Heiwas lack of understanding in everything and his obsession with poop

The media not attending the return of spacecraft:

Edit.

I found a loophole in one of your challenges, I won, stop ignoring the fact. I archived your website as of my declaration of victory.

Also.



Then send it to me.

Well, there is no air at 120 000 m altitude but there is thin air at 5000 m altitude making mountain climbing tiresome.

Then it's a good thing that spacecraft don't need to breathe. 

So using air friction/turbulence to stop a spacecraft at 120 000 m altitude doesn't work.

  Who said anything about stopping the spacecraft at 120 km?  At about 120 km, the process of slowing the spacecraft down begins.  The spacecraft doesn't stop until it touches down at zero m.

Anyone knowing a little about high speed aerodynamics, like me, knows it.

Well, they do say that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  Maybe this text book can help you to learn more:
https://www.amazon.com/Dynamics-Atmospheric-Re-Entry-AIAA-Education/dp/1563470489

Quote from: markjo on May 08, 2017, 03:34:28 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 08, 2017, 10:39:13 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 08, 2017, 10:23:19 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 08, 2017, 10:09:53 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 08, 2017, 09:42:25 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 08, 2017, 09:01:25 AM

Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.

Make up your mind, will you?

Either all space achievements are 100% fake or commercial satellites are real.  You can't have it both ways.

No, you are wrong as usual like most anonymous twirps at this forum.

Commercial satellites are real, e.g. Arianespace sending them one way into orbits all the time. Just ask them!

The rest (NASA, ESA, SpaceX, bla, bla) is 100% fake. I explain it all at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .

I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .

All of those "100% fake achievements" build on the initial achievement of unmanned satellite launches.

Just because you aren't smart enough to figure out how hyperbolic trajectories or atmospheric reentry work, that doesn't mean that they're impossible.

Well, you, an anonymous twirp, always tells me that I am not smart, bla, bla, and I offer you €1M to prove it and ... ? You just moan and groan like a retired NASA faker. Just carry on! Haven't you got a contract to fulfill, to do it?
Disgusting. Slave contract. White slaves! 2017!

I'm sorry, but it's hard to have a productive discussion when you go off on these rants that make you sound like a confused, angry old man.

I never claimed to an engineer of any kind, but you have.  I have posted a link to a textbook called Orbital Mechanics for Engineering Students showing how to calculate various orbits.  I have posted links to other textbooks describing atmospheric reentry and calculating interplanetary trajectories. 

Why you insist that these things are impossible when it's plain that the science of how to do so is readily available continues to baffle me.

Anders, I'm not the least bit interested in your money or your "challenges".  I'd much rather you spend some of that money on a few textbooks that show you how to do what you claim can't be done.  I still have a hard time believing that a distinguished engineer as yourself would let someone telling you that a task is impossible stop you from finding a clever solution.

LOL. My simple Challenge is just to calculate the fuel required (kg) for some manned space trips and to show that you can lift it off the ground ... and you provide links to some stupid reports. And you don't even have a name.
The Challenge is also to describe the sanitary facilities provided. The humans aboard must be able to be clean and happy.
And what is shown? A little capsule with some seats inside. Hilarious. Not even toilet paper!
The impossible Challenge is of course the re-entry and landing. It is suggested that there is air at 120 000 m altitude and that it will provide friction and turbulence for landing. But there is no air at 120 000 m altitude with birds flying around in it. The air is 115 000 m further down. Please, grow up and do not support the criminal idiots at NASA and their Rotary friends with their prizes.

Show your evidence that those reports are wrong.  I have posted links that answered both those questions.  You ignore them.  You run away saying it's impossible.  Of course you never show any evidence as to why it's impossible.  As always, you fail.

Heiwa, I don't understand how my car works. There's no way that my engine creates controlled explosions to move the pistons to make my car move. According to your insane logic, since I don't understand how car engines work then it is impossible for my car to move when I press the gas pedal. I don't completely understand how this computer I'm typing on works so I guess this is impossible also. You are an insult to every one of the thousands of NASA and other space agency's scientists who dedicate their lives to the exploration of space.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 08, 2017, 05:27:46 PM

LOL. My simple Fraudulent Joke is just to calculate the fuel required (kg) for some manned space trips and to show that you can lift it off the ground ... and you provide links to some stupid reports. And you don't even have a name.
The Fraudulent Joke is also to describe the sanitary facilities provided. The humans aboard must be able to be clean and happy.
And what is shown? A little capsule with some seats inside. Hilarious. Not even toilet paper!
The impossible Fraudulent Joke is of course the re-entry and landing. It is suggested that there is air at 120 000 m altitude and that it will provide friction and turbulence for landing. But there is no air at 120 000 m altitude with birds flying around in it. The air is 115 000 m further down. Please, grow up and do not support the criminal idiots at NASA and their Rotary friends with their prizes.

Show your evidence that those reports are wrong.  I have posted links that answered both those questions.  You ignore them.  You run away saying it's impossible.  Of course you never show any evidence as to why it's impossible.  As always, you fail.

He will come back in a day or a week and try to pretend that posts like this were never posted.

He is not joking when he calls us idiots, it's clear he thinks we are.

Hewia, you can try to act like your Fraudulent Joke has never been won and your questions have never been answered, but we have been here the whole time and we know.

Quote from: Badxtoss on May 09, 2017, 06:38:07 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 08, 2017, 05:27:46 PM

LOL. My simple Fraudulent Joke is just to calculate the fuel required (kg) for some manned space trips and to show that you can lift it off the ground ... and you provide links to some stupid reports. And you don't even have a name.
The Fraudulent Joke is also to describe the sanitary facilities provided. The humans aboard must be able to be clean and happy.
And what is shown? A little capsule with some seats inside. Hilarious. Not even toilet paper!
The impossible Fraudulent Joke is of course the re-entry and landing. It is suggested that there is air at 120 000 m altitude and that it will provide friction and turbulence for landing. But there is no air at 120 000 m altitude with birds flying around in it. The air is 115 000 m further down. Please, grow up and do not support the criminal idiots at NASA and their Rotary friends with their prizes.

Show your evidence that those reports are wrong.  I have posted links that answered both those questions.  You ignore them.  You run away saying it's impossible.  Of course you never show any evidence as to why it's impossible.  As always, you fail.

He will come back in a day or a week and try to pretend that posts like this were never posted.

He is not joking when he calls us idiots, it's clear he thinks we are.

Hewia, you can try to act like your Fraudulent Joke has never been won and your questions have never been answered, but we have been here the whole time and we know.

You seem to be quite good at predicting heiwas behaviour. Plus you issure challenges. Suspicious.... 

Quote from: Boots on May 09, 2017, 03:28:47 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on May 09, 2017, 06:38:07 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 08, 2017, 05:27:46 PM

LOL. My simple Fraudulent Joke is just to calculate the fuel required (kg) for some manned space trips and to show that you can lift it off the ground ... and you provide links to some stupid reports. And you don't even have a name.
The Fraudulent Joke is also to describe the sanitary facilities provided. The humans aboard must be able to be clean and happy.
And what is shown? A little capsule with some seats inside. Hilarious. Not even toilet paper!
The impossible Fraudulent Joke is of course the re-entry and landing. It is suggested that there is air at 120 000 m altitude and that it will provide friction and turbulence for landing. But there is no air at 120 000 m altitude with birds flying around in it. The air is 115 000 m further down. Please, grow up and do not support the criminal idiots at NASA and their Rotary friends with their prizes.

Show your evidence that those reports are wrong.  I have posted links that answered both those questions.  You ignore them.  You run away saying it's impossible.  Of course you never show any evidence as to why it's impossible.  As always, you fail.

He will come back in a day or a week and try to pretend that posts like this were never posted.

He is not joking when he calls us idiots, it's clear he thinks we are.

Hewia, you can try to act like your Fraudulent Joke has never been won and your questions have never been answered, but we have been here the whole time and we know.

You seem to be quite good at predicting heiwas behaviour. Plus you issure challenges. Suspicious.... 

Good detective skills.  Here is some corroborating evidence.

  Who said anything about stopping the spacecraft at 120 km?  At about 120 km, the process of slowing the spacecraft down begins.  The spacecraft doesn't stop until it touches down at zero m.

LOL - is starts slowing down! No, it is just going faster and faster. Gravity you know! Ever heard about it?

Quote from: Heiwa on May 08, 2017, 05:27:46 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 08, 2017, 03:34:28 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 08, 2017, 10:39:13 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 08, 2017, 10:23:19 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 08, 2017, 10:09:53 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 08, 2017, 09:42:25 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 08, 2017, 09:01:25 AM

Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.

Make up your mind, will you?

Either all space achievements are 100% fake or commercial satellites are real.  You can't have it both ways.

No, you are wrong as usual like most anonymous twirps at this forum.

Commercial satellites are real, e.g. Arianespace sending them one way into orbits all the time. Just ask them!

The rest (NASA, ESA, SpaceX, bla, bla) is 100% fake. I explain it all at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .

I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .

All of those "100% fake achievements" build on the initial achievement of unmanned satellite launches.

Just because you aren't smart enough to figure out how hyperbolic trajectories or atmospheric reentry work, that doesn't mean that they're impossible.

Well, you, an anonymous twirp, always tells me that I am not smart, bla, bla, and I offer you €1M to prove it and ... ? You just moan and groan like a retired NASA faker. Just carry on! Haven't you got a contract to fulfill, to do it?
Disgusting. Slave contract. White slaves! 2017!

I'm sorry, but it's hard to have a productive discussion when you go off on these rants that make you sound like a confused, angry old man.

I never claimed to an engineer of any kind, but you have.  I have posted a link to a textbook called Orbital Mechanics for Engineering Students showing how to calculate various orbits.  I have posted links to other textbooks describing atmospheric reentry and calculating interplanetary trajectories. 

Why you insist that these things are impossible when it's plain that the science of how to do so is readily available continues to baffle me.

Anders, I'm not the least bit interested in your money or your "challenges".  I'd much rather you spend some of that money on a few textbooks that show you how to do what you claim can't be done.  I still have a hard time believing that a distinguished engineer as yourself would let someone telling you that a task is impossible stop you from finding a clever solution.

LOL. My simple Challenge is just to calculate the fuel required (kg) for some manned space trips and to show that you can lift it off the ground ... and you provide links to some stupid reports. And you don't even have a name.
The Challenge is also to describe the sanitary facilities provided. The humans aboard must be able to be clean and happy.
And what is shown? A little capsule with some seats inside. Hilarious. Not even toilet paper!
The impossible Challenge is of course the re-entry and landing. It is suggested that there is air at 120 000 m altitude and that it will provide friction and turbulence for landing. But there is no air at 120 000 m altitude with birds flying around in it. The air is 115 000 m further down. Please, grow up and do not support the criminal idiots at NASA and their Rotary friends with their prizes.

Show your evidence that those reports are wrong.  I have posted links that answered both those questions.  You ignore them.  You run away saying it's impossible.  Of course you never show any evidence as to why it's impossible.  As always, you fail.

The reports do not say how to calculate the fuel required for a manned space trip and how to get off the ground with it. And to land afterwards, which are the requirements of the Challenge.

Edit.

I found a loophole in one of your challenges, I won, stop ignoring the fact. I archived your website as of my declaration of victory.

Funny thing is...Verinage technique is used in France more often than anywhere else, you would think he would know that.

Despite the fact this method would not function on 1/2 (core design, math of top and bottom do not work for the method etc etc)..and 7 (obviously from video evidence) does not qualify... Heiwa does say to show an instance where the upper half of a building can destroy the lower half...

So by technical decision, disputeone wins....Better open those purse strings punkin

Edit grammar

Quote from: disputeone on May 09, 2017, 12:56:24 AM

Edit.

I found a loophole in one of your challenges, I won, stop ignoring the fact. I archived your website as of my declaration of victory.

Funny thing is...Verinage technique is used in France more often than anywhere else, you would think he would know that.

Despite the fact this method would not function on 1/2 (core design, math of top and bottom do not work for the method etc etc)..and 7 (obviously from video evidence) does not qualify... Heiwa does say to show an instance where the upper half of a building can destroy the lower half...

So by technical decision, disputeone wins....Better open those purse strings punkin

Edit grammar

Agreed.



I'll take the win on a technicality.

Come on heiwa I could use some extra dollarydoos.

Edit.

Watch him dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge lol.

Watch him dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge lol.

Until now I have watched him ignore completely

Quote from: Badxtoss on May 09, 2017, 06:38:07 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 08, 2017, 05:27:46 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 08, 2017, 03:34:28 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 08, 2017, 10:39:13 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 08, 2017, 10:23:19 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 08, 2017, 10:09:53 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 08, 2017, 09:42:25 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 08, 2017, 09:01:25 AM

Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.

Make up your mind, will you?

Either all space achievements are 100% fake or commercial satellites are real.  You can't have it both ways.

No, you are wrong as usual like most anonymous twirps at this forum.

Commercial satellites are real, e.g. Arianespace sending them one way into orbits all the time. Just ask them!

The rest (NASA, ESA, SpaceX, bla, bla) is 100% fake. I explain it all at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .

I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .

All of those "100% fake achievements" build on the initial achievement of unmanned satellite launches.

Just because you aren't smart enough to figure out how hyperbolic trajectories or atmospheric reentry work, that doesn't mean that they're impossible.

Well, you, an anonymous twirp, always tells me that I am not smart, bla, bla, and I offer you €1M to prove it and ... ? You just moan and groan like a retired NASA faker. Just carry on! Haven't you got a contract to fulfill, to do it?
Disgusting. Slave contract. White slaves! 2017!

I'm sorry, but it's hard to have a productive discussion when you go off on these rants that make you sound like a confused, angry old man.

I never claimed to an engineer of any kind, but you have.  I have posted a link to a textbook called Orbital Mechanics for Engineering Students showing how to calculate various orbits.  I have posted links to other textbooks describing atmospheric reentry and calculating interplanetary trajectories. 

Why you insist that these things are impossible when it's plain that the science of how to do so is readily available continues to baffle me.

Anders, I'm not the least bit interested in your money or your "challenges".  I'd much rather you spend some of that money on a few textbooks that show you how to do what you claim can't be done.  I still have a hard time believing that a distinguished engineer as yourself would let someone telling you that a task is impossible stop you from finding a clever solution.

LOL. My simple Challenge is just to calculate the fuel required (kg) for some manned space trips and to show that you can lift it off the ground ... and you provide links to some stupid reports. And you don't even have a name.
The Challenge is also to describe the sanitary facilities provided. The humans aboard must be able to be clean and happy.
And what is shown? A little capsule with some seats inside. Hilarious. Not even toilet paper!
The impossible Challenge is of course the re-entry and landing. It is suggested that there is air at 120 000 m altitude and that it will provide friction and turbulence for landing. But there is no air at 120 000 m altitude with birds flying around in it. The air is 115 000 m further down. Please, grow up and do not support the criminal idiots at NASA and their Rotary friends with their prizes.

Show your evidence that those reports are wrong.  I have posted links that answered both those questions.  You ignore them.  You run away saying it's impossible.  Of course you never show any evidence as to why it's impossible.  As always, you fail.

The reports do not say how to calculate the fuel required for a manned space trip and how to get off the ground with it. And to land afterwards, which are the requirements of the Challenge.

Once again you fail to provide any evidence.  And you have been given links that show how to calculate the fuel and links that show what fuel was consumed and when.
Yet another failure.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 10, 2017, 03:20:45 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on May 09, 2017, 06:38:07 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 08, 2017, 05:27:46 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 08, 2017, 03:34:28 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 08, 2017, 10:39:13 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 08, 2017, 10:23:19 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 08, 2017, 10:09:53 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 08, 2017, 09:42:25 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 08, 2017, 09:01:25 AM

Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.

Make up your mind, will you?

Either all space achievements are 100% fake or commercial satellites are real.  You can't have it both ways.

No, you are wrong as usual like most anonymous twirps at this forum.

Commercial satellites are real, e.g. Arianespace sending them one way into orbits all the time. Just ask them!

The rest (NASA, ESA, SpaceX, bla, bla) is 100% fake. I explain it all at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .

I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .

All of those "100% fake achievements" build on the initial achievement of unmanned satellite launches.

Just because you aren't smart enough to figure out how hyperbolic trajectories or atmospheric reentry work, that doesn't mean that they're impossible.

Well, you, an anonymous twirp, always tells me that I am not smart, bla, bla, and I offer you €1M to prove it and ... ? You just moan and groan like a retired NASA faker. Just carry on! Haven't you got a contract to fulfill, to do it?
Disgusting. Slave contract. White slaves! 2017!

I'm sorry, but it's hard to have a productive discussion when you go off on these rants that make you sound like a confused, angry old man.

I never claimed to an engineer of any kind, but you have.  I have posted a link to a textbook called Orbital Mechanics for Engineering Students showing how to calculate various orbits.  I have posted links to other textbooks describing atmospheric reentry and calculating interplanetary trajectories. 

Why you insist that these things are impossible when it's plain that the science of how to do so is readily available continues to baffle me.

Anders, I'm not the least bit interested in your money or your "challenges".  I'd much rather you spend some of that money on a few textbooks that show you how to do what you claim can't be done.  I still have a hard time believing that a distinguished engineer as yourself would let someone telling you that a task is impossible stop you from finding a clever solution.

LOL. My simple Challenge is just to calculate the fuel required (kg) for some manned space trips and to show that you can lift it off the ground ... and you provide links to some stupid reports. And you don't even have a name.
The Challenge is also to describe the sanitary facilities provided. The humans aboard must be able to be clean and happy.
And what is shown? A little capsule with some seats inside. Hilarious. Not even toilet paper!
The impossible Challenge is of course the re-entry and landing. It is suggested that there is air at 120 000 m altitude and that it will provide friction and turbulence for landing. But there is no air at 120 000 m altitude with birds flying around in it. The air is 115 000 m further down. Please, grow up and do not support the criminal idiots at NASA and their Rotary friends with their prizes.

Show your evidence that those reports are wrong.  I have posted links that answered both those questions.  You ignore them.  You run away saying it's impossible.  Of course you never show any evidence as to why it's impossible.  As always, you fail.

The reports do not say how to calculate the fuel required for a manned space trip and how to get off the ground with it. And to land afterwards, which are the requirements of the Challenge.

Once again you fail to provide any evidence.  And you have been given links that show how to calculate the fuel and links that show what fuel was consumed and when.
Yet another failure.

? To win my Challenges you must provide an application to me with required information, incl. full name and bank account for me to transfer the money. So far noone has done it.
Not even a copy of any application has been posted on the Internet.

Heiwa, I won your challenge #1.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70589.0

Pay me.

Quote from: heiwacochallenge1

No structure of any kind collapses from top down!

It is always from bottom up, top C is damaged in this example. So to win the Challenge 1 you have to come up with some other type of structure that really can collapse from top down! I look forward to that. I will happily pay you € 1 000 000:- if you can do that. I cannot find any structure in Universe that meets my Challenge 1 though.

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall1.htm#hc

I've won, I have shown you, and can explain in technical detail how a structure can collapse from the top down.

Your challenge clearly states "any structure in the universe" my structure, for this example, has demolition charges in it. Just a classic top down controlled demolition, nothing fancy, no magic. Now, I believe there is the matter of the €1 000 000?

Heiwa, I won your challenge #1.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70589.0

Pay me.

Quote from: disputeone on May 09, 2017, 02:04:50 AM

Quote from: heiwacochallenge1

No structure of any kind collapses from top down!

It is always from bottom up, top C is damaged in this example. So to win the Challenge 1 you have to come up with some other type of structure that really can collapse from top down! I look forward to that. I will happily pay you € 1 000 000:- if you can do that. I cannot find any structure in Universe that meets my Challenge 1 though.

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall1.htm#hc

I've won, I have shown you, and can explain in technical detail how a structure can collapse from the top down.

Your challenge clearly states "any structure in the universe" my structure, for this example, has demolition charges in it. Just a classic top down controlled demolition, nothing fancy, no magic. Now, I believe there is the matter of the €1 000 000?

You have to read the rules and the conditions required at http://heiwaco.com/chall1.htm, e.g. that you must drop the top on the bottom, etc, etc.
You also forgot to send me name/address/bank details.
So you are another loser!

I've read them.

When you confirm I have won then I will send my deets.

Drop the top on the bottom, bottom structure destroyed sequentially from the top down by demolition charges.

Top down building collapse.

Pay me.

I've read them.

When you confirm I have won then I will send my deets.

Drop the top on the bottom, bottom structure destroyed sequentially from the top down by demolition charges.

Top down building collapse.

Pay me.

You must have read something else. You must drop the top on the bottom by gravity! Not apply forces connected to ground pulling the top down, etc, etc. 

Gravity and explosives. It's part of the building design your challenge states I can design.

There are no forces except gravity pulling the building down, I just use explosives to take care of the structural resistance.

Pay me.

Gravity and explosives. It's part of the building design your challenge states I can design.

There are no forces except gravity pulling the building down, I just use explosives to take care of the structural resistance.

Pay me.

Pls read the rules! Just drop the small, weak top of your structure on the strong bottom part and see what happens. If the top destroys the bottom, send me the info about it, etc, etc.

I drop the small weak top on the strong bottom part, as it impacts the bottom structure, demolition charges remove the structural components of the the bottom structure sequentially from the top down causing a top down collapse and winning your challenge #1.

Pay me.

I drop the small weak top on the strong bottom part, as it impacts the bottom structure, demolition charges remove the structural components of the the bottom structure sequentially from the top down causing a top down collapse and winning your challenge #1.

Pay me.

No, you didn't. You are another loser.

>muh feels.

I didn't say anything about your fake challenge.  You're trying to change the subject.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up. 
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake.  You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.

I didn't say anything about your fake challenge.  You're trying to change the subject.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up. 
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake.  You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.

Hm, topic is my understanding in orbital mechanics. Don't change it. My understanding is that humans cannot orbit anywhere. If you orbit, you are going too fast up somewhere and cannot de-orbit, slow down, re-enter and land. I offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong. I also offer anyone the same amount to calculate the amount of fuel required for simple, manned space trips. And to explain the sanitary facilities.
Plenty twirps copy/paste links to various reports about it ... but always forget the fuel and the re-entry ... and the sanitary facilities.
Question! Do you never use a sanitary facility? If not, explain how it works in space!

Quote from: Badxtoss on May 11, 2017, 05:48:06 AM

I didn't say anything about your fake challenge.  You're trying to change the subject.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up. 
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake.  You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.

Hm, topic is my understanding in orbital mechanics. Don't change it. My understanding is that humans cannot orbit anywhere. If you orbit, you are going too fast up somewhere and cannot de-orbit, slow down, re-enter and land. I offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong. I also offer anyone the same amount to calculate the amount of fuel required for simple, manned space trips. And to explain the sanitary facilities.
Plenty twirps copy/paste links to various reports about it ... but always forget the fuel and the re-entry ... and the sanitary facilities.
Question! Do you never use a sanitary facility? If not, explain how it works in space!

You're a liar.  I personally have posted links to both of those subjects.  You ignored them.
Please explain why you think it can't work.  Be specific, give some evidence.

Quote from: markjo on May 09, 2017, 05:33:45 AM

  Who said anything about stopping the spacecraft at 120 km?  At about 120 km, the process of slowing the spacecraft down begins.  The spacecraft doesn't stop until it touches down at zero m.

LOL - is starts slowing down! No, it is just going faster and faster. Gravity you know! Ever heard about it?

Friction.  Have you ever heard of it?  How about terminal velocity?

Quote from: Heiwa on May 11, 2017, 06:09:07 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on May 11, 2017, 05:48:06 AM

I didn't say anything about your fake challenge.  You're trying to change the subject.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up. 
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake.  You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.

Hm, topic is my understanding in orbital mechanics. Don't change it. My understanding is that humans cannot orbit anywhere. If you orbit, you are going too fast up somewhere and cannot de-orbit, slow down, re-enter and land. I offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong. I also offer anyone the same amount to calculate the amount of fuel required for simple, manned space trips. And to explain the sanitary facilities.
Plenty twirps copy/paste links to various reports about it ... but always forget the fuel and the re-entry ... and the sanitary facilities.
Question! Do you never use a sanitary facility? If not, explain how it works in space!

You're a liar.  I personally have posted links to both of those subjects.  You ignored them.
Please explain why you think it can't work.  Be specific, give some evidence.

Well, you didn't calculate the fuel required ... and how to get off the ground. You are a loser!

Quote from: Heiwa on May 10, 2017, 03:17:25 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 09, 2017, 05:33:45 AM

  Who said anything about stopping the spacecraft at 120 km?  At about 120 km, the process of slowing the spacecraft down begins.  The spacecraft doesn't stop until it touches down at zero m.

LOL - is starts slowing down! No, it is just going faster and faster. Gravity you know! Ever heard about it?

Friction.  Have you ever heard of it?  How about terminal velocity?

There is no friction in space! There is no friction at 120 000 m altitude. Only gravity. No way to stop a capsule coming from space. Every landing since 1961 is fake.