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

Now; take 42, yes, FORTY-TWO, big, 55-gallon drums of kerosene & stand them all on end above it.

Then imagine trying to squeeze all that volume of liquid through the silly little colander in ONE SINGLE SECOND OF TIME.

Yep,  just goes to show what cubic dollars and a nation wide effort can achieve.   

On the other hand, you are aware are you not,  that argument from incredibility doesn't  help your position.   It just make you look like a conspiracy nutter....  Oh wait...   

Did you watch the show about the Russian N1 rocket?

LOL!!!

YOU'RE the 'conspiracy nutter', rayzor; it's all you ever bang on about.

& no, of course I did not waste an hour of my life watching your Soviet propaganda; if it contains anything relevant then quote it yourself.

As for 'argument from incredulity', well I find Santa's Sleigh 'incredible', as I do the Starship Enterprise & many other things that exist only in Fiction.

& as you lot refuse to explain this magic fuel pump in any convincing fashion, my incredulity is entirely justified.

Now sling your hook, tinfoil-hatter; nobody likes you anyway.

LOL!!!

YOU'RE the 'conspiracy nutter', rayzor; it's all you ever bang on about.

& no, of course I did not waste an hour of my life watching your Soviet propaganda; if it contains anything relevant then quote it yourself.

As for 'argument from incredulity', well I find Santa's Sleigh 'incredible', as I do the Starship Enterprise & many other things that exist only in Fiction.

& as you lot refuse to explain this magic fuel pump in any convincing fashion, my incredulity is entirely justified.

Now sling your hook, tinfoil-hatter; nobody likes you anyway.

So everything you profess is a lie,  you don't think there is a conspiracy to fake space missions at all,  you are just a creepy little troll.

A word to the wise, my little trollish fool,  try and learn something about the topic at hand before making yourself look like a fool.  Your continued ignorance is comical.

LOL!!!

*sigh*

YOU'RE the 'conspiracy nutter', rayzor; it's all you ever bang on about.

Actually, you're the conspiracy nutter in that you're a nutter who thinks that NASA is a conspiracy.

& no, of course I did not waste an hour of my life watching your Soviet propaganda; if it contains anything relevant then quote it yourself.

How about the fact that the US isn't the only country who claimed to get a 6 million pound rocket to take off?

As for 'argument from incredulity', well I find Santa's Sleigh 'incredible', as I do the Starship Enterprise & many other things that exist only in Fiction.

We aren't talking about things that the vast majority of people think are fictional.  We are talking about things that the vast majority of people believe to be real.

& as you lot refuse to explain this magic fuel pump in any convincing fashion, my incredulity is entirely justified.

I get the feeling that you could get sucked through that turbo pump and still doubt its capabilities.

Now sling your hook, tinfoil-hatter; nobody likes you anyway.

I like him a lot better than I like you.

LOL!!!

Lots of puffed-up ridicule, evasion & pomposity from the markjo/rayzor double-team, but no answers to this:

See the thing in the picture below that looks like a colander?

Well it's under 1 metre wide.

Now; take 42, yes, FORTY-TWO, big, 55-gallon drums of kerosene & stand them all on end above it.

Then imagine trying to squeeze all that volume of liquid through the silly little colander in ONE SINGLE SECOND OF TIME.

LMFAO!!!

The fuel pump on the Saturn F1 is 5ftX 4ft & it's not made of unobtainium & it isn't powered by kryptonite; it's a tiny p.o.s. that could never, ever, provide the pressure needed to squeeze all that 2300 gallons of fuel through a f**king COLANDER in ONE SECOND ffs!!!

Are you MENTAL?!?!



Nice try, though, by now beyond blatantly obvious criminal shills...

The fuel pump on the Saturn F1 is 5ftX 4ft & it's not made of unobtainium & it isn't powered by kryptonite;

No one ever claimed that it was.

it's a tiny p.o.s. that could never, ever, provide the pressure needed to squeeze all that 2300 gallons of fuel through a f**king COLANDER in ONE SECOND ffs!!!

Does that mean that you've calculated how much pressure it would take to squeeze the fuel and oxidizer through?

Does that mean that you've calculated how much pressure it would take to squeeze the fuel and oxidizer through?

I thought your bum-chum mainframes was doing that...

Oh, wait, he bottled out of it!

Like I said; I don't need any 'calculations' to know Santa's Sleigh's not Real, so I don't need em for the silly fake Saturn F1 engine either...

It's just you, me, & rayzor now, isn't it, criminal shill; I've whittled you down to the bare bones, yet still you are back-pedalling & losing ground...

So; quick! Go jump in a few of your sock-ID's & shout me down...

LMFAO - at YOUR utter Failure!!!

Quote from: markjo on September 08, 2015, 01:15:51 PM

Does that mean that you've calculated how much pressure it would take to squeeze the fuel and oxidizer through?

I thought your bum-chum mainframes was doing that...

Oh, wait, he bottled out of it!

Like I said; I don't need any 'calculations' to know Santa's Sleigh's not Real, so I don't need em for the silly fake Saturn F1 engine either...

It's just you, me, & rayzor now, isn't it, criminal shill; I've whittled you down to the bare bones, yet still you are back-pedalling & losing ground...

So; quick! Go jump in a few of your sock-ID's & shout me down...

LMFAO - at YOUR utter Failure!!!

I'm not spending the time and effort to do it:

a) because it is a complex calculation
b) because all I will get is some immature response
c) we don't have to prove anything

LOL!!!

Coward.

But what lies at the root of your cowardice, mainframes?

Were you bullied?

Or abused, somehow?

Like I said; I don't need any 'calculations' to know Santa's Sleigh's not Real...

Looks real to me.

LOL!!!

Coward.

But what lies at the root of your cowardice, mainframes?

Were you bullied?

Or abused, somehow?

Well I guess I could do a back of the envelope calculation just to shut you up.

The operating pressure of the pump will be around 20-50 MPa based upon current rocket turbo pump data.

Aluminium alloys have a yield strength of around 200-400 MPa.

So no problems with operating at high enough pressures here.

LOL!!!

You calculated NOTHING there...

Just vomited up a couple of wiki-facts.

You Lying, Cowardly Fraud.

LOL!!!

You calculated NOTHING there...

Just vomited up a couple of wiki-facts.

You Lying, Cowardly Fraud.

Did I lie about the operating pressure? No.

Did I lie about the yield strength? No.

Did I show operating pressure to be below yield strength? Yes.

No lies here so quit with the pathetic accusations.

You said you'd done a 'back of the envelope calculation', yet provided only 2 disconnected & unsubstantiated wiki-factoids, with zero maths...

Big Lies there, so quit with the Lying.

You're finished, aren't you, sad little man?

You said you'd done a 'back of the envelope calculation', yet provided only 2 disconnected & unsubstantiated wiki-factoids, with zero maths...

Big Lies there, so quit with the Lying.

You're finished, aren't you, sad little man?

I provided a typical rocket engine operating pressure and the pressure at which a range of aluminium allows fail when subjected to tensile stress and that the operating pressure was below this failure point thus showing that aluminium allow is just fine for the construction of the pump.

LOL!!!

'Typical rocket engine operating pressure'.

We're talking about fuel pumps here, psycho...

& what thickness of aluminium are you talking about anyway?

The way you talk, then cooking foil should be 'just fine' for making fuel-pumps out of...

Wtf is WRONG with you?

Oh; I forgot; you're a psycho in a diaper...

Also; 'just fine' is the most over-used shill-phrase ever; learn some new ones, psycho-felon nonce.

Yeah meant to say turbo pump. My apologies.

I don't have the thickness of aluminium alloy because we don't have the detailed schematics. I would hazard a guess typo 2cm thick but that's only a guess.

here is test firing videos of the Shuttles main rockets.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
They existed. They worked.
I have no idea what you guys are arguing about at the moment.

Expecting Mainframes to do full calculations on the engineering behind the STS rockets is ridiculous.
Do your own math to prove an alternative.

here is test firing videos of the Shuttles main rockets.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
They existed. They worked.
I have no idea what you guys are arguing about at the moment.

Expecting Mainframes to do full calculations on the engineering behind the STS rockets is ridiculous.
Do your own math to prove an alternative.

For all those that are interested; take a look at this video at around 1:48 and observe the lamp post n ear bottom right of the video.
Imagine the power coming out of that rocket exhaust and look how the lamp post just stands firm.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available]

Now take a look at this video below and see what happens when a wind hit lamp posts and bear in mind that we are talking a fraction of what these shuttle engines supposedly give out.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

You do understand that the light post was not in the way of the blast, right?
The test gantry is set up to focus the blast in one direction so that nothing else gets damaged as you describe.
Why would the put a lamp post in the direction of the blast?
To put it simply, if it is not covered by the white condensate and you can see it, then it is on the camera side of the blast area and wont get damaged.

If you are calling ordinary test footage fake, then what makes that other video, or any other video ever (including your baby pictures and videos) real?

Page 3 of this paper by NASA contains the pressure inside the turbopump, and other numbers that were being requested, and someone with better flow dynamics knowdlege than me can use: http://www.yang.gatech.edu/publications/Journal/JPP%20(1993,%20Oefelein).pdf

This data seems pretty solid to me.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

Notice that the ones on the far side of the street only have one lamp on them are not rocking?  Notice that the lamp in the rocket video has only one lamp?  Maybe, the style with only one lamp on it is less affected by wind than the style with two lamps.  Just an observation that you are comparing apples to oranges and not apples to apples.

This data seems pretty solid to me.

How would you know?

You're NOT a scientist, remember?

So you're opinion is worth no more than my own, is it?

& my opinion is that the data MUST be fraudulent because no physics can support the existence of a 3,000 tonne rocket capable of travelling 480,000 miles through a vacuum to the moon & back.

This entire thread supports that opinion; I have taken you on one after the other & beat you every single time.

Everyone knows this; so suck them rotten eggs, losers...

Quote from: Conker on September 10, 2015, 11:06:02 AM

This data seems pretty solid to me.

How would you know?

Note that I didn't claim to know. I just said it seems pretty solid.

You're NOT a scientist, remember?

I never said that, you keep imagining things.

So you're opinion is worth no more than my own, is it?

Of course not. The difference is that my objection to your opinion isnt an opinion: I have data done by people with far greater expertise than me that I can use to defend my position. You don't.

& my opinion

FINALLY you realized that you are just spouting opinion. Maybe now will you post evidence...

is that the data MUST be fraudulent

Ugh. I knew I shouldnt have spoken so soon.

because no physics can support the existence of a 3,000 tonne rocket capable of travelling 480,000 miles through a vacuum to the moon & back.

Physicists disagree with you, and have data that shows otherwise. The burden of proof is on you.

This entire thread supports that opinion; I have taken you on one after the other & beat you every single time.

You don't have to beat us. We are nobodies. You have to beat the science, and that can only be done via better science. You haven't posted a thing even close to what would count as evidence. Mostly ad-hominem attacks, and outright insults.

LOL!!!

I have beat your sorry asses red, liar.

Just the first line you wrote gives your game away; 'seems pretty solid...'

Pure shill-talk.

'seems fine to me...'

'works just fine...'

'seems pretty solid...'

LOL!!!

Well, NOTHING about your space-nonsense seems fine or solid to me; it IS all utterly physically impossible: FACT.

& I have provided copious evidence to support that FACT.

Read this whole thread, neutrals, & decide for yourself...

Your hideous NASA Emperor has no clothes, criminal cultists; a child can see it...

Now f**k off.

You showed us

lol

lol

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

lol

I said space travel is Fake, retard.

I never said giant fireworks are fake.

So why do you post a youtube of one?

He is a retart.  Forgive him. 

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on September 10, 2015, 01:02:17 AM

here is test firing videos of the Shuttles main rockets.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
They existed. They worked.
I have no idea what you guys are arguing about at the moment.

Expecting Mainframes to do full calculations on the engineering behind the STS rockets is ridiculous.
Do your own math to prove an alternative.

For all those that are interested; take a look at this video at around 1:48 and observe the lamp post n ear bottom right of the video.
Imagine the power coming out of that rocket exhaust and look how the lamp post just stands firm.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available]

Now take a look at this video below and see what happens when a wind hit lamp posts and bear in mind that we are talking a fraction of what these shuttle engines supposedly give out.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

I guess the purpose behind your post was to question what sort of power was actually coming out of the shuttle engine?

Did it not seem as though much thrust was being generated?

Do you think the manufacturer of the engine just does a test like this to impress the general public with a whole lot of vapour and noise, without any real purpose behind it?

Do you think the manufacturer of the engine just does a test like this to impress the general public with a whole lot of vapour and noise, without any real purpose behind it?

Partly; but their IS a purpose behind all the laughable Sound & Fury of these lashed-up, fire-belching monstrosities.

That is: to fool Joe Public into thinking 'space-travel' is a reality.

Still; good to see you're getting there!