The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: Weatherwax on May 10, 2015, 08:24:21 AM
-
The space shuttle needed enormous rocket engines to from the ground to orbit. I understand that it takes a huge amount of energy to escape the earth's gravity, but jet aeroplanes like the U2 can get to the edge of the atmosphere. So why can't a smaller-scale shuttle-type vehicle fly very high using jet engines and lift, and then use a small rocket engine for the final push to orbit? It would be a much more efficient way to service satellites and the ISS. Why can't we do this in 2015?
-
Remember that they need to make sure they have the velocity and angle for orbit when we go there.
-
Contrary to popular belief, achieving orbit is more about the velocity than altitude. It still takes an awful lot of energy to get a space craft of any size to a speed of more than 16,000 mph.
-
There actually is a space ship being developed by the ESA called the Skylon which does what you are saying, it uses jet engines to get as high and fast as it can and then it switches to rockets for the rest of the accent into orbit. The probelem is that you can't carry very large payloads with such a rocket, and making sich a thing is easier said then done.
-
I suppose what I'm getting at is why has there been so little progress in getting to space. When the shuttle started, it seemed like we were on the verge of routine space travel. Now we are right back to using the same rocket technology that was used in the 1950s. It's depressing.
We should all have X-wing fighters by now!
-
It sucks when reality gets in the way of progress, doesn't it?
-
Weirdly with these global Earth heads, it's difficult and then easy as piss depending on how they argue their way out of supposed NASA missions.
Yous ee, one minute it's hard and the shuttle or rocket needs to up it's speed like crazy to orbit and the next minute when asked about the amount of satellites sent up in the early days and still sent up and orbiting today, againmst the amount of rocket launches...it didn't seem to marry up.
Satellites since the 50's launched via rockets. Thousands of satellites since that time to today and yet only 2 countries were launching them until recently. USA and Russia, yet the launches were few and far between of rockets compared to satellites sent up.
The gloabl heads realised this was an issue so they turned space into an easy peasy job and now private companies send up jets and launch satellites from them. Strange that isn't it?
Global heads. Don't bother responding. This is for people who have a brain.
-
Global heads. Don't bother responding. This is for people who have a brain.
Why did you exclude yourself?
-
I suppose what I'm getting at is why has there been so little progress in getting to space. When the shuttle started, it seemed like we were on the verge of routine space travel. Now we are right back to using the same rocket technology that was used in the 1950s. It's depressing.
We should all have X-wing fighters by now!
Although it seemed like we were on the verge of routine space travel, the truth is that we were not because of the massive amount of resources, fuel being one, required for a ballistic launch.
I imagine that the efficiency of powered flight vs ballistic flight were compared and ballistic flight was the winner.
-
Weirdly with these global Earth heads, it's difficult and then easy as piss depending on how they argue their way out of supposed NASA missions.
Yous ee, one minute it's hard and the shuttle or rocket needs to up it's speed like crazy to orbit and the next minute when asked about the amount of satellites sent up in the early days and still sent up and orbiting today, againmst the amount of rocket launches...it didn't seem to marry up.
Satellites since the 50's launched via rockets. Thousands of satellites since that time to today and yet only 2 countries were launching them until recently. USA and Russia, yet the launches were few and far between of rockets compared to satellites sent up.
The gloabl heads realised this was an issue so they turned space into an easy peasy job and now private companies send up jets and launch satellites from them. Strange that isn't it?
Who ever said it was easy?
Why can't private companies do difficult jobs?
Global heads. Don't bother responding. This is for people who have a brain.
It is nice for you when you get the last word isn't it? Sawwry!
-
Weirdly with these global Earth heads, it's difficult and then easy as piss depending on how they argue their way out of supposed NASA missions.
Yous ee, one minute it's hard and the shuttle or rocket needs to up it's speed like crazy to orbit and the next minute when asked about the amount of satellites sent up in the early days and still sent up and orbiting today, againmst the amount of rocket launches...it didn't seem to marry up.
Just because something is hard, that doesn't mean that it can't be done regularly. For example, open heart surgery is very hard to do, yet skilled surgeons do it regularly.
-
I suppose what I'm getting at is why has there been so little progress in getting to space. When the shuttle started, it seemed like we were on the verge of routine space travel. Now we are right back to using the same rocket technology that was used in the 1950s. It's depressing.
We should all have X-wing fighters by now!
There are commercial space agencies, NASA is preparing for a manned Mars mission, ESA is developing the Skylon, and many companies have their own satellites orbiting the Earth.
-
I suppose what I'm getting at is why has there been so little progress in getting to space. When the shuttle started, it seemed like we were on the verge of routine space travel. Now we are right back to using the same rocket technology that was used in the 1950s. It's depressing.
We should all have X-wing fighters by now!
There are commercial space agencies, NASA is preparing for a manned Mars mission, ESA is developing the Skylon, and many companies have their own satellites orbiting the Earth. Rockets are about as efficient as they can be with current propulsion methods and more efficient space travel requires new and undeveloped technology. Cars also havn't advanced a lot in the last 50 years because combustion engines are about as efficient as they can be.
-
God almighty, the sock-puppetry on this site is hilarious!
Really; you are terrible at it...
'space travel is hard'
'yes it is i agree with you'
'although it is hard it is done often by clever men'
'yes & money too i agree'
'science is marvel here are big numbers'
'yes isn't it more numbers'
'hard sums are good & make rockets'
Etc, etc...
At least I now know that everyone here - bar sceptimatic - are either all the same person, or all have access to the same accounts.
So thanks for that, idiots!
-
God almighty, the sock-puppetry on this site is hilarious!
Really; you are terrible at it...
'space travel is hard'
'yes it is i agree with you'
'although it is hard it is done often by clever men'
'yes & money too i agree'
'science is marvel here are big numbers'
'yes isn't it more numbers'
'hard sums are good & make rockets'
Etc, etc...
At least I now know that everyone here - bar sceptimatic - are either all the same person, or all have access to the same accounts.
So thanks for that, idiots!
This is a classic example of a flat earther being overly paranoid.
-
No; you are a classic example of a basement-dweller using sock-puppets.
Really, it's so obvious; any net-savvy person can see it.
At least try mixing things up a bit; use different styles, slang, spelling, punctuation etc...
As it is you come over like a noob.
Or an idiot.
I know which my money's on.
-
No; you are a classic example of a basement-dweller using sock-puppets.
Really, it's so obvious; any net-savvy person can see it.
At least try mixing things up a bit; use different styles, slang, spelling, punctuation etc...
As it is you come over like a noob.
Or an idiot.
I know which my money's on.
So we are all personality-less usernames while you are a person with a life, seems like a logical deduction right?
-
The posts on this thread are sock-puppeted.
Ok?
It is obvious to any net-savvy person.
Really; it is.
Say what you like, it won't change that.
Now I've said my piece I'll leave you to carry on your bizarre conversation with yourself, which I assure you sounds utterly unreal to anyone with any sense.
-
God almighty, the sock-puppetry on this site is hilarious!
Really; you are terrible at it...
'space travel is hard'
'yes it is i agree with you'
'although it is hard it is done often by clever men'
'yes & money too i agree'
'science is marvel here are big numbers'
'yes isn't it more numbers'
'hard sums are good & make rockets'
Etc, etc...
At least I now know that everyone here - bar sceptimatic - are either all the same person, or all have access to the same accounts.
So thanks for that, idiots!
If you have nothing to contribute to this thread, then feel free to not post.
-
The posts on this thread are sock-puppeted.
Ok?
It is obvious to any net-savvy person.
Really; it is.
Say what you like, it won't change that.
Now I've said my piece I'll leave you to carry on your bizarre conversation with yourself, which I assure you sounds utterly unreal to anyone with any sense.
You have never met us, so you have no unambiguous, empirical evidence for who we are.
-
Why is it so hard to generate cheap electricity?
Why is it so hard to fly?
Why is it so hard to beat the NY Marathon record?
etc
All those things are hard, or even impossible to do for me by myself. Yet people do that all the time. You are dissmissing years of investigation, millions of dollars in inversion, the combined power of several top ranking aerospacial companies (and formerly the USA goverment itself), and the work of many, many people.
-
The posts on this thread are sock-puppeted.
Ok?
It is obvious to any net-savvy person.
Really; it is.
Say what you like, it won't change that.
Now I've said my piece I'll leave you to carry on your bizarre conversation with yourself, which I assure you sounds utterly unreal to anyone with any sense.
To me that's how you seem, a one dimensional character, but I know better because one dimensional characters don't exist in real life.
Edit: typo.
-
You wrote: '...but I know better because one dentinal characters don't really in real life.'
No further comment needed.
Back to how hard getting into space is now; because, really - ISN'T IT?
-
You wrote: '...but I know better because one dentinal characters don't really in real life.'
No further comment needed.
Back to how hard getting into space is now; because, really - ISN'T IT?
I fixed that typo.
Also, just because space travel is hard doesn't mean it's impossible.
-
A 'typo' is a spelling mistake; what you wrote was some kind of stoner gibberish soliloquy.
Largactyl is a very powerful drug; please wait until the initial rush is finished before attempting to post in future.
We'll all be better off.
Enough of that though; please return to how hard space travel is; cos, really - ISN'T IT JUST?
-
Yes it is hard to get into space.
The point of the thread was to discuss why we don't seem to have made as much progress as was hoped in the 60s. I guess the limitations of propulsion technology are pretty fundamental in this, but still, it is disappointing we haven't found an alternative to basically just exploding a load of fuel.
-
A 'typo' is a spelling mistake; what you wrote was some kind of stoner gibberish soliloquy.
Largactyl is a very powerful drug; please wait until the initial rush is finished before attempting to post in future.
We'll all be better off.
Enough of that though; please return to how hard space travel is; cos, really - ISN'T IT JUST?
I was typing that on my phone's keypad which I am not very skilled at using. Also, a typo isn't a spelling mistake, it's when you mean to type something but you accidentally type something else due to a mistake in using the keyboard, which is exactaly what happened in my case.
-
Imagining the future is very easy. Building the future is not. We have to invent today what we'll use in the future. Many more people contribute to the imaginary future than those who actually contribute to future inventions and scientific breakthroughs.
Also, priorities. People squabble over land and oil so much, scientific progress gets pushed aside.
Think of when you were younger and imagined yourself in the future. Maybe you imagined yourself rich, married, big house, fancy car. Why hasn't this happened (or maybe it has)? For a people as a whole, it hasn't been as ideal as they dreamed of before.
On that note I gotta get off this website.
-
Yes it is hard to get into space.
The point of the thread was to discuss why we don't seem to have made as much progress as was hoped in the 60s. I guess the limitations of propulsion technology are pretty fundamental in this, but still, it is disappointing we haven't found an alternative to basically just exploding a load of fuel.
Well, if you can think of a method of propulsion that doesn't involve action/reaction, then I'm sure that NASA would be more than happy to hear it. The problem is that getting into space requires going from an environment that has a relatively dense atmosphere to an environment that is nearly a perfect vacuum. Action/reaction propulsion systems that work efficiently in one environment aren't terribly efficient in the other so there winds up being a certain amount of very costly compromise.
-
Yes it is hard to get into space.
The point of the thread was to discuss why we don't seem to have made as much progress as was hoped in the 60s. I guess the limitations of propulsion technology are pretty fundamental in this, but still, it is disappointing we haven't found an alternative to basically just exploding a load of fuel.
Well, if you can think of a method of propulsion that doesn't involve action/reaction, then I'm sure that NASA would be more than happy to hear it. The problem is that getting into space requires going from an environment that has a relatively dense atmosphere to an environment that is nearly a perfect vacuum. Action/reaction propulsion systems that work efficiently in one environment aren't terribly efficient in the other so there winds up being a certain amount of very costly compromise.
I think some kind of anti-gravity device is the answer. I'll start working on it in my shed.
-
The posts on this thread are sock-puppeted.
Ok?
It is obvious to any net-savvy person.
Really; it is.
Say what you like, it won't change that.
Now I've said my piece I'll leave you to carry on your bizarre conversation with yourself, which I assure you sounds utterly unreal to anyone with any sense.
You have never met us, so you have no unambiguous, empirical evidence for who we are.
Humourless with the ability to retrieve a sweety from a specially designed complicated compartmented box, hiding that sweet, I'd say it's not to hard to figure out who you people are. (http://s24.postimg.org/pkcgo2vm9/damned.png) (http://postimage.org/)
-
A 'typo' is a spelling mistake; what you wrote was some kind of stoner gibberish soliloquy.
Largactyl is a very powerful drug; please wait until the initial rush is finished before attempting to post in future.
We'll all be better off.
Enough of that though; please return to how hard space travel is; cos, really - ISN'T IT JUST?
I was typing that on my phone's keypad which I am not very skilled at using. Also, a typo isn't a spelling mistake, it's when you mean to type something but you accidentally type something else due to a mistake in using the keyboard, which is exactaly what happened in my case.
Stop protesting you thick git. You've been shown up; just accept it, you daft twat.
-
A 'typo' is a spelling mistake; what you wrote was some kind of stoner gibberish soliloquy.
Largactyl is a very powerful drug; please wait until the initial rush is finished before attempting to post in future.
We'll all be better off.
Enough of that though; please return to how hard space travel is; cos, really - ISN'T IT JUST?
I was typing that on my phone's keypad which I am not very skilled at using. Also, a typo isn't a spelling mistake, it's when you mean to type something but you accidentally type something else due to a mistake in using the keyboard, which is exactaly what happened in my case.
Stop protesting you thick git. You've been shown up; just accept it, you daft twat.
I made a typo, I didn't get shown up. There is a difference.
-
Let's remember the OP and get back to the question.
-
Let's remember the OP and get back to the question.
Why is it so hard to get into space?
Going into space (on a the generally accepted round earth) requires you to move into at least low earth orbit. To do that you need to travel about 8km/s or 28000km/h. That is very fast.
We are limited in how fast we can move through the air due to its increasingly higher friction as you go faster. So you have to exit the atmosphere to be able to orbit. there is still air some air at 160km high.
Oxygen also reduces as you go higher, this means that an aircraft that uses jet engine can only go as high as the oxygen will allow it to, but at that altitude there is still enough air to limit how fast you can go.
The EU Skylon has developed a new type of engine that tries to combine the best of jet turbines with rocket engines. However I do not see a working craft using this technology anytime soon.
So the best bet is to exit the atmosphere as soon as possible then incline to get to orbital velocities.
The reason why all of that is hard (but do able) is that you have to take all your fuel with you.
The higher & faster you want to go the more fuel you need, which in turn makes you heavier requiring more fuel.
At the end of the day, you need a LOT of fuel to reach 8km/s and that is why going to space is hard.
-
Space elevators are the future. If only we had the political unity to build one.
-
Space elevators are the future. If only we had the political unity to build one.
Although I always thought they would be the future to access space. I have to disagree now.
In the far future some might be built, but by the time we have the means to build a space elevator we would no longer need a space elevator.
-
'Space elevator'; now you're really taking the piss!
But, hey, why not?
Nothing else about 'space travel' makes sense; may as well push the envelope & see what sticks eh?
Cos there's one born every minute...
-
'Space elevator'; now you're really taking the piss!
But, hey, why not?
Nothing else about 'space travel' makes sense; may as well push the envelope & see what sticks eh?
Cos there's one born every minute...
You are just afraid that space elevators would reveal space travel as the reality it is.
-
Space elevators. Hahahahaha. No wonder these globalists heads are saturated in crap.
If anyone's been taking notice, the public are already being groomed into the easy peasy space exploits.
Felix Baumgartner and his red bull gives you wings carry on is the next bet.
Soon, you will send up a balloon and capsule, then a Felix type will jump out with a jet pack on his back. Straight into space and to the ISS, just in time for tea and cakes with some guitar playing spaceship commander.
Soon enough we can all go to space if you can afford the new fully tested fart mints at 2 million a pop. One mint at a time is enough to fart you into orbit.
It doesn't matter how stupid it all gets. It really doesn't. Because the gullibles will still jump up with drooling, gaping mouths, shouting, " awesome."...."wow."
It's scary to think how gullible people are and even more scary to think that the gullibles actually think they're scientists. That's really frigging scary.
-
'Space elevator'; now you're really taking the piss!
But, hey, why not?
Nothing else about 'space travel' makes sense; may as well push the envelope & see what sticks eh?
Cos there's one born every minute...
You are just afraid that space elevators would reveal space travel as the reality it is.
I'd like to abuse you but I'll just sit back and accept that you're merely taking the utter piss and do not believe a word you're saying.
If you do believe it, you seriously need to piss off and get a life. :P
-
'Space elevator'; now you're really taking the piss!
But, hey, why not?
Nothing else about 'space travel' makes sense; may as well push the envelope & see what sticks eh?
Cos there's one born every minute...
You are just afraid that space elevators would reveal space travel as the reality it is.
I'd like to abuse you but I'll just sit back and accept that you're merely taking the utter piss and do not believe a word you're saying.
If you do believe it, you seriously need to piss off and get a life. :P
It seems like a crazy idea at first glance, but that doesn't mean it's not a good possible idea. If you explain computers to soneone who has never seen a computer they will call you insane or a lier, but as we know computers are real.
-
Simply because something is unfathomable does not mean it is false. Now think, every letter you type here is 8 bits of information, and modern computers hold billions of those. All stored on silicon chips. Carbon nanotubes prevent the square cube effect to not take place on the cable. But the energy cost would be enormous, and as Weatherwax said, We as humans are not designed to work together like that. Its not our nature.
Sad but true.
-
Misero: PLEASE repeat that, but this time in English cos we don't speak Gibberish, you maniac...
Space-elevators; COME ON, FFS!!!
-
Misero: PLEASE repeat that, but this time in English cos we don't speak Gibberish, you maniac...
Space-elevators; COME ON, FFS!!!
I understood it perfectly fine. Maybe its just your level of education that's holding you back.
-
Misero: PLEASE repeat that, but this time in English cos we don't speak Gibberish, you maniac...
Space-elevators; COME ON, FFS!!!
Please tell us why you think space elevators could not work.
-
Misero: PLEASE repeat that, but this time in English cos we don't speak Gibberish, you maniac...
Space-elevators; COME ON, FFS!!!
Please tell us why you think space elevators could not work.
Why don't we have space elevators all over the place, if it is as simple as you claim it is.
-
Why don't we have space elevators all over the place, if it is as simple as you claim it is.
Well, they would currently be pretty useless and cost very much.
-
Well, we must have been there first to set up an elevator. Why do we need to go to the moon? Also, the motor to control the cable would have to be powered by the moon, because a wire could not transmit electricity that high, it would all disperse. The problem with generating coal or oil energy on the moon is no air for fire. And why would we use our limited water for electricity? We could use solar, but then as soon as it gets dark on the moon, the rope will go slack, likely killing some people. Nuclear is out of the question, as it requires huge amounts of water(which is hard to get to the moon) and uranium(which is decently hard to get to the moon).
-
Misero: PLEASE repeat that, but this time in English cos we don't speak Gibberish, you maniac...
Space-elevators; COME ON, FFS!!!
Please tell us why you think space elevators could not work.
Why don't we have space elevators all over the place, if it is as simple as you claim it is.
Space elevators are yet another one of those cases where the concept is fairly simple, but the implementation is exceedingly difficult. Right now, the biggest single problem is developing a material that is strong enough, yet light enough, to make the cable out of.
-
In theory, Carbon Nanotubes would work.
-
In theory, Carbon Nanotubes would work.
Yeah, but you need Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark to pay for them.
-
In theory, Carbon Nanotubes would work.
Yeah, but you need Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark to pay for them.
And the actual construction of the elevator until it could sustain its height would be borderline impossible with current technology.
-
Lemmiwinks: As I've helped construct plenty of elevator shafts, my level of education on the subject is just fine.
Even small, 5 or 6 storey, ones contained many hundreds of tons of concrete & steel.
Have fun getting that lot up to space!
But sorry: carbon nanotubes, geostationary orbits, lunar tethers, laser-blasters, blah, blah, etc...
It's my own fault I guess; I just don't get it, do I?
Being stuck in reality, as I am...
ROFL!!!
-
So you deny every carbon nanotube material is not made of carbon nanotubes? Wow. My bicycle seat must be made or aether.
-
So you deny every carbon nanotube material is not made of carbon nanotubes? Wow. My bicycle seat must be made or aether.
Umm... Are you thinking maybe carbon fiber instead of nanotube? I didn't realize that nanotubes were actually in mass production yet.
-
Lemmiwinks: As I've helped construct plenty of elevator shafts, my level of education on the subject is just fine.
Even small, 5 or 6 storey, ones contained many hundreds of tons of concrete & steel.
Have fun getting that lot up to space!
But sorry: carbon nanotubes, geostationary orbits, lunar tethers, laser-blasters, blah, blah, etc...
It's my own fault I guess; I just don't get it, do I?
Being stuck in reality, as I am...
ROFL!!!
because of the rotation of the Earth and the counterweight at the end of the space elevator the whole structure would actually be under tensile stress because of how the elevator leads to geostationary orbit and just beyond that there is a counterweight which produces an upward force because beyond geostationary orbit a 24 hour orbital period is too fast for a circular orbit.
-
They're not. There have just been carbon nanotube bicycle seat. I wasn't saying that I have one. Sort of a joke.
-
They're not. There have just been carbon nanotube bicycle seat. I wasn't saying that I have one. Sort of a joke.
Obviously not a very good one. Keep trying.
-
They're not. There have just been carbon nanotube bicycle seat. I wasn't saying that I have one. Sort of a joke.
Obviously not a very good one. Keep trying.
If it was not very good, why did you fall for it?
-
Forget the carbon LOLotubes; explain how the cargo gets blasted up to space by giant LASERS!!!
I'll get me popcorn...
-
Forget the carbon LOLotubes; explain how the cargo gets blasted up to space by giant LASERS!!!
Not that you would believe it or anything, but it would probably go something sorta like this:
(http://)
-
They're not. There have just been carbon nanotube bicycle seat. I wasn't saying that I have one. Sort of a joke.
Obviously not a very good one. Keep trying.
If it was not very good, why did you fall for it?
Because a joke is not the same as a lie.
-
So you deny that Carbon atoms can bond to themselves in patterns? Wow, now you're denying chemistry as "LOLFAKEIDON'TUNDERSSTANDITFAKE"
-
So you deny that Carbon atoms can bond to themselves in patterns? Wow, now you're denying chemistry as "LOLFAKEIDON'TUNDERSSTANDITFAKE"
Have you personally observed carbon atoms bonding to themselves in patterns?
-
Ever see a diamond?
-
Ever see a diamond?
That's not what I asked.
-
Well then I guess your question is meaningless.
-
Well then I guess your question is meaningless.
Most things are. But I'll ask again:
Have you personally observed carbon atoms bonding to themselves in patterns?
I'm having a hard time understanding why you think looking at a diamond is the same as watching carbon atoms bond. That's the process you believe forms diamonds, sure, but it's not what I asked.
If you're going to act like a doofus take it to complete nonsense.
-
Why is it necessary to see it for it to be real?
-
Why is it necessary to see it for it to be real?
Are we playing the "answer a question with a question" game?
How fun... ::)
-
Are we playing the "not going to answer hard question game"?
How fun.
-
Boring.
When you want to answer the question, go ahead. I'm not going to answer your irrelevant questions until then.
-
Boring.
When you want to as meaningful questions, go ahead. I'm not going to answer your meaningless question until then.
-
Well then I guess your question is meaningless.
Most things are. But I'll ask again:
Have you personally observed carbon atoms bonding to themselves in patterns?
I'm having a hard time understanding why you think looking at a diamond is the same as watching carbon atoms bond. That's the process you believe forms diamonds, sure, but it's not what I asked.
If you're going to act like a doofus take it to complete nonsense.
If diamonds are not evidence that Carbon can bond to it's self then fire is not evidence that Oxygen is reactive and balloons floating up is not evidence that helium is lighter then air. Have you ever seen the server which hosts this website? How do you know that it exists?
-
Well then I guess your question is meaningless.
Most things are. But I'll ask again:
Have you personally observed carbon atoms bonding to themselves in patterns?
I'm having a hard time understanding why you think looking at a diamond is the same as watching carbon atoms bond. That's the process you believe forms diamonds, sure, but it's not what I asked.
If you're going to act like a doofus take it to complete nonsense.
If diamonds are not evidence that Carbon can bond to it's self then fire is not evidence that Oxygen is reactive and balloons floating up is not evidence that helium is lighter then air. Have you ever seen the server which hosts this website? How do you know that it exists?
I think you're starting to see the bigger picture.
Helpful tip. Instead of asking me the questions... ask yourself those same questions.
-
Well then I guess your question is meaningless.
Most things are. But I'll ask again:
Have you personally observed carbon atoms bonding to themselves in patterns?
I'm having a hard time understanding why you think looking at a diamond is the same as watching carbon atoms bond. That's the process you believe forms diamonds, sure, but it's not what I asked.
If you're going to act like a doofus take it to complete nonsense.
If diamonds are not evidence that Carbon can bond to it's self then fire is not evidence that Oxygen is reactive and balloons floating up is not evidence that helium is lighter then air. Have you ever seen the server which hosts this website? How do you know that it exists?
I think you're starting to see the bigger picture.
Helpful tip. Instead of asking me the questions... ask yourself those same questions.
Are you claiming that all chemistry is false and that everyone who has ever made a prediction with chemistry or used an electron microscope is a liar? Evidence please?
-
Are you claiming that all chemistry is false and that everyone who has ever made a prediction with chemistry or used an electron microscope is a liar? Evidence please?
I didn't make any claims. Please reread my previous post.
-
Oh goody, you are being vague again. That makes you so smart.
-
Are you claiming that all chemistry is false and that everyone who has ever made a prediction with chemistry or used an electron microscope is a liar? Evidence please?
I didn't make any claims. Please reread my previous post.
You didn't claim it but you definitely implied it. Also, there is my example of how you know the server hosting this website exists because you can access this website. Some things cannot be directly observed meaning you have to learn about them in other ways.
-
So you deny that Carbon atoms can bond to themselves in patterns? Wow, now you're denying chemistry as "LOLFAKEIDON'TUNDERSSTANDITFAKE"
Have you personally observed carbon atoms bonding to themselves in patterns?
One can observe the various patterns that carbon atoms form. What is the relevance of witnessing the process?
-
So you deny that Carbon atoms can bond to themselves in patterns? Wow, now you're denying chemistry as "LOLFAKEIDON'TUNDERSSTANDITFAKE"
Have you personally observed carbon atoms bonding to themselves in patterns?
One can observe the various patterns that carbon atoms form. What is the relevance of witnessing the process?
There is none. It is just a tactic to say something that you do not understand is wrong by simply not believing your evidence or the means through which it was created.
-
What is the relevance of witnessing the process?
That's the most important part, and it's alarming that you don't agree. How can you be sure something is happening if you can't see it happening? Simply looking at the results of said happening doesn't prove that said happening happened. It just means that you have an explanation for what happened, but still unproven. I don't understand how anyone on this site can claim something is proven, yet at the same time most have not witnessed what they are saying is proven. People here fancy themselves free-thinkers and scientists, but reading Science Weekly or wikipedia doesn't make you a scientist. It just means that you can read.
I am tired of the claims of certainty from people who have not experienced their claims first-hand. It's disingenuous.
-
What is the relevance of witnessing the process?
That's the most important part, and it's alarming that you don't agree. How can you be sure something is happening if you can't see it happening? Simply looking at the results of said happening doesn't prove that said happening happened.
??? Huh? The fact that the carbon atoms have formed into a particular pattern is proof positive that carbon atoms can form that pattern. The process may be a mystery, but the end result is not. I'm willing to be that most women couldn't possibly care any less how carbon atoms from into a diamond, just as long as one ends up on their finger.
-
What is the relevance of witnessing the process?
That's the most important part, and it's alarming that you don't agree. How can you be sure something is happening if you can't see it happening? Simply looking at the results of said happening doesn't prove that said happening happened.
??? Huh? The fact that the carbon atoms have formed into a particular pattern is proof positive that carbon atoms can form that pattern. The process may be a mystery, but the end result is not. I'm willing to be that most women couldn't possibly care any less how carbon atoms from into a diamond, just as long as one ends up on their finger.
And since carbon is a heavier element formed in stars, it could not just appear in those patterns, and had to be formed.
-
We can only directly see a small part of reality. Our eyes only detect a narrow band of wavelengths, and obviously we can't see very small things.
We have to rely on indirect observations. We have no choice in that. If you don't accept that then you have to reject all of chemistry, a lot of physics and a lot of biology.
-
What is the relevance of witnessing the process?
That's the most important part, and it's alarming that you don't agree. How can you be sure something is happening if you can't see it happening? Simply looking at the results of said happening doesn't prove that said happening happened.
??? Huh? The fact that the carbon atoms have formed into a particular pattern is proof positive that carbon atoms can form that pattern. The process may be a mystery, but the end result is not. I'm willing to be that most women couldn't possibly care any less how carbon atoms from into a diamond, just as long as one ends up on their finger.
And since carbon is a heavier element formed in stars, it could not just appear in those patterns, and had to be formed.
This is exactly what I was talking about. Thank you for illustrating my point, Quail. :)
-
Your point was stars make carbon atoms?
-
So what noise do the lasers make as they propel the cargo up the LOLotube space-beanstalk?
Do they go 'pew! pew!' like in Star Wars, or an oscillating 'ooWooWooWoo' like in Star Trek?
I need the information cos I'm performing a 'thought experiment' on the subject & want it to be as accurate as possible.
Thanks, space-cultists!
-
So what noise do the lasers make as they propel the cargo up the LOLotube space-beanstalk?
Do they go 'pew! pew!' like in Star Wars, or an oscillating 'ooWooWooWoo' like in Star Trek?
I need the information cos I'm performing a 'thought experiment' on the subject & want it to be as accurate as possible.
Thanks, space-cultists!
Be less dumb.
-
Vauxhall, there are many things which you can deduce by seeing the end result. For example, because this website exists I can deduce that it's hosted on a web server somewhere even though I have never seen that server. I have never met you in person yet I can deduce that you exist because you are posting on this forum. You also often have to rely on technology to see the world like electron microscopes which actually can see carbon atoms bonding.
-
So what noise do the lasers make as they propel the cargo up the LOLotube space-beanstalk?
Do they go 'pew! pew!' like in Star Wars, or an oscillating 'ooWooWooWoo' like in Star Trek?
I need the information cos I'm performing a 'thought experiment' on the subject & want it to be as accurate as possible.
Thanks, space-cultists!
Most lasers function in bursts and make loud abrupt banging noises when firing.
-
Quail: Thank you.
I have now concluded my 'thought experiment' on the subject of space-elevators.
& the result was: ROFLCOPTER!!!
Enjoy your sci-fi fantasy world; I'll continue enjoying reality.
It's a pretty cool place; try it - you might enjoy it!
Toodle-pip, Cultists...
P.s. Sokarul: YOU have the cheek to call ME 'dumb' for not believing a word of this claptrap?
LOL!!!
That's a beauty!
-
Quail: Thank you.
I have now concluded my 'thought experiment' on the subject of space-elevators.
& the result was: ROFLCOPTER!!!
Enjoy your sci-fi fantasy world; I'll continue enjoying reality.
It's a pretty cool place; try it - you might enjoy it!
Toodle-pip, Cultists...
P.s. Sokarul: YOU have the cheek to call ME 'dumb' for not believing a word of this claptrap?
LOL!!!
That's a beauty!
So you thought about space elevators and somehow your conclusion was a very old Internet meme. If all of us would only enjoy "reality" and never dream, humanity would have never even survived because we would have failed to invent anything, especially clothes for winter.
-
Yes, quail: Clothes are like Space-Elevators...
Already been there & done that with the false analogies, so please let's not do it again...
You enjoy your fantasies, ok? Just don't expect me to be as enthusiastic.
Bye-bye, space-cultists!
-
Yes, quail: Clothes are like Space-Elevators...
Already been there & done that with the false analogies, so please let's not do it again...
You enjoy your fantasies, ok? Just don't expect me to be as enthusiastic.
Bye-bye, space-cultists!
If by fantasies you mean hope for the future then yes, I will enjoy that. What I will enjoy more though is the look on your face when you figure out that space travel is real, but something tells me that even a ride to space wouldn't convince the more stubborn flat earthers.
-
How, precisely, will you 'enjoy the look on my face when I find out space travel is real', mikeman.nasa.gov?
Are you hiding in my wardrobe?
Stalking me everywhere?
Whatever; you're in for a looooooooong wait so I hope you brought a packed lunch.
Btw, if you ARE hiding in my wardrobe, that's fine; I quite like the idea of having my own little pet NASA-cultist.
But remember: the wardrobe is NOT a toilet, ok?
Just tap lightly 3 times & I'll let you out for a break; we'll just pretend it never happened...
But enough of that; back to space-lifts & how hard it is to get into space - cos ISN'T IT JUST???
-
How, precisely, will you 'enjoy the look on my face when I find out space travel is real', mikeman.nasa.gov?
Are you hiding in my wardrobe?
Stalking me everywhere?
Whatever; you're in for a looooooooong wait so I hope you brought a packed lunch.
Btw, if you ARE hiding in my wardrobe, that's fine; I quite like the idea of having my own little pet NASA-cultist.
But remember: the wardrobe is NOT a toilet, ok?
Just tap lightly 3 times & I'll let you out for a break; we'll just pretend it never happened...
But enough of that; back to space-lifts & how hard it is to get into space - cos ISN'T IT JUST???
Calling someone you dont even know a cultist is about as logical as walking up to a random person on the street and calling them a jew.
-
How, precisely, will you 'enjoy the look on my face when I find out space travel is real', mikeman.nasa.gov?
Are you hiding in my wardrobe?
Stalking me everywhere?
Whatever; you're in for a looooooooong wait so I hope you brought a packed lunch.
Btw, if you ARE hiding in my wardrobe, that's fine; I quite like the idea of having my own little pet NASA-cultist.
But remember: the wardrobe is NOT a toilet, ok?
Just tap lightly 3 times & I'll let you out for a break; we'll just pretend it never happened...
But enough of that; back to space-lifts & how hard it is to get into space - cos ISN'T IT JUST???
I was just saying that your face would be priceless.
Also, nobody ever said that making a space elevator would be easy. It would requires the economic power of the entire would to make such a massive project possible. Getting into space is very hard, but private space agencies are working on making it something the general public can do. Maybe you should look into buying a ticket so you can look down on the Earth and see how incredibly round it is.
-
How, precisely, will you 'enjoy the look on my face when I find out space travel is real', mikeman.nasa.gov?
Are you hiding in my wardrobe?
Stalking me everywhere?
Whatever; you're in for a looooooooong wait so I hope you brought a packed lunch.
Btw, if you ARE hiding in my wardrobe, that's fine; I quite like the idea of having my own little pet NASA-cultist.
But remember: the wardrobe is NOT a toilet, ok?
Just tap lightly 3 times & I'll let you out for a break; we'll just pretend it never happened...
But enough of that; back to space-lifts & how hard it is to get into space - cos ISN'T IT JUST???
I was just saying that your face would be priceless.
Also, nobody ever said that making a space elevator would be easy. It would requires the economic power of the entire would to make such a massive project possible. Getting into space is very hard, but private space agencies are working on making it something the general public can do. Maybe you should look into buying a ticket so you can look down on the Earth and see how incredibly round it is.
Its sad that, nowadays, space investigation is exclusivelly private. NASA has become "Lockheed Martin: Tax evasion department", and no other public agency gets nowhere as near. A public agency is required. Someone call Jesus to kick the merchants out of publically founded agencies.
-
Damn, Quail; you just will not give it up with the false analogies, will you?
But as that's pretty much all you have to justify your belief in NASA's space-fantasies, it's not so surprising.
Anyhow, enough trying to smear me by association with your weird & vaguely anti-semitic remarks; back to how hard it is to get into space...
Cos ISN'T IT?
I mean, ISN'T IT REALLY???
-
Damn, Quail; you just will not give it up with the false analogies, will you?
But as that's pretty much all you have to justify your belief in NASA's space-fantasies, it's not so surprising.
Anyhow, enough trying to smear me by association with your weird & vaguely anti-semitic remarks; back to how hard it is to get into space...
Cos ISN'T IT?
I mean, ISN'T IT REALLY???
To get to a non-stable low earth orbit such as the one the ISS "stays" at, around 27.600 km/h of orbital speed are required. The shortest USA coast to coast route is about 4100 km. Trip time: around 9 minutes. Do you know of any non-orbital vehicle that goes that fast? Before you try it, the fastest known plane is the HTV-2 Falcon, an experimental unmanned hypersonic scramjet developed by DARPA. Top speed: 21,000 km/h. A civilian Boeing 747 (which on itself is a marvel of engineering) 's cruise speed is around 920 km/h. You make the math.
-
Damn, Quail; you just will not give it up with the false analogies, will you?
But as that's pretty much all you have to justify your belief in NASA's space-fantasies, it's not so surprising.
Anyhow, enough trying to smear me by association with your weird & vaguely anti-semitic remarks; back to how hard it is to get into space...
Cos ISN'T IT?
I mean, ISN'T IT REALLY???
Stop avoiding my question, and answer already. The post that you are referring to did not even contain analogies, you are just resorting to personal attacks because you are either afraid of my question or unable to answer.
-
Damn, Quail; you just will not give it up with the false analogies, will you?
But as that's pretty much all you have to justify your belief in NASA's space-fantasies, it's not so surprising.
Anyhow, enough trying to smear me by association with your weird & vaguely anti-semitic remarks; back to how hard it is to get into space...
Cos ISN'T IT?
I mean, ISN'T IT REALLY???
To get to a non-stable low earth orbit such as the one the ISS "stays" at, around 27.600 km/h of orbital speed are required. The shortest USA coast to coast route is about 4100 km. Trip time: around 9 minutes. Do you know of any non-orbital vehicle that goes that fast? Before you try it, the fastest known plane is the HTV-2 Falcon, an experimental unmanned hypersonic scramjet developed by DARPA. Top speed: 21,000 km/h. A civilian Boeing 747 (which on itself is a marvel of engineering) 's cruise speed is around 920 km/h. You make the math.
Right; but the ISS wasn't lifted to orbit with jets. Rockets are a bit different I hope you know?
-
Right; but the ISS wasn't lifted to orbit with jets. Rockets are a bit different I hope you know?
That depends on how pedantic you want to get about the definition of a jet.
-
Damn, Quail; you just will not give it up with the false analogies, will you?
But as that's pretty much all you have to justify your belief in NASA's space-fantasies, it's not so surprising.
Anyhow, enough trying to smear me by association with your weird & vaguely anti-semitic remarks; back to how hard it is to get into space...
Cos ISN'T IT?
I mean, ISN'T IT REALLY???
To get to a non-stable low earth orbit such as the one the ISS "stays" at, around 27.600 km/h of orbital speed are required. The shortest USA coast to coast route is about 4100 km. Trip time: around 9 minutes. Do you know of any non-orbital vehicle that goes that fast? Before you try it, the fastest known plane is the HTV-2 Falcon, an experimental unmanned hypersonic scramjet developed by DARPA. Top speed: 21,000 km/h. A civilian Boeing 747 (which on itself is a marvel of engineering) 's cruise speed is around 920 km/h. You make the math.
Right; but the ISS wasn't lifted to orbit with jets. Rockets are a bit different I hope you know?
If you could get a jet to go that fast, it is possible that you could get a suborbital trajectory, just by pure ballistics. I was using jets as an example because they are among the fastest non-rocket propelled vehicles created, and everyone here agrees they work.
-
But, jets are often rocket propelled. I think you people should do some research in order to enlighten yourselves.
-
But, jets are often rocket propelled. I think you people should do some research in order to enlighten yourselves.
No. Some experimental jets have rockets as a propulsion. As far as I know, all jets use air breathing jet turbines. Afterburners in fighter jets are also air breathing, and so are ram jets used in the blackbird and some super high altitude high speed jets.
If there is a non-experimental jet flying with rockets I would love to know about it. Would you share your wisdom and give me an example?
-
But, jets are often rocket propelled. I think you people should do some research in order to enlighten yourselves.
A jet is called a jet because it uses a jet turbine (air-breathing) to propell itself. Some jets use JATO systems to take off, in the form of small rockets for very fast acceleration and/or beig able to get offf the floor effect with heavy aircraft. If a jet uses a rocket as propulsion, it is a rocket plane, not a jet. Some jets use hybrid rocket/jet propulsion, like the SABRE engine, but that's another issue.
-
Please do some research on rocket assisted take off and landing before you people make yourselves look even more like complete morons.
-
Please do some research on rocket assisted take off and landing before you people make yourselves look even more like complete morons.
I actually know about those. As you described rocket assisted take off and landing And as far as I know it is not at all used today, henceBut, jets are often rocket propelled.
is not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JATO#Post_WWII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JATO#Post_WWII)
It is dangerous and expensive, and not often used outside of experimental use. It was used in WWII though.
I am lost, how is rocket assisted take off and landing relevant to anything?
-
Please do some research on rocket assisted take off and landing before you people make yourselves look even more like complete morons.
I've heard of the military aircraft occasionally using rocket assisted take off (RATO/JATO), but I don't recall ever hearing of rocket assisted landing. That is unless you're referring to things like SpaceX attempting to recover Falcon 9 first stages.
-
I've heard of the military aircraft occasionally using rocket assisted take off (RATO/JATO), but I don't recall ever hearing of rocket assisted landing. That is unless you're referring to things like SpaceX attempting to recover Falcon 9 first stages.
Welcome to craze military rescue idea (http://)
Also turns out it was a bad idea :P
-
I've heard of the military aircraft occasionally using rocket assisted take off (RATO/JATO), but I don't recall ever hearing of rocket assisted landing. That is unless you're referring to things like SpaceX attempting to recover Falcon 9 first stages.
Welcome to craze military rescue idea (http://)
Also turns out it was a bad idea :P
Oh, silly me. I feel like such a moron. :-[
-
I've helped construct plenty of elevator shafts, my level of education on the subject is just fine.
I'm taking the stairwells from now on.
-
It is more than hard, it is impossible. No one has gotten past the dome. Messing around with it is a bad idea likely, so just back off. I had a system figured out to get golf ball sized objects into orbit, but now after realizing there is no way to get past the dome it is of no use. Lets stop wasting money on the fake space programs and do something useful for mankind.
opps, doom to dome
-
It is more than hard, it is impossible. No one has gotten past the doom. Messing around with it is a bad idea likely, so just back off. I had a system figured out to get golf ball sized objects into orbit, but now after realizing there is no way to get past the doom it is of no use. Lets stop wasting money on the fake space programs and do something useful for mankind.
Can you please provide us with the evidence for space travel being impossible, and the system you figured out?
-
It is more than hard, it is impossible. No one has gotten past the doom. Messing around with it is a bad idea likely, so just back off. I had a system figured out to get golf ball sized objects into orbit, but now after realizing there is no way to get past the doom it is of no use. Lets stop wasting money on the fake space programs and do something useful for mankind.
Ooh, The doom! Shouldn't that be in a bold scary font?
The doom
Otherwise, readers will just think you're prattling complete rot. Oh, wait! There isn't a font scary enough...
-
It is more than hard, it is impossible. No one has gotten past the dome. Messing around with it is a bad idea likely, so just back off. I had a system figured out to get golf ball sized objects into orbit, but now after realizing there is no way to get past the doom it is of no use. Lets stop wasting money on the fake space programs and do something useful for mankind.
Can you please provide us with the evidence for space travel being impossible, and the system you figured out?
The very fact that there is zero proof of anything being in space proves it's self. Mini probe launch, No, but very simple and easy to do.
-
It is more than hard, it is impossible. No one has gotten past the dome. Messing around with it is a bad idea likely, so just back off. I had a system figured out to get golf ball sized objects into orbit, but now after realizing there is no way to get past the doom it is of no use. Lets stop wasting money on the fake space programs and do something useful for mankind.
Can you please provide us with the evidence for space travel being impossible, and the system you figured out?
The very fact that there is zero proof of anything being in space proves it's self. Mini probe launch, No, but very simple and easy to do.
So if something hasnt been made before, that proves its impossible? Weird thing for a human to say, we base our entire culture about doing the imposible.
And glad that minilaunch is easy to do, but that doesnt answer me how
-
The very fact that there is zero proof of anything being in space proves it's self. Mini probe launch, No, but very simple and easy to do.
What are you talking about? Anyone can literally just see the International Space Station flying overhead with a telescope.
-
The very fact that there is zero proof of anything being in space proves it's self. Mini probe launch, No, but very simple and easy to do.
What are you talking about? Anyone can literally just see the International Space Station flying overhead with a telescope.
Anyone? Literally? Really? Do you know what literally even means?
-
The very fact that there is zero proof of anything being in space proves it's self. Mini probe launch, No, but very simple and easy to do.
What are you talking about? Anyone can literally just see the International Space Station flying overhead with a telescope.
Anyone? Literally? Really? Do you know what literally even means?
Do you?
lit·er·al·ly
ˈlidərəlē,ˈlitrəlē/
adverb
adverb: literally
in a literal manner or sense; exactly.
"the driver took it literally when asked to go straight across the traffic circle"
synonyms: exactly, precisely, actually, really, truly; More
without question, unquestionably, indisputably
"there are literally 214 colors available"
informal
used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true.
"I have received literally thousands of letters"
-
The very fact that there is zero proof of anything being in space proves it's self. Mini probe launch, No, but very simple and easy to do.
What are you talking about? Anyone can literally just see the International Space Station flying overhead with a telescope.
Anyone? Literally? Really? Do you know what literally even means?
Do you?
lit·er·al·ly
ˈlidərəlē,ˈlitrəlē/
adverb
adverb: literally
in a literal manner or sense; exactly.
"the driver took it literally when asked to go straight across the traffic circle"
synonyms: exactly, precisely, actually, really, truly; More
without question, unquestionably, indisputably
"there are literally 214 colors available"
informal
used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true.
"I have received literally thousands of letters"
Apparently, markjo does not know the meaning of the word either. This article might be of interest to you and whatever nameless dictionary you got that definition from.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/13/literally-broken-english-language-definition (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/13/literally-broken-english-language-definition)
-
Apparently jroa doesn't understand that words often take on different meanings when used informally.
Also:
Definition of LITERALLY
1: in a literal sense or manner : actually <took the remark literally> <was literally insane>
2: in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins>
-
Apparently jroa doesn't understand that words often take on different meanings when used informally.
Also:
Definition of LITERALLY
1: in a literal sense or manner : actually <took the remark literally> <was literally insane>
2: in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins>
How can a word that means something, so exact, be used to mean the opposite? It even means exact.
literally
[lit-er-uh-lee]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
adverb
1.
in the literal or strict sense: She failed to grasp the metaphor and interpreted the poem literally.
What does the word mean literally?
2.
in a literal manner; word for word:
to translate literally.
3.
actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy:
The city was literally destroyed.
-
Jroa literally derailed the thread by arguing about the literal meaning of literally ... MIND BLOWN!
-
How can a word that means something, so exact, be used to mean the opposite?
ITT: jroa literally fails to understand the concept of irony
-
How can a word that means something, so exact, be used to mean the opposite?
ITT: jroa literally fails to understand the concept of irony
I know what is not ironic in this thread: markjo shitting it up.
-
Getting back on topic, xkcd explains the difference between getting into space and staying in space.
https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/
-
Randall Munroe, the 'talent' behind xkcd, used to work for NASA.
So, no vested interest there eh?
-
Not really. xkcd touches on many topics other than space flight.
-
So what?
He worked for NASA & therefore has a vested interest in supporting their pseudo-science.
Plus he's a shit artist & not funny.
Unless you're an ass-burgered geek.
Or work for NASA.
Which is why you're spamming him, isn't it, JPL pensioner & sock-puppet hoarder markjo?
But enough of your geriatric propaganda; back to how hard it is to get into 'space'...
Cos ISN'T IT?
Even seventy years after the primitive V2 was allegedly doing it all the time, it's still JUST SO EXTRA-SOOPAH-SPECIALLY HARD!!!
-
Hi Papa Legba
I believe the important thing is we know exactly (in units of measure and in numerical values) how hard it is to get to space. You need a vehicle that can reach a specific velocity at a specific height and can do so even in relative vacuum. Much like you would need a ship or an airplane that has a specific mileage to go to another continent on Earth.
Space is not magic, it does require no special ritual, it's really just another place.
-
Plus he's a shit artist & not funny.
He might not be the best artist, but he's gotten pretty dang good: https://xkcd.com/1110/
I'm sorry you can't appreciate his humor.
-
space... hahahah ... lol !
--
why is it so hard for people to realize that they are in space ?
-
where do they think they are ?
-
or do they let other people decide where they are ?
-
is King Nasa their king ?
-
space... hahahah ... lol !
--
why is it so hard for people to realize that they are in space ?
-
where do they think they are ?
-
or do they let other people decide where they are ?
-
is King Nasa their king ?
Yes, the whole Earth is in space. But for practical reasons "space" is 100 km up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_line
-
Flight was impossible right up the point when it was not.
Flying from NYC t Paris no stop was impossible until Lucky Lindy did it.
Flying an aircraft without refueling around the Earth was impossible until it was done
A ship as large as an aircraft carrier was impossible a hundred years ago.
Steam power was a fantasy right up until someone figured out how to do it.
Jets were but a dream right up until one worked.
A heart translate was Shelly's Frankenstein less than 60 years ago.
So what makes you think space flight is impossible now, or space elevators impossible in the future?
Why are your "impossibilities" actual impossibilities when everyone before you making the same absolute statements of impossibilities were 100% wrong?