It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship

Hey Pappa Legba, here is the differences between NASA rockets and missiles:

NASA rockets use multiple stages.

NASA rockets use more efficient liquid fuel instead of solid fuel.

NASA rockets go slowly in the lower atmosphere and start gaining speed once they get enough altitude that aur friction won't be a probelem.

Quote from: Papa Legba on May 27, 2015, 01:14:24 PM

You are all your own worst enemies; it is LOL.

Because all your above replies simply reinforce what I said.

But you're too stupid to realise that.

I'll let you stew in your own idiot-juice for a while before returning with yet more evidence on how rockets actually function.

You'll hate it!

Until then, keep up the space-dreams, cultists; after all, maybe one day it'll happen for YOU?

Just LOL!!!

Que?

Weird.   Maybe he finally blew a fuse?   

I fail to see how attempting to invent more efficient ways of space travel is 'not owning a spaceship'.

All experiments have the possibility of failure. You see all these failings on the news because debris from an exploded rocket gets plenty of news coverage. Mainstream media sources find success in science to be boring, simply because explaining it is so difficult to uneducated simpletons like OP.

The success of NASA rockets it not just a humanity-level achievement, it's a galactic achievement. Proving that we could get to the moon was the first step in a beautiful future of inter-stellar travel.

While it is true most do not own spaceships, I know for a fact that some of us do in fact own one, and have for some time.

The Jetsons are irrelevant. They're still above the planet's surface, and they only have flying cars because they have to.

The usual white noise from idiots & alts, in an attempt to create diversion, false consensus & peer-pressure.

But no real answers from any of you; just rhetorical trickery mixed with outright nonsense (like: the BuK cannot be operated above 3000 metres cos the launch crew may become hypoxic; just LOL, markjo, you desperate thing you!!!).

Whatever; all that's par for the course here.

But also easily seen through by neutrals; besides which, none of it will get any of you one single inch closer to space...

So keep it up!

Anyhow; my next question will be on the subject of bazookas.

Do your homework; ready your sock-puppets; cos it'll be a doozy.

Til then, bye-bye JPL/NASA-cultists; enjoy it while it lasts.

Cos your whole rotten house of cards is crumbling about you & there's nothing you can do to stop it.

& that is LOL!!!

But no real answers from any of you; just rhetorical trickery mixed with outright nonsense (like: the BuK cannot be operated above 3000 metres cos the launch crew may become hypoxic; just LOL, markjo, you desperate thing you!!!).

I already told you that I have no personal experience with the Buk system so I don't know why it's limited to 10,000 feet.  If you want know the reason, then I suggest that you contact a Buk crew member or the manufacturer.  Maybe the GM-569 diesel powered chassis is the limiting factor.  Truck engines have to breathe too, you know.

Anyhow; my next question will be on the subject of bazookas.

Should we expect questions like: what do man portable anti-tank rockets have to do with not being able to own a space ship?

The usual white noise from idiots & alts, in an attempt to create diversion, false consensus & peer-pressure.

But no real answers from any of you; just rhetorical trickery mixed with outright nonsense (like: the BuK cannot be operated above 3000 metres cos the launch crew may become hypoxic; just LOL, markjo, you desperate thing you!!!).

Whatever; all that's par for the course here.

But also easily seen through by neutrals; besides which, none of it will get any of you one single inch closer to space...

So keep it up!

Anyhow; my next question will be on the subject of bazookas.

Do your homework; ready your sock-puppets; cos it'll be a doozy.

Til then, bye-bye JPL/NASA-cultists; enjoy it while it lasts.

Cos your whole rotten house of cards is crumbling about you & there's nothing you can do to stop it.

& that is LOL!!!

Bazookas?   I think he might have lost the plot.   Time to call in Gag Halfrunt?

Why did you sidestep the question about MH17?

Bazookas?   I think he might have lost the plot.

Agreed.  What does a bazooka have to do with space ships?

The usual white noise from idiots & alts, in an attempt to create diversion, false consensus & peer-pressure.

But no real answers from any of you; just rhetorical trickery mixed with outright nonsense (like: the BuK cannot be operated above 3000 metres cos the launch crew may become hypoxic; just LOL, markjo, you desperate thing you!!!).

Whatever; all that's par for the course here.

But also easily seen through by neutrals; besides which, none of it will get any of you one single inch closer to space...

So keep it up!

Anyhow; my next question will be on the subject of bazookas.

Do your homework; ready your sock-puppets; cos it'll be a doozy.

Til then, bye-bye JPL/NASA-cultists; enjoy it while it lasts.

Cos your whole rotten house of cards is crumbling about you & there's nothing you can do to stop it.

& that is LOL!!!

Is there any particular reason this juvenile troll hasn't yet been banned?   

Is there any particular reason this juvenile troll hasn't yet been banned?   

Uh..... When have I called you a troll BJane?  In actuality, I don't believe you are.  No need for apologies.   

Hey Pappa Legba, here is the differences between NASA rockets and missiles:

NASA rockets use multiple stages.

NASA rockets use more efficient liquid fuel instead of solid fuel.

NASA rockets go slowly in the lower atmosphere and start gaining speed once they get enough altitude that aur friction won't be a probelem.

What do thunderbird rockets use? please don't say they aren't real.

Uh..... When have I called you a troll BJane?  In actuality, I don't believe you are.  No need for apologies.   

...How could you possibly get that from what I said?

One of the hazards of man-portable rocket launchers such as the bazooka or RPG is backblast.

This is caused by the gases from the open-ended launch-pipe striking people or objects behind the operator & basically blowing the shit out of them.

This proves that a rocket exhaust will definitely interact with a mass placed behind it.

The atmosphere has mass (stick your hand out of a car window at 80mph for a demonstration of how much).

Ergo my explanation for how a rocket works, i.e. by pushing on an outside mass, has definitive evidential proof.

Now show me similar proof for yours & NASA's explanation.

Go on; shouldn't be too hard should it?

P.s. ausGeoff: LOL!!! You wish!

P.p.s. Markjo: double-LOL!!! Off you go, Mr. 'Awesome'...

go fuck yourself.

go fuck yourself.

What is your explanation for how rockets work in the atmosphere?

Yes; Jrowedodgy; do you agree with my post on 'backblast' proving rockets thrust on an outside mass or not?

You wouldn't be TROLLING, would you?

Someone did that with a false analogy about Australia earlier; you, however, seem to prefer a cruder method...

Whatever; stay on topic, everyone: I have provided proof for my claims of how rockets function; can you provide similar proof for NASA's explanation?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 29, 2015, 12:29:44 PM

go fuck yourself.

What is your explanation for how rockets work in the atmosphere?

...You know he's a FEer, right?

Quote from: legion on May 29, 2015, 12:54:59 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 29, 2015, 12:29:44 PM

go fuck yourself.

What is your explanation for how rockets work in the atmosphere?

...You know he's a FEer, right?

Yes, I do.

Bijane: So he claims...

But so what? We simply want to know how he interprets the laws of physics regarding rocketry.

Perfectly simple question, no need to rush to your latest flame's aid; when we need comedy gold we'll let you know.

Now buzz off back to Australia.

Unless you have evidence to prove NASA's rocketry claims versus mine?

Nah; didn't think so; off to Australia with you.

Next!

One of the hazards of man-portable rocket launchers such as the bazooka or RPG is backblast.

This is caused by the gases from the open-ended launch-pipe striking people or objects behind the operator & basically blowing the shit out of them.

This proves that a rocket exhaust will definitely interact with a mass placed behind it.

I bet you think that you can push a sail boat by putting a fan on it.

One of the hazards of man-portable rocket launchers such as the bazooka or RPG is backblast.

This is caused by the gases from the open-ended launch-pipe striking people or objects behind the operator & basically blowing the shit out of them.

This proves that a rocket exhaust will definitely interact with a mass placed behind it.

Float behind a rocket in space and you'd see the same effect.   The bazooka doesn't get any additional thrust from  you begin knocked A over T  20 ft behind the rocket,  at which time the rocket is a mile away in the oopposite direction.   Jrowe, had the right activity planned for you.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 29, 2015, 12:29:44 PM

go fuck yourself.

What is your explanation for how rockets work in the atmosphere?

i don't give a damn, i'm just sick of the bs pap smear legba spews all over the forum. if you were a serious flat earther you would see just how pathetic he is. he offers nothing except a waste of time.

Quote from: legion on May 29, 2015, 12:54:59 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 29, 2015, 12:29:44 PM

go fuck yourself.

What is your explanation for how rockets work in the atmosphere?

i don't give a damn, i'm just sick of the bs pap smear legba spews all over the forum. if you were a serious flat earther you would see just how pathetic he is. he offers nothing except a waste of time.

He's not a flat Earther and neither are you. You're a pretender and were under your other names; "iwanttobelieve" being the stand out one until you retired it a whle back. You were just as nasty in that name, acting like a fanny.
The thing is; what Papa is saying, goes against mainstream lies and yet you seem to have a problem with it whilst trying to push your stuff onto others.

You're a game player who likes to play them all, except those that are in on the carry on, like some flat earther's.
I've seen this crap before on a good few occasions.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 30, 2015, 03:30:54 AM

Quote from: legion on May 29, 2015, 12:54:59 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 29, 2015, 12:29:44 PM

go fuck yourself.

What is your explanation for how rockets work in the atmosphere?

i don't give a damn, i'm just sick of the bs pap smear legba spews all over the forum. if you were a serious flat earther you would see just how pathetic he is. he offers nothing except a waste of time.

He's not a flat Earther and neither are you. You're a pretender and were under your other names; "iwanttobelieve" being the stand out one until you retired it a whle back. You were just as nasty in that name, acting like a fanny.
The thing is; what Papa is saying, goes against mainstream lies and yet you seem to have a problem with it whilst trying to push your stuff onto others.

You're a game player who likes to play them all, except those that are in on the carry on, like some flat earther's.
I've seen this crap before on a good few occasions.

i still have no idea who that is. pay attention.

i don't give a damn about taking sides, i am here for the sake of the truth. you are a liar, pap smear is a liar, and you are open about it. what he posts is clear bs intended to take attention away from honest theories, and focus it on his absurd idiocy and tedious behavior. some of us care about this site. you are clearly one of those who do not.
i have a problem with people spreading lies for the sake of discrediting a serious movement. you fall into that category. your model is one of the biggest piles of shit i have ever seen, and everyone knows it: even you have to know it by now, and you don't even go through the motions of improving it. you are a moron.

i am here for the sake of the truth. all you are capable of is lies, so i will call you and your ilk out all i want.

I bet you think that you can push a sail boat by putting a fan on it.

Um, bad news. That photo? It's from an example of when they successfully propelled a " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">boat with a fan on it.

Quote from: markjo on May 29, 2015, 04:37:52 PM

I bet you think that you can push a sail boat by putting a fan on it.

Um, bad news. That photo? It's from an example of when they successfully propelled a boat with a fan on it.

Lol they got going 3 mph, at that rate they'll be to the moon in 3000 years. Now the question remains, will it work in a vacuum?

Work in a vacuum? It hardly worked on water and the only reason it did was because the fan had an open back to push air through to the sail which counter-acted it which is why it went as slow as it did.
It's as effective as trying to row a boat suspended from a crane.

Now the question remains, will it work in a vacuum?

No, there's no air for it to use. That's why rockets don't use propellors.