove you have the money you are just anothe fraud and failure. Prove me wrong.I am not deceiving anybody. I just present my findings ... and I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong. It upsets plenty twerps ... and that's one of my objectives.I explain more at http://heiwaco.comHow many times do you have to have hammered home that you do not explain more at http://heiwaco.com.
All you explain there is you cannot understand all these things. So stop trying to deceive everybody.
You must have a poor memory if you keep posting the same old hog-wash page after page.
I guess a poor short term memory is an expected end result of early onset dementia.
More failureUntil you publicly prove you have the money your challenge is fake and you are a fraud.No! I invited you to my office and you didn't show up. I know it was difficult. I am on the 6th floor and you got lost in the cellar. There is no cellar in my house.Your challenge is a fake. You don't have the money. Until you publicly prove you have the money you are just anothe fraud and failure. Prove me wrong.I am not deceiving anybody. I just present my findings ... and I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong. It upsets plenty twerps ... and that's one of my objectives.I explain more at http://heiwaco.comHow many times do you have to have hammered home that you do not explain more at http://heiwaco.com.
All you explain there is you cannot understand all these things. So stop trying to deceive everybody.
You must have a poor memory if you keep posting the same old hog-wash page after page.
I guess a poor short term memory is an expected end result of early onset dementia.
Would a highly reputable company like Arianspace specifically claim that they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to a non-existent International Space Station?
Would a highly reputable company like Arianspace specifically claim that they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to a non-existent International Space Station?
My understanding is that Arianespace only brings satellites into orbits.
Oh look, you've failed again.
Would a highly reputable company like Arianspace specifically claim that they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to a non-existent International Space Station?
My understanding is that Arianespace only brings satellites into orbits. Of course Arianespace has also brought four ATVs into orbits for ESA but if they ever docked with the ISS is another story.
http://www.arianespace.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/VA213-ATV4-EN1.pdf
I doubt very much that the ISS exists and therefore consider ESA a criminal organization participating in the manned space trip hoax that I describe at my website.
Would a highly reputable company like Arianspace specifically claim that they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to a non-existent International Space Station?
My understanding is that Arianespace only brings satellites into orbits.
Sure. What is your understanding regarding them claiming they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to the ISS? Are they lying to us?
It's right in section 2.4.5 of their manual. I gave you a big red link to the manual. Is it too complicated for you to read?
Would a highly reputable company like Arianspace specifically claim that they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to a non-existent International Space Station?
My understanding is that Arianespace only brings satellites into orbits.
Sure. What is your understanding regarding them claiming they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to the ISS? Are they lying to us?
I don't think they claim that. Why don't you ask them?
We do not need to "ask them"! Arianespace tell us exactly that in theirI don't think they claim that. Why don't you ask them?
Would a highly reputable company like Arianspace specifically claim that they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to a non-existent International Space Station?
My understanding is that Arianespace only brings satellites into orbits.
Sure. What is your understanding regarding them claiming they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to the ISS? Are they lying to us?
Extracts from Ariane 5 User’s Manual Issue 5 Revision 2The relevant question was: "What is your understanding regarding them claiming they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to the ISS? Are they lying to us?"Quote from: Arianespace, Roland LAGIER, Senior Vice president Chief technical officerPerformance and launch missionSo note that Arianespace themselves claim that the Ariane 5/ECA can send:
2.4. General performance data
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.5. International Space Station orbit
Ariane 5 equipped with a storable propellant upper stage in the ES version can serve the
International Space Station with the Automated Transfer Vehicle, on a Low Earth Circular
orbit:The performance varies between 19 and 21 t, depending on the specific mission.
- altitude range between 200 and 400 km
- inclination = 51.6 deg
From: Ariane5_Users-Manual_October2016.pdf (http://www.arianespace.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Ariane5_Users-Manual_October2016.pdf)
- 19 to 21 tonnes for re-fuelling the International Space Station with the Automated Transfer Vehicle, on a Low Earth Circular orbit,
- 9500 kg or even more towards the standard GTO,
- 7 tonnes towards the Moon and
- 6.6 tonnes towards the L2 Lagrangian point of the Sun/Earth system.
2.4.5. International Space Station orbit
Ariane 5 equipped with a storable propellant upper stage in the ES version can serve the
International Space Station with the Automated Transfer Vehicle, on a Low Earth Circular
orbit:The performance varies between 19 and 21 t, depending on the specific mission.
- altitude range between 200 and 400 km
- inclination = 51.6 deg
Are you an idiot? Of course they claim they can do that. It's in their manual. Further, they actually have done resupply missions to the ISS.
Would a highly reputable company like Arianspace specifically claim that they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to a non-existent International Space Station?
My understanding is that Arianespace only brings satellites into orbits.
Sure. What is your understanding regarding them claiming they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to the ISS? Are they lying to us?
I don't think they claim that. Why don't you ask them?
In a manual? LOL! An Ariane 5 rocket cannot put anything in an orbit at 400 km altitude, where the fake ISS is supposed to be.Are you an idiot? Of course they claim they can do that. It's in their manual. Further, they actually have done resupply missions to the ISS.
Would a highly reputable company like Arianspace specifically claim that they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to a non-existent International Space Station?
My understanding is that Arianespace only brings satellites into orbits.
Sure. What is your understanding regarding them claiming they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to the ISS? Are they lying to us?
I don't think they claim that. Why don't you ask them?
So, either you're lying so that you don't have to admit you support a company that claims they have been to the ISS and that manned missions are possible or you're just and idiot.
Mike
In a manual? LOL! An Ariane 5 rocket cannot put anything in an orbit at 400 km altitude, where the fake ISS is supposed to be.Are you an idiot? Of course they claim they can do that. It's in their manual. Further, they actually have done resupply missions to the ISS.
I don't think they claim that. Why don't you ask them?
So, either you're lying so that you don't have to admit you support a company that claims they have been to the ISS and that manned missions are possible or you're just and idiot.
Mike
No, I am neither lying at my website http://heiwaco.com nor an idiot.
We do not need to "ask them"! Arianespace tell us exactly that in theirSure. What is your understanding regarding them claiming they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to the ISS? Are they lying to us?I don't think they claim that. Why don't you ask them?"Ariane 5 User’s Manual Issue 5 Revision 2, signed by Roland LAGIER, Senior Vice president Chief technical officer".
Let me remind you:Extracts from Ariane 5 User’s Manual Issue 5 Revision 2The relevant question was: "What is your understanding regarding them claiming they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to the ISS? Are they lying to us?"Quote from: Arianespace, Roland LAGIER, Senior Vice president Chief technical officerPerformance and launch missionSo note that Arianespace themselves claim that the Ariane 5/ECA can send:
2.4. General performance data
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.5. International Space Station orbit
Ariane 5 equipped with a storable propellant upper stage in the ES version can serve the
International Space Station with the Automated Transfer Vehicle, on a Low Earth Circular
orbit:The performance varies between 19 and 21 t, depending on the specific mission.
- altitude range between 200 and 400 km
- inclination = 51.6 deg
From: Ariane5_Users-Manual_October2016.pdf (http://www.arianespace.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Ariane5_Users-Manual_October2016.pdf)
- 19 to 21 tonnes for re-fuelling the International Space Station with the Automated Transfer Vehicle, on a Low Earth Circular orbit,
- 9500 kg or even more towards the standard GTO,
- 7 tonnes towards the Moon and
- 6.6 tonnes towards the L2 Lagrangian point of the Sun/Earth system.
And under "2.4. General performance data" Arianespace clearly state:Quote2.4.5. International Space Station orbit
Ariane 5 equipped with a storable propellant upper stage in the ES version can serve the
International Space Station with the Automated Transfer Vehicle, on a Low Earth Circular
orbit:The performance varies between 19 and 21 t, depending on the specific mission.
- altitude range between 200 and 400 km
- inclination = 51.6 deg
How else could anyone interpret that other than Arianespace "claiming they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to the ISS"?
You really are a twerp, aren't you?
It's right in section 2.4.5 of their manual. I gave you a big red link to the manual. Is it too complicated for you to read?
Would a highly reputable company like Arianspace specifically claim that they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to a non-existent International Space Station?
My understanding is that Arianespace only brings satellites into orbits.
Sure. What is your understanding regarding them claiming they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to the ISS? Are they lying to us?
I don't think they claim that. Why don't you ask them?
Are you saying that an Ariane 5 rocket can put a payload into GTO, but can not put a payload into a 400 km LEO? ???In a manual? LOL! An Ariane 5 rocket cannot put anything in an orbit at 400 km altitude, where the fake ISS is supposed to be.Are you an idiot? Of course they claim they can do that. It's in their manual. Further, they actually have done resupply missions to the ISS.
Would a highly reputable company like Arianspace specifically claim that they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to a non-existent International Space Station?
My understanding is that Arianespace only brings satellites into orbits.
Sure. What is your understanding regarding them claiming they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to the ISS? Are they lying to us?
I don't think they claim that. Why don't you ask them?
So, either you're lying so that you don't have to admit you support a company that claims they have been to the ISS and that manned missions are possible or you're just and idiot.
Mike
No, I am neither lying at my website http://heiwaco.com nor an idiot.When you say stupid things like that, one can't help but to think otherwise.
Are you saying that an Ariane 5 rocket can put a payload into GTO, but can not put a payload into a 400 km LEO? ???In a manual? LOL! An Ariane 5 rocket cannot put anything in an orbit at 400 km altitude, where the fake ISS is supposed to be.Are you an idiot? Of course they claim they can do that. It's in their manual. Further, they actually have done resupply missions to the ISS.
Would a highly reputable company like Arianspace specifically claim that they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to a non-existent International Space Station?
My understanding is that Arianespace only brings satellites into orbits.
Sure. What is your understanding regarding them claiming they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to the ISS? Are they lying to us?
I don't think they claim that. Why don't you ask them?
So, either you're lying so that you don't have to admit you support a company that claims they have been to the ISS and that manned missions are possible or you're just and idiot.
MikeNo, I am neither lying at my website http://heiwaco.com nor an idiot.When you say stupid things like that, one can't help but to think otherwise.
Are you so stupid that you can't understand that Arianespace is the one making that claim. Not anyone in this thread. Maybe you didn't cure your brain damage like you thought you did.Are you saying that an Ariane 5 rocket can put a payload into GTO, but can not put a payload into a 400 km LEO? ???In a manual? LOL! An Ariane 5 rocket cannot put anything in an orbit at 400 km altitude, where the fake ISS is supposed to be.Are you an idiot? Of course they claim they can do that. It's in their manual. Further, they actually have done resupply missions to the ISS.
Would a highly reputable company like Arianspace specifically claim that they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to a non-existent International Space Station?
My understanding is that Arianespace only brings satellites into orbits.
Sure. What is your understanding regarding them claiming they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to the ISS? Are they lying to us?
I don't think they claim that. Why don't you ask them?
So, either you're lying so that you don't have to admit you support a company that claims they have been to the ISS and that manned missions are possible or you're just and idiot.
MikeNo, I am neither lying at my website http://heiwaco.com nor an idiot.When you say stupid things like that, one can't help but to think otherwise.
Arianespace cannot deliver 19 to 21 tons to 400 km altitude orbit where the ISS is supposed to be. Just visit the Arianespace website and check yourself. And then to dock with the ISS. Not possible at all. Only twerps believe that Arianespace delivers goods to the ISS. So it seems you are a twerp.
Arianespace cannot deliver 19 to 21 tons to 400 km altitude orbit where the ISS is supposed to be.What does the ISS have to do with Arinespace being able to put a 19 or 21 ton payload into a 400 km LEO? ???
It's right in section 2.4.5 of their manual. I gave you a big red link to the manual. Is it too complicated for you to read?
Would a highly reputable company like Arianspace specifically claim that they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to a non-existent International Space Station?
My understanding is that Arianespace only brings satellites into orbits.
Sure. What is your understanding regarding them claiming they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to the ISS? Are they lying to us?
I don't think they claim that. Why don't you ask them?
You do realize that you don't need to keep asking the same question in 3 different threads, don't you?It's right in section 2.4.5 of their manual. I gave you a big red link to the manual. Is it too complicated for you to read?
Would a highly reputable company like Arianspace specifically claim that they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to a non-existent International Space Station?
My understanding is that Arianespace only brings satellites into orbits.
Sure. What is your understanding regarding them claiming they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to the ISS? Are they lying to us?
I don't think they claim that. Why don't you ask them?
Having established that, what is your understanding regarding them claiming they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to the ISS? Are they lying to us?
You do realize that you don't need to keep asking the same question in 3 different threads, don't you?
Then maybe we should see what we can do to try and keep everything from becoming a "Heiwa" thread.You do realize that you don't need to keep asking the same question in 3 different threads, don't you?
Once a thread becomes a "Heiwa" thread I sort of start to view it as CN or AR.
One of Heiwa's redeeming qualities is that he confines himself to just a few threads, so "everything from becoming a "Heiwa" thread" seems a bit exaggerated. But like I said, I'll back off here.Then maybe we should see what we can do to try and keep everything from becoming a "Heiwa" thread.You do realize that you don't need to keep asking the same question in 3 different threads, don't you?
Once a thread becomes a "Heiwa" thread I sort of start to view it as CN or AR.
It seems so. Or it is a printing error in the manual. Reason is that Arianespace cannot send a satellite into orbit that later docks with a another spacecraft (the ISS) in another orbit. The re-entry of the satellite after having visiting the ISS is not possible either. I explain why at my website. So I consider anybody stating having visited the ISS a paid liar.It's right in section 2.4.5 of their manual. I gave you a big red link to the manual. Is it too complicated for you to read?
Would a highly reputable company like Arianspace specifically claim that they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to a non-existent International Space Station?
My understanding is that Arianespace only brings satellites into orbits.
Sure. What is your understanding regarding them claiming they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to the ISS? Are they lying to us?
I don't think they claim that. Why don't you ask them?
Having established that, what is your understanding regarding them claiming they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to the ISS? Are they lying to us?
More shoddy research. The ATV that Arinespace allegedly used for the ISS resupply missions were expendable and burned up on reentry.It seems so. Or it is a printing error in the manual. Reason is that Arianespace cannot send a satellite into orbit that later docks with a another spacecraft (the ISS) in another orbit. The re-entry of the satellite after having visiting the ISS is not possible either. I explain why at my website. So I consider anybody stating having visited the ISS a paid liar.It's right in section 2.4.5 of their manual. I gave you a big red link to the manual. Is it too complicated for you to read?
Would a highly reputable company like Arianspace specifically claim that they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to a non-existent International Space Station?
My understanding is that Arianespace only brings satellites into orbits.
Sure. What is your understanding regarding them claiming they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to the ISS? Are they lying to us?
I don't think they claim that. Why don't you ask them?
Having established that, what is your understanding regarding them claiming they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to the ISS? Are they lying to us?
Would anyone in their right mind[1] invest in a company that either lies to its customers or makes this may printing errors in their:Having established that, what is your understanding regarding them claiming they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to the ISS? Are they lying to us?It seems so. Or it is a printing error in the manual. Reason is that Arianespace cannot send a satellite into orbit that later docks with a another spacecraft (the ISS) in another orbit. The re-entry of the satellite after having visiting the ISS is not possible either. I explain why at my website. So I consider anybody stating having visited the ISS a paid liar.
Extracts from Ariane 5 User’s Manual Issue 5 Revision 2So are Arianespace right in these claimed capabilities or do you insist that Arianespace are trying to deceive its customers.Quote from: Arianespace, Roland LAGIER, Senior Vice president Chief technical officerPerformance and launch missionSo note that Arianespace themselves claim that the Ariane 5/ECA can send:
2.4. General performance data
2.4.1. Geosynchronous transfer orbit missions(*) corresponding to 35786 km at first apogee
- Inclination i = 6 deg
- Altitude of perigee Zp = 250 km
- Altitude of apogee Za = 35943 km (*)
Injection is defined as the end of the upper stage shutdown.
The heavy lift capability of the launcher, . . . . . . . . . . .enables Ariane 5 to carry any type of spacecraft, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to the tallest and heaviest ones (9500 kg or even more), . . . . . . . . . towards the standard GTO.
2.4.3. Elliptical orbit missions
Here are some examples of performance estimate with A5ECA for different elliptical missions:
Injection towards the L2 Lagrangian point of the Sun/Earth system:
- apogee altitude 1,300,000 km
- perigee altitude 320 km
- performance 6.6 t
Injection towards the Moon:
- apogee altitude 385,600 km
- perigee altitude 300 km
- performance 7 t
2.4.5. International Space Station orbit
Ariane 5 equipped with a storable propellant upper stage in the ES version can serve the
International Space Station with the Automated Transfer Vehicle, on a Low Earth Circular
orbit:The performance varies between 19 and 21 t, depending on the specific mission.
- altitude range between 200 and 400 km
- inclination = 51.6 deg
From: Ariane5_Users-Manual_October2016.pdf (http://www.arianespace.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Ariane5_Users-Manual_October2016.pdf)
- 19 to 21 tonnes for re-fuelling the International Space Station with the Automated Transfer Vehicle, on a Low Earth Circular orbit,
- 9500 kg or even more towards the standard GTO,
- 7 tonnes towards the Moon and
- 6.6 tonnes towards the L2 Lagrangian point of the Sun/Earth system.
Would anyone in their right mind[1] invest in a company that either lies to its customers or makes this may printing errors in their:Having established that, what is your understanding regarding them claiming they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to the ISS? Are they lying to us?It seems so. Or it is a printing error in the manual. Reason is that Arianespace cannot send a satellite into orbit that later docks with a another spacecraft (the ISS) in another orbit. The re-entry of the satellite after having visiting the ISS is not possible either. I explain why at my website. So I consider anybody stating having visited the ISS a paid liar.Ariane 5 User’s Manual Issue 5 Revision 2Extracts from Ariane 5 User’s Manual Issue 5 Revision 2So are Arianespace right in these claimed capabilities or do you insist that Arianespace are trying to deceive its customers.Quote from: Arianespace, Roland LAGIER, Senior Vice president Chief technical officerPerformance and launch missionSo note that Arianespace themselves claim that the Ariane 5/ECA can send:
2.4. General performance data
2.4.1. Geosynchronous transfer orbit missions(*) corresponding to 35786 km at first apogee
- Inclination i = 6 deg
- Altitude of perigee Zp = 250 km
- Altitude of apogee Za = 35943 km (*)
Injection is defined as the end of the upper stage shutdown.
The heavy lift capability of the launcher, . . . . . . . . . . .enables Ariane 5 to carry any type of spacecraft, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to the tallest and heaviest ones (9500 kg or even more), . . . . . . . . . towards the standard GTO.
2.4.3. Elliptical orbit missions
Here are some examples of performance estimate with A5ECA for different elliptical missions:
Injection towards the L2 Lagrangian point of the Sun/Earth system:
- apogee altitude 1,300,000 km
- perigee altitude 320 km
- performance 6.6 t
Injection towards the Moon:
- apogee altitude 385,600 km
- perigee altitude 300 km
- performance 7 t
2.4.5. International Space Station orbit
Ariane 5 equipped with a storable propellant upper stage in the ES version can serve the
International Space Station with the Automated Transfer Vehicle, on a Low Earth Circular
orbit:The performance varies between 19 and 21 t, depending on the specific mission.
- altitude range between 200 and 400 km
- inclination = 51.6 deg
From: Ariane5_Users-Manual_October2016.pdf (http://www.arianespace.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Ariane5_Users-Manual_October2016.pdf)
- 19 to 21 tonnes for re-fuelling the International Space Station with the Automated Transfer Vehicle, on a Low Earth Circular orbit,
- 9500 kg or even more towards the standard GTO,
- 7 tonnes towards the Moon and
- 6.6 tonnes towards the L2 Lagrangian point of the Sun/Earth system.
And if you are wrong in this matter why would anyone take the slightest notice of your ignorant claims about Nuclear Weapons, etc?
When one gets down to the nitty-gritty all of your claims reduce to,"If Heiwa can't understand some matter, it must be fake" - not so, all that proves is that "Heiwa can't understand that matter".
[1] But of course, no-one would ever accuse you of being in your right mind.
;D ;D ;D Rubbish! ;D ;D ;D It's not my problem and I'm certain that Arianespace are right and your claims are total crap!Well, it looks like a printing error or a falsification. Suggest you contact Arianespace about it and tell us the result.Would anyone in their right mind[1] invest in a company that either lies to its customers or makes this may printing errors in their:Having established that, what is your understanding regarding them claiming they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to the ISS? Are they lying to us?It seems so. Or it is a printing error in the manual. Reason is that Arianespace cannot send a satellite into orbit that later docks with a another spacecraft (the ISS) in another orbit. The re-entry of the satellite after having visiting the ISS is not possible either. I explain why at my website. So I consider anybody stating having visited the ISS a paid liar.Ariane 5 User’s Manual Issue 5 Revision 2Extracts from Ariane 5 User’s Manual Issue 5 Revision 2So are Arianespace right in these claimed capabilities or do you insist that Arianespace are trying to deceive its customers.Quote from: Arianespace, Roland LAGIER, Senior Vice president Chief technical officerPerformance and launch missionSo note that Arianespace themselves claim that the Ariane 5/ECA can send:
2.4. General performance data
2.4.1. Geosynchronous transfer orbit missions(*) corresponding to 35786 km at first apogee
- Inclination i = 6 deg
- Altitude of perigee Zp = 250 km
- Altitude of apogee Za = 35943 km (*)
Injection is defined as the end of the upper stage shutdown.
The heavy lift capability of the launcher, . . . . . . . . . . .enables Ariane 5 to carry any type of spacecraft, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to the tallest and heaviest ones (9500 kg or even more), . . . . . . . . . towards the standard GTO.
2.4.3. Elliptical orbit missions
Here are some examples of performance estimate with A5ECA for different elliptical missions:
Injection towards the L2 Lagrangian point of the Sun/Earth system:
- apogee altitude 1,300,000 km
- perigee altitude 320 km
- performance 6.6 t
Injection towards the Moon:
- apogee altitude 385,600 km
- perigee altitude 300 km
- performance 7 t
2.4.5. International Space Station orbit
Ariane 5 equipped with a storable propellant upper stage in the ES version can serve the
International Space Station with the Automated Transfer Vehicle, on a Low Earth Circular
orbit:The performance varies between 19 and 21 t, depending on the specific mission.
- altitude range between 200 and 400 km
- inclination = 51.6 deg
From: Ariane5_Users-Manual_October2016.pdf (http://www.arianespace.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Ariane5_Users-Manual_October2016.pdf)
- 19 to 21 tonnes for re-fuelling the International Space Station with the Automated Transfer Vehicle, on a Low Earth Circular orbit,
- 9500 kg or even more towards the standard GTO,
- 7 tonnes towards the Moon and
- 6.6 tonnes towards the L2 Lagrangian point of the Sun/Earth system.
And if you are wrong in this matter why would anyone take the slightest notice of your ignorant claims about Nuclear Weapons, etc?
When one gets down to the nitty-gritty all of your claims reduce to,"If Heiwa can't understand some matter, it must be fake" - not so, all that proves is that "Heiwa can't understand that matter".
[1] But of course, no-one would ever accuse you of being in your right mind.
IMHO Arianespace is not able to send any spacecraft, incl. an ATV, to dock with the (fake) ISS or to leave orbit and stop at the L2 point.Well, it looks like your Humble Opinion is totally up the creek
I explain why at my website - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#BNo, you don't explain anything except that you can't understand anything about space missions above LEO.
Well, it is a nice story but there is no evidence that LISA Pathfinder ever left any orbit direction the Sun and after 50 days stopped at the L2 point. It seems that Arianespace is an active co-conspirator of that nonsense. I am not surprised at all. I have to update http://heiwaco.com about it.;D ;D ;D Rubbish! ;D ;D ;D It's not my problem and I'm certain that Arianespace are right and your claims are total crap!Well, it looks like a printing error or a falsification. Suggest you contact Arianespace about it and tell us the result.Would anyone in their right mind[1] invest in a company that either lies to its customers or makes this may printing errors in their:Having established that, what is your understanding regarding them claiming they can deliver 19 and 21 tonnes of fuel to the ISS? Are they lying to us?It seems so. Or it is a printing error in the manual. Reason is that Arianespace cannot send a satellite into orbit that later docks with a another spacecraft (the ISS) in another orbit. The re-entry of the satellite after having visiting the ISS is not possible either. I explain why at my website. So I consider anybody stating having visited the ISS a paid liar.Ariane 5 User’s Manual Issue 5 Revision 2Extracts from Ariane 5 User’s Manual Issue 5 Revision 2So are Arianespace right in these claimed capabilities or do you insist that Arianespace are trying to deceive its customers.Quote from: Arianespace, Roland LAGIER, Senior Vice president Chief technical officerPerformance and launch missionSo note that Arianespace themselves claim that the Ariane 5/ECA can send:
2.4. General performance data
2.4.1. Geosynchronous transfer orbit missions(*) corresponding to 35786 km at first apogee
- Inclination i = 6 deg
- Altitude of perigee Zp = 250 km
- Altitude of apogee Za = 35943 km (*)
Injection is defined as the end of the upper stage shutdown.
The heavy lift capability of the launcher, . . . . . . . . . . .enables Ariane 5 to carry any type of spacecraft, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to the tallest and heaviest ones (9500 kg or even more), . . . . . . . . . towards the standard GTO.
2.4.3. Elliptical orbit missions
Here are some examples of performance estimate with A5ECA for different elliptical missions:
Injection towards the L2 Lagrangian point of the Sun/Earth system:
- apogee altitude 1,300,000 km
- perigee altitude 320 km
- performance 6.6 t
Injection towards the Moon:
- apogee altitude 385,600 km
- perigee altitude 300 km
- performance 7 t
2.4.5. International Space Station orbit
Ariane 5 equipped with a storable propellant upper stage in the ES version can serve the
International Space Station with the Automated Transfer Vehicle, on a Low Earth Circular
orbit:The performance varies between 19 and 21 t, depending on the specific mission.
- altitude range between 200 and 400 km
- inclination = 51.6 deg
From: Ariane5_Users-Manual_October2016.pdf (http://www.arianespace.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Ariane5_Users-Manual_October2016.pdf)
- 19 to 21 tonnes for re-fuelling the International Space Station with the Automated Transfer Vehicle, on a Low Earth Circular orbit,
- 9500 kg or even more towards the standard GTO,
- 7 tonnes towards the Moon and
- 6.6 tonnes towards the L2 Lagrangian point of the Sun/Earth system.
And if you are wrong in this matter why would anyone take the slightest notice of your ignorant claims about Nuclear Weapons, etc?
When one gets down to the nitty-gritty all of your claims reduce to,"If Heiwa can't understand some matter, it must be fake" - not so, all that proves is that "Heiwa can't understand that matter".
[1] But of course, no-one would ever accuse you of being in your right mind.Quote from: HeiwaIMHO Arianespace is not able to send any spacecraft, incl. an ATV, to dock with the (fake) ISS or to leave orbit and stop at the L2 point.Well, it looks like your Humble Opinion is totally up the creek
Arianespace Flight VV06 / LISA Pathfinder, ArianespaceQuote from: HeiwaI explain why at my website - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#BNo, you don't explain anything except that you can't understand anything about space missions above LEO.
Them you claim that since the smartest person in the world (you) can't understand these things, they must be impossible.
Well, Mr Heiwa you certainly aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer, so maybe you're wrong.
Yes, Mr Anders Björkman, for once I have to admit that you are 100% correct, "there is no evidence that LISA Pathfinder ever left any orbit direction the Sun and after 50 days stopped at the L2 point." because:Well, it is a nice story but there is no evidence that LISA Pathfinder ever left any orbit direction the Sun and after 50 days stopped at the L2 point. It seems that Arianespace is an active co-conspirator of that nonsense. I am not surprised at all. I have to update http://heiwaco.com about it.IMHO Arianespace is not able to send any spacecraft, incl. an ATV, to dock with the (fake) ISS or to leave orbit and stop at the L2 point.Well, it looks like your Humble Opinion is totally up the creek
Arianespace Flight VV06 / LISA Pathfinder, ArianespaceQuote from: HeiwaI explain why at my website - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#BNo, you don't explain anything except that you can't understand anything about space missions above LEO.
Them you claim that since the smartest person in the world (you) can't understand these things, they must be impossible.
Well, Mr Heiwa you certainly aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer, so maybe you're wrong.
Actually doing these manoeuvres is not that hard, but the planning and timing is definitely "hard" and needs detailed expertise and knowledge in orbital dynamics and astronomy.
But it is not so easy to put an artificial spacecraft in orbit around the Sun or Moon starting from Earth unless you go to the L1/2 points.
Why would anyone in their right mind, except maybe YOU, leave the "Earth" to go to the moon, L1 or Mars heading "vertically straight up like an ICBM"?
If you have too little speed leaving Earth vertically straight up like an ICBM, you will soon drop straight back on Earth due to the Earth gravity force (like an ICBM) and go faster and faster and be vaporized at re-entry. No orbit!
Sure, "If you manage to get away from Earth gravity force" in the wrong trajectory you might "be caught by Sun or Moon gravity forces.
If you manage to get away from Earth gravity force to be caught by Sun or Moon gravity forces but have too little speed to orbit the Sun or the Moon, you will first go slower and slower away from Earth and then be pulled into the Sun or Moon at increased speed by Sun or Moon gravity forces and crash. No orbit!
Of course you would, but as I said, "a competent orbital planner does not" plan a trajectory like that.
And if you have too much speed or go in the wrong direction, you will speed off into the Milky way or Universe and be lost forever. No orbit!
Of course "you cannot stop and get away from the unknown trajectory you are in", but "a competent orbital planner does not" plan a trajectory like that.
In all cases you cannot stop and get away from the unknown trajectory you are in. You are going too fast or too slow or in the wrong direction and have no fuel/energy to carry you home and ... you don't know, where you are. Satellite orbits are always one-way.
You again demonstrate your total ignorance of orbital mechanics, aero-braking and the operation of heat-shields.
You apply a force (by firing a rocket) at departure from ground and enter an orbit at the right speed, altitude and direction ... and you'll be there forever. If you have extra fuel aboard, you can do simple manouvers in space; e.g. increase the altitude of your Earth orbit. But you cannot return and land on a rotating Earth. There are no means to brake! You have no fuel for it.
Of course, if you do it wrong, it fails - why do you keep harping on that?
If you enter or leave orbit at the wrong, slow or high speed or too low altitude, you will sooner or later crash somewhere or disappear in the universe.
Vega placed the spacecraft into an elliptical orbit with perigee at 200 km, apogee at 1540 km and an inclination of about 6.5°.then (this is my interpretation only) into a Hohmann Transfer orbit about the earth with a perigee of 1540 km above the earth and apogee roughly 1,800,000 km to pass on the sun side of L1 then a burn to put the package into in the "500 000 km × 800 000 km Lissajous orbit around L1".
OPERATIONAL ORBIT
(http://sci.esa.int/science-e-media/img/content/images/2015/ESA_LISA_Pathfinder_Orbit_annotated_600w.jpg)
LISA Pathfinder's journey through space. Credit: ESA/ATG medialab
The operational orbit for LISA Pathfinder is a 500 000 km × 800 000 km Lissajous orbit around L1. This orbit has been chosen because it is an intrinsically 'quiet' place in space, far away from massive bodies, which induce tidal forces on the spacecraft; has constant illumination from the Sun; and has a quasi-constant distance from Earth for communication. This orbit fulfils the stringent requirements of LISA Pathfinder concerning thermal and gravitational stability.
This Lissajous orbit, with period of 180 days, is unstable and periodic station-keeping manoeuvres will be required - amounting to about 1.8 ms-1 per year - which will be performed using the cold gas thrusters of the spacecraft's micro-propulsion system.
From: lisa pathfinder, MISSION OPERATIONS: OVERVIEW (http://sci.esa.int/lisa-pathfinder/31436-overview/)
It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
I think Heiwa is tossing stale bread crumbs at pigeons.Fine. But this particular crumb is in the form of a non sequitur.
Heiwa, I implore you! Take Mark Twain's helpful advice:QuoteIt is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
I think Heiwa is tossing stale bread crumbs at pigeons.Fine. But this particular crumb is in the form of a non sequitur.
But you make such ridiculously stupid claims on your website that no respectable "an orbital planner" would bother reading through the garbage there.
Heiwa, I implore you! Take Mark Twain's helpful advice:QuoteIt is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
Thanks for visiting my website. It is correct that I am not "an orbital planner" and therefore pays anyone such planner €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Ok, so you admit you are not qualified to judge your own challenge. You have shown, many times, you don't have the money to pay your challenge. Tell me why we should not consider you a fraud and your challenge a fake? You are a proven liar, idiot, fraud, and failure. Why should anyone take your challenge serious when you have just admitted you are too stupid to judge it? I'd like an honest answer please.
Heiwa, I implore you! Take Mark Twain's helpful advice:QuoteIt is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
Thanks for visiting my website. It is correct that I am not "an orbital planner" and therefore pays anyone such planner €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
No, I just inform I am not an "orbital planner". It seems you must be an "orbital planner" to win my €1M but no such person has shown up to collect my money.Ok, so you admit you are not qualified to judge your own challenge. You have shown, many times, you don't have the money to pay your challenge. Tell me why we should not consider you a fraud and your challenge a fake? You are a proven liar, idiot, fraud, and failure. Why should anyone take your challenge serious when you have just admitted you are too stupid to judge it? I'd like an honest answer please.
Heiwa, I implore you! Take Mark Twain's helpful advice:QuoteIt is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
Thanks for visiting my website. It is correct that I am not "an orbital planner" and therefore pays anyone such planner €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
You admit you have no expertise in this field so are unqualified to judge. We have shown countless times you don't have the money to pay the challenge, in short you admit you are a fraud and a failure.No, I just inform I am not an "orbital planner". It seems you must be an "orbital planner" to win my €1M but no such person has shown up to collect my money.Ok, so you admit you are not qualified to judge your own challenge. You have shown, many times, you don't have the money to pay your challenge. Tell me why we should not consider you a fraud and your challenge a fake? You are a proven liar, idiot, fraud, and failure. Why should anyone take your challenge serious when you have just admitted you are too stupid to judge it? I'd like an honest answer please.
Heiwa, I implore you! Take Mark Twain's helpful advice:QuoteIt is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
Thanks for visiting my website. It is correct that I am not "an orbital planner" and therefore pays anyone such planner €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Reason is that "orbital planning" is impossible between moving heavenly bodies and variable gravity forces. Only twerps like you do not understand it.
If, as you freely admit, are not "orbital planner" then YOU are simply not qualified to make the statement:No, I just inform I am not an "orbital planner". It seems you must be an "orbital planner" to win my €1M but no such person has shown up to collect my money.Ok, so you admit you are not qualified to judge your own challenge. You have shown, many times, you don't have the money to pay your challenge. Tell me why we should not consider you a fraud and your challenge a fake? You are a proven liar, idiot, fraud, and failure. Why should anyone take your challenge serious when you have just admitted you are too stupid to judge it? I'd like an honest answer please.
Heiwa, I implore you! Take Mark Twain's helpful advice:QuoteIt is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
Thanks for visiting my website. It is correct that I am not "an orbital planner" and therefore pays anyone such planner €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Reason is that "orbital planning" is impossible between moving heavenly bodies and variable gravity forces. Only twerps like you do not understand it.
I don't agree.If, as you freely admit, are not "orbital planner" then YOU are simply not qualified to make the statement:No, I just inform I am not an "orbital planner". It seems you must be an "orbital planner" to win my €1M but no such person has shown up to collect my money.Ok, so you admit you are not qualified to judge your own challenge. You have shown, many times, you don't have the money to pay your challenge. Tell me why we should not consider you a fraud and your challenge a fake? You are a proven liar, idiot, fraud, and failure. Why should anyone take your challenge serious when you have just admitted you are too stupid to judge it? I'd like an honest answer please.
Heiwa, I implore you! Take Mark Twain's helpful advice:QuoteIt is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
Thanks for visiting my website. It is correct that I am not "an orbital planner" and therefore pays anyone such planner €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Reason is that "orbital planning" is impossible between moving heavenly bodies and variable gravity forces. Only twerps like you do not understand it."orbital planning is impossible between moving heavenly bodies and variable gravity forces."That is so obvious that only a twerp like you could fail to understand it.
I don't agree.You have admitted that you are not an "orbital planner",
I have checked many space trips, e.g. at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm (Apollo 11) and the orbital planning behind the latter and I have concluded it s all fake nonsense. Just fantasies.
You cannot (1) leave one orbit around Earth just by firing a rocket to (2) enter a second orbit ending close to the Moon and, (3) to get out of this second orbit to enter a third orbit around the Moon by firing another rocket, and (4) to leave that Moon orbit to land on the Moon. And then (5) start from the Moon and enter a new Moon orbit, (6) dock with your service/control module orbiting Moon, (7) get out of Moon orbit into a new orbit towards Earth by firing a rocket and, finally ( 8) arrive at the right time/location in Earth upper atmosphere to start (9) a re-entry.
Only twerps believe it is possible.
he'z uh injunear.An' jes' think! Four year ago I cudn' even spel injunear an' now I are wun.
You have admitted you lack the expertise to make such a determination. You have never supplied any evidence to support it, neither here nor at your website.I don't agree.If, as you freely admit, are not "orbital planner" then YOU are simply not qualified to make the statement:No, I just inform I am not an "orbital planner". It seems you must be an "orbital planner" to win my €1M but no such person has shown up to collect my money.Ok, so you admit you are not qualified to judge your own challenge. You have shown, many times, you don't have the money to pay your challenge. Tell me why we should not consider you a fraud and your challenge a fake? You are a proven liar, idiot, fraud, and failure. Why should anyone take your challenge serious when you have just admitted you are too stupid to judge it? I'd like an honest answer please.
Heiwa, I implore you! Take Mark Twain's helpful advice:QuoteIt is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
Thanks for visiting my website. It is correct that I am not "an orbital planner" and therefore pays anyone such planner €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Reason is that "orbital planning" is impossible between moving heavenly bodies and variable gravity forces. Only twerps like you do not understand it."orbital planning is impossible between moving heavenly bodies and variable gravity forces."That is so obvious that only a twerp like you could fail to understand it.
I have checked many space trips, e.g. at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm (Apollo 11) and the orbital planning behind the latter and I have concluded it s all fake nonsense. Just fantasies.
You cannot (1) leave one orbit around Earth just by firing a rocket to (2) enter a second orbit ending close to the Moon and, (3) to get out of this second orbit to enter a third orbit around the Moon by firing another rocket, and (4) to leave that Moon orbit to land on the Moon. And then (5) start from the Moon and enter a new Moon orbit, (6) dock with your service/control module orbiting Moon, (7) get out of Moon orbit into a new orbit towards Earth by firing a rocket and, finally (8) arrive at the right time/location in Earth upper atmosphere to start (9) a re-entry.
Only twerps believe it is possible.
No, only twerps think so. That's why they are twerps.You have admitted you lack the expertise to make such a determination. You have never supplied any evidence to support it, neither here nor at your website.I don't agree.If, as you freely admit, are not "orbital planner" then YOU are simply not qualified to make the statement:No, I just inform I am not an "orbital planner". It seems you must be an "orbital planner" to win my €1M but no such person has shown up to collect my money.Ok, so you admit you are not qualified to judge your own challenge. You have shown, many times, you don't have the money to pay your challenge. Tell me why we should not consider you a fraud and your challenge a fake? You are a proven liar, idiot, fraud, and failure. Why should anyone take your challenge serious when you have just admitted you are too stupid to judge it? I'd like an honest answer please.
Heiwa, I implore you! Take Mark Twain's helpful advice:QuoteIt is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
Thanks for visiting my website. It is correct that I am not "an orbital planner" and therefore pays anyone such planner €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Reason is that "orbital planning" is impossible between moving heavenly bodies and variable gravity forces. Only twerps like you do not understand it."orbital planning is impossible between moving heavenly bodies and variable gravity forces."That is so obvious that only a twerp like you could fail to understand it.
I have checked many space trips, e.g. at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm (Apollo 11) and the orbital planning behind the latter and I have concluded it s all fake nonsense. Just fantasies.
You cannot (1) leave one orbit around Earth just by firing a rocket to (2) enter a second orbit ending close to the Moon and, (3) to get out of this second orbit to enter a third orbit around the Moon by firing another rocket, and (4) to leave that Moon orbit to land on the Moon. And then (5) start from the Moon and enter a new Moon orbit, (6) dock with your service/control module orbiting Moon, (7) get out of Moon orbit into a new orbit towards Earth by firing a rocket and, finally (8) arrive at the right time/location in Earth upper atmosphere to start (9) a re-entry.
Only twerps believe it is possible.
You are a liar and a fraud who lacks the understanding or the money required to make your challenges legit.
You have admitted you lack the expertise to make such a determination. You have never supplied any evidence to support it, neither here nor at your website.No, only twerps think so. That's why they are twerps.You have admitted you lack the expertise to make such a determination. You have never supplied any evidence to support it, neither here nor at your website.I don't agree.If, as you freely admit, are not "orbital planner" then YOU are simply not qualified to make the statement:No, I just inform I am not an "orbital planner". It seems you must be an "orbital planner" to win my €1M but no such person has shown up to collect my money.Ok, so you admit you are not qualified to judge your own challenge. You have shown, many times, you don't have the money to pay your challenge. Tell me why we should not consider you a fraud and your challenge a fake? You are a proven liar, idiot, fraud, and failure. Why should anyone take your challenge serious when you have just admitted you are too stupid to judge it? I'd like an honest answer please.
Heiwa, I implore you! Take Mark Twain's helpful advice:QuoteIt is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
Thanks for visiting my website. It is correct that I am not "an orbital planner" and therefore pays anyone such planner €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Reason is that "orbital planning" is impossible between moving heavenly bodies and variable gravity forces. Only twerps like you do not understand it."orbital planning is impossible between moving heavenly bodies and variable gravity forces."That is so obvious that only a twerp like you could fail to understand it.
I have checked many space trips, e.g. at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm (Apollo 11) and the orbital planning behind the latter and I have concluded it s all fake nonsense. Just fantasies.
You cannot (1) leave one orbit around Earth just by firing a rocket to (2) enter a second orbit ending close to the Moon and, (3) to get out of this second orbit to enter a third orbit around the Moon by firing another rocket, and (4) to leave that Moon orbit to land on the Moon. And then (5) start from the Moon and enter a new Moon orbit, (6) dock with your service/control module orbiting Moon, (7) get out of Moon orbit into a new orbit towards Earth by firing a rocket and, finally (8) arrive at the right time/location in Earth upper atmosphere to start (9) a re-entry.
Only twerps believe it is possible.
You are a liar and a fraud who lacks the understanding or the money required to make your challenges legit.
No, only twerps think so. That's why they are twerps.You have admitted you lack the expertise to make such a determination. You have never supplied any evidence to support it, neither here nor at your website.No, only twerps think so. That's why they are twerps.You have admitted you lack the expertise to make such a determination. You have never supplied any evidence to support it, neither here nor at your website.I don't agree.If, as you freely admit, are not "orbital planner" then YOU are simply not qualified to make the statement:No, I just inform I am not an "orbital planner". It seems you must be an "orbital planner" to win my €1M but no such person has shown up to collect my money.Ok, so you admit you are not qualified to judge your own challenge. You have shown, many times, you don't have the money to pay your challenge. Tell me why we should not consider you a fraud and your challenge a fake? You are a proven liar, idiot, fraud, and failure. Why should anyone take your challenge serious when you have just admitted you are too stupid to judge it? I'd like an honest answer please.
Heiwa, I implore you! Take Mark Twain's helpful advice:QuoteIt is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
Thanks for visiting my website. It is correct that I am not "an orbital planner" and therefore pays anyone such planner €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Reason is that "orbital planning" is impossible between moving heavenly bodies and variable gravity forces. Only twerps like you do not understand it."orbital planning is impossible between moving heavenly bodies and variable gravity forces."That is so obvious that only a twerp like you could fail to understand it.
I have checked many space trips, e.g. at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm (Apollo 11) and the orbital planning behind the latter and I have concluded it s all fake nonsense. Just fantasies.
You cannot (1) leave one orbit around Earth just by firing a rocket to (2) enter a second orbit ending close to the Moon and, (3) to get out of this second orbit to enter a third orbit around the Moon by firing another rocket, and (4) to leave that Moon orbit to land on the Moon. And then (5) start from the Moon and enter a new Moon orbit, (6) dock with your service/control module orbiting Moon, (7) get out of Moon orbit into a new orbit towards Earth by firing a rocket and, finally (8) arrive at the right time/location in Earth upper atmosphere to start (9) a re-entry.
Only twerps believe it is possible.
You are a liar and a fraud who lacks the understanding or the money required to make your challenges legit.
You are a liar and a fraud who lacks the understanding or the money required to make your challenges legit.
You have admitted you lack the expertise to make such a determination. You have never supplied any evidence to support it, neither here nor at your website.No, only twerps think so. That's why they are twerps.You have admitted you lack the expertise to make such a determination. You have never supplied any evidence to support it, neither here nor at your website.No, only twerps think so. That's why they are twerps.You have admitted you lack the expertise to make such a determination. You have never supplied any evidence to support it, neither here nor at your website.I don't agree.If, as you freely admit, are not "orbital planner" then YOU are simply not qualified to make the statement:No, I just inform I am not an "orbital planner". It seems you must be an "orbital planner" to win my €1M but no such person has shown up to collect my money.Ok, so you admit you are not qualified to judge your own challenge. You have shown, many times, you don't have the money to pay your challenge. Tell me why we should not consider you a fraud and your challenge a fake? You are a proven liar, idiot, fraud, and failure. Why should anyone take your challenge serious when you have just admitted you are too stupid to judge it? I'd like an honest answer please.
Heiwa, I implore you! Take Mark Twain's helpful advice:QuoteIt is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
Thanks for visiting my website. It is correct that I am not "an orbital planner" and therefore pays anyone such planner €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Reason is that "orbital planning" is impossible between moving heavenly bodies and variable gravity forces. Only twerps like you do not understand it."orbital planning is impossible between moving heavenly bodies and variable gravity forces."That is so obvious that only a twerp like you could fail to understand it.
I have checked many space trips, e.g. at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm (Apollo 11) and the orbital planning behind the latter and I have concluded it s all fake nonsense. Just fantasies.
You cannot (1) leave one orbit around Earth just by firing a rocket to (2) enter a second orbit ending close to the Moon and, (3) to get out of this second orbit to enter a third orbit around the Moon by firing another rocket, and (4) to leave that Moon orbit to land on the Moon. And then (5) start from the Moon and enter a new Moon orbit, (6) dock with your service/control module orbiting Moon, (7) get out of Moon orbit into a new orbit towards Earth by firing a rocket and, finally (8) arrive at the right time/location in Earth upper atmosphere to start (9) a re-entry.
Only twerps believe it is possible.
You are a liar and a fraud who lacks the understanding or the money required to make your challenges legit.
You are a liar and a fraud who lacks the understanding or the money required to make your challenges legit.
You, yourself, admitted that you were not qualified to make such an assessment, so I'll delete the rest of your claims to save you further embarrassment.If, as you freely admit, are not "orbital planner" then YOU are simply not qualified to make the statement:I don't agree."orbital planning is impossible between moving heavenly bodies and variable gravity forces."That is so obvious that only a twerp like you could fail to understand it.
I have checked many space trips, e.g. at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm (Apollo 11) and the orbital planning behind the latter and I have concluded it s all fake nonsense. Just fantasies.
<< unsupported claims omitted >>If you think that, read this kiddie's description (about your level) of the Apollo 11 mission
You, yourself, admitted that you were not qualified to make such an assessment, so I'll delete the rest of your claims to save you further embarrassment.If, as you freely admit, are not "orbital planner" then YOU are simply not qualified to make the statement:I don't agree."orbital planning is impossible between moving heavenly bodies and variable gravity forces."That is so obvious that only a twerp like you could fail to understand it.
I have checked many space trips, e.g. at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm (Apollo 11) and the orbital planning behind the latter and I have concluded it s all fake nonsense. Just fantasies.Quote from: Heiwa<< unsupported claims omitted >>If you think that, read this kiddie's description (about your level) of the Apollo 11 mission
SPACE.com, The Apollo Moon Landings: How They Worked (Infographic) (https://www.space.com/26572-how-it-worked-the-apollo-spacecraft-infographic.html) and then explain, with calculations why it would not work!
And don't say it's explained in Heiwa's Failure to explain Apollo 11 (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm) because all that says is that you can't understand how it was done.
Your (or my) failure to understand something proves nothing more than that you (and) don't understand it!
Remember, only the ignorant believe something is impossible before they understand the details.“The difficult we do immediately. The impossible takes a little longer.” - Motto of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during World War II.
That was funny. It's good to know we kept our sense of humor in the future.You, yourself, admitted that you were not qualified to make such an assessment, so I'll delete the rest of your claims to save you further embarrassment.If, as you freely admit, are not "orbital planner" then YOU are simply not qualified to make the statement:I don't agree."orbital planning is impossible between moving heavenly bodies and variable gravity forces."That is so obvious that only a twerp like you could fail to understand it.
I have checked many space trips, e.g. at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm (Apollo 11) and the orbital planning behind the latter and I have concluded it s all fake nonsense. Just fantasies.Quote from: Heiwa<< unsupported claims omitted >>If you think that, read this kiddie's description (about your level) of the Apollo 11 mission
SPACE.com, The Apollo Moon Landings: How They Worked (Infographic) (https://www.space.com/26572-how-it-worked-the-apollo-spacecraft-infographic.html) and then explain, with calculations why it would not work!
And don't say it's explained in Heiwa's Failure to explain Apollo 11 (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm) because all that says is that you can't understand how it was done.
Your (or my) failure to understand something proves nothing more than that you (and) don't understand it!
Remember, only the ignorant believe something is impossible before they understand the details.“The difficult we do immediately. The impossible takes a little longer.” - Motto of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during World War II.
You can find all his answers as he discusses that very topic on his popular website www.ratemypoo.com
You can find all his answers as he discusses that very topic on his popular website www.ratemypoo.com (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm).Where he proves that human space flight is impossible because he thinks toilets can't work in micro-gravity.
Yes, the videos of asstronuts strapping themselves upside down to the toilets on the ISS are really funny with the shit flying around.You can find all his answers as he discusses that very topic on his popular website www.ratemypoo.com (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm).Where he proves that human space flight is impossible because he thinks toilets can't work in micro-gravity.
What is upside down in micro-gravity? There is no up and down, only the convention of what is called the floor.Yes, the videos of asstronuts strapping themselves upside down to the toilets on the ISS are really funny with the shit flying around.You can find all his answers as he discusses that very topic on his popular website www.ratemypoo.com (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm).Where he proves that human space flight is impossible because he thinks toilets can't work in micro-gravity.
Heiwa thinks the only way space travel is possible is if there is a powder room and functional bathroom complete with a hot bath sprinkled with rose petals. ::) ::) ::) ;DI left this one out, ;D :-[ Give me a napkin quick. There's a . . . . . floating through the air (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2306405/Give-napkin-quick-Theres-turd-floating-air-Transcript-reveals-toilet-tribulations-Apollo-astronauts.html#ixzz5CGeOgQCG) :-[ ;D
Heiwa, maybe your description was not too far out! Who'd be a pre-Space Shuttle astronaut?
But let's face. If a 100 kg asstronut applies a 1 N force on a fixed object, he/she will accelerate at 1 m/s² in the opposite direction ... and must stop one way or other. If you stop by poking a finger the finger is broken, if you stop using your head, you'll get hurt. It is not fun to cruise in space.Incorrect and how would you know that it is not fun to cruise in space? When were you last in space?
It looks right side up to me. No poo flying around either.Yes, the videos of asstronuts strapping themselves upside down to the toilets on the ISS are really funny with the shit flying around.You can find all his answers as he discusses that very topic on his popular website www.ratemypoo.com (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm).Where he proves that human space flight is impossible because he thinks toilets can't work in micro-gravity.
*sigh* More shoddy research (or lack thereof).
Heiwa, maybe your description was not too far out! Who'd be a pre-Space Shuttle astronaut?
Well, I have seen plenty videos of alleged asstronuts in microgravity ISS telling how fabulous it is cruising up there, incl. the toilets. They are all dressed in tee-shirts and jeans, bla, bla. I would have expected helmets on the heads, protective jackets and trousers, etc, to protect against collisions and contacts with fixed objects like floors, roofs, walls and equipment fixed there.
But no, nobody has ever been hurt inside the ISS since the beginning.
Yes, it was a typo. You need of course a 100 N force to accelerate a 100 kg mass 1 m/s² .But let's face. If a 100 kg asstronut applies a 1 N force on a fixed object, he/she will accelerate at 1 m/s² in the opposite direction ... and must stop one way or other. If you stop by poking a finger the finger is broken, if you stop using your head, you'll get hurt. It is not fun to cruise in space.Incorrect and how would you know that it is not fun to cruise in space? When were you last in space?
If a 100 kg astronaut applies a 1 N force on a fixed object, he/she will accelerate at 0.01 m/s2 in the opposite direction for as long as he is applying that pressure.
No wonder you can't work out how fast rockets go!
So if he applied that pressure for 10 seconds he would still be travelling at only 0.1 m/s (only 0.36 km/hr) and hitting something at that speed wouldn't matter.
But agile astronauts move around much faster than that, going from "touch-point" to "touch-point" and stopping with hands or feet.;D ;D You must really be a clumsy blighter and not very good at sums either. ;D ;D
You continually use your own total ignorance to prove that human space travel is impossible, but all you prove is your own total ignorance!
Why do you drag pressure (Pa) into it? Nobody but you suggested "you apply one force over one square meter in space".Yes, it was a typo. You need of course a 100 N force to accelerate a 100 kg mass 1 m/s² .But let's face. If a 100 kg asstronut applies a 1 N force on a fixed object, he/she will accelerate at 1 m/s² in the opposite direction ... and must stop one way or other. If you stop by poking a finger the finger is broken, if you stop using your head, you'll get hurt. It is not fun to cruise in space.Incorrect and how would you know that it is not fun to cruise in space? When were you last in space?
If a 100 kg astronaut applies a 1 N force on a fixed object, he/she will accelerate at 0.01 m/s2 in the opposite direction for as long as he is applying that pressure.
No wonder you can't work out how fast rockets go!
So if he applied that pressure for 10 seconds he would still be travelling at only 0.1 m/s (only 0.36 km/hr) and hitting something at that speed wouldn't matter.
But agile astronauts move around much faster than that, going from "touch-point" to "touch-point" and stopping with hands or feet.;D ;D You must really be a clumsy blighter and not very good at sums either. ;D ;D
You continually use your own total ignorance to prove that human space travel is impossible, but all you prove is your own total ignorance!
Pressure (Pa) is something else. It is force 1N per square meter. But don't ask me how you apply one force over one square meter in space.
With your massive goof about force and acceleration, I ignored this before.
Heiwa, maybe your description was not too far out! Who'd be a pre-Space Shuttle astronaut?
Well, I have seen plenty videos of alleged asstronuts in microgravity ISS telling how fabulous it is cruising up there, incl. the toilets. They are all dressed in tee-shirts and jeans, bla, bla. I would have expected helmets on the heads, protective jackets and trousers, etc, to protect against collisions and contacts with fixed objects like floors, roofs, walls and equipment fixed there.
[ISS] Station Re-boost From Inside Station, Space Videos | Demonstration of Acceleration Inside the International Space Station During a Reboost, CosmiCoolSpaceVids |
But no, nobody has ever been hurt inside the ISS since the beginning.Only a twerp would expect that they might be and they're safer than at home from dropping things on their toes!
I thought it was you introducing pressure (N/m²) in the discussion. I only suggest that applying a force N to an object kg in space, e.g. an asstronut floating inside a spacecraft, the asstronot accelerates.Why do you drag pressure (Pa) into it? Nobody but you suggested "you apply one force over one square meter in space".Yes, it was a typo. You need of course a 100 N force to accelerate a 100 kg mass 1 m/s² .But let's face. If a 100 kg asstronut applies a 1 N force on a fixed object, he/she will accelerate at 1 m/s² in the opposite direction ... and must stop one way or other. If you stop by poking a finger the finger is broken, if you stop using your head, you'll get hurt. It is not fun to cruise in space.Incorrect and how would you know that it is not fun to cruise in space? When were you last in space?
If a 100 kg astronaut applies a 1 N force on a fixed object, he/she will accelerate at 0.01 m/s2 in the opposite direction for as long as he is applying that pressure.
No wonder you can't work out how fast rockets go!
So if he applied that pressure for 10 seconds he would still be travelling at only 0.1 m/s (only 0.36 km/hr) and hitting something at that speed wouldn't matter.
But agile astronauts move around much faster than that, going from "touch-point" to "touch-point" and stopping with hands or feet.;D ;D You must really be a clumsy blighter and not very good at sums either. ;D ;D
You continually use your own total ignorance to prove that human space travel is impossible, but all you prove is your own total ignorance!
Pressure (Pa) is something else. It is force 1N per square meter. But don't ask me how you apply one force over one square meter in space.
That was never in your original claim.
100 N is would lift 9.8 kg on earth. No astronaut would apply a force of 100 N to anything accidentally.
Yes, I did write "pressure" where I should have stuck to "force", but I never mentioned any area. My mistake, that one.I thought it was you introducing pressure (N/m²) in the discussion. I only suggest that applying a force N to an object kg in space, e.g. an asstronut floating inside a spacecraft, the asstronot accelerates.Why do you drag pressure (Pa) into it? Nobody but you suggested "you apply one force over one square meter in space".Yes, it was a typo. You need of course a 100 N force to accelerate a 100 kg mass 1 m/s² .But let's face. If a 100 kg asstronut applies a 1 N force on a fixed object, he/she will accelerate at 1 m/s² in the opposite direction ... and must stop one way or other. If you stop by poking a finger the finger is broken, if you stop using your head, you'll get hurt. It is not fun to cruise in space.Incorrect and how would you know that it is not fun to cruise in space? When were you last in space?
If a 100 kg astronaut applies a 1 N force on a fixed object, he/she will accelerate at 0.01 m/s2 in the opposite direction for as long as he is applying that pressure.
No wonder you can't work out how fast rockets go!
So if he applied that pressure for 10 seconds he would still be travelling at only 0.1 m/s (only 0.36 km/hr) and hitting something at that speed wouldn't matter.
But agile astronauts move around much faster than that, going from "touch-point" to "touch-point" and stopping with hands or feet.;D ;D You must really be a clumsy blighter and not very good at sums either. ;D ;D
You continually use your own total ignorance to prove that human space travel is impossible, but all you prove is your own total ignorance!
Pressure (Pa) is something else. It is force 1N per square meter. But don't ask me how you apply one force over one square meter in space.
That was never in your original claim.
100 N is would lift 9.8 kg on earth. No astronaut would apply a force of 100 N to anything accidentally.
Applying a force 100 N to an 9.8 kg object X on Earth, will accelerate X at 10.2 m/s² . It's like driving a car - push the accelerator and the car accelerates. Push the brake and the car slows down. But it doesn't work in space. Only twerps think so.Sure, there may be no brakes, just hands and feet, but there is also no accelerator, other than those same hands and feet.
Yes, I did write "pressure" where I should have stuck to "force", but I never mentioned any area. My mistake, that one.I thought it was you introducing pressure (N/m²) in the discussion. I only suggest that applying a force N to an object kg in space, e.g. an asstronut floating inside a spacecraft, the asstronot accelerates.Why do you drag pressure (Pa) into it? Nobody but you suggested "you apply one force over one square meter in space".Yes, it was a typo. You need of course a 100 N force to accelerate a 100 kg mass 1 m/s² .But let's face. If a 100 kg asstronut applies a 1 N force on a fixed object, he/she will accelerate at 1 m/s² in the opposite direction ... and must stop one way or other. If you stop by poking a finger the finger is broken, if you stop using your head, you'll get hurt. It is not fun to cruise in space.Incorrect and how would you know that it is not fun to cruise in space? When were you last in space?
If a 100 kg astronaut applies a 1 N force on a fixed object, he/she will accelerate at 0.01 m/s2 in the opposite direction for as long as he is applying that pressure.
No wonder you can't work out how fast rockets go!
So if he applied that pressure for 10 seconds he would still be travelling at only 0.1 m/s (only 0.36 km/hr) and hitting something at that speed wouldn't matter.
But agile astronauts move around much faster than that, going from "touch-point" to "touch-point" and stopping with hands or feet.;D ;D You must really be a clumsy blighter and not very good at sums either. ;D ;D
You continually use your own total ignorance to prove that human space travel is impossible, but all you prove is your own total ignorance!
Pressure (Pa) is something else. It is force 1N per square meter. But don't ask me how you apply one force over one square meter in space.
That was never in your original claim.
100 N is would lift 9.8 kg on earth. No astronaut would apply a force of 100 N to anything accidentally.Quote from: HeiwaApplying a force 100 N to an 9.8 kg object X on Earth, will accelerate X at 10.2 m/s² . It's like driving a car - push the accelerator and the car accelerates. Push the brake and the car slows down. But it doesn't work in space. Only twerps think so.Sure, there may be no brakes, just hands and feet, but there is also no accelerator, other than those same hands and feet.
Certainly manoeuvring in a micro-g environment requires training and experience in say the Vomit Comets.
But what would apply a force of 100 N to even an 80 kg person in the ISS?
I still fail to see why there would be any risk of injury. You did see the videos of the very slight disturbance even during a re-boost burn.
But as with everything else to do with human space travel and orbits above LEO, it seems that if you can't understand it, then it must be a fake!
That's not true in the slightest! All it means is that you can't understand something and that, of itself, is nothing to be ashamed of.
There wouldn't be one person on earth that knows or understands everything.
:D Though many flat-earthers (I know you're not one) do seem to claim that they do. :D
Oscar Wilde put it like this, "I am not young enough to know everything." and
Einstein wrote, "The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know."
Yes, I did write "pressure" where I should have stuck to "force", but I never mentioned any area. My mistake, that one.I thought it was you introducing pressure (N/m²) in the discussion. I only suggest that applying a force N to an object kg in space, e.g. an asstronut floating inside a spacecraft, the asstronot accelerates.Why do you drag pressure (Pa) into it? Nobody but you suggested "you apply one force over one square meter in space".Yes, it was a typo. You need of course a 100 N force to accelerate a 100 kg mass 1 m/s² .But let's face. If a 100 kg asstronut applies a 1 N force on a fixed object, he/she will accelerate at 1 m/s² in the opposite direction ... and must stop one way or other. If you stop by poking a finger the finger is broken, if you stop using your head, you'll get hurt. It is not fun to cruise in space.Incorrect and how would you know that it is not fun to cruise in space? When were you last in space?
If a 100 kg astronaut applies a 1 N force on a fixed object, he/she will accelerate at 0.01 m/s2 in the opposite direction for as long as he is applying that pressure.
No wonder you can't work out how fast rockets go!
So if he applied that pressure for 10 seconds he would still be travelling at only 0.1 m/s (only 0.36 km/hr) and hitting something at that speed wouldn't matter.
But agile astronauts move around much faster than that, going from "touch-point" to "touch-point" and stopping with hands or feet.;D ;D You must really be a clumsy blighter and not very good at sums either. ;D ;D
You continually use your own total ignorance to prove that human space travel is impossible, but all you prove is your own total ignorance!
Pressure (Pa) is something else. It is force 1N per square meter. But don't ask me how you apply one force over one square meter in space.
That was never in your original claim.
100 N is would lift 9.8 kg on earth. No astronaut would apply a force of 100 N to anything accidentally.Quote from: HeiwaApplying a force 100 N to an 9.8 kg object X on Earth, will accelerate X at 10.2 m/s² . It's like driving a car - push the accelerator and the car accelerates. Push the brake and the car slows down. But it doesn't work in space. Only twerps think so.Sure, there may be no brakes, just hands and feet, but there is also no accelerator, other than those same hands and feet.
Certainly manoeuvring in a micro-g environment requires training and experience in say the Vomit Comets.
But what would apply a force of 100 N to even an 80 kg person in the ISS?
I still fail to see why there would be any risk of injury. You did see the videos of the very slight disturbance even during a re-boost burn.
But as with everything else to do with human space travel and orbits above LEO, it seems that if you can't understand it, then it must be a fake!
That's not true in the slightest! All it means is that you can't understand something and that, of itself, is nothing to be ashamed of.
There wouldn't be one person on earth that knows or understands everything.
:D Though many flat-earthers (I know you're not one) do seem to claim that they do. :D
Oscar Wilde put it like this, "I am not young enough to know everything." and
Einstein wrote, "The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know."
Please note that I support robotic space travel in orbits around Earth. I consider all other space missions Fake News. Humans cannot even survive in space. I explain why at my website.
Please note also that, according NASA, the asstronuts must strap themselves to the toilet when using it. If not they will fly away and hurt themselves.
All videos with asstronuts making micro gravity tricks remind me of monkeys at a zoo.
No you do not "explain why at your website"!
Please note that I support robotic space travel in orbits around Earth. I consider all other space missions Fake News. Humans cannot even survive in space. I explain why at my website.
Please note also that, according NASA, the asstronuts must strap themselves to the toilet when using it. If not they will fly away and hurt themselves.No, NASA do not say "If not they will fly away and hurt themselves". Either show your source, or admit to lying!
Wow. You are a poor engineer.I thought it was you introducing pressure (N/m²) in the discussion. I only suggest that applying a force N to an object kg in space, e.g. an asstronut floating inside a spacecraft, the asstronot accelerates.Why do you drag pressure (Pa) into it? Nobody but you suggested "you apply one force over one square meter in space".Yes, it was a typo. You need of course a 100 N force to accelerate a 100 kg mass 1 m/s² .But let's face. If a 100 kg asstronut applies a 1 N force on a fixed object, he/she will accelerate at 1 m/s² in the opposite direction ... and must stop one way or other. If you stop by poking a finger the finger is broken, if you stop using your head, you'll get hurt. It is not fun to cruise in space.Incorrect and how would you know that it is not fun to cruise in space? When were you last in space?
If a 100 kg astronaut applies a 1 N force on a fixed object, he/she will accelerate at 0.01 m/s2 in the opposite direction for as long as he is applying that pressure.
No wonder you can't work out how fast rockets go!
So if he applied that pressure for 10 seconds he would still be travelling at only 0.1 m/s (only 0.36 km/hr) and hitting something at that speed wouldn't matter.
But agile astronauts move around much faster than that, going from "touch-point" to "touch-point" and stopping with hands or feet.;D ;D You must really be a clumsy blighter and not very good at sums either. ;D ;D
You continually use your own total ignorance to prove that human space travel is impossible, but all you prove is your own total ignorance!
Pressure (Pa) is something else. It is force 1N per square meter. But don't ask me how you apply one force over one square meter in space.
That was never in your original claim.
100 N is would lift 9.8 kg on earth. No astronaut would apply a force of 100 N to anything accidentally.
Applying a force 100 N to an 9.8 kg object X on Earth, will accelerate X at 10.2 m/s² . It's like driving a car - push the accelerator and the car accelerates. Push the brake and the car slows down. But it doesn't work in space. Only twerps think so.
Not at all. When US TT Exxon Valdez went aground 1989 and spilled oil in Alaska waters USA asked interested parties to come up with better and safer oil tanker designs spilling less oil in all types of incidents. I then developed the Coulombi Egg tanker that is much better than US Oil Pollution Act 1990 designs - http://heiwaco.com/ce_coulombiegg.htm . It won many prizes for least oil spills, highest safety, lowest construction and maintenance costs, etc.Wow. You are a poor engineer.I thought it was you introducing pressure (N/m²) in the discussion. I only suggest that applying a force N to an object kg in space, e.g. an asstronut floating inside a spacecraft, the asstronot accelerates.Why do you drag pressure (Pa) into it? Nobody but you suggested "you apply one force over one square meter in space".Yes, it was a typo. You need of course a 100 N force to accelerate a 100 kg mass 1 m/s² .But let's face. If a 100 kg asstronut applies a 1 N force on a fixed object, he/she will accelerate at 1 m/s² in the opposite direction ... and must stop one way or other. If you stop by poking a finger the finger is broken, if you stop using your head, you'll get hurt. It is not fun to cruise in space.Incorrect and how would you know that it is not fun to cruise in space? When were you last in space?
If a 100 kg astronaut applies a 1 N force on a fixed object, he/she will accelerate at 0.01 m/s2 in the opposite direction for as long as he is applying that pressure.
No wonder you can't work out how fast rockets go!
So if he applied that pressure for 10 seconds he would still be travelling at only 0.1 m/s (only 0.36 km/hr) and hitting something at that speed wouldn't matter.
But agile astronauts move around much faster than that, going from "touch-point" to "touch-point" and stopping with hands or feet.;D ;D You must really be a clumsy blighter and not very good at sums either. ;D ;D
You continually use your own total ignorance to prove that human space travel is impossible, but all you prove is your own total ignorance!
Pressure (Pa) is something else. It is force 1N per square meter. But don't ask me how you apply one force over one square meter in space.
That was never in your original claim.
100 N is would lift 9.8 kg on earth. No astronaut would apply a force of 100 N to anything accidentally.
Applying a force 100 N to an 9.8 kg object X on Earth, will accelerate X at 10.2 m/s² . It's like driving a car - push the accelerator and the car accelerates. Push the brake and the car slows down. But it doesn't work in space. Only twerps think so.
Interestingly a google search does bring up several articles about this design but not one has any reference to you at all. You seem to be the only one who claims you had anything to do with it.Not at all. When US TT Exxon Valdez went aground 1989 and spilled oil in Alaska waters USA asked interested parties to come up with better and safer oil tanker designs spilling less oil in all types of incidents. I then developed the Coulombi Egg tanker that is much better than US Oil Pollution Act 1990 designs - http://heiwaco.com/ce_coulombiegg.htm . It won many prizes for least oil spills, highest safety, lowest construction and maintenance costs, etc.Wow. You are a poor engineer.I thought it was you introducing pressure (N/m²) in the discussion. I only suggest that applying a force N to an object kg in space, e.g. an asstronut floating inside a spacecraft, the asstronot accelerates.Why do you drag pressure (Pa) into it? Nobody but you suggested "you apply one force over one square meter in space".Yes, it was a typo. You need of course a 100 N force to accelerate a 100 kg mass 1 m/s² .But let's face. If a 100 kg asstronut applies a 1 N force on a fixed object, he/she will accelerate at 1 m/s² in the opposite direction ... and must stop one way or other. If you stop by poking a finger the finger is broken, if you stop using your head, you'll get hurt. It is not fun to cruise in space.Incorrect and how would you know that it is not fun to cruise in space? When were you last in space?
If a 100 kg astronaut applies a 1 N force on a fixed object, he/she will accelerate at 0.01 m/s2 in the opposite direction for as long as he is applying that pressure.
No wonder you can't work out how fast rockets go!
So if he applied that pressure for 10 seconds he would still be travelling at only 0.1 m/s (only 0.36 km/hr) and hitting something at that speed wouldn't matter.
But agile astronauts move around much faster than that, going from "touch-point" to "touch-point" and stopping with hands or feet.;D ;D You must really be a clumsy blighter and not very good at sums either. ;D ;D
You continually use your own total ignorance to prove that human space travel is impossible, but all you prove is your own total ignorance!
Pressure (Pa) is something else. It is force 1N per square meter. But don't ask me how you apply one force over one square meter in space.
That was never in your original claim.
100 N is would lift 9.8 kg on earth. No astronaut would apply a force of 100 N to anything accidentally.
Applying a force 100 N to an 9.8 kg object X on Earth, will accelerate X at 10.2 m/s² . It's like driving a car - push the accelerator and the car accelerates. Push the brake and the car slows down. But it doesn't work in space. Only twerps think so.
The design was finally unanimously approved (incl. USA) by United Nations/International Maritime Organization September 1997 for worldwide use.
We all celebrated this event but ... the next day USA/USCG (now Department of Homeland Security) announced that no Coulombi Egg tankers would be permitted to enter US port.
You have to be a really good engineer for it.
BTW - the design was developed using damage statistics. The protection was simply put/arranged where the risk of spills was highest with the results that outflows were minimal. Also the design was easier and cheaper to build and to maintain. I am quite proud of it.
Have you ever done anything similar than sailing around in a nuclear submarine?
It actually is his design. BTW, it's been rejected by everyone.Interestingly a google search does bring up several articles about this design but not one has any reference to you at all. You seem to be the only one who claims you had anything to do with it.Not at all. When US TT Exxon Valdez went aground 1989 and spilled oil in Alaska waters USA asked interested parties to come up with better and safer oil tanker designs spilling less oil in all types of incidents. I then developed the Coulombi Egg tanker that is much better than US Oil Pollution Act 1990 designs - http://heiwaco.com/ce_coulombiegg.htm . It won many prizes for least oil spills, highest safety, lowest construction and maintenance costs, etc.Wow. You are a poor engineer.I thought it was you introducing pressure (N/m²) in the discussion. I only suggest that applying a force N to an object kg in space, e.g. an asstronut floating inside a spacecraft, the asstronot accelerates.Why do you drag pressure (Pa) into it? Nobody but you suggested "you apply one force over one square meter in space".Yes, it was a typo. You need of course a 100 N force to accelerate a 100 kg mass 1 m/s² .But let's face. If a 100 kg asstronut applies a 1 N force on a fixed object, he/she will accelerate at 1 m/s² in the opposite direction ... and must stop one way or other. If you stop by poking a finger the finger is broken, if you stop using your head, you'll get hurt. It is not fun to cruise in space.Incorrect and how would you know that it is not fun to cruise in space? When were you last in space?
If a 100 kg astronaut applies a 1 N force on a fixed object, he/she will accelerate at 0.01 m/s2 in the opposite direction for as long as he is applying that pressure.
No wonder you can't work out how fast rockets go!
So if he applied that pressure for 10 seconds he would still be travelling at only 0.1 m/s (only 0.36 km/hr) and hitting something at that speed wouldn't matter.
But agile astronauts move around much faster than that, going from "touch-point" to "touch-point" and stopping with hands or feet.;D ;D You must really be a clumsy blighter and not very good at sums either. ;D ;D
You continually use your own total ignorance to prove that human space travel is impossible, but all you prove is your own total ignorance!
Pressure (Pa) is something else. It is force 1N per square meter. But don't ask me how you apply one force over one square meter in space.
That was never in your original claim.
100 N is would lift 9.8 kg on earth. No astronaut would apply a force of 100 N to anything accidentally.
Applying a force 100 N to an 9.8 kg object X on Earth, will accelerate X at 10.2 m/s² . It's like driving a car - push the accelerator and the car accelerates. Push the brake and the car slows down. But it doesn't work in space. Only twerps think so.
The design was finally unanimously approved (incl. USA) by United Nations/International Maritime Organization September 1997 for worldwide use.
We all celebrated this event but ... the next day USA/USCG (now Department of Homeland Security) announced that no Coulombi Egg tankers would be permitted to enter US port.
You have to be a really good engineer for it.
BTW - the design was developed using damage statistics. The protection was simply put/arranged where the risk of spills was highest with the results that outflows were minimal. Also the design was easier and cheaper to build and to maintain. I am quite proud of it.
Have you ever done anything similar than sailing around in a nuclear submarine?
Not that it's anywhere close to being on topic, but have you ever built and tested a large scale prototype to see how well the design actually works?Wow. You are a poor engineer.Not at all. When US TT Exxon Valdez went aground 1989 and spilled oil in Alaska waters USA asked interested parties to come up with better and safer oil tanker designs spilling less oil in all types of incidents. I then developed the Coulombi Egg tanker that is much better than US Oil Pollution Act 1990 designs - http://heiwaco.com/ce_coulombiegg.htm . It won many prizes for least oil spills, highest safety, lowest construction and maintenance costs, etc.
The design was finally unanimously approved (incl. USA) by United Nations/International Maritime Organization September 1997 for worldwide use.
We all celebrated this event but ... the next day USA/USCG (now Department of Homeland Security) announced that no Coulombi Egg tankers would be permitted to enter US port.
You have to be a really good engineer for it.
BTW - the design was developed using damage statistics. The protection was simply put/arranged where the risk of spills was highest with the results that outflows were minimal. Also the design was easier and cheaper to build and to maintain. I am quite proud of it.
Have you ever done anything similar than sailing around in a nuclear submarine?
Really? I'm surprised. Not that it was rejected but that he actually designed it.It actually is his design. BTW, it's been rejected by everyone.Interestingly a google search does bring up several articles about this design but not one has any reference to you at all. You seem to be the only one who claims you had anything to do with it.Not at all. When US TT Exxon Valdez went aground 1989 and spilled oil in Alaska waters USA asked interested parties to come up with better and safer oil tanker designs spilling less oil in all types of incidents. I then developed the Coulombi Egg tanker that is much better than US Oil Pollution Act 1990 designs - http://heiwaco.com/ce_coulombiegg.htm . It won many prizes for least oil spills, highest safety, lowest construction and maintenance costs, etc.Wow. You are a poor engineer.I thought it was you introducing pressure (N/m²) in the discussion. I only suggest that applying a force N to an object kg in space, e.g. an asstronut floating inside a spacecraft, the asstronot accelerates.Why do you drag pressure (Pa) into it? Nobody but you suggested "you apply one force over one square meter in space".Yes, it was a typo. You need of course a 100 N force to accelerate a 100 kg mass 1 m/s² .But let's face. If a 100 kg asstronut applies a 1 N force on a fixed object, he/she will accelerate at 1 m/s² in the opposite direction ... and must stop one way or other. If you stop by poking a finger the finger is broken, if you stop using your head, you'll get hurt. It is not fun to cruise in space.Incorrect and how would you know that it is not fun to cruise in space? When were you last in space?
If a 100 kg astronaut applies a 1 N force on a fixed object, he/she will accelerate at 0.01 m/s2 in the opposite direction for as long as he is applying that pressure.
No wonder you can't work out how fast rockets go!
So if he applied that pressure for 10 seconds he would still be travelling at only 0.1 m/s (only 0.36 km/hr) and hitting something at that speed wouldn't matter.
But agile astronauts move around much faster than that, going from "touch-point" to "touch-point" and stopping with hands or feet.;D ;D You must really be a clumsy blighter and not very good at sums either. ;D ;D
You continually use your own total ignorance to prove that human space travel is impossible, but all you prove is your own total ignorance!
Pressure (Pa) is something else. It is force 1N per square meter. But don't ask me how you apply one force over one square meter in space.
That was never in your original claim.
100 N is would lift 9.8 kg on earth. No astronaut would apply a force of 100 N to anything accidentally.
Applying a force 100 N to an 9.8 kg object X on Earth, will accelerate X at 10.2 m/s² . It's like driving a car - push the accelerator and the car accelerates. Push the brake and the car slows down. But it doesn't work in space. Only twerps think so.
The design was finally unanimously approved (incl. USA) by United Nations/International Maritime Organization September 1997 for worldwide use.
We all celebrated this event but ... the next day USA/USCG (now Department of Homeland Security) announced that no Coulombi Egg tankers would be permitted to enter US port.
You have to be a really good engineer for it.
BTW - the design was developed using damage statistics. The protection was simply put/arranged where the risk of spills was highest with the results that outflows were minimal. Also the design was easier and cheaper to build and to maintain. I am quite proud of it.
Have you ever done anything similar than sailing around in a nuclear submarine?
Well, you are a twerp which explains all.Really? I'm surprised. Not that it was rejected but that he actually designed it.It actually is his design. BTW, it's been rejected by everyone.Interestingly a google search does bring up several articles about this design but not one has any reference to you at all. You seem to be the only one who claims you had anything to do with it.Not at all. When US TT Exxon Valdez went aground 1989 and spilled oil in Alaska waters USA asked interested parties to come up with better and safer oil tanker designs spilling less oil in all types of incidents. I then developed the Coulombi Egg tanker that is much better than US Oil Pollution Act 1990 designs - http://heiwaco.com/ce_coulombiegg.htm . It won many prizes for least oil spills, highest safety, lowest construction and maintenance costs, etc.Wow. You are a poor engineer.I thought it was you introducing pressure (N/m²) in the discussion. I only suggest that applying a force N to an object kg in space, e.g. an asstronut floating inside a spacecraft, the asstronot accelerates.Why do you drag pressure (Pa) into it? Nobody but you suggested "you apply one force over one square meter in space".Yes, it was a typo. You need of course a 100 N force to accelerate a 100 kg mass 1 m/s² .But let's face. If a 100 kg asstronut applies a 1 N force on a fixed object, he/she will accelerate at 1 m/s² in the opposite direction ... and must stop one way or other. If you stop by poking a finger the finger is broken, if you stop using your head, you'll get hurt. It is not fun to cruise in space.Incorrect and how would you know that it is not fun to cruise in space? When were you last in space?
If a 100 kg astronaut applies a 1 N force on a fixed object, he/she will accelerate at 0.01 m/s2 in the opposite direction for as long as he is applying that pressure.
No wonder you can't work out how fast rockets go!
So if he applied that pressure for 10 seconds he would still be travelling at only 0.1 m/s (only 0.36 km/hr) and hitting something at that speed wouldn't matter.
But agile astronauts move around much faster than that, going from "touch-point" to "touch-point" and stopping with hands or feet.;D ;D You must really be a clumsy blighter and not very good at sums either. ;D ;D
You continually use your own total ignorance to prove that human space travel is impossible, but all you prove is your own total ignorance!
Pressure (Pa) is something else. It is force 1N per square meter. But don't ask me how you apply one force over one square meter in space.
That was never in your original claim.
100 N is would lift 9.8 kg on earth. No astronaut would apply a force of 100 N to anything accidentally.
Applying a force 100 N to an 9.8 kg object X on Earth, will accelerate X at 10.2 m/s² . It's like driving a car - push the accelerator and the car accelerates. Push the brake and the car slows down. But it doesn't work in space. Only twerps think so.
The design was finally unanimously approved (incl. USA) by United Nations/International Maritime Organization September 1997 for worldwide use.
We all celebrated this event but ... the next day USA/USCG (now Department of Homeland Security) announced that no Coulombi Egg tankers would be permitted to enter US port.
You have to be a really good engineer for it.
BTW - the design was developed using damage statistics. The protection was simply put/arranged where the risk of spills was highest with the results that outflows were minimal. Also the design was easier and cheaper to build and to maintain. I am quite proud of it.
Have you ever done anything similar than sailing around in a nuclear submarine?
I avoid USA physically because I could be sentenced to death there for revealing military secrets.More LIES from Heiwa. NOBODY believes you've revealed any military secrets and you have NEVER had access to classified info to reveal it. Yet another lie to attempt to make yourself look more important.
I avoid USA physically because I could be sentenced to death there for revealing military secrets.
Thanks! But I don't trust your anonymous 'expert'. The US law is crystal clear. Revealing military secrets about US WMD's like me is punished by death.I avoid USA physically because I could be sentenced to death there for revealing military secrets.
We've been through this Heiwa. Just like the Arianspace fiasco.
I consulted the expert. I showed them the material you provided and they were clear. There was no danger whatsoever of you being sentenced to death. Your material was not classified and there was no evidence that you had intentions to harm the USA.
If I get time I might make a post complete with evidence and your own admissions. Waiting a month before posting bullshit again doesn't make it not bullshit.
Thanks! But I don't trust your anonymous 'expert'. The US law is crystal clear. Revealing military secrets about US WMD's like me is punished by death.I avoid USA physically because I could be sentenced to death there for revealing military secrets.
We've been through this Heiwa. Just like the Arianspace fiasco.
I consulted the expert. I showed them the material you provided and they were clear. There was no danger whatsoever of you being sentenced to death. Your material was not classified and there was no evidence that you had intentions to harm the USA.
If I get time I might make a post complete with evidence and your own admissions. Waiting a month before posting bullshit again doesn't make it not bullshit.
Thanks! But I don't trust your anonymous 'expert'. The US law is crystal clear. Revealing military secrets about US WMD's like me is punished by death.I avoid USA physically because I could be sentenced to death there for revealing military secrets.
We've been through this Heiwa. Just like the Arianspace fiasco.
I consulted the expert. I showed them the material you provided and they were clear. There was no danger whatsoever of you being sentenced to death. Your material was not classified and there was no evidence that you had intentions to harm the USA.
If I get time I might make a post complete with evidence and your own admissions. Waiting a month before posting bullshit again doesn't make it not bullshit.
But you don't know any secrets. And the US government doesn't give 2 shits what an old coot like you believes or thinks he knows.
Face it Heiwa, no one cares and you are not that important.
Thanks! But I don't trust your anonymous 'expert'. The US law is crystal clear. Revealing military secrets about US WMD's like me is punished by death.I avoid USA physically because I could be sentenced to death there for revealing military secrets.
We've been through this Heiwa. Just like the Arianspace fiasco.
I consulted the expert. I showed them the material you provided and they were clear. There was no danger whatsoever of you being sentenced to death. Your material was not classified and there was no evidence that you had intentions to harm the USA.
If I get time I might make a post complete with evidence and your own admissions. Waiting a month before posting bullshit again doesn't make it not bullshit.
But you don't know any secrets. And the US government doesn't give 2 shits what an old coot like you believes or thinks he knows.
Face it Heiwa, no one cares and you are not that important.
Hm, I think FBI and US military command, etc, are sleeping at the switches as normal, like 911 caught with their pants down.
Yes it is. And to be breaking the law you need to either be sharing classified information or demonstrating an attempt to harm the USA. The information you provided does not break either of these laws. Since you're so rich I urge you to hire your own expert. Then you can stop making these self-aggrandizing claims.The US law is crystal clear.I avoid USA physically because I could be sentenced to death there for revealing military secrets.
We've been through this Heiwa. Just like the Arianspace fiasco.
I consulted the expert. I showed them the material you provided and they were clear. There was no danger whatsoever of you being sentenced to death. Your material was not classified and there was no evidence that you had intentions to harm the USA.
If I get time I might make a post complete with evidence and your own admissions. Waiting a month before posting bullshit again doesn't make it not bullshit.
You are a liar. You have never revealed military secrets. You have only shown your own ignorance by claiming you don't understand so it must be fake.Thanks! But I don't trust your anonymous 'expert'. The US law is crystal clear. Revealing military secrets about US WMD's like me is punished by death.I avoid USA physically because I could be sentenced to death there for revealing military secrets.
We've been through this Heiwa. Just like the Arianspace fiasco.
I consulted the expert. I showed them the material you provided and they were clear. There was no danger whatsoever of you being sentenced to death. Your material was not classified and there was no evidence that you had intentions to harm the USA.
If I get time I might make a post complete with evidence and your own admissions. Waiting a month before posting bullshit again doesn't make it not bullshit.
No, there is no need of proof of the money as everyone knows I am a rich, successful person. You just sound like a poor loser.You are a liar. You have never revealed military secrets. You have only shown your own ignorance by claiming you don't understand so it must be fake.Thanks! But I don't trust your anonymous 'expert'. The US law is crystal clear. Revealing military secrets about US WMD's like me is punished by death.I avoid USA physically because I could be sentenced to death there for revealing military secrets.
We've been through this Heiwa. Just like the Arianspace fiasco.
I consulted the expert. I showed them the material you provided and they were clear. There was no danger whatsoever of you being sentenced to death. Your material was not classified and there was no evidence that you had intentions to harm the USA.
If I get time I might make a post complete with evidence and your own admissions. Waiting a month before posting bullshit again doesn't make it not bullshit.
More failure.
No, there is no need of proof of the money as everyone knows I am a rich, successful person. You just sound like a poor loser.You are a liar. You have never revealed military secrets. You have only shown your own ignorance by claiming you don't understand so it must be fake.Thanks! But I don't trust your anonymous 'expert'. The US law is crystal clear. Revealing military secrets about US WMD's like me is punished by death.I avoid USA physically because I could be sentenced to death there for revealing military secrets.
We've been through this Heiwa. Just like the Arianspace fiasco.
I consulted the expert. I showed them the material you provided and they were clear. There was no danger whatsoever of you being sentenced to death. Your material was not classified and there was no evidence that you had intentions to harm the USA.
If I get time I might make a post complete with evidence and your own admissions. Waiting a month before posting bullshit again doesn't make it not bullshit.
More failure.
Thanks! But I don't trust your anonymous 'expert'. The US law is crystal clear. Revealing military secrets about US WMD's like me is punished by death.Well, I don't believe that you know any "military secrets about US WMD's".
Thanks! But I don't trust your anonymous 'expert'. The US law is crystal clear. Revealing military secrets about US WMD's like me is punished by death.Well, I don't believe that you know any "military secrets about US WMD's".
More LIES from Heiwa. You've revealed no secrets or classified information. You are LYING to try to make yourself look more important. How pathetic.Thanks! But I don't trust your anonymous 'expert'. The US law is crystal clear. Revealing military secrets about US WMD's like me is punished by death.I avoid USA physically because I could be sentenced to death there for revealing military secrets.
We've been through this Heiwa. Just like the Arianspace fiasco.
I consulted the expert. I showed them the material you provided and they were clear. There was no danger whatsoever of you being sentenced to death. Your material was not classified and there was no evidence that you had intentions to harm the USA.
If I get time I might make a post complete with evidence and your own admissions. Waiting a month before posting bullshit again doesn't make it not bullshit.
What secrets have you revealed? There's nothing that isn't already on thousands of other sites the web and none of it classified. You were in the military. I would have thought you would know the difference between classified and unclassified information. If you believe you're in legal danger then you're an idiot...or a delusional liar.Thanks! But I don't trust your anonymous 'expert'. The US law is crystal clear. Revealing military secrets about US WMD's like me is punished by death.I avoid USA physically because I could be sentenced to death there for revealing military secrets.
We've been through this Heiwa. Just like the Arianspace fiasco.
I consulted the expert. I showed them the material you provided and they were clear. There was no danger whatsoever of you being sentenced to death. Your material was not classified and there was no evidence that you had intentions to harm the USA.
If I get time I might make a post complete with evidence and your own admissions. Waiting a month before posting bullshit again doesn't make it not bullshit.
I didn't mention money. I mentioned the fact that you are a liar and ignorant of the facts.No, there is no need of proof of the money as everyone knows I am a rich, successful person. You just sound like a poor loser.You are a liar. You have never revealed military secrets. You have only shown your own ignorance by claiming you don't understand so it must be fake.Thanks! But I don't trust your anonymous 'expert'. The US law is crystal clear. Revealing military secrets about US WMD's like me is punished by death.I avoid USA physically because I could be sentenced to death there for revealing military secrets.
We've been through this Heiwa. Just like the Arianspace fiasco.
I consulted the expert. I showed them the material you provided and they were clear. There was no danger whatsoever of you being sentenced to death. Your material was not classified and there was no evidence that you had intentions to harm the USA.
If I get time I might make a post complete with evidence and your own admissions. Waiting a month before posting bullshit again doesn't make it not bullshit.
More failure.
No, there is no need of proof of the money as everyone knows I am a rich, successful person. You just sound like a poor loser.Bragging about being rich and successful is not the same as proving that you're rich or successful.
What secrets have you revealed? There's nothing that isn't already on thousands of other sites the web and none of it classified. You were in the military. I would have thought you would know the difference between classified and unclassified information. If you believe you're in legal danger then you're an idiot...or a delusional liar.Thanks! But I don't trust your anonymous 'expert'. The US law is crystal clear. Revealing military secrets about US WMD's like me is punished by death.I avoid USA physically because I could be sentenced to death there for revealing military secrets.
We've been through this Heiwa. Just like the Arianspace fiasco.
I consulted the expert. I showed them the material you provided and they were clear. There was no danger whatsoever of you being sentenced to death. Your material was not classified and there was no evidence that you had intentions to harm the USA.
If I get time I might make a post complete with evidence and your own admissions. Waiting a month before posting bullshit again doesn't make it not bullshit.
Mike
None of the information you provided me was restricted/classified data. Nor is there any evidence you intend to harm the USA.What secrets have you revealed? There's nothing that isn't already on thousands of other sites the web and none of it classified. You were in the military. I would have thought you would know the difference between classified and unclassified information. If you believe you're in legal danger then you're an idiot...or a delusional liar.Thanks! But I don't trust your anonymous 'expert'. The US law is crystal clear. Revealing military secrets about US WMD's like me is punished by death.I avoid USA physically because I could be sentenced to death there for revealing military secrets.
We've been through this Heiwa. Just like the Arianspace fiasco.
I consulted the expert. I showed them the material you provided and they were clear. There was no danger whatsoever of you being sentenced to death. Your material was not classified and there was no evidence that you had intentions to harm the USA.
If I get time I might make a post complete with evidence and your own admissions. Waiting a month before posting bullshit again doesn't make it not bullshit.
Mike
it is about restricted data!
My website reveals restricted data
I've studied your website, there is no restricted data there. It's only you making false, baseless claims. You offer no evidence to support them. You fail to support any of your bullshit then lie about there being evidence.What secrets have you revealed? There's nothing that isn't already on thousands of other sites the web and none of it classified. You were in the military. I would have thought you would know the difference between classified and unclassified information. If you believe you're in legal danger then you're an idiot...or a delusional liar.Thanks! But I don't trust your anonymous 'expert'. The US law is crystal clear. Revealing military secrets about US WMD's like me is punished by death.I avoid USA physically because I could be sentenced to death there for revealing military secrets.
We've been through this Heiwa. Just like the Arianspace fiasco.
I consulted the expert. I showed them the material you provided and they were clear. There was no danger whatsoever of you being sentenced to death. Your material was not classified and there was no evidence that you had intentions to harm the USA.
If I get time I might make a post complete with evidence and your own admissions. Waiting a month before posting bullshit again doesn't make it not bullshit.
Mike
You really have to study my website about US weapons of mass destruction - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm and particularly http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA .
It is not about military secrets or classified/unclassifed information for spies of all sorts to buy and sell. No, it is about restricted data!
My website reveals restricted data with full evidence but media cannot report it for obvious reasons. The death sentence!
Take you, e.g. You have been locked up inside a nuke sub for years carrying all sorts of WMDs underwater to wipe out the enemy and, if you found out they were just useless nonsense of no value, you would be upset.
You have wasted years of your life for ... nothing. And you cannot complain!
Of course you are a twerp, actually a double twerp - an ex sub sailor having wasted your life transporting useless WMDs around under water to put FEAR into ... nobody. And how much were you paid? Peanuts! But it is restricted data!
I am a DoD certified Derivative Classifier and I know for a fact that there is ZERO classified information on your website.What secrets have you revealed? There's nothing that isn't already on thousands of other sites the web and none of it classified. You were in the military. I would have thought you would know the difference between classified and unclassified information. If you believe you're in legal danger then you're an idiot...or a delusional liar.Thanks! But I don't trust your anonymous 'expert'. The US law is crystal clear. Revealing military secrets about US WMD's like me is punished by death.I avoid USA physically because I could be sentenced to death there for revealing military secrets.
We've been through this Heiwa. Just like the Arianspace fiasco.
I consulted the expert. I showed them the material you provided and they were clear. There was no danger whatsoever of you being sentenced to death. Your material was not classified and there was no evidence that you had intentions to harm the USA.
If I get time I might make a post complete with evidence and your own admissions. Waiting a month before posting bullshit again doesn't make it not bullshit.
Mike
You really have to study my website about US weapons of mass destruction - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm and particularly http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA .
It is not about military secrets or classified/unclassifed information for spies of all sorts to buy and sell. No, it is about restricted data!
My website reveals restricted data with full evidence but media cannot report it for obvious reasons. The death sentence!
Take you, e.g. You have been locked up inside a nuke sub for years carrying all sorts of WMDs underwater to wipe out the enemy and, if you found out they were just useless nonsense of no value, you would be upset.
You have wasted years of your life for ... nothing. And you cannot complain!
Of course you are a twerp, actually a double twerp - an ex sub sailor having wasted your life transporting useless WMDs around under water to put FEAR into ... nobody. And how much were you paid? Peanuts! But it is restricted data!
No, you do not, "explain all there"! All that your site contains about nuclear weapons, as with human space travel, is:Thanks! But I don't trust your anonymous 'expert'. The US law is crystal clear. Revealing military secrets about US WMD's like me is punished by death.Well, I don't believe that you know any "military secrets about US WMD's".
Just study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm ! I explain all there. Pls tell me what you think!
<< Totally irrelevant >>
No, you do not, "explain all there"! All that your site contains about nuclear weapons, as with human space travel, is:Thanks! But I don't trust your anonymous 'expert'. The US law is crystal clear. Revealing military secrets about US WMD's like me is punished by death.Well, I don't believe that you know any "military secrets about US WMD's".
Just study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm ! I explain all there. Pls tell me what you think!
<< Totally irrelevant >>As others have told you, if the USA was slightly concerned by any secrets you might reveal or have revealed you would be extradited to the US quick smart.
- You do not understand either.
- But, because to think that you are smarter than all the experts, you think that you should be able to work out all this on your own,
- in fact you a just a know-it-all who can't learn anything from other people.
- Hence to cover up your pathetic ignorance and pride, you pretend that it must be fake and simple ridicule everything you can't understand.
;D ;D or even learn (but not for long) what ultimate sanction meant. ;D ;D
Have you been checked out for early onset dementia, as these delusions of yours seem quite long-standing.
Re 1 nuclear bomb experts refer to 'explosive fission' as a process where 20-60 kg uranium or plutonium metal suddenly - in nano seconds - become pure, hot, high pressure energy/radiation in a FLASH but how to start it is a military secret. I consider 'explosive fission' Fake News.The detonation might start in tens of nano seconds, the fireball a metre in some micro second but the peak temperature (for Plutonium-240) could be over ten milli seconds.
Re 2 rocket scientists suggest that asstronots use a 'heat shield' to fly through the atmosphere when coming back from a trip in space to land on Earth, but I consider it Fake News.Get this straight, an ignoramus like you not understanding something does not prove "it Fake News".
You are right that I am proud to ridicule twerps believing in 'explosive fission' and 'heat shields'. But I am not ignorant. I explain my actions clearly.All you explain is that you cannot understand anything, then ridicule it because you cannot explain it!
Re 1 nuclear bomb experts refer to 'explosive fission' as a process where 20-60 kg uranium or plutonium metal suddenly - in nano seconds - become pure, hot, high pressure energy/radiation in a FLASH but how to start it is a military secret. I consider 'explosive fission' Fake News.The detonation might start in tens of nano seconds, the fireball a metre in some micro second but the peak temperature (for Plutonium-240) could be over ten milli seconds.
But, being a military secret and you calling it Fake News does not mean it's a fake!
I'd far prefer it to be a military secret! I certainly wouldn't want you knowing how. But, even knowing how, doesn't mean and Tom, Dick or Anders could do it.Quote from: HeiwaRe 2 rocket scientists suggest that asstronots use a 'heat shield' to fly through the atmosphere when coming back from a trip in space to land on Earth, but I consider it Fake News.Get this straight, an ignoramus like you not understanding something does not prove "it Fake News".
It just proves that an ignoramus like you cannot understanding it.Quote from: HeiwaYou are right that I am proud to ridicule twerps believing in 'explosive fission' and 'heat shields'. But I am not ignorant. I explain my actions clearly.All you explain is that you cannot understand anything, then ridicule it because you cannot explain it!
And repeating the same old rubbish does make you more believable.
Well, I just have to direct you to my website http://heiwasdonkeydung.com where I present my facts and findings to show that you are an obnoxious twerp calling it rubbish.lame
If you believe you're in legal danger then you're an idiot...or a delusional liar.Sorry Mike, but that is a false equivalence. There is no evidence that he isn't an idiot AND a delusional liar.
Mike
Thanks in spite of the double/treble negatives Japanese style to confuse the message. As far as I am concerned I am fully, mentally and physically, fit with a positive outlook of world affairs and it is the message I convey at my website.If you believe you're in legal danger then you're an idiot...or a delusional liar.Sorry Mike, but that is a false equivalence. There is no evidence that he isn't an idiot AND a delusional liar.
Mike
No, there is no need of proof of the money as everyone knows I am a rich, successful person. You just sound like a poor loser.Bragging about being rich and successful is not the same as proving that you're rich or successful.
Lame and easily confused. (no surprise there)Thanks in spite of the double/treble negatives Japanese style to confuse the message. As far as I am concerned I am fully, mentally and physically, fit with a positive outlook of world affairs and it is the message I convey at my website.If you believe you're in legal danger then you're an idiot...or a delusional liar.Sorry Mike, but that is a false equivalence. There is no evidence that he isn't an idiot AND a delusional liar.
Mike
Isn't it good news that US nuclear weapons in the air and below water are simple Fake News? They cannot be ignited.
And all this nonsense about humans flying around in space! They are just paid actors or failed US military personnel. I just feel sorry for them having to do it.
The only problem I see is how authorities of all kind cover up accidents at sea with falsified investigations and prevent improved safety at sea and environmental protection of the seas.
You also sound unhappy. Why don't you go out in the fresh air and forget your dreams of being an asstronut or starting a nuclear war?Lame and easily confused. (no surprise there)Thanks in spite of the double/treble negatives Japanese style to confuse the message. As far as I am concerned I am fully, mentally and physically, fit with a positive outlook of world affairs and it is the message I convey at my website.If you believe you're in legal danger then you're an idiot...or a delusional liar.Sorry Mike, but that is a false equivalence. There is no evidence that he isn't an idiot AND a delusional liar.
Mike
Isn't it good news that US nuclear weapons in the air and below water are simple Fake News? They cannot be ignited.
And all this nonsense about humans flying around in space! They are just paid actors or failed US military personnel. I just feel sorry for them having to do it.
The only problem I see is how authorities of all kind cover up accidents at sea with falsified investigations and prevent improved safety at sea and environmental protection of the seas.
Lame. As always no evidence to support you bullshit. None at your horrible website and none here.You also sound unhappy. Why don't you go out in the fresh air and forget your dreams of being an asstronut or starting a nuclear war?Lame and easily confused. (no surprise there)Thanks in spite of the double/treble negatives Japanese style to confuse the message. As far as I am concerned I am fully, mentally and physically, fit with a positive outlook of world affairs and it is the message I convey at my website.If you believe you're in legal danger then you're an idiot...or a delusional liar.Sorry Mike, but that is a false equivalence. There is no evidence that he isn't an idiot AND a delusional liar.
Mike
Isn't it good news that US nuclear weapons in the air and below water are simple Fake News? They cannot be ignited.
And all this nonsense about humans flying around in space! They are just paid actors or failed US military personnel. I just feel sorry for them having to do it.
The only problem I see is how authorities of all kind cover up accidents at sea with falsified investigations and prevent improved safety at sea and environmental protection of the seas.
No, I am just sorry I cannot help!Lame. As always no evidence to support you bullshit. None at your horrible website and none here.You also sound unhappy. Why don't you go out in the fresh air and forget your dreams of being an asstronut or starting a nuclear war?Lame and easily confused. (no surprise there)Thanks in spite of the double/treble negatives Japanese style to confuse the message. As far as I am concerned I am fully, mentally and physically, fit with a positive outlook of world affairs and it is the message I convey at my website.If you believe you're in legal danger then you're an idiot...or a delusional liar.Sorry Mike, but that is a false equivalence. There is no evidence that he isn't an idiot AND a delusional liar.
Mike
Isn't it good news that US nuclear weapons in the air and below water are simple Fake News? They cannot be ignited.
And all this nonsense about humans flying around in space! They are just paid actors or failed US military personnel. I just feel sorry for them having to do it.
The only problem I see is how authorities of all kind cover up accidents at sea with falsified investigations and prevent improved safety at sea and environmental protection of the seas.
Just more failure.
Can't you take a hint? Nobody here falls for the rubbish on your horrible website with, as always no evidence to support your claims.Lame. As always no evidence to support you bullshit. None at your horrible website and none here.No, I am just sorry I cannot help!
Just more failure.
My very popular Safety-at-Sea website http://heiwaco.com is running since >20 years. What is wrong with safety at sea?Can't you take a hint? Nobody here falls for the rubbish on your horrible website with, as always no evidence to support your claims.Lame. As always no evidence to support you bullshit. None at your horrible website and none here.No, I am just sorry I cannot help!
Just more failure.
Go and try your deception elsewhere!
My very popular Safety-at-Sea website http://heiwaco.com is running since >20 years. What is wrong with safety at sea?See: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge « Reply #8422 on: Today at 09:52:34 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62555.msg2048527#msg2048527)
More failure.My very popular Safety-at-Sea website http://heiwaco.com is running since >20 years. What is wrong with safety at sea?Can't you take a hint? Nobody here falls for the rubbish on your horrible website with, as always no evidence to support your claims.Lame. As always no evidence to support you bullshit. None at your horrible website and none here.No, I am just sorry I cannot help!
Just more failure.
Go and try your deception elsewhere!
Just visit my office! Haven't we sorted this out long ago?More failure.My very popular Safety-at-Sea website http://heiwaco.com is running since >20 years. What is wrong with safety at sea?Can't you take a hint? Nobody here falls for the rubbish on your horrible website with, as always no evidence to support your claims.Lame. As always no evidence to support you bullshit. None at your horrible website and none here.No, I am just sorry I cannot help!
Just more failure.
Go and try your deception elsewhere!
Prove you have the money. Show evidence for your claims.
Yes we have. We agreed that until you publicly prove you have the money, none of this visit my office bs, you are a fraud and your challenges are fake.Just visit my office! Haven't we sorted this out long ago?More failure.My very popular Safety-at-Sea website http://heiwaco.com is running since >20 years. What is wrong with safety at sea?Can't you take a hint? Nobody here falls for the rubbish on your horrible website with, as always no evidence to support your claims.Lame. As always no evidence to support you bullshit. None at your horrible website and none here.No, I am just sorry I cannot help!
Just more failure.
Go and try your deception elsewhere!
Prove you have the money. Show evidence for your claims.
You don't know what you are talking about!Yes we have. We agreed that until you publicly prove you have the money, none of this visit my office bs, you are a fraud and your challenges are fake.Just visit my office! Haven't we sorted this out long ago?More failure.My very popular Safety-at-Sea website http://heiwaco.com is running since >20 years. What is wrong with safety at sea?Can't you take a hint? Nobody here falls for the rubbish on your horrible website with, as always no evidence to support your claims.Lame. As always no evidence to support you bullshit. None at your horrible website and none here.No, I am just sorry I cannot help!
Just more failure.
Go and try your deception elsewhere!
Prove you have the money. Show evidence for your claims.
All you do here is fail.
Lame
He doesn't believe you...in fact nobody believes you because you have been caught lying about your money (among other things).You don't know what you are talking about!Yes we have. We agreed that until you publicly prove you have the money, none of this visit my office bs, you are a fraud and your challenges are fake.Just visit my office! Haven't we sorted this out long ago?More failure.My very popular Safety-at-Sea website http://heiwaco.com is running since >20 years. What is wrong with safety at sea?Can't you take a hint? Nobody here falls for the rubbish on your horrible website with, as always no evidence to support your claims.Lame. As always no evidence to support you bullshit. None at your horrible website and none here.No, I am just sorry I cannot help!
Just more failure.
Go and try your deception elsewhere!
Prove you have the money. Show evidence for your claims.
All you do here is fail.
Lame
More failure. LameYou don't know what you are talking about!Yes we have. We agreed that until you publicly prove you have the money, none of this visit my office bs, you are a fraud and your challenges are fake.Just visit my office! Haven't we sorted this out long ago?More failure.My very popular Safety-at-Sea website http://heiwaco.com is running since >20 years. What is wrong with safety at sea?Can't you take a hint? Nobody here falls for the rubbish on your horrible website with, as always no evidence to support your claims.Lame. As always no evidence to support you bullshit. None at your horrible website and none here.No, I am just sorry I cannot help!
Just more failure.
Go and try your deception elsewhere!
Prove you have the money. Show evidence for your claims.
All you do here is fail.
Lame
What are you about?More failure. LameYou don't know what you are talking about!Yes we have. We agreed that until you publicly prove you have the money, none of this visit my office bs, you are a fraud and your challenges are fake.Just visit my office! Haven't we sorted this out long ago?More failure.My very popular Safety-at-Sea website http://heiwaco.com is running since >20 years. What is wrong with safety at sea?Can't you take a hint? Nobody here falls for the rubbish on your horrible website with, as always no evidence to support your claims.Lame. As always no evidence to support you bullshit. None at your horrible website and none here.No, I am just sorry I cannot help!
Just more failure.
Go and try your deception elsewhere!
Prove you have the money. Show evidence for your claims.
All you do here is fail.
Lame
Your continued failure to produce any evidence to support your bullshit claims. And your continued failure to prove you have the money for your challengesWhat are you about?More failure. LameYou don't know what you are talking about!Yes we have. We agreed that until you publicly prove you have the money, none of this visit my office bs, you are a fraud and your challenges are fake.Just visit my office! Haven't we sorted this out long ago?More failure.My very popular Safety-at-Sea website http://heiwaco.com is running since >20 years. What is wrong with safety at sea?Can't you take a hint? Nobody here falls for the rubbish on your horrible website with, as always no evidence to support your claims.Lame. As always no evidence to support you bullshit. None at your horrible website and none here.No, I am just sorry I cannot help!
Just more failure.
Go and try your deception elsewhere!
Prove you have the money. Show evidence for your claims.
All you do here is fail.
Lame
You seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance!Your continued failure to produce any evidence to support your bullshit claims. And your continued failure to prove you have the money for your challengesWhat are you about?More failure. LameYou don't know what you are talking about!Yes we have. We agreed that until you publicly prove you have the money, none of this visit my office bs, you are a fraud and your challenges are fake.Just visit my office! Haven't we sorted this out long ago?More failure.My very popular Safety-at-Sea website http://heiwaco.com is running since >20 years. What is wrong with safety at sea?Can't you take a hint? Nobody here falls for the rubbish on your horrible website with, as always no evidence to support your claims.Lame. As always no evidence to support you bullshit. None at your horrible website and none here.No, I am just sorry I cannot help!
Just more failure.
Go and try your deception elsewhere!
Prove you have the money. Show evidence for your claims.
All you do here is fail.
Lame
More failure. LameYou seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance!Your continued failure to produce any evidence to support your bullshit claims. And your continued failure to prove you have the money for your challengesWhat are you about?More failure. LameYou don't know what you are talking about!Yes we have. We agreed that until you publicly prove you have the money, none of this visit my office bs, you are a fraud and your challenges are fake.Just visit my office! Haven't we sorted this out long ago?More failure.My very popular Safety-at-Sea website http://heiwaco.com is running since >20 years. What is wrong with safety at sea?Can't you take a hint? Nobody here falls for the rubbish on your horrible website with, as always no evidence to support your claims.Lame. As always no evidence to support you bullshit. None at your horrible website and none here.No, I am just sorry I cannot help!
Just more failure.
Go and try your deception elsewhere!
Prove you have the money. Show evidence for your claims.
All you do here is fail.
Lame
You seem to suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.You seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance!Your continued failure to produce any evidence to support your bullshit claims. And your continued failure to prove you have the money for your challengesWhat are you about?More failure. LameYou don't know what you are talking about!Yes we have. We agreed that until you publicly prove you have the money, none of this visit my office bs, you are a fraud and your challenges are fake.Just visit my office! Haven't we sorted this out long ago?More failure.My very popular Safety-at-Sea website http://heiwaco.com is running since >20 years. What is wrong with safety at sea?Can't you take a hint? Nobody here falls for the rubbish on your horrible website with, as always no evidence to support your claims.Lame. As always no evidence to support you bullshit. None at your horrible website and none here.No, I am just sorry I cannot help!
Just more failure.
Go and try your deception elsewhere!
Prove you have the money. Show evidence for your claims.
All you do here is fail.
Lame
Yes, it may be possible, if you are capable of explaining it. But I doubt a twerp like you are capable of anything.You seem to suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.You seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance!Your continued failure to produce any evidence to support your bullshit claims. And your continued failure to prove you have the money for your challengesWhat are you about?More failure. LameYou don't know what you are talking about!Yes we have. We agreed that until you publicly prove you have the money, none of this visit my office bs, you are a fraud and your challenges are fake.Just visit my office! Haven't we sorted this out long ago?More failure.My very popular Safety-at-Sea website http://heiwaco.com is running since >20 years. What is wrong with safety at sea?Can't you take a hint? Nobody here falls for the rubbish on your horrible website with, as always no evidence to support your claims.Lame. As always no evidence to support you bullshit. None at your horrible website and none here.No, I am just sorry I cannot help!
Just more failure.
Go and try your deception elsewhere!
Prove you have the money. Show evidence for your claims.
All you do here is fail.
Lame
You seem to suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.Yes, it may be possible, if you are capable of explaining it. But I doubt a twerp like you are capable of anything.
Yes, it confirms you are a twirp that cannot explain anything incl. the Dunning-Kruger joke.You seem to suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.Yes, it may be possible, if you are capable of explaining it. But I doubt a twerp like you are capable of anything.
I think that this explains it nicely:
(https://webbreacher.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/picture1.jpg?w=1400&h=9999)
You confirm that you are too stupid to understand the concept. Confirming that you do in fact suffer from it.Yes, it confirms you are a twirp that cannot explain anything incl. the Dunning-Kruger joke.You seem to suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.Yes, it may be possible, if you are capable of explaining it. But I doubt a twerp like you are capable of anything.
I think that this explains it nicely:
(https://webbreacher.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/picture1.jpg?w=1400&h=9999)
Markjo - you are so stupid so you cannot stop being stupid at this forum. But who pays you?
Would you say the average person is on the slope of enlightenment?You seem to suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.Yes, it may be possible, if you are capable of explaining it. But I doubt a twerp like you are capable of anything.
I think that this explains it nicely:
(https://webbreacher.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/picture1.jpg?w=1400&h=9999)
Would you say the average person is on the slope of enlightenment?You seem to suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.Yes, it may be possible, if you are capable of explaining it. But I doubt a twerp like you are capable of anything.
I think that this explains it nicely:
(https://webbreacher.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/picture1.jpg?w=1400&h=9999)
Anders, the Dunning-Kruger effect has been explained to you a number of times. It isn't my fault that you can't remember such things. Are you enjoying the view from the top of Mt. Stupid?Yes, it confirms you are a twirp that cannot explain anything incl. the Dunning-Kruger joke.You seem to suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.Yes, it may be possible, if you are capable of explaining it. But I doubt a twerp like you are capable of anything.
I think that this explains it nicely:
(https://webbreacher.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/picture1.jpg?w=1400&h=9999)
Markjo - you are so stupid so you cannot stop being stupid at this forum. But who pays you?
Markjo - you are so stupid so you cannot stop being stupid at this forum. I feel sorry for you and your cognitive dissonance.Anders, the Dunning-Kruger effect has been explained to you a number of times. It isn't my fault that you can't remember such things. Are you enjoying the view from the top of Mt. Stupid?Yes, it confirms you are a twirp that cannot explain anything incl. the Dunning-Kruger joke.You seem to suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.Yes, it may be possible, if you are capable of explaining it. But I doubt a twerp like you are capable of anything.
I think that this explains it nicely:
(https://webbreacher.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/picture1.jpg?w=1400&h=9999)
Markjo - you are so stupid so you cannot stop being stupid at this forum. But who pays you?
Markjo - you are so stupid so you cannot stop being stupid at this forum. I feel sorry for you and your cognitive dissonance.
In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The occurrence of cognitive dissonance is a consequence of a person performing an action that contradicts personal beliefs, ideals, and values; and also occurs when confronted with new information that contradicts said beliefs, ideals, and values.
You're a idiot. You have no idea what you're talking about and you have the balls to diagnose someone. You're acting like a bitter, senile old man.Markjo - you are so stupid so you cannot stop being stupid at this forum. I feel sorry for you and your cognitive dissonance.Anders, the Dunning-Kruger effect has been explained to you a number of times. It isn't my fault that you can't remember such things. Are you enjoying the view from the top of Mt. Stupid?Yes, it confirms you are a twirp that cannot explain anything incl. the Dunning-Kruger joke.You seem to suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.Yes, it may be possible, if you are capable of explaining it. But I doubt a twerp like you are capable of anything.
I think that this explains it nicely:
(https://webbreacher.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/picture1.jpg?w=1400&h=9999)
Markjo - you are so stupid so you cannot stop being stupid at this forum. But who pays you?
No, I am the web master of http://heiwaco.com and young, good looking, fit and hard working, etc.You're a idiot. You have no idea what you're talking about and you have the balls to diagnose someone. You're acting like a bitter, senile old man.Markjo - you are so stupid so you cannot stop being stupid at this forum. I feel sorry for you and your cognitive dissonance.Anders, the Dunning-Kruger effect has been explained to you a number of times. It isn't my fault that you can't remember such things. Are you enjoying the view from the top of Mt. Stupid?Yes, it confirms you are a twirp that cannot explain anything incl. the Dunning-Kruger joke.You seem to suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.Yes, it may be possible, if you are capable of explaining it. But I doubt a twerp like you are capable of anything.
I think that this explains it nicely:
(https://webbreacher.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/picture1.jpg?w=1400&h=9999)
Markjo - you are so stupid so you cannot stop being stupid at this forum. But who pays you?
Mike
I suggest otherwise because that's how you act here.No, I am the web master of http://heiwaco.com and young, good looking, fit and hard working, etc.You're a idiot. You have no idea what you're talking about and you have the balls to diagnose someone. You're acting like a bitter, senile old man.Markjo - you are so stupid so you cannot stop being stupid at this forum. I feel sorry for you and your cognitive dissonance.Anders, the Dunning-Kruger effect has been explained to you a number of times. It isn't my fault that you can't remember such things. Are you enjoying the view from the top of Mt. Stupid?Yes, it confirms you are a twirp that cannot explain anything incl. the Dunning-Kruger joke.You seem to suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.Yes, it may be possible, if you are capable of explaining it. But I doubt a twerp like you are capable of anything.
I think that this explains it nicely:
(https://webbreacher.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/picture1.jpg?w=1400&h=9999)
Markjo - you are so stupid so you cannot stop being stupid at this forum. But who pays you?
Mike
Why do you suggest otherwise?
But am I an idiot? Do I have no idea what I am talking about and have the balls to diagnose someone? Am I acting like a bitter, senile old man?I suggest otherwise because that's how you act here.No, I am the web master of http://heiwaco.com and young, good looking, fit and hard working, etc.You're a idiot. You have no idea what you're talking about and you have the balls to diagnose someone. You're acting like a bitter, senile old man.Markjo - you are so stupid so you cannot stop being stupid at this forum. I feel sorry for you and your cognitive dissonance.Anders, the Dunning-Kruger effect has been explained to you a number of times. It isn't my fault that you can't remember such things. Are you enjoying the view from the top of Mt. Stupid?Yes, it confirms you are a twirp that cannot explain anything incl. the Dunning-Kruger joke.You seem to suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.Yes, it may be possible, if you are capable of explaining it. But I doubt a twerp like you are capable of anything.
I think that this explains it nicely:
(https://webbreacher.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/picture1.jpg?w=1400&h=9999)
Markjo - you are so stupid so you cannot stop being stupid at this forum. But who pays you?
Mike
Why do you suggest otherwise?
You lie here.
You attack people here.
You claim people are sick without being qualified to do so and not understanding what you're talking about.
These are some of the reasons I suggest otherwise.
Mike
But am I an idiot? Do I have no idea what I am talking about and have the balls to diagnose someone? Am I acting like a bitter, senile old man?Yes, yes, yes!
am I an idiot?LOL Yes!
Not really. I spent the afternoon at Monte Carlo Country Club watching R. Nadal beating K. Nishikori in the final. it was a good tennis match in perfect weather.am I an idiot?LOL Yes!
I heard Merriam-Webster is considering adding "heiwa" as a word, and the definition is "idiot".Not really.am I an idiot?LOL Yes!
70ish years old isn’t young.No, I am the web master of http://heiwaco.com and young, good looking, fit and hard working, etc.You're a idiot. You have no idea what you're talking about and you have the balls to diagnose someone. You're acting like a bitter, senile old man.Markjo - you are so stupid so you cannot stop being stupid at this forum. I feel sorry for you and your cognitive dissonance.Anders, the Dunning-Kruger effect has been explained to you a number of times. It isn't my fault that you can't remember such things. Are you enjoying the view from the top of Mt. Stupid?Yes, it confirms you are a twirp that cannot explain anything incl. the Dunning-Kruger joke.You seem to suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.Yes, it may be possible, if you are capable of explaining it. But I doubt a twerp like you are capable of anything.
I think that this explains it nicely:
(https://webbreacher.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/picture1.jpg?w=1400&h=9999)
Markjo - you are so stupid so you cannot stop being stupid at this forum. But who pays you?
Mike
Why do you suggest otherwise?
Well, Facebook reminded me last week that my birthday is 28 April, which is in fact correct. I told FB it many years ago but I wonder why FB reminds me about it 2018. Any ideas?70ish years old isn’t young.No, I am the web master of http://heiwaco.com and young, good looking, fit and hard working, etc.You're a idiot. You have no idea what you're talking about and you have the balls to diagnose someone. You're acting like a bitter, senile old man.Markjo - you are so stupid so you cannot stop being stupid at this forum. I feel sorry for you and your cognitive dissonance.Anders, the Dunning-Kruger effect has been explained to you a number of times. It isn't my fault that you can't remember such things. Are you enjoying the view from the top of Mt. Stupid?Yes, it confirms you are a twirp that cannot explain anything incl. the Dunning-Kruger joke.You seem to suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.Yes, it may be possible, if you are capable of explaining it. But I doubt a twerp like you are capable of anything.
I think that this explains it nicely:
(https://webbreacher.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/picture1.jpg?w=1400&h=9999)
Markjo - you are so stupid so you cannot stop being stupid at this forum. But who pays you?
Mike
Why do you suggest otherwise?
Sure, FB realises that your early onset dementia has progressed so far that you need reminding of your own birthdays now.70ish years old isn’t young.Well, Facebook reminded me last week that my birthday is 28 April, which is in fact correct. I told FB it many years ago but I wonder why FB reminds me about it 2018. Any ideas?
Well, Facebook reminded me last week that my birthday is 28 April, which is in fact correct. I told FB it many years ago but I wonder why FB reminds me about it 2018. Any ideas?
Thanks for asking. My avatar is still there but ... deactivated. Not to attract my numerous, female admirers.Well, Facebook reminded me last week that my birthday is 28 April, which is in fact correct. I told FB it many years ago but I wonder why FB reminds me about it 2018. Any ideas?
What happened to your avatar? I suppose you were tired of everyone paying you out. Fair enough. You did look like you had one foot in the grave though.
You are not a young man Heiwa. You are an old fogie who will be lucky to see this year through
Like me. I assume you are a twerp.
No. ... I assume you are a twerp. Don't forget the .... ... So you are a twerp. Cannot notice a . Typical twerp.Like me. I assume you are a twerp.
I assume you are a twerp.(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQmqgDQna-l9ODCt4qM-bl1ayCsXE2ytNYglxy3wn3nuU6XxV-s)
I have nothing to add.Im a twerp. a. Typical twerp.Like me. I assume you are a twerp.
Typical twerp behavior!I have nothing to add.Im a twerp. a. Typical twerp.Like me. I assume you are a twerp.
Quite! What a bunch of twerps we are!Typical twerp behavior!I have nothing to add.Im a twerp. a. Typical twerp.Like me. I assume you are a twerp.