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

Quote from: Heiwa on June 04, 2015, 09:30:03 AM

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".

Easy. It is the velocity that your Spaceship (topic) needs to get away from Earth to explore the Universe. If you cannot attain that speed, you will not get away from Earth, so you cannot explore the Universe. You can at one "escape velocity" reach the Moon and another, bigger, planet Mars, i.e. you really go fast ... but you cannot ever stop or brake.

Quote from: Heiwa on June 04, 2015, 09:30:03 AM

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.

What about the Kelly twins acrobatic flying to assist the friction?

Quote from: Rayzor on June 04, 2015, 09:52:35 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on June 04, 2015, 09:30:03 AM

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".

Easy. It is the velocity that your Spaceship (topic) needs to get away from Earth to explore the Universe. If you cannot attain that speed, you will not get away from Earth, so you cannot explore the Universe. You can at one "escape velocity" reach the Moon and another, bigger, planet Mars, i.e. you really go fast ... but you cannot ever stop or brake.

Escape velocity is completely dependent on the body of which you are escaping... If I reach escape velocity around Earth, I will still be orbiting the Sun. If I reach the Sun's escape velocity (I can still be near Earth) then I will be orbiting the Galaxy.

Quote from: markjo on June 04, 2015, 10:02:08 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on June 04, 2015, 09:30:03 AM

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.

What about the Kelly twins acrobatic flying to assist the friction?

What about it?

Quote from: Heiwa on June 03, 2015, 11:28:01 PM

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/s². 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.

7 500 m/s is speed  at 400 000 m altitude leaving the ISS. It seems the Shuttle speed is 9 000 m/s at 130 000 m altitude, when entering Earth atmosphere.
Funny braking - you go faster while braking.
The Shuttle had no heat shield but some magic tiles that were glued all over it - except the cockpit windows - and the tiles absorbed the friction heat and ... got very hot.
But the cockpit windows had no tiles glued on. The pilot must be able to look out ... so no tiles.
I have asked NASA about the Shuttle cockpit windows. They were really thick and strong it seems.

I wonder how long NASA will get along with their Shuttle lies. Probably at least another 50 years, so there is nothing to worry about. Great fun, though.

Quote from: Heiwa on June 04, 2015, 10:40:20 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 04, 2015, 10:02:08 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on June 04, 2015, 09:30:03 AM

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.

What about the Kelly twins acrobatic flying to assist the friction?

What about it?

They indicate they had to turn and twist up, down, right, left in order to slow down their 78 tons Spaceship during reentry. Fantastic guys. While the wife of one of them were shot at, blowing half her brain away, at some street meeting at Arizona. Anything happens in USA according to media.

Quote from: Jet Fission on June 04, 2015, 10:30:26 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on June 03, 2015, 11:28:01 PM

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/s². 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?

https://daryanenergyblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/figure_3_9_shuttle_tps.png

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.

7 500 m/s is speed  at 400 000 m altitude leaving the ISS. It seems the Shuttle speed is 9 000 m/s at 130 000 m altitude, when entering Earth atmosphere.
Funny braking - you go faster while braking.
The Shuttle had no heat shield but some magic tiles that were glued all over it - except the cockpit windows - and the tiles absorbed the friction heat and ... got very hot.
But the cockpit windows had no tiles glued on. The pilot must be able to look out ... so no tiles.
I have asked NASA about the Shuttle cockpit windows. They were really thick and strong it seems.

I wonder how long NASA will get along with their Shuttle lies. Probably at least another 50 years, so there is nothing to worry about. Great fun, though.

Wow, your comments really show how completely incapable you are of basic research. It's alright, I can spoon feed.

First of all, I don't know where you got that the shuttle was leaving the ISS at 7,500m/s, the shuttle enters the atmosphere at around 7,500m/s.

Second, the Shuttle's windows are made of aluminum silicate glass, (which you could have figured out just by looking up "what are the windows of the shuttle made out of") which can withstand very high temperatures. Not as high as the tiles, which is why the shuttle  doesn't dive into the atmosphere nose first. The main reason it doesn't dive into the atmosphere nose first is to brake. The entire underside of the shuttle is basically a giant parachute.

Let the jury recognize the prosecution has conceded to the fact that the shuttle will not blow apart during re-entry, and moved on to another point.

Quote from: markjo on June 04, 2015, 10:44:43 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on June 04, 2015, 10:40:20 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 04, 2015, 10:02:08 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on June 04, 2015, 09:30:03 AM

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.

What about the Kelly twins acrobatic flying to assist the friction?

What about it?

They indicate they had to turn and twist up, down, right, left in order to slow down their 78 tons Spaceship during reentry. Fantastic guys.

As I've mentioned before, the reaction control system is a number of small rockets used to steer the shuttle when aerodynamic forces are not available.  What is so fantastic about that?

While the wife of one of them were shot at, blowing half her brain away, at some street meeting at Arizona. Anything happens in USA according to media.

Please refrain from such irrelevant, off topic and offensive comments.  They do nothing to support your argument and make you look like an insensitive clod.

Quote from: Heiwa on June 04, 2015, 10:50:48 AM

Quote from: Jet Fission on June 04, 2015, 10:30:26 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on June 03, 2015, 11:28:01 PM

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/s². 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?

https://daryanenergyblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/figure_3_9_shuttle_tps.png

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.

7 500 m/s is speed  at 400 000 m altitude leaving the ISS. It seems the Shuttle speed is 9 000 m/s at 130 000 m altitude, when entering Earth atmosphere.
Funny braking - you go faster while braking.
The Shuttle had no heat shield but some magic tiles that were glued all over it - except the cockpit windows - and the tiles absorbed the friction heat and ... got very hot.
But the cockpit windows had no tiles glued on. The pilot must be able to look out ... so no tiles.
I have asked NASA about the Shuttle cockpit windows. They were really thick and strong it seems.

I wonder how long NASA will get along with their Shuttle lies. Probably at least another 50 years, so there is nothing to worry about. Great fun, though.

Wow, your comments really show how completely incapable you are of basic research. It's alright, I can spoon feed.

First of all, I don't know where you got that the shuttle was leaving the ISS at 7,500m/s, the shuttle enters the atmosphere at around 7,500m/s.

Second, the Shuttle's windows are made of aluminum silicate glass, (which you could have figured out just by looking up "what are the windows of the shuttle made out of") which can withstand very high temperatures. Not as high as the tiles, which is why the shuttle  doesn't dive into the atmosphere nose first. The main reason it doesn't dive into the atmosphere nose first is to brake. The entire underside of the shuttle is basically a giant parachute.

Let the jury recognize the prosecution has conceded to the fact that the shuttle will not blow apart during re-entry, and moved on to another point.

Amazing... like I've said many times before: NASA makes it look so easy yet impossible at the same time.

Quote from: Jet Fission on June 04, 2015, 10:59:22 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on June 04, 2015, 10:50:48 AM

Quote from: Jet Fission on June 04, 2015, 10:30:26 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on June 03, 2015, 11:28:01 PM

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/s². 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?

https://daryanenergyblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/figure_3_9_shuttle_tps.png

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.

7 500 m/s is speed  at 400 000 m altitude leaving the ISS. It seems the Shuttle speed is 9 000 m/s at 130 000 m altitude, when entering Earth atmosphere.
Funny braking - you go faster while braking.
The Shuttle had no heat shield but some magic tiles that were glued all over it - except the cockpit windows - and the tiles absorbed the friction heat and ... got very hot.
But the cockpit windows had no tiles glued on. The pilot must be able to look out ... so no tiles.
I have asked NASA about the Shuttle cockpit windows. They were really thick and strong it seems.

I wonder how long NASA will get along with their Shuttle lies. Probably at least another 50 years, so there is nothing to worry about. Great fun, though.

Wow, your comments really show how completely incapable you are of basic research. It's alright, I can spoon feed.

First of all, I don't know where you got that the shuttle was leaving the ISS at 7,500m/s, the shuttle enters the atmosphere at around 7,500m/s.

Second, the Shuttle's windows are made of aluminum silicate glass, (which you could have figured out just by looking up "what are the windows of the shuttle made out of") which can withstand very high temperatures. Not as high as the tiles, which is why the shuttle  doesn't dive into the atmosphere nose first. The main reason it doesn't dive into the atmosphere nose first is to brake. The entire underside of the shuttle is basically a giant parachute.

Let the jury recognize the prosecution has conceded to the fact that the shuttle will not blow apart during re-entry, and moved on to another point.

Amazing... like I've said many times before: NASA makes it look so easy yet impossible at the same time.

Awww, it's too complicated to you therefore it's fake?

That's adorable.

Amazing... like I've said many times before: NASA makes it look so easy yet impossible at the same time.

Computer programmers make computer programming look easy even though computers are among the most complicated devices ever built by man.  What's your point?

Quote from: Jet Fission on June 04, 2015, 10:30:26 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on June 03, 2015, 11:28:01 PM

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/s². 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.

7 500 m/s is speed  at 400 000 m altitude leaving the ISS. It seems the Shuttle speed is 9 000 m/s at 130 000 m altitude, when entering Earth atmosphere.
Funny braking - you go faster while braking.
The Shuttle had no heat shield but some magic tiles that were glued all over it - except the cockpit windows - and the tiles absorbed the friction heat and ... got very hot.
But the cockpit windows had no tiles glued on. The pilot must be able to look out ... so no tiles.
I have asked NASA about the Shuttle cockpit windows. They were really thick and strong it seems.

I wonder how long NASA will get along with their Shuttle lies. Probably at least another 50 years, so there is nothing to worry about. Great fun, though.

Those tiles form the heat shield. Since the Shuttle was a spaceplane, it could slowly enter an aeroplane trajectory, which would nullify it's reentry speed with limited heating if done at the precise angle. This allowed for the protection to be usable again, since it didn't ablate, but the tiles were indeed inspected after each mission. The hard part of spaceships isn't thrusting. It's keeping the equipment working on a very high-temperature, 4-degrees-above-absolute-zero temperature, high-shock, high-vibration, high-radiation, low pressure, high pressure ambient. All while keeping cryogenical systems and some of the most hazardous materials known to man from killing the crew.

Second, the escape velocity is the speed needed to obtain a orbit whose apogee is on the infinite, not the speed needed for a Hohmann transfer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_eccentricity

Also, correct, you have a higher orbital speed on your perigee than in your apogee. This is a consequence of the vis-viva equation, which is a nice simplification in orbital mechanics for the transformation of potential energy into kinetic energy and viceversa.
For example, lets use it on the comet Halley. We know that its aphelion is at 35.1 AU, and its perihelion is at 0.6 AU, with a semi-major axis on its orbit of 17.8 AU

The speed at the perihelion = ~54000 m/s
The speed at the aphelion =  ~800 m/s

When you aproach the perihelion to start aerobraking, of course your speed increases respect the aphelion.

So: with the phenomenon of 'back-blast', I gave indisputable, verifiable real-world proof that the Action of a rocket exhaust will create a Reaction against an outside mass.

Thus showing solid evidence that the action/reaction pairing necessary to fulfil Newtons 3rd & produce thrust can be created outside the rocket.

Ergo: No outside mass, No reaction.

& as there is no outside mass in a vacuum, then no thrust can be produced.

Q.E.D.

You, however, in defence of your own & NASA's concept of how a rocket works (i.e. 'it pushes on itself'; LOL!!!), provided ZERO similarly indisputable, verifiable real-world evidence.

Instead, you offered drawings, a photo of a fan on a boat & yet more false analogies.

Oh, & some 'thought experiments'... LOL!!!

Basically, you got NOTHING.

Plus, none of you have been to space yet, have you?

Yeah; I ain't forgot that either!

Looks like it's Two-Nil to Papa Legba...

However, I'll give you a chance; here's a question for all you Rocket Experts: does the exhaust of a rocket provide any propulsive thrust at all once it has left the nozzle?

Go ahead, Experts; enlighten me!

So: with the phenomenon of 'back-blast', I gave indisputable, verifiable real-world proof that the Action of a rocket exhaust will create a Reaction against an outside mass.

No, you didn't.  You just think that you did.

So; denying reality now, Markjo?

Fair enough; play it like that then.

I doubt neutral readers will believe you though; especially anyone who's been in the armed forces!

But whatever; please tell me: does the exhaust of a rocket produce any propulsive thrust at all after it has left the the nozzle?

Those tiles form the heat shield. Since the Shuttle was a spaceplane, it could slowly enter an aeroplane trajectory, which would nullify it's reentry speed with limited heating if done at the precise angle. This allowed for the protection to be usable again, since it didn't ablate, but the tiles were indeed inspected after each mission. The hard part of spaceships isn't thrusting. It's keeping the equipment working on a very high-temperature, 4-degrees-above-absolute-zero temperature, high-shock, high-vibration, high-radiation, low pressure, high pressure ambient. All while keeping cryogenical systems and some of the most hazardous materials known to man from killing the crew.

I have never heard of a spaceplane that could slowly enter an aeroplane trajectory, which would nullify it's reentry speed with limited heating if done at the precise angle.
Can you tell us more about it. And at the same time tell us more about the cryogenical systems and some of the most hazardous materials known to man from killing the crew.
Thanks!
On what drugs are you? They seem fantastic!

does the exhaust of a rocket produce any propulsive thrust at all after it has left the the nozzle?

No.

Are you still insisting rockets don't work in space?    That's already been proven,  maybe you were sleeping?

So; denying reality now, Markjo?

No, I'm denying your creative interpretation of reality.

I doubt neutral readers will believe you though; especially anyone who's been in the armed forces!

I've been in the armed forces (USMC) and have personally witnessed the effects of backblast from a SMAW.

please tell me: does the exhaust of a rocket produce any propulsive thrust at all after it has left the the nozzle?

As the exhaust is leaving the nozzle?  Yes.  After the exhaust leaves the nozzle?  No. 

So; that's a 'no' from Rayzor.

Markjo didn't really answer though. As usual.

Perhaps he'd like to try looking down the back of a SMAW as it fires, to demonstrate his contention that the ACTION of the rocket exhaust will NOT create a REACTION against the MASS of his cranium?

How do you think that'd work out for you, Markjo?

But let me rephrase my question, in the perhaps forlorn hope of getting a straight answer: does the exhaust of a rocket produce thrust after it has passed THE RIM of the nozzle?

Here you go Papa Legless,   http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/its-rocket-science/

Papa Legba, rockets work by pushing on the gas they eject and in turn the gas pushes back because the rocket has high pressure behind it and less pressure or no pressure in front of it.

Here you go Papa Legless,   http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/its-rocket-science/

If you seriously believe they can make a vacuum chamber out of plastic sheeting made into a rectangular box, then you are extremely naive.
Those mythbusters have to sleep at night after performing this crap but the high pay and the fact that they can hide behind the old "fun experiments" ruse with the added extra of being able to hide behind a flawed experiment if the situation arose, as they have done before, except it won't happen on stuff like this because it can't be shown to be flawed.

This is why I never watch mythbusters as a show, unless I need to watch for the duping of the world.
If anyone saw the video of the train container being evacuated of internal pressure, you'd know 100% that this mythbusters rectangular box is a con job.

Papa Legba, rockets work by pushing on the gas they eject and in turn the gas pushes back because the rocket has high pressure behind it and less pressure or no pressure in front of it.

The only way that gas can push back is if it hits an external barrier.
If you throw a tennis ball at a wall it will come back at you and hit you in the face. This is because it's hitting a barrier that is more dense than the ball is.
Your heated gas does the same against a denser atmosphere and is squeezed upwards as the rocket spews out those BURNING hot gases.

Inside the rocket, nothing is happening except a mix of fuel that ignites upon opening to external atmosphere.
You people pretend to be clever. You actually may be clever in your own way. You may be able to calculate the silly things in life, like the equations and formula for the perfect cup of tea or the perfect slice of toast, or even making up numbers and bullshit to calculate things that aren't even physically there. I accept you people can spend countless hours, days, weeks, entire lifetimes doing this stuff.
The reality is a mystery to you people. The simplicity of things is a mystery to you people. The logic behind many things is lost on your people. It's naivety in the extreme and yet you refuse to accept this because there's no way in hell that you could ever admit that you have been barking up the wrong tree all your life.

Getting back to those mythbusters. Do you know how you can tell they are bullshitting us?
I'll tell you but really I'm telling those who have a logical brain, I'm just doing it through your quote.

If you watch any mythbusters show that is just about ordinary stuff...you know, stuff like, pissing on a rail line and getting a shock, or making a crossbow out of cardboard and stuff in prisons...you know, stuff like that. You'll find that they will be quite surprised and happy, etc.

However; you watch them when they come to do a conspiracy, like moon landings or rockets in vacuums, etc, they will clearly cheat their way through it to get the results they want and the results that dupe the public, then as they do this, they will go into frenzy mode...a sort of..."stick that in your pipe, you conspiracy retards."

If anyone's noticed this...respond and if not, look at the videos with critical eye on these people when they do this stuff.

Thank you, Mikeman, though I have to disagree that a rocket would have high pressure behind it in a hard vacuum of near-infinite extent.

Free Expansion, you know?

Still, you're getting the idea.

But enough of that; please answer my simple question: does the exhaust of a rocket produce thrust after it has passed the rim of the nozzle?

Rayzor has already voted 'no', so his further input is not required for now.

Markjo voted kinda yes & kinda no (lol!).

What do the rest of you say?

Let's get some consensus here.

Quote from: Rayzor on June 15, 2015, 09:46:00 PM

Here you go Papa Legless,   http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/its-rocket-science/

If you seriously believe they can make a vacuum chamber out of plastic sheeting made into a rectangular box, then you are extremely naive.
Those mythbusters have to sleep at night after performing this crap but the high pay and the fact that they can hide behind the old "fun experiments" ruse with the added extra of being able to hide behind a flawed experiment if the situation arose, as they have done before, except it won't happen on stuff like this because it can't be shown to be flawed.

This is why I never watch mythbusters as a show, unless I need to watch for the duping of the world.
If anyone saw the video of the train container being evacuated of internal pressure, you'd know 100% that this mythbusters rectangular box is a con job.

Have you ever built vacuum chambers?   I have.    Looked genuine to me.   

You just won me $20 by the way...   I had a bet going that you or Papa Legba would say it's faked.   Thanks for being an idiot.

Not many people seem to want to answer Papa legba's questions. I wonder why? 
It's all ummmm's and arrrrr's. Come on you tefal heads; answer the questions put to you.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 16, 2015, 12:44:02 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on June 15, 2015, 09:46:00 PM

Here you go Papa Legless,   http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/its-rocket-science/

If you seriously believe they can make a vacuum chamber out of plastic sheeting made into a rectangular box, then you are extremely naive.
Those mythbusters have to sleep at night after performing this crap but the high pay and the fact that they can hide behind the old "fun experiments" ruse with the added extra of being able to hide behind a flawed experiment if the situation arose, as they have done before, except it won't happen on stuff like this because it can't be shown to be flawed.

This is why I never watch mythbusters as a show, unless I need to watch for the duping of the world.
If anyone saw the video of the train container being evacuated of internal pressure, you'd know 100% that this mythbusters rectangular box is a con job.

Have you ever built vacuum chambers?   I have.    Looked genuine to me.   

You just won me $20 by the way...   I had a bet going that you or Papa Legba would say it's faked.   Thanks for being an idiot.

I just won £500. I said you would pipe in by saying you had just won a bet on me or Papa saying it was faked. Cheers for being predictable and a total clown.

Anyway, here's something to chew on. See if you're as daft as you appear.
Do you know why they build pressure chambers with domed heads and bases? Now when I say pressure chambers, I mean chambers that can hold internal pressure or resist external pressure.

Do you know why they build pressure chambers with domed heads and bases? Now when I say pressure chambers, I mean chambers that can hold internal pressure or resist external pressure.

Yes.

Yet again, my very simple question is: does the exhaust of a rocket produce thrust after it has passed the rim of the nozzle?

Yes or No?

Please educate me on this subject.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 16, 2015, 01:31:43 AM

Do you know why they build pressure chambers with domed heads and bases? Now when I say pressure chambers, I mean chambers that can hold internal pressure or resist external pressure.

Yes.

Then you'll understand why Adam Savage's silly rigged up supposed vacuum chamber is anything but what we are led to believe.