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

Quote from: markjo on June 03, 2015, 11:04:55 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on June 03, 2015, 10:09:11 AM

Ask yourself how to fly a heavy Shuttle from the ISS at speed 7 500 m/s and altitude 400 000 m and land on Earth. How do you do it? How do you brake. Checking with NASA they suggest some sort of acrobatic flying, etc. All nonsense, of course. I really feel sorry for NASA that cannot explain how to slow down land a Shuttle on Earth.

Anders, your ignorance of how space flight works is not evidence of NASA fraud.  It's only evidence of your ignorance of how space flight works.  If you can't understand something as fundamental as friction due to air resistance, then I suggest that you demand a refund from the school that granted you your engineering degree.

I have my doubts about landing Spaceships on Earth, e.g. the Shuttle. If you ask NASA for details they will tell you that their Shuttles used their rocket engines to slow down from 7 500 m/s to some lower speed - the Shuttles were flying backwards - and then they flipped 180° to nose forward to allow for acrobatic flying braking by a pilot using some wing flaps - like a plane. It doesn't sound realistic.

Apparently you are ignorant of reaction control thrusters as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_control_system

And NASA cannot say how much fuel is used to brake, etc, etc. According NASA the Shuttle is virtually empty up at the ISS - only bringing some crew, waste and some research stuff back. No fuel! So how did they brake and land?

Apparently you don't understand that the OMS engines had a separate fuel supply from the main engines.

These pods also contained the Orbiter's aft set of reaction control system (RCS) engines, and so were referred to as OMS/RCS pods. The OM engine and RCS systems both burned monomethylhydrazine (MMH) as fuel, which was oxidized with dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4), with the propellants being stored in tanks within the OMS/RCS pod, alongside other fuel and engine management systems.[4] When full, the pods together carried around 8,174 kilograms (18,021 lb) of MMH and 13,486 kilograms (29,732 lb) of N2O4, allowing the OMS to produce a total of around 1,000 feet per second (300 m/s) of delta-v with a 65,000-pound (29,500 kg) payload.[4][5]

Quote from: legion on June 02, 2015, 01:49:46 PM

Show me a photo you have taken of the iss for this comment to be relevant.

Where did I say I photographed it? Why would the lack make the comment irrelevant?

You will have seen a point of light and concluded that you saw the iss. What you actually saw was a point of light. The mind can trick you that way when your belief is strong.

If you have a photo that you took, that can be looked at by other members. Without something to look at, we have nothing but your word.

And that's not good enough.

markjo, I was going to reply something similar, but you did a better job

Something I was wondering about, do people here know how to use google? Or do they think searching on the internet is means asking simple questions on forums and getting answers there?
Not saying people should not ask, but at least try.

Quote from: Heiwa on June 03, 2015, 11:56:22 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 03, 2015, 11:04:55 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on June 03, 2015, 10:09:11 AM

Ask yourself how to fly a heavy Shuttle from the ISS at speed 7 500 m/s and altitude 400 000 m and land on Earth. How do you do it? How do you brake. Checking with NASA they suggest some sort of acrobatic flying, etc. All nonsense, of course. I really feel sorry for NASA that cannot explain how to slow down land a Shuttle on Earth.

Anders, your ignorance of how space flight works is not evidence of NASA fraud.  It's only evidence of your ignorance of how space flight works.  If you can't understand something as fundamental as friction due to air resistance, then I suggest that you demand a refund from the school that granted you your engineering degree.

I have my doubts about landing Spaceships on Earth, e.g. the Shuttle. If you ask NASA for details they will tell you that their Shuttles used their rocket engines to slow down from 7 500 m/s to some lower speed - the Shuttles were flying backwards - and then they flipped 180° to nose forward to allow for acrobatic flying braking by a pilot using some wing flaps - like a plane. It doesn't sound realistic.

Apparently you are ignorant of reaction control thrusters as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_control_system

Quote from: Heiwa on June 03, 2015, 11:56:22 AM

And NASA cannot say how much fuel is used to brake, etc, etc. According NASA the Shuttle is virtually empty up at the ISS - only bringing some crew, waste and some research stuff back. No fuel! So how did they brake and land?

Apparently you don't understand that the OMS engines had a separate fuel supply from the main engines.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Orbital_Maneuvering_System

These pods also contained the Orbiter's aft set of reaction control system (RCS) engines, and so were referred to as OMS/RCS pods. The OM engine and RCS systems both burned monomethylhydrazine (MMH) as fuel, which was oxidized with dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4), with the propellants being stored in tanks within the OMS/RCS pod, alongside other fuel and engine management systems.[4] When full, the pods together carried around 8,174 kilograms (18,021 lb) of MMH and 13,486 kilograms (29,732 lb) of N2O4, allowing the OMS to produce a total of around 1,000 feet per second (300 m/s) of delta-v with a 65,000-pound (29,500 kg) payload.[4][5]

No, I am fully informed about the Shuttle ... except how to brake. The average Shuttle has mass 78 000 kg and velocity 7 500 m/s in orbit around Earth at 400 000 m altitude. How to slow down and land it?
NASA says you start flying nose backwards and fire your rocket engines to slow down. But there is no fuel for it!
Then you arrive at 100 000 m altitude, where the atmosphere starts to heat you up by friction and your velocity has increased!!
What do you do now?
You flip 180° over into a nose forward position and dip down. But you are at 8000 m/s velocity!
How to brake?
NASA says acrobatic flying will slow you down.
With a 78 000 kg Spaceship? To land?
Sorry. I wonder what NASA twerp has made this Shuttle shit up?
Any ideas?

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on June 02, 2015, 02:22:10 PM

Quote from: legion on June 02, 2015, 01:49:46 PM

Show me a photo you have taken of the iss for this comment to be relevant.

Where did I say I photographed it? Why would the lack make the comment irrelevant?

You will have seen a point of light and concluded that you saw the iss. What you actually saw was a point of light. The mind can trick you that way when your belief is strong.

Instead of listening to my description what I saw, you're telling me what I saw, even though you didn't see it? Lack of evidence hasn't ever kept you from saying whatever you want any other time. At least you're consistent.

If you have a photo that you took, that can be looked at by other members. Without something to look at, we have nothing but your word.

And that's not good enough.

Meh. Nothing I do is going to be good enough for you. You'd still have nothing but my word, since there's no way to prove that I took it, and that I hadn't photoshopped it. As I recall, someone here did show their photos of the ISS and it was met with exactly the reaction expected: denial and complaints that they weren't very sharp. Unfortunately, I can't find the post and don't remember whose it was.

You could see it yourself, which might be good enough, but you won't. To do so takes knowledge, effort, and curiosity. All of which you lack.

Quote from: legion on June 03, 2015, 12:21:52 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on June 02, 2015, 02:22:10 PM

Quote from: legion on June 02, 2015, 01:49:46 PM

Show me a photo you have taken of the iss for this comment to be relevant.

Where did I say I photographed it? Why would the lack make the comment irrelevant?

You will have seen a point of light and concluded that you saw the iss. What you actually saw was a point of light. The mind can trick you that way when your belief is strong.

Instead of listening to my description what I saw, you're telling me what I saw, even though you didn't see it? Lack of evidence hasn't ever kept you from saying whatever you want any other time. At least you're consistent.

Quote

If you have a photo that you took, that can be looked at by other members. Without something to look at, we have nothing but your word.

And that's not good enough.

Meh. Nothing I do is going to be good enough for you. You'd still have nothing but my word, since there's no way to prove that I took it, and that I hadn't photoshopped it. As I recall, someone here did show their photos of the ISS and it was met with exactly the reaction expected: denial and complaints that they weren't very sharp. Unfortunately, I can't find the post and don't remember whose it was.

You could see it yourself, which might be good enough, but you won't. To do so takes knowledge, effort, and curiosity. All of which you lack.

So in light of all that, why do you bother? You freely admit that no "evidence" you offer will be conclusive or even worthy of consideration.

What is your purpose in presenting your anecdotal "evidence?" Is it a religious conviction perhaps...?

I think many of you on here are far worse than people like iWitness. iWitness always gives a frame of reference (scripture) to justify his beliefs. What do you offer? Your popular beliefs? Well, your beliefs are handed to you from mainstream science which changes all the time.

Come back when you have something worthy of debate.

So in light of all that, why do you bother? You freely admit that no "evidence" you offer will be conclusive or even worthy of consideration.

He was commenting more on your capacity to have a serious conversation than the worth of his evidence. Sorry you missed that.

What is your purpose in presenting your anecdotal "evidence?" Is it a religious conviction perhaps...?

What do you think?

I think many of you on here are far worse than people like iWitness. iWitness always gives a frame of reference (scripture) to justify his beliefs. What do you offer? Your popular beliefs? Well, your beliefs are handed to you from mainstream science which changes all the time.

Come back when you have something worthy of debate.

Oh my. You have banished him. Whatever shall he do?

No, I am fully informed about the Shuttle ... except how to brake.

Evidently you aren't fully informed, otherwise you wouldn't need ask how the shuttle brakes.

The average Shuttle has mass 78 000 kg and velocity 7 500 m/s in orbit around Earth at 400 000 m altitude. How to slow down and land it?

Like I told you, by firing the OMS engines to put you into an orbit that intersects the atmosphere.

NASA says you start flying nose backwards and fire your rocket engines to slow down. But there is no fuel for it!

Evidently there is fuel, in the OMS pods.

Then you arrive at 100 000 m altitude, where the atmosphere starts to heat you up by friction and your velocity has increased!!
What do you do now?
You flip 180° over into a nose forward position and dip down. But you are at 8000 m/s velocity!

No, you flip back over to nose forward before you start hitting the atmosphere.

How to brake?

Friction from the atmosphere.  How many times do I have to say it before it sinks in?

NASA says acrobatic flying will slow you down.

Citation, please.  I don't think that NASA ever said that.

With a 78 000 kg Spaceship? To land?

Yes, that's pretty much the point of making a reusable shuttle.

Sorry. I wonder what NASA twerp has made this Shuttle shit up?
Any ideas?

The shuttle design process was a long, tedious one involving lots of people at NASA, North American Rockwell and a bunch of other contractors and subcontractors.

Evidently there is fuel, in the OMS pods.

...

The shuttle design process was a long, tedious one involving lots of people at NASA, North American Rockwell and a bunch of other contractors and subcontractors.

But there is not enough fuel in the OMS pods to sufficiently slow down a 78 000 kg Shuttle. It seems lots of people at NASA, North American Rockwell and a bunch of other contractors and subcontractors made a little mistake.

Quote from: markjo on June 03, 2015, 05:13:20 PM

Evidently there is fuel, in the OMS pods.

...

The shuttle design process was a long, tedious one involving lots of people at NASA, North American Rockwell and a bunch of other contractors and subcontractors.

But there is not enough fuel in the OMS pods to sufficiently slow down a 78 000 kg Shuttle. It seems lots of people at NASA, North American Rockwell and a bunch of other contractors and subcontractors made a little mistake.

Or... You made the mistake. Hmmm, who made the mistake?  The guy who misuses basic engineering terminology like speed/velocity or mass/weight; the same guy who does not know how to properly apply the rocket equation?  Or the guys who have a proven track record of building machines that work and provide documentation to bear that out?

But there is not enough fuel in the OMS pods to sufficiently slow down a 78 000 kg Shuttle.

Please show your calculations to justify your assertion.  How much fuel do you believe is required to slow down a 78,000 kg shuttle?

Quote from: markjo on June 03, 2015, 05:13:20 PM

Evidently there is fuel, in the OMS pods.

...

The shuttle design process was a long, tedious one involving lots of people at NASA, North American Rockwell and a bunch of other contractors and subcontractors.

But there is not enough fuel in the OMS pods to sufficiently slow down a 78 000 kg Shuttle. It seems lots of people at NASA, North American Rockwell and a bunch of other contractors and subcontractors made a little mistake.

It hardly needs to slow down at all to deorbit, it hardly takes any fuel.

Quote from: markjo on June 03, 2015, 05:13:20 PM

Evidently there is fuel, in the OMS pods.

...

The shuttle design process was a long, tedious one involving lots of people at NASA, North American Rockwell and a bunch of other contractors and subcontractors.

But there is not enough fuel in the OMS pods to sufficiently slow down a 78 000 kg Shuttle. It seems lots of people at NASA, North American Rockwell and a bunch of other contractors and subcontractors made a little mistake.

You don't need to slow the shuttle down completely in order to land- you only need to slow it down to where its orbit intersects the atmosphere. That cuts more the 85% of the energy required.

How can you deny space travel so outright yet you obviously are completely ignorant about its most basic concepts?

Quote from: Heiwa on June 03, 2015, 06:44:24 PM

But there is not enough fuel in the OMS pods to sufficiently slow down a 78 000 kg Shuttle.

Please show your calculations to justify your assertion.  How much fuel do you believe is required to slow down a 78,000 kg shuttle?

I quote from my web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET :
Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in space (no influence of gravity of an adjacent planet or Moon) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m₀ and after, m₁ firing the rocket engine, difference m₀ - m₁ being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity v_e of gas leaving the space ship rocket nozzle.
Delta-v = v_e ln (m₀/m₁)
Example - you want to slow down a 78,000 kg (m₀) Shuttle entering the atmosphere backwards at a horizontal speed of 9,000 m/s (no influence of gravity). You have only 8,000 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity v_e of 2,800 m/s. m₁ = 70,000 kg.
You find that Delta-v is only 303 m/s, i.e. braking with the Shuttle rocket engines is not very effective. You are too heavy!

Quote from: markjo on June 03, 2015, 08:48:22 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on June 03, 2015, 06:44:24 PM

But there is not enough fuel in the OMS pods to sufficiently slow down a 78 000 kg Shuttle.

Please show your calculations to justify your assertion.  How much fuel do you believe is required to slow down a 78,000 kg shuttle?

I quote from my web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET :
Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in space (no influence of gravity of an adjacent planet or Moon) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m₀ and after, m₁ firing the rocket engine, difference m₀ - m₁ being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity v_e of gas leaving the space ship rocket nozzle.
Delta-v = v_e ln (m₀/m₁)
Example - you want to slow down a 78,000 kg (m₀) Shuttle entering the atmosphere backwards at a horizontal speed of 9,000 m/s (no influence of gravity). You have only 8,000 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity v_e of 2,800 m/s. m₁ = 70,000 kg.
You find that Delta-v is only 303 m/s, i.e. braking with the Shuttle rocket engines is not very effective. You are too heavy!

Correct! And you require 150dV to drop out of orbit at that altitude. Sorry.

Read my comment above.

Quote from: Heiwa on June 03, 2015, 11:05:46 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 03, 2015, 08:48:22 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on June 03, 2015, 06:44:24 PM

But there is not enough fuel in the OMS pods to sufficiently slow down a 78 000 kg Shuttle.

Please show your calculations to justify your assertion.  How much fuel do you believe is required to slow down a 78,000 kg shuttle?

I quote from my web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET :
Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in space (no influence of gravity of an adjacent planet or Moon) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m₀ and after, m₁ firing the rocket engine, difference m₀ - m₁ being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity v_e of gas leaving the space ship rocket nozzle.
Delta-v = v_e ln (m₀/m₁)
Example - you want to slow down a 78,000 kg (m₀) Shuttle entering the atmosphere backwards at a horizontal speed of 9,000 m/s (no influence of gravity). You have only 8,000 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity v_e of 2,800 m/s. m₁ = 70,000 kg.
You find that Delta-v is only 303 m/s, i.e. braking with the Shuttle rocket engines is not very effective. You are too heavy!

Correct! And you require 150dV to drop out of orbit at that altitude. Sorry.

Read my comment above.

Hm, we have already dropped out of orbit at 400 000 m altitude and at a certain speed and are now at, say, 130 000 m altitude with speed 9,000 m/s and entering the atmosphere. If we now rely only on friction/turbulence to slow down, we will burn up and break apart.

NASA also refuses to tell us how long it takes to enter the atmosphere and then to land on Earth. If it takes 30 minutes total, you will fly 8 100 000 m until touch down with a mean deceleration of 5 m/sē. No pilot is strong enough to steer the Spacecraft manually so long and, regardless, the Spacecraft burns up in the meantime ... or breaks apart.

I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm#5 . Look at the footage taken from inside a Shuttle when landing. It is typical Hollywood!

 

Quote from: markjo on June 03, 2015, 08:48:22 PM

Please show your calculations to justify your assertion.  How much fuel do you believe is required to slow down a 78,000 kg shuttle?

I quote from my web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET :
Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in space (no influence of gravity of an adjacent planet or Moon) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m₀ and after, m₁ firing the rocket engine, difference m₀ - m₁ being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity v_e of gas leaving the space ship rocket nozzle.
Delta-v = v_e ln (m₀/m₁)
Example - you want to slow down a 78,000 kg (m₀) Shuttle entering the atmosphere backwards at a horizontal speed of 9,000 m/s (no influence of gravity). You have only 8,000 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity v_e of 2,800 m/s. m₁ = 70,000 kg.
You find that Delta-v is only 303 m/s, i.e. braking with the Shuttle rocket engines is not very effective. You are too heavy!

Let's recall some of your words :

The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is, as we all know (I mention it on my web site), used to see how a rocket or spacecraft accelerates, while getting lighter with a constant force (exhaust gasses escaping at 2400 m/s) applied to it. If it can be used for deceleration is another matter. The force is then applied in the opposite direction or the rocket/spacecraft flies backwards, i.e. has been flipped around 180° in the direction of flight. The force must be applied in the right direction.

Fine, you've finally sorted the question. Do you still rely on your Heiwa's world famous energetic equation to do the right calculations for  delta Vs, or did you also change your mind on this subject?

Quote from: Heiwa on June 03, 2015, 11:05:46 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 03, 2015, 08:48:22 PM

Please show your calculations to justify your assertion.  How much fuel do you believe is required to slow down a 78,000 kg shuttle?

I quote from my web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET :
Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in space (no influence of gravity of an adjacent planet or Moon) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m₀ and after, m₁ firing the rocket engine, difference m₀ - m₁ being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity v_e of gas leaving the space ship rocket nozzle.
Delta-v = v_e ln (m₀/m₁)
Example - you want to slow down a 78,000 kg (m₀) Shuttle entering the atmosphere backwards at a horizontal speed of 9,000 m/s (no influence of gravity). You have only 8,000 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity v_e of 2,800 m/s. m₁ = 70,000 kg.
You find that Delta-v is only 303 m/s, i.e. braking with the Shuttle rocket engines is not very effective. You are too heavy!

Let's recall some of your words :

Quote from: Heiwa on December 13, 2014, 08:45:37 PM

The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is, as we all know (I mention it on my web site), used to see how a rocket or spacecraft accelerates, while getting lighter with a constant force (exhaust gasses escaping at 2400 m/s) applied to it. If it can be used for deceleration is another matter. The force is then applied in the opposite direction or the rocket/spacecraft flies backwards, i.e. has been flipped around 180° in the direction of flight. The force must be applied in the right direction.

Fine, you've finally sorted the question. Do you still rely on your Heiwa's world famous energetic equation to do the right calculations for  delta Vs, or did you also change your mind on this subject?

What are you about?
 
I like the idea of a rocket or fire works ejecting exhaust gases in order to accelerate. It is great fun. The rocket goes one way leaving the exhaust gases behind. Works fine in atmosphere and vacuum. I have myself sent many fireworks into the atmosphere.

On the other hand I wonder about using ejecting exhaust gases in order to slow down a rocket in space. Then the rocket will be surrounded by already ejected hot exhaust gases all the time of braking and it will no doubt affect the rocket, e.g. the outside paintwork will be damaged, any windows may become black, antennas may be burnt off, etc, etc. 

I wonder what NASA has to say about braking in space.

Quote from: Antonio on June 04, 2015, 12:02:21 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on June 03, 2015, 11:05:46 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 03, 2015, 08:48:22 PM

Please show your calculations to justify your assertion.  How much fuel do you believe is required to slow down a 78,000 kg shuttle?

I quote from my web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET :
Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in space (no influence of gravity of an adjacent planet or Moon) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m₀ and after, m₁ firing the rocket engine, difference m₀ - m₁ being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity v_e of gas leaving the space ship rocket nozzle.
Delta-v = v_e ln (m₀/m₁)
Example - you want to slow down a 78,000 kg (m₀) Shuttle entering the atmosphere backwards at a horizontal speed of 9,000 m/s (no influence of gravity). You have only 8,000 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity v_e of 2,800 m/s. m₁ = 70,000 kg.
You find that Delta-v is only 303 m/s, i.e. braking with the Shuttle rocket engines is not very effective. You are too heavy!

Let's recall some of your words :

Quote from: Heiwa on December 13, 2014, 08:45:37 PM

The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is, as we all know (I mention it on my web site), used to see how a rocket or spacecraft accelerates, while getting lighter with a constant force (exhaust gasses escaping at 2400 m/s) applied to it. If it can be used for deceleration is another matter. The force is then applied in the opposite direction or the rocket/spacecraft flies backwards, i.e. has been flipped around 180° in the direction of flight. The force must be applied in the right direction.

Fine, you've finally sorted the question. Do you still rely on your Heiwa's world famous energetic equation to do the right calculations for  delta Vs, or did you also change your mind on this subject?

What are you about?
 
I like the idea of a rocket or fire works ejecting exhaust gases in order to accelerate. It is great fun. The rocket goes one way leaving the exhaust gases behind. Works fine in atmosphere and vacuum. I have myself sent many fireworks into the atmosphere.

On the other hand I wonder about using ejecting exhaust gases in order to slow down a rocket in space. Then the rocket will be surrounded by already ejected hot exhaust gases all the time of braking and it will no doubt affect the rocket, e.g. the outside paintwork will be damaged, any windows may become black, antennas may be burnt off, etc, etc. 

I wonder what NASA has to say about braking in space.

Why would the rocket be surrounded by exhaust gases?

The exhaust would be ejected at speed x, whilst the rocket would be travelling at speed y. Speed x will always be greater than y so the exhaust gases will travel away from the rocket.

Quote from: Antonio on June 04, 2015, 12:02:21 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on June 03, 2015, 11:05:46 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 03, 2015, 08:48:22 PM

Please show your calculations to justify your assertion.  How much fuel do you believe is required to slow down a 78,000 kg shuttle?

I quote from my web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET :
Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in space (no influence of gravity of an adjacent planet or Moon) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m₀ and after, m₁ firing the rocket engine, difference m₀ - m₁ being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity v_e of gas leaving the space ship rocket nozzle.
Delta-v = v_e ln (m₀/m₁)
Example - you want to slow down a 78,000 kg (m₀) Shuttle entering the atmosphere backwards at a horizontal speed of 9,000 m/s (no influence of gravity). You have only 8,000 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity v_e of 2,800 m/s. m₁ = 70,000 kg.
You find that Delta-v is only 303 m/s, i.e. braking with the Shuttle rocket engines is not very effective. You are too heavy!

Let's recall some of your words :

Quote from: Heiwa on December 13, 2014, 08:45:37 PM

The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is, as we all know (I mention it on my web site), used to see how a rocket or spacecraft accelerates, while getting lighter with a constant force (exhaust gasses escaping at 2400 m/s) applied to it. If it can be used for deceleration is another matter. The force is then applied in the opposite direction or the rocket/spacecraft flies backwards, i.e. has been flipped around 180° in the direction of flight. The force must be applied in the right direction.

Fine, you've finally sorted the question. Do you still rely on your Heiwa's world famous energetic equation to do the right calculations for  delta Vs, or did you also change your mind on this subject?

What are you about?
 
I like the idea of a rocket or fire works ejecting exhaust gases in order to accelerate. It is great fun. The rocket goes one way leaving the exhaust gases behind. Works fine in atmosphere and vacuum. I have myself sent many fireworks into the atmosphere.

On the other hand I wonder about using ejecting exhaust gases in order to slow down a rocket in space. Then the rocket will be surrounded by already ejected hot exhaust gases all the time of braking and it will no doubt affect the rocket, e.g. the outside paintwork will be damaged, any windows may become black, antennas may be burnt off, etc, etc. 

I wonder what NASA has to say about braking in space.

Nice deflection. Can you just answer clearly to my questions ?

Do you still believe that the Tsiolkovsky equation does not work with decelerating bodies ?
Why don't you use you world class energetic equation to get the results ?

Hm, we have already dropped out of orbit at 400 000 m altitude and at a certain speed and are now at, say, 130 000 m altitude with speed 9,000 m/s and entering the atmosphere. If we now rely only on friction/turbulence to slow down, we will burn up and break apart.

Not if you enter the proper reentry corridor at the right speed and align your heat shield properly.

NASA also refuses to tell us how long it takes to enter the atmosphere and then to land on Earth. If it takes 30 minutes total, you will fly 8 100 000 m until touch down with a mean deceleration of 5 m/sē. No pilot is strong enough to steer the Spacecraft manually so long and, regardless, the Spacecraft burns up in the meantime ... or breaks apart.

Ummm...  You understand that 5m/s² is about 1/2 g of deceleration, don't you?  You probably experience more than that when you slam on the brakes in your car.

Quote from: Heiwa on June 04, 2015, 04:09:16 AM

Quote from: Antonio on June 04, 2015, 12:02:21 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on June 03, 2015, 11:05:46 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 03, 2015, 08:48:22 PM

Please show your calculations to justify your assertion.  How much fuel do you believe is required to slow down a 78,000 kg shuttle?

I quote from my web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET :
Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in space (no influence of gravity of an adjacent planet or Moon) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m₀ and after, m₁ firing the rocket engine, difference m₀ - m₁ being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity v_e of gas leaving the space ship rocket nozzle.
Delta-v = v_e ln (m₀/m₁)
Example - you want to slow down a 78,000 kg (m₀) Shuttle entering the atmosphere backwards at a horizontal speed of 9,000 m/s (no influence of gravity). You have only 8,000 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity v_e of 2,800 m/s. m₁ = 70,000 kg.
You find that Delta-v is only 303 m/s, i.e. braking with the Shuttle rocket engines is not very effective. You are too heavy!

Let's recall some of your words :

Quote from: Heiwa on December 13, 2014, 08:45:37 PM

The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is, as we all know (I mention it on my web site), used to see how a rocket or spacecraft accelerates, while getting lighter with a constant force (exhaust gasses escaping at 2400 m/s) applied to it. If it can be used for deceleration is another matter. The force is then applied in the opposite direction or the rocket/spacecraft flies backwards, i.e. has been flipped around 180° in the direction of flight. The force must be applied in the right direction.

Fine, you've finally sorted the question. Do you still rely on your Heiwa's world famous energetic equation to do the right calculations for  delta Vs, or did you also change your mind on this subject?

What are you about?
 
I like the idea of a rocket or fire works ejecting exhaust gases in order to accelerate. It is great fun. The rocket goes one way leaving the exhaust gases behind. Works fine in atmosphere and vacuum. I have myself sent many fireworks into the atmosphere.

On the other hand I wonder about using ejecting exhaust gases in order to slow down a rocket in space. Then the rocket will be surrounded by already ejected hot exhaust gases all the time of braking and it will no doubt affect the rocket, e.g. the outside paintwork will be damaged, any windows may become black, antennas may be burnt off, etc, etc. 

I wonder what NASA has to say about braking in space.

Why would the rocket be surrounded by exhaust gases?

The exhaust would be ejected at speed x, whilst the rocket would be travelling at speed y. Speed x will always be greater than y so the exhaust gases will travel away from the rocket.

Hm, if the rocket (Shuttle) has speed y, say 9 000 m/s (at entry Earth atmosphere to be slowed down to say 100 m/s to land on a runway) and as the exhaust is ejected from the rocket at speed x, say 2 400 m/s, it seems the rocket will soon be inside the exhaust (space pollution) it has just ejected in order to slow down.

Hm, if the rocket (Shuttle) has speed y, say 9 000 m/s (at entry Earth atmosphere to be slowed down to say 100 m/s to land on a runway) and as the exhaust is ejected from the rocket at speed x, say 2 400 m/s, it seems the rocket will soon be inside the exhaust (space pollution) it has just ejected in order to slow down.

If the shuttle is travelling at 9000 m/s and exhaust is ejected at 2400 m/s, then the exhaust would be travelling at 11,400 m/s.  How is the shuttle supposed to catch up with the exhaust if the shuttle is slowing down?

Quote from: Heiwa on June 04, 2015, 07:44:49 AM

Hm, if the rocket (Shuttle) has speed y, say 9 000 m/s (at entry Earth atmosphere to be slowed down to say 100 m/s to land on a runway) and as the exhaust is ejected from the rocket at speed x, say 2 400 m/s, it seems the rocket will soon be inside the exhaust (space pollution) it has just ejected in order to slow down.

If the shuttle is travelling at 9000 m/s and exhaust is ejected at 2400 m/s, then the exhaust would be travelling at 11,400 m/s.  How is the shuttle supposed to catch up with the exhaust if the shuttle is slowing down?

Do we know if Heiwa actually has a degree in Marine Engineering, or is it Marine Architecture? This claim alone makes it clear that he doesn't understand vector addition, which is the basis for any kind of engineering. Or maybe he really was an engineer once (possibly even a good one) but now he's going senile. Poor dear.

Quote from: Heiwa on June 04, 2015, 07:44:49 AM

Hm, if the rocket (Shuttle) has speed y, say 9 000 m/s (at entry Earth atmosphere to be slowed down to say 100 m/s to land on a runway) and as the exhaust is ejected from the rocket at speed x, say 2 400 m/s, it seems the rocket will soon be inside the exhaust (space pollution) it has just ejected in order to slow down.

If the shuttle is travelling at 9000 m/s and exhaust is ejected at 2400 m/s, then the exhaust would be travelling at 11,400 m/s.  How is the shuttle supposed to catch up with the exhaust if the shuttle is slowing down?

When accelerating the rocket speed increases from A to B m/s in one direction and the exhaust is ejected at 2 400 m/s in the opposite direction. It means that the rocket speeds off away from the exhaust.
When braking the speed decreases from 9 000 to say 8 700 m/s in one direction and the exhaust is ejected at 2 400 m/s in the same direction. It means that the rocket will be surrounded by exhaust while braking.

Quote from: markjo on June 04, 2015, 07:55:17 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on June 04, 2015, 07:44:49 AM

Hm, if the rocket (Shuttle) has speed y, say 9 000 m/s (at entry Earth atmosphere to be slowed down to say 100 m/s to land on a runway) and as the exhaust is ejected from the rocket at speed x, say 2 400 m/s, it seems the rocket will soon be inside the exhaust (space pollution) it has just ejected in order to slow down.

If the shuttle is travelling at 9000 m/s and exhaust is ejected at 2400 m/s, then the exhaust would be travelling at 11,400 m/s.  How is the shuttle supposed to catch up with the exhaust if the shuttle is slowing down?

When accelerating the rocket speed increases from A to B m/s in one direction and the exhaust is ejected at 2 400 m/s in the opposite direction. It means that the rocket speeds off away from the exhaust.
When braking the speed decreases from 9 000 to say 8 700 m/s in one direction and the exhaust is ejected at 2 400 m/s in the same direction. It means that the rocket will be surrounded by exhaust while braking.

That's called diverting the question,   you didn't know about free return trajectories,  aerobraking,  gravity assist orbits.   Now you are proving you know nothing about re-entry.

You stated that the Shuttle doesn't carry enough fuel to do a re-entry burn,  and then when shown that it does,  you start a diversion.   You haven't even been asked about aerobraking yet.

Quote from: Heiwa on June 04, 2015, 09:04:10 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 04, 2015, 07:55:17 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on June 04, 2015, 07:44:49 AM

Hm, if the rocket (Shuttle) has speed y, say 9 000 m/s (at entry Earth atmosphere to be slowed down to say 100 m/s to land on a runway) and as the exhaust is ejected from the rocket at speed x, say 2 400 m/s, it seems the rocket will soon be inside the exhaust (space pollution) it has just ejected in order to slow down.

If the shuttle is travelling at 9000 m/s and exhaust is ejected at 2400 m/s, then the exhaust would be travelling at 11,400 m/s.  How is the shuttle supposed to catch up with the exhaust if the shuttle is slowing down?

When accelerating the rocket speed increases from A to B m/s in one direction and the exhaust is ejected at 2 400 m/s in the opposite direction. It means that the rocket speeds off away from the exhaust.
When braking the speed decreases from 9 000 to say 8 700 m/s in one direction and the exhaust is ejected at 2 400 m/s in the same direction. It means that the rocket will be surrounded by exhaust while braking.

That's called diverting the question,   you didn't know about free return trajectories,  aerobraking,  gravity assist orbits.   Now you are proving you know nothing about re-entry.

You stated that the Shuttle doesn't carry enough fuel to do a re-entry burn,  and then when shown that it does,  you start a diversion.   You haven't even been asked about aerobraking yet.

Sorry, you are wrong. There is no way a 78 000 kg Shuttle can slow down from 9 000 m/s speed to 0 using its own rocket engines/fuel.
The amount of fuel used to accelerate the Shuttle to 9 000 m/s is much more than 78 000 kg, etc. But all Shuttle launches were fakes! It was an empty 4 000 kg mock-up that was sent up to impress any observers.
You should really study my web pages about it and learn something.

Re fireworks - hold one in your hand and light it and watch the exhaust from it and the smoke it produces. Now walk into the exhaust to smell it. Then do the same thing in vacuum. Then try to add the vectors involved.   

Quote from: Rayzor on June 04, 2015, 09:11:10 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on June 04, 2015, 09:04:10 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 04, 2015, 07:55:17 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on June 04, 2015, 07:44:49 AM

Hm, if the rocket (Shuttle) has speed y, say 9 000 m/s (at entry Earth atmosphere to be slowed down to say 100 m/s to land on a runway) and as the exhaust is ejected from the rocket at speed x, say 2 400 m/s, it seems the rocket will soon be inside the exhaust (space pollution) it has just ejected in order to slow down.

If the shuttle is travelling at 9000 m/s and exhaust is ejected at 2400 m/s, then the exhaust would be travelling at 11,400 m/s.  How is the shuttle supposed to catch up with the exhaust if the shuttle is slowing down?

When accelerating the rocket speed increases from A to B m/s in one direction and the exhaust is ejected at 2 400 m/s in the opposite direction. It means that the rocket speeds off away from the exhaust.
When braking the speed decreases from 9 000 to say 8 700 m/s in one direction and the exhaust is ejected at 2 400 m/s in the same direction. It means that the rocket will be surrounded by exhaust while braking.

That's called diverting the question,   you didn't know about free return trajectories,  aerobraking,  gravity assist orbits.   Now you are proving you know nothing about re-entry.

You stated that the Shuttle doesn't carry enough fuel to do a re-entry burn,  and then when shown that it does,  you start a diversion.   You haven't even been asked about aerobraking yet.

Sorry, you are wrong. There is no way a 78 000 kg Shuttle can slow down from 9 000 m/s speed to 0 using its own rocket engines/fuel.
The amount of fuel used to accelerate the Shuttle to 9 000 m/s is much more than 78 000 kg, etc. But all Shuttle launches were fakes! It was an empty 4 000 kg mock-up that was sent up to impress any observers.
You should really study my web pages about it and learn something.

Re fireworks - hold one in your hand and light it and watch the exhaust from it and the smoke it produces. Now walk into the exhaust to smell it. Then do the same thing in vacuum. Then try to add the vectors involved.

Here's a really simple question for you Anders,   what do you understand by the term "escape velocity".

Sorry, you are wrong. There is no way a 78 000 kg Shuttle can slow down from 9 000 m/s speed to 0 using its own rocket engines/fuel.

Correct, but completely irrelevant since no one (well, no one but you) is claiming that that's what's going on.  The shuttle only needs to slow down (delta v) by 150 m/s or so in order for it to enter the earth's atmosphere and use friction to slow down. 

Quote from: Jet Fission on June 03, 2015, 11:09:38 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on June 03, 2015, 11:05:46 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 03, 2015, 08:48:22 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on June 03, 2015, 06:44:24 PM

But there is not enough fuel in the OMS pods to sufficiently slow down a 78 000 kg Shuttle.

Please show your calculations to justify your assertion.  How much fuel do you believe is required to slow down a 78,000 kg shuttle?

I quote from my web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#KET :
Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in space (no influence of gravity of an adjacent planet or Moon) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m₀ and after, m₁ firing the rocket engine, difference m₀ - m₁ being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity v_e of gas leaving the space ship rocket nozzle.
Delta-v = v_e ln (m₀/m₁)
Example - you want to slow down a 78,000 kg (m₀) Shuttle entering the atmosphere backwards at a horizontal speed of 9,000 m/s (no influence of gravity). You have only 8,000 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity v_e of 2,800 m/s. m₁ = 70,000 kg.
You find that Delta-v is only 303 m/s, i.e. braking with the Shuttle rocket engines is not very effective. You are too heavy!

Correct! And you require 150dV to drop out of orbit at that altitude. Sorry.

Read my comment above.

Hm, we have already dropped out of orbit at 400 000 m altitude and at a certain speed and are now at, say, 130 000 m altitude with speed 9,000 m/s and entering the atmosphere. If we now rely only on friction/turbulence to slow down, we will burn up and break apart.

NASA also refuses to tell us how long it takes to enter the atmosphere and then to land on Earth. If it takes 30 minutes total, you will fly 8 100 000 m until touch down with a mean deceleration of 5 m/sē. No pilot is strong enough to steer the Spacecraft manually so long and, regardless, the Spacecraft burns up in the meantime ... or breaks apart.

I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm#5 . Look at the footage taken from inside a Shuttle when landing. It is typical Hollywood!

It's more like around 7,500m/s when entering the atmosphere, but sure, there would in fact be a lot of heat during re-entry. So, actually think like an engineer for a second, and think about what an engineer could possibly do to protect the shuttle?



Let the jury recognize the persecution has conceded that there is enough dV in the Shuttle to de-orbit, and moved on to another point.