The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: Kami on February 23, 2017, 04:55:18 AM

Title: Heiwas lack of understanding in everything and his obsession with poop
Post by: Kami on February 23, 2017, 04:55:18 AM
Hey,

as promised, I performed a rough estimate on the mechanics involving a lunar transfer orbit. A more detailed, numerical calculation might follow in the next few days.

Heiwa, this should clear up that it is definitely possible to get to the moon (I admit that the actual orbit around the moon can not be calculated with this method, for this there will be the numerical integrator which might come later) and that you should never boost towards the moon. If you find any errors, please point them out.

Generally I would love if someone double-checked my math, the numbers do make sense but still..

The document can be found at https://www.docdroid.net/nSZ6vXb/moon.pdf.html
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on February 23, 2017, 08:27:33 AM
Hey,

as promised, I performed a rough estimate on the mechanics involving a lunar transfer orbit. A more detailed, numerical calculation might follow in the next few days.

Heiwa, this should clear up that it is definitely possible to get to the moon (I admit that the actual orbit around the moon can not be calculated with this method, for this there will be the numerical integrator which might come later) and that you should never boost towards the moon. If you find any errors, please point them out.

Generally I would love if someone double-checked my math, the numbers do make sense but still..

The document can be found at https://www.docdroid.net/nSZ6vXb/moon.pdf.html

Hm, so you are in LEO at 200 000 m altitude with speed 7 788 m/s and then you blast off at a certain time to 10 921 m/s to enter a very elliptic orbit around Earth that touches the orbit of the Moon around Earth. But is the Moon there? And what do you do then?

Sorry, it seems you don't understand my suggestion #1, i.e. that "no spacecraft of any kind can carry enough fuel for any trip anywhere in space and return safely to Earth".

My suggestion #2 is that "you cannot predict the trajectory between Earth and the target in space to ensure that the target is there, when you arrive".  It means that you'll miss the target and continue into Universe.

My suggestion #3 is that "you cannot re-enter and land on the rotating Earth after a trip in space". You cannot find the location at the top of the atmosphere above Earth to start any landing attempt and regardless you cannot brake going through the atmosphere, so you are vaporized.

I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . Very popular! >200 visitors/day. All free! No adverts! Just FUN! It is only rocket science and orbital mechanics. Please do not suggest I lack understanding of them.

Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on February 23, 2017, 08:32:54 AM
Hey,

as promised, I performed a rough estimate on the mechanics involving a lunar transfer orbit. A more detailed, numerical calculation might follow in the next few days.

Heiwa, this should clear up that it is definitely possible to get to the moon (I admit that the actual orbit around the moon can not be calculated with this method, for this there will be the numerical integrator which might come later) and that you should never boost towards the moon. If you find any errors, please point them out.

Generally I would love if someone double-checked my math, the numbers do make sense but still..

The document can be found at https://www.docdroid.net/nSZ6vXb/moon.pdf.html

Hm, so you are in LEO at 200 000 m altitude with speed 7 788 m/s and then you blast off at a certain time to 10 921 m/s to enter a very elliptic orbit around Earth that touches the orbit of the Moon around Earth. But is the Moon there? And what do you do then?

Sorry, it seems you don't understand my suggestion #1, i.e. that "no spacecraft of any kind can carry enough fuel for any trip anywhere in space and return safely to Earth".

My suggestion #2 is that "you cannot predict the trajectory between Earth and the target in space to ensure that the target is there, when you arrive".  It means that you'll miss the target and continue into Universe.

My suggestion #3 is that "you cannot re-enter and land on the rotating Earth after a trip in space". You cannot find the location at the top of the atmosphere above Earth to start any landing attempt and regardless you cannot brake going through the atmosphere, so you are vaporized.

I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . Very popular! >200 visitors/day. All free! No adverts! Just FUN! It is only rocket science and orbital mechanics. Please do not suggest I lack understanding of them.
Translation: I don't understand it so it must not work.  Visit my website!!!!
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 23, 2017, 10:41:47 AM
"I have decided it is impossible, therefore it is."

 ::)
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on February 23, 2017, 12:25:21 PM
Hey,

as promised, I performed a rough estimate on the mechanics involving a lunar transfer orbit. A more detailed, numerical calculation might follow in the next few days.

Heiwa, this should clear up that it is definitely possible to get to the moon (I admit that the actual orbit around the moon can not be calculated with this method, for this there will be the numerical integrator which might come later) and that you should never boost towards the moon. If you find any errors, please point them out.

Generally I would love if someone double-checked my math, the numbers do make sense but still..

The document can be found at https://www.docdroid.net/nSZ6vXb/moon.pdf.html

Hm, so you are in LEO at 200 000 m altitude with speed 7 788 m/s and then you blast off at a certain time to 10 921 m/s to enter a very elliptic orbit around Earth that touches the orbit of the Moon around Earth. But is the Moon there? And what do you do then?
Why shouldn't the moon be right where calculations predict that it should be?

Sorry, it seems you don't understand my suggestion #1, i.e. that "no spacecraft of any kind can carry enough fuel for any trip anywhere in space and return safely to Earth".

My suggestion #2 is that "you cannot predict the trajectory between Earth and the target in space to ensure that the target is there, when you arrive".  It means that you'll miss the target and continue into Universe.

My suggestion #3 is that "you cannot re-enter and land on the rotating Earth after a trip in space". You cannot find the location at the top of the atmosphere above Earth to start any landing attempt and regardless you cannot brake going through the atmosphere, so you are vaporized.
And you don't seem to understand our suggestion that you aren't as smart as you think you are.

I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . Very popular! >200 visitors/day. All free! No adverts! Just FUN! It is only rocket science and orbital mechanics. Please do not suggest I lack understanding of them.
Oh, we aren't suggesting that you lack understanding.  We're saying it outright.

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PHYSICS INVOLVED NEARLY AS WELL AS YOU THINK YOU DO.

I seriously hope that you aren't the smartest person at your safety at sea company.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on February 23, 2017, 03:27:59 PM
Hey,

as promised, I performed a rough estimate on the mechanics involving a lunar transfer orbit. A more detailed, numerical calculation might follow in the next few days.

Heiwa, this should clear up that it is definitely possible to get to the moon (I admit that the actual orbit around the moon can not be calculated with this method, for this there will be the numerical integrator which might come later) and that you should never boost towards the moon. If you find any errors, please point them out.

Generally I would love if someone double-checked my math, the numbers do make sense but still..

The document can be found at https://www.docdroid.net/nSZ6vXb/moon.pdf.html

Hm, so you are in LEO at 200 000 m altitude with speed 7 788 m/s and then you blast off at a certain time to 10 921 m/s to enter a very elliptic orbit around Earth that touches the orbit of the Moon around Earth. But is the Moon there? And what do you do then?
Why shouldn't the moon be right where calculations predict that it should be?
Well, when you blast off from LEO you must first ensure that you are in the same plane as the Moon orbit. Space is 3D.
So your LEO plane must be same as the Moon orbit plane. If you blast off in the wrong direction, you will not arrive in the Moon orbit.
Second you must ensure that you arrive at the Moon orbit, when the Moon is there. The Moon orbits Earth in 28 days or so, i.e. it is moving all the time. If you blast off too early or late, you will arrive too early and too late.
Third - if you manage to arrive at the Moon orbit and the Moon is there, how do you avoid that Moon gravity pulls you down so you crash?
Rocket science is not easy. I explain all at my web site.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on February 23, 2017, 03:55:49 PM
Hey,

as promised, I performed a rough estimate on the mechanics involving a lunar transfer orbit. A more detailed, numerical calculation might follow in the next few days.

Heiwa, this should clear up that it is definitely possible to get to the moon (I admit that the actual orbit around the moon can not be calculated with this method, for this there will be the numerical integrator which might come later) and that you should never boost towards the moon. If you find any errors, please point them out.

Generally I would love if someone double-checked my math, the numbers do make sense but still..

The document can be found at https://www.docdroid.net/nSZ6vXb/moon.pdf.html

Hm, so you are in LEO at 200 000 m altitude with speed 7 788 m/s and then you blast off at a certain time to 10 921 m/s to enter a very elliptic orbit around Earth that touches the orbit of the Moon around Earth. But is the Moon there? And what do you do then?
Why shouldn't the moon be right where calculations predict that it should be?
Well, when you blast off from LEO you must first ensure that you are in the same plane as the Moon orbit. Space is 3D.
So your LEO plane must be same as the Moon orbit plane. If you blast off in the wrong direction, you will not arrive in the Moon orbit.
Second you must ensure that you arrive at the Moon orbit, when the Moon is there. The Moon orbits Earth in 28 days or so, i.e. it is moving all the time. If you blast off too early or late, you will arrive too early and too late.
Third - if you manage to arrive at the Moon orbit and the Moon is there, how do you avoid that Moon gravity pulls you down so you crash?
Rocket science is not easy. I explain all at my web site.

Thank you for proving AGAIN that you don't understand orbital mechanics.  If you did then you would not have written the above post.  All you've done is expose your ignorance.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Kami on February 23, 2017, 06:17:33 PM
Translation: I don't understand it so it must not work.  Visit my website!!!!
Thanks for that accurate translation. For a moment I had hoped that heiwa would actually read that.. But I guess that was foolish of me.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 06:29:36 PM
Kami is a mathematical god...

No pun intended.

Alright, you got me, the pun was intentional.

Hopefully Totes can peer review the math.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on February 23, 2017, 06:42:58 PM
Third - if you manage to arrive at the Moon orbit and the Moon is there, how do you avoid that Moon gravity pulls you down so you crash?
Pretty much the same way that Earth satellites deal with the fact that Earth gravity pulls them down.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on February 23, 2017, 06:47:02 PM
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0

'Nuff said!
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on February 23, 2017, 06:47:15 PM
Well, when you blast off from LEO you must first ensure that you are in the same plane as the Moon orbit. Space is 3D.

Now you're getting it.


So your LEO plane must be same as the Moon orbit plane. If you blast off in the wrong direction, you will not arrive in the Moon orbit.

There you go.


Second you must ensure that you arrive at the Moon orbit, when the Moon is there. The Moon orbits Earth in 28 days or so, i.e. it is moving all the time. If you blast off too early or late, you will arrive too early and too late.

Uh oh.


Third - if you manage to arrive at the Moon orbit and the Moon is there, how do you avoid that Moon gravity pulls you down so you crash?

Oh, hell.


Rocket science is not easy. I explain all at my web site.

Tangerines look look small oranges, but, they don't taste like small oranges.
WTF is up with that?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on February 24, 2017, 06:06:07 AM
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0

'Nuff said!

Exactly. If you find my rocket science is wrong, I'll pay you €1M. Isn't it generous?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on February 24, 2017, 06:11:12 AM
Translation: I don't understand it so it must not work.  Visit my website!!!!
Thanks for that accurate translation. For a moment I had hoped that heiwa would actually read that.. But I guess that was foolish of me.

No. I read your post and replied. Now you have to explain how to arrive at the Moon when it is there ... and then how you avoid a collision.

I am an expert of collisions - http://heiwaco.com/ce_collision.htm .

So how to avoid a Moon collision? You slow down? You turn? What do you do to enable a landing?

And what shall you do on the Moon after landing. Build a hotel. Plant strawberries?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 06:43:18 AM
Do the moonwalk, duh...
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 24, 2017, 09:58:23 AM
Now you have to explain how to arrive at the Moon when it is there ... and then how you avoid a collision.

You fire your engine to slow yourself down and get captured by lunar gravity. Duh.


Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on February 24, 2017, 10:58:31 AM

I am an expert of collisions



No doubt.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on February 24, 2017, 12:09:51 PM
I am an expert of collisions

No doubt.
But is he any good at avoiding collisions?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on February 24, 2017, 12:29:13 PM
I am an expert of collisions

No doubt.
But is he any good at avoiding collisions?


Appears to be impervious.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Kami on February 24, 2017, 04:13:47 PM
Translation: I don't understand it so it must not work.  Visit my website!!!!
Thanks for that accurate translation. For a moment I had hoped that heiwa would actually read that.. But I guess that was foolish of me.

No. I read your post and replied. Now you have to explain how to arrive at the Moon when it is there ... and then how you avoid a collision.

I am an expert of collisions - http://heiwaco.com/ce_collision.htm .

So how to avoid a Moon collision? You slow down? You turn? What do you do to enable a landing?

And what shall you do on the Moon after landing. Build a hotel. Plant strawberries?
Collisions between ships have nothing to do with orbital mechanics.

I explained how to arrive at the moon when it is there. When you now aim at a point that is close to the moon then you avoid a collision. More details will come when I write the simulator.

What you do on the moon has literally nothing to do with the topic.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on February 24, 2017, 04:20:25 PM

Collisions between ships have nothing to do with orbital mechanics.



Spinning around and crying for your mommy is a kind of orbit.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on February 24, 2017, 08:22:27 PM
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0

'Nuff said!

Exactly. If you find my rocket science is wrong, I'll pay you €1M. Isn't it generous?

You definitely owe the boys at apollohoax.

Also I believe you know a lot about collisions. It's clear you have had one too many!

Maybe you had an experience similar to Inti? Sixty punches to the head!
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on February 24, 2017, 11:25:29 PM
Translation: I don't understand it so it must not work.  Visit my website!!!!
Thanks for that accurate translation. For a moment I had hoped that heiwa would actually read that.. But I guess that was foolish of me.

No. I read your post and replied. Now you have to explain how to arrive at the Moon when it is there ... and then how you avoid a collision.

I am an expert of collisions - http://heiwaco.com/ce_collision.htm .

So how to avoid a Moon collision? You slow down? You turn? What do you do to enable a landing?

And what shall you do on the Moon after landing. Build a hotel. Plant strawberries?

Collisions between ships have nothing to do with orbital mechanics.

I explained how to arrive at the moon when it is there. When you now aim at a point that is close to the moon then you avoid a collision. More details will come when I write the simulator.

What you do on the moon has literally nothing to do with the topic.

It has. If both (space) crafts are moving, the probability is high that they will miss each other = no collision encounter = just a miss.

Do you know Mr. W Tell? He was Swiss and shot at an apple on the head of his son. You have to be clever hitting that apple. Now imagine Mr. Tell's son running with the apple on the head. Try to hit the apple then and tell me how you do it.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on February 24, 2017, 11:29:42 PM
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0

'Nuff said!

Exactly. If you find my rocket science is wrong, I'll pay you €1M. Isn't it generous?

You definitely owe the boys at apollohoax.

Also I believe you know a lot about collisions. It's clear you have had one too many!

Maybe you had an experience similar to Inti? Sixty punches to the head!

It seems all punches miss.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on February 24, 2017, 11:39:55 PM
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0

'Nuff said!

Exactly. If you find my rocket science is wrong, I'll pay you €1M. Isn't it generous?

You definitely owe the boys at apollohoax.

Also I believe you know a lot about collisions. It's clear you have had one too many!

Maybe you had an experience similar to Inti? Sixty punches to the head!

It seems all punches miss.
No they don't.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: scabbage on February 25, 2017, 02:02:59 AM
If you find my rocket science is wrong, I'll pay you €1M. Isn't it generous?
I looked at your site, but you don't actually have any rocket science to debunk. The only thing you managed to do was do crude Google searches and quote NASA given information, before saying "nonsense!"

A very good safeguard for that €1M, to be sure (assuming it even exists).
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 02:10:29 AM
If you find my rocket science is wrong, I'll pay you €1M. Isn't it generous?
I looked at your site, but you don't actually have any rocket science to debunk. The only thing you managed to do was do crude Google searches and quote NASA given information, before saying "nonsense!"

A very good safeguard for that €1M, to be sure (assuming it even exists).

Theres been quite a lot of speculation on that, to be fair.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Kami on February 25, 2017, 02:12:28 AM
Translation: I don't understand it so it must not work.  Visit my website!!!!
Thanks for that accurate translation. For a moment I had hoped that heiwa would actually read that.. But I guess that was foolish of me.

No. I read your post and replied. Now you have to explain how to arrive at the Moon when it is there ... and then how you avoid a collision.

I am an expert of collisions - http://heiwaco.com/ce_collision.htm .

So how to avoid a Moon collision? You slow down? You turn? What do you do to enable a landing?

And what shall you do on the Moon after landing. Build a hotel. Plant strawberries?

Collisions between ships have nothing to do with orbital mechanics.

I explained how to arrive at the moon when it is there. When you now aim at a point that is close to the moon then you avoid a collision. More details will come when I write the simulator.

What you do on the moon has literally nothing to do with the topic.

It has. If both (space) crafts are moving, the probability is high that they will miss each other = no collision encounter = just a miss.

Do you know Mr. W Tell? He was Swiss and shot at an apple on the head of his son. You have to be clever hitting that apple. Now imagine Mr. Tell's son running with the apple on the head. Try to hit the apple then and tell me how you do it.
Outer space is a little bit different from the sea. For starters, the spacecraft is attracted by the moon. Plus, you can predict movements very well as the only thing influencing the orbits is the (well-understood) force of gravity.

The apple thing: Easy - if he moves in a predictable pattern you calculate the time your arrow moves and see how much the child will move during that time. I did that. Just read the document.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Kami on February 25, 2017, 02:13:56 AM
If you find my rocket science is wrong, I'll pay you €1M. Isn't it generous?
I looked at your site, but you don't actually have any rocket science to debunk. The only thing you managed to do was do crude Google searches and quote NASA given information, before saying "nonsense!"

A very good safeguard for that €1M, to be sure (assuming it even exists).

Theres been quite a lot of speculation on that, to be fair.
quite ;D

But well, I am not trying to win this "challenge", I am just here for the fun... I suppose the rest of you are as well.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: scabbage on February 25, 2017, 02:42:07 AM
Yeah I'm here for lolz.

I read your paper by the way, I couldn't see anything erroneous with it other than not mentioning the fact that the spacecraft's orbit would have the barycentre of the Earth/Moon system at it's foci. It is quite a large difference relative to Earth (over 4000km from the planet's centre), but I guess this would come under the 5th simplification about the Moon's gravity.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 03:39:36 AM
Yeah I'm here for lolz.

I read your paper by the way, I couldn't see anything erroneous with it other than not mentioning the fact that the spacecraft's orbit would have the barycentre of the Earth/Moon system at it's foci. It is quite a large difference relative to Earth (over 4000km from the planet's centre), but I guess this would come under the 5th simplification about the Moon's gravity.

Praise spoons.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on February 25, 2017, 04:10:16 AM
If you find my rocket science is wrong, I'll pay you €1M. Isn't it generous?
I looked at your site, but you don't actually have any rocket science to debunk. The only thing you managed to do was do crude Google searches and quote NASA given information, before saying "nonsense!"

A very good safeguard for that €1M, to be sure (assuming it even exists).

Please back up above with some copy/paste to debunk.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 25, 2017, 04:44:18 AM
The apple thing: Easy - if he moves in a predictable pattern you calculate the time your arrow moves and see how much the child will move during that time. I did that. Just read the document.

Yep. I play on Battlefield 1, usually as a sniper. Hitting a moving target is pretty easy - just fire the bullet at where your target is going to be and boom, headshot bonus.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: scabbage on February 25, 2017, 04:51:58 AM
Please back up above with some copy/paste to debunk.

I don't think you understood me. There is nothing to debunk. The only thing you did was fallaciously claim arguments from incredulity.

"The extra force to get started out of Earth orbit must be applied at high speed in orbit at the right (1) time, (2) location, (3) direction, (4) duration, (5) strength and so on."
Yeah, and?

"No rockets can do it."
Got any calculations for that?

"The resulting trajectory and your location in it are always unpredictable."
Uh, no. Orbital mechanics follow very repeatable and consistent laws of physics. I think you mean you can't predict any of it.


The same theme follows through your entire 'article'. This is what happens when you go into mechanical sciences instead of physics at the RIT.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on February 25, 2017, 07:07:06 AM
Please back up above with some copy/paste to debunk.

I don't think you understood me. There is nothing to debunk. The only thing you did was fallaciously claim arguments from incredulity.

"The extra force to get started out of Earth orbit must be applied at high speed in orbit at the right (1) time, (2) location, (3) direction, (4) duration, (5) strength and so on."
Yeah, and?

"No rockets can do it."
Got any calculations for that?

"The resulting trajectory and your location in it are always unpredictable."
Uh, no. Orbital mechanics follow very repeatable and consistent laws of physics. I think you mean you can't predict any of it.


Well, if it so simple just collect €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .

But let's face it! You are orbiting Earth at a certain altitude and high speed and shall from there blast off with your space craft to say the Moon or planet Mars or asteroid Bennu.

For that a force must be applied at the right (1) time, (2) location, (3) direction, (4) duration, (5) strength and so on.
 
I have asked around and found noone to tell me how much fuel I need for just the first kick out of orbit.

But before I start to orbit Earth going anywhere, I must know how much fuel I need for the whole trip.

I have recently asked the persons below about the fuel to be spent by their spacecraft OSIRIS-REx - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#OR - just now flying to Bennu:

1. Dwayne Brown, NAXA Office of Clownications, tel 202-358-1726, dwayne.c.brown@nasa.gov
2. Laurie Cantillo, NAXA Office of Clownications, tel 202-358-1077, laura.l.cantillo@nasa.gov
3. Nancy N. Jones, NAXA Office of Clownications, tel 301-286-0039, nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov
4. Erin Morton, Office of the Principal Clown, University of Arizona, tel 520-269-2493, morton@orex.lpl.arizona.edu
5. Gary Napier, Lockheed Martin Clownications, tel 303-971-4012, gary.p.napier@lmco.com
6. George Diller, NAXA's Kennedy Space Center Office of Clown Affairs, tel 321-861-7643, george.h.diller@nasa.gov
7. Shannon Ridinger, NAXA's Marshall Space Clown Center, tel 256-544-3774, Shannon.J.Ridinger@nasa.gov 

No reply. Try yourself. The above persons are in charge of a valuable spacecraft going to Bennu and back ... but cannot inform how the fuel shall be used.

(http://heiwaco.com/orex4.gif)

The spacecraft is right now speeding ahead of Earth around the Sun but ... September this year ... Earth and spacecraft OSIRIS-Rex will encounter each other one way or other and ... planet Earth will kick spacecraft OSIRIS-REx to Bennu ... without using any fuel at all!

MAGIC!

No, just a standard NASA trick since many years.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on February 25, 2017, 07:23:04 AM
If you find my rocket science is wrong, I'll pay you €1M. Isn't it generous?
I looked at your site, but you don't actually have any rocket science to debunk. The only thing you managed to do was do crude Google searches and quote NASA given information, before saying "nonsense!"

A very good safeguard for that €1M, to be sure (assuming it even exists).

Please back up above with some copy/paste to debunk.
Yeah because to be fair you always back up your claims here with evidence.  Oh wait, sorry, that's wrong.  You literally never do that.  You just make wild statements and pi,p your horrible website.
What's say you actually post some evidence here to support your claims that it can't work.
Go on, that's the challenge to you.
But you won't because you are fake.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Kami on February 25, 2017, 08:43:11 AM
Please back up above with some copy/paste to debunk.

I don't think you understood me. There is nothing to debunk. The only thing you did was fallaciously claim arguments from incredulity.

"The extra force to get started out of Earth orbit must be applied at high speed in orbit at the right (1) time, (2) location, (3) direction, (4) duration, (5) strength and so on."
Yeah, and?

"No rockets can do it."
Got any calculations for that?

"The resulting trajectory and your location in it are always unpredictable."
Uh, no. Orbital mechanics follow very repeatable and consistent laws of physics. I think you mean you can't predict any of it.


Well, if it so simple just collect €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .

But let's face it! You are orbiting Earth at a certain altitude and high speed and shall from there blast off with your space craft to say the Moon or planet Mars or asteroid Bennu.

For that a force must be applied at the right (1) time, (2) location, (3) direction, (4) duration, (5) strength and so on.
 
I have asked around and found noone to tell me how much fuel I need for just the first kick out of orbit.
Well, that depends on your engine and the fuel and the mass. I have explained how to calculate it, though.
Quote
But before I start to orbit Earth going anywhere, I must know how much fuel I need for the whole trip.
That is why they do calculate it beforehand and not just launch a vessel and see where it goes.
Quote
I have recently asked the persons below about the fuel to be spent by their spacecraft OSIRIS-REx - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#OR - just now flying to Bennu:

1. Dwayne Brown, NAXA Office of Clownications, tel 202-358-1726, dwayne.c.brown@nasa.gov
2. Laurie Cantillo, NAXA Office of Clownications, tel 202-358-1077, laura.l.cantillo@nasa.gov
3. Nancy N. Jones, NAXA Office of Clownications, tel 301-286-0039, nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov
4. Erin Morton, Office of the Principal Clown, University of Arizona, tel 520-269-2493, morton@orex.lpl.arizona.edu
5. Gary Napier, Lockheed Martin Clownications, tel 303-971-4012, gary.p.napier@lmco.com
6. George Diller, NAXA's Kennedy Space Center Office of Clown Affairs, tel 321-861-7643, george.h.diller@nasa.gov
7. Shannon Ridinger, NAXA's Marshall Space Clown Center, tel 256-544-3774, Shannon.J.Ridinger@nasa.gov 

No reply. Try yourself. The above persons are in charge of a valuable spacecraft going to Bennu and back ... but cannot inform how the fuel shall be used.
That is because they probably recognize you for the fraud you are
Quote
The spacecraft is right now speeding ahead of Earth around the Sun but ... September this year ... Earth and spacecraft OSIRIS-Rex will encounter each other one way or other and ... planet Earth will kick spacecraft OSIRIS-REx to Bennu ... without using any fuel at all!

MAGIC!

No, just a standard NASA trick since many years.
I am not surprised that you do not understand swing-by maneuvers.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on February 25, 2017, 08:57:06 AM
Well, if it so simple just collect €1M at <> .

It's tough to believe you have an engineering degree when you make stupid comments like this. To try and help you understand the logical fallacy involved consider the following:

I say it is possible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon. I am offering €1M to anyone who can prove me wrong.

If you're so sure it's impossible why don't you collect €1M. Don't you want the money? ::) :P ::)

Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on February 25, 2017, 10:45:13 AM
Well, if it so simple just collect €1M at <> .

It's tough to believe you have an engineering degree when you make stupid comments like this. To try and help you understand the logical fallacy involved consider the following:

I say it is possible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon. I am offering €1M to anyone who can prove me wrong.

If you're so sure it's impossible why don't you collect €1M. Don't you want the money? ::) :P ::)

? I have of course enough money. Why do you make stupid comments like above? Are you on drugs? Offering me €1M. You sound sick!
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on February 25, 2017, 10:54:46 AM
Well, if it so simple just collect €1M at <> .

It's tough to believe you have an engineering degree when you make stupid comments like this. To try and help you understand the logical fallacy involved consider the following:

I say it is possible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon. I am offering €1M to anyone who can prove me wrong.

If you're so sure it's impossible why don't you collect €1M. Don't you want the money? ::) :P ::)

? I have of course enough money. Why do you make stupid comments like above? Are you on drugs? Offering me €1M. You sound sick!

It's a puzzle to me why you don't jut prove it's impossible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon if it's so easy.

I'll pay €1M if you can do it.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 06:52:05 PM
I'll throw in a carton and original N64 with goldeneye, ocarina of time and two controllers.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: 29silhouette on February 25, 2017, 07:27:24 PM
I seriously hope that you aren't the smartest person at your safety at sea company.
I wonder if he's the only person at that company.
http://directory.marinelink.com/companies/company/heiwa-co--european-agency-for-safety-at-sea-206587 (http://directory.marinelink.com/companies/company/heiwa-co--european-agency-for-safety-at-sea-206587)
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on February 25, 2017, 07:33:43 PM
Well, if it so simple just collect €1M at <> .

It's tough to believe you have an engineering degree when you make stupid comments like this. To try and help you understand the logical fallacy involved consider the following:

I say it is possible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon. I am offering €1M to anyone who can prove me wrong.

If you're so sure it's impossible why don't you collect €1M. Don't you want the money? ::) :P ::)

? I have of course enough money. Why do you make stupid comments like above? Are you on drugs? Offering me €1M. You sound sick!

It's a puzzle to me why you don't just prove it's impossible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon if it's so easy.


It is rocket science! I explain why at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm#RS
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on February 25, 2017, 09:08:06 PM
Well, if it so simple just collect €1M at <> .

It's tough to believe you have an engineering degree when you make stupid comments like this. To try and help you understand the logical fallacy involved consider the following:

I say it is possible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon. I am offering €1M to anyone who can prove me wrong.

If you're so sure it's impossible why don't you collect €1M. Don't you want the money? ::) :P ::)

? I have of course enough money. Why do you make stupid comments like above? Are you on drugs? Offering me €1M. You sound sick!

It's a puzzle to me why you don't just prove it's impossible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon if it's so easy.


It is rocket science! I explain why at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm#RS
Umm...  You do realize that rocket science is why people can calculate trajectories to the moon, don't you?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 09:10:11 PM
Umm...  You do realize that rocket science is why people can calculate trajectories to the moon, don't you?

Hey,

as promised, I performed a rough estimate on the mechanics involving a lunar transfer orbit. A more detailed, numerical calculation might follow in the next few days.

Heiwa, this should clear up that it is definitely possible to get to the moon (I admit that the actual orbit around the moon can not be calculated with this method, for this there will be the numerical integrator which might come later) and that you should never boost towards the moon. If you find any errors, please point them out.

Generally I would love if someone double-checked my math, the numbers do make sense but still..

The document can be found at https://www.docdroid.net/nSZ6vXb/moon.pdf.html

Kami pointed that out  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: scabbage on February 25, 2017, 09:38:42 PM
Well, if it so simple just collect €1M at <> .
It's tough to believe you have an engineering degree when you make stupid comments like this.

I know a little about ships, sex and sea. A luxury cruise in the West Indies is my preferred style of travel. Good food! Plenty sex.

Doesn't take an engineering degree to fuck on a boat ;p
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on February 25, 2017, 09:54:18 PM
Well, if it so simple just collect €1M at <> .

It's tough to believe you have an engineering degree when you make stupid comments like this. To try and help you understand the logical fallacy involved consider the following:

I say it is possible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon. I am offering €1M to anyone who can prove me wrong.

If you're so sure it's impossible why don't you collect €1M. Don't you want the money? ::) :P ::)

? I have of course enough money. Why do you make stupid comments like above? Are you on drugs? Offering me €1M. You sound sick!

It's a puzzle to me why you don't just prove it's impossible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon if it's so easy.


It is rocket science! I explain why at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm#RS

That response does not qualify. You did not prove it's impossible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon. If you had you would have won the €1M prize. Better luck next time.

My contest is still open.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on February 25, 2017, 11:23:17 PM
Well, if it so simple just collect €1M at <> .

It's tough to believe you have an engineering degree when you make stupid comments like this. To try and help you understand the logical fallacy involved consider the following:

I say it is possible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon. I am offering €1M to anyone who can prove me wrong.

If you're so sure it's impossible why don't you collect €1M. Don't you want the money? ::) :P ::)

? I have of course enough money. Why do you make stupid comments like above? Are you on drugs? Offering me €1M. You sound sick!

It's a puzzle to me why you don't just prove it's impossible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon if it's so easy.


It is rocket science! I explain why at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm#RS

That response does not qualify. You did not prove it's impossible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon. If you had you would have won the €1M prize. Better luck next time.

My contest is still open.

Hm, you really have to study my website http://heiwaco.tripod.com and what I write. I do not prove anything.

I just show that a spacecraft cannot carry the fuel with it for a manned space trip. Or that you cannot execute a trajectory in space after starting in orbit. And that any re-entry is impossibe, as you cannot find the location to start it. It is basic rocket science.

Therefore manned space trips are unsafe! People will get killed. Safety at sea is my biz. My contribution is safer ships. That I can prove.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on February 25, 2017, 11:27:20 PM
Well, if it so simple just collect €1M at <> .

It's tough to believe you have an engineering degree when you make stupid comments like this. To try and help you understand the logical fallacy involved consider the following:

I say it is possible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon. I am offering €1M to anyone who can prove me wrong.

If you're so sure it's impossible why don't you collect €1M. Don't you want the money? ::) :P ::)

? I have of course enough money. Why do you make stupid comments like above? Are you on drugs? Offering me €1M. You sound sick!

It's a puzzle to me why you don't just prove it's impossible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon if it's so easy.


It is rocket science! I explain why at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm#RS

That response does not qualify. You did not prove it's impossible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon. If you had you would have won the €1M prize. Better luck next time.

My contest is still open.

Hm, you really have to study my website http://heiwaco.tripod.com and what I write. I do not prove anything.

I just show that a spacecraft cannot carry the fuel with it for a manned space trip. Or that you cannot execute a trajectory in space after starting in orbit. And that any re-entry is impossibe, as you cannot find the location to start it. It is basic rocket science.

Therefore manned space trips are unsafe! People will get killed. Safety at sea is my biz. My contribution is safer ships. That I can prove.

So far no one has won my  €1M challenge. To do that you must prove that it's impossible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon.

But you can't do that can you. No one can. That is why no one has won my  €1M challenge.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 11:41:12 PM
Heiwa, you don't have one million cents, we've been through this.

Stop encouraging Rayzor please.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on February 25, 2017, 11:59:30 PM
Well, if it so simple just collect €1M at <> .

It's tough to believe you have an engineering degree when you make stupid comments like this. To try and help you understand the logical fallacy involved consider the following:

I say it is possible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon. I am offering €1M to anyone who can prove me wrong.

If you're so sure it's impossible why don't you collect €1M. Don't you want the money? ::) :P ::)
He absolutely does not have the money.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Kami on February 26, 2017, 02:08:55 AM
Umm...  You do realize that rocket science is why people can calculate trajectories to the moon, don't you?

Hey,

as promised, I performed a rough estimate on the mechanics involving a lunar transfer orbit. A more detailed, numerical calculation might follow in the next few days.

Heiwa, this should clear up that it is definitely possible to get to the moon (I admit that the actual orbit around the moon can not be calculated with this method, for this there will be the numerical integrator which might come later) and that you should never boost towards the moon. If you find any errors, please point them out.

Generally I would love if someone double-checked my math, the numbers do make sense but still..

The document can be found at https://www.docdroid.net/nSZ6vXb/moon.pdf.html

Kami pointed that out  ;D ;D ;D
Thank you for the flowers! :)

Although, to be fair, calculating a real orbit is more complicated due to the moon's influence. I hope to have enough free-time to write a short program about it though.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on February 26, 2017, 03:28:16 AM
Heiwa, you don't have one million cents, we've been through this.

Stop encouraging Rayzor please.

Re the money, the €1M is there, I am happy to say. Or at least very well invested! You know, being semi-retired like me with a fairly good pension after 40+ years of work, it is a good idea to improve it by private investments.
But not giving it to a bank.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on February 26, 2017, 03:32:24 AM
Well, if it so simple just collect €1M at <> .

It's tough to believe you have an engineering degree when you make stupid comments like this. To try and help you understand the logical fallacy involved consider the following:

I say it is possible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon. I am offering €1M to anyone who can prove me wrong.

If you're so sure it's impossible why don't you collect €1M. Don't you want the money? ::) :P ::)
He absolutely does not have the money.
No. It is of course invested. You sound jealous. Or sick. Or drunk. Or drugged. Why do you post stupid inventions like that? Do you know me? Have we met? Have you been to my bank? My broker?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Kami on February 26, 2017, 05:36:35 AM
Okay, I will say this again.

If you want anyone to take your challenge seriously you have to
a) prove that you can provide the offered money
b) appoint a neutral judge for the challenge

Until then you can not call it a challenge and it has not the slightest kind of validity.
Do those two things and I will try to win it, until then please stop rambling about it.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on February 26, 2017, 05:42:32 AM
Okay, I will say this again.

If you want anyone to take your challenge seriously you have to
a) prove that you can provide the offered money
b) appoint a neutral judge for the challenge

Until then you can not call it a challenge and it has not the slightest kind of validity.
Do those two things and I will try to win it, until then please stop rambling about it.
It's crazy right?  He makes these wild accusations, posts this bizarre challenge and when people say, prove it, he accuses them of being crazy, or drunk etc.  I honestly think he doesn't see how insane he sounds. 
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on February 26, 2017, 08:53:20 AM
Okay, I will say this again.

If you want anyone to take your challenge seriously you have to
a) prove that you can provide the offered money
b) appoint a neutral judge for the challenge

Until then you can not call it a challenge and it has not the slightest kind of validity.
Do those two things and I will try to win it, until then please stop rambling about it.

As I have said many times you just have to visit my office and I will show you the money. I will even offer a coffee!

Re the judge, you can bring your own judge/expert, if you like. At the moment I just organize the Challenge, which is clear from the Challenge web site.

The legal aspects are also clearly defined at the web site, e.g. http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .

Many persons have taken my Challenges seriously ... and all have failed.

The Challenges are very difficult. I myself cannot win them! I do not know how to do it.

Several persons have announced they have won a Challenge and that I have refused to pay and accuse me of all sorts of things. All such persons have been shown to be frauds.

I am a real persons of good standing and well known in the my professional business. Therefore my Challenges are serious.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on February 26, 2017, 02:50:02 PM
If you read heiwa's signature line you will see, according to him, his governments opinion of him.  Not sure if that qualifies as good standing.😂
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on February 26, 2017, 06:16:47 PM
If you read heiwa's signature line you will see, according to him, his governments opinion of him.  Not sure if that qualifies as good standing.😂

Yes, "an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories" is what the Swedish authorities called me, when I demonstrated that their M/S Estonia 1994 accident investigation published 1997 was full of lies and manipulated testimonies, etc, etc. It convinced media to ignore my findings. The authorities won! Their cover up was a success.

However, my website about it is still quite popular. Now the children or grandchildren of the victims study what really happened and ask me why. It is all explained at the site.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on February 26, 2017, 06:44:08 PM
If you read heiwa's signature line you will see, according to him, his governments opinion of him.  Not sure if that qualifies as good standing.😂

Yes, "an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories" is what the Swedish authorities called me, when I demonstrated that their M/S Estonia 1994 accident investigation published 1997 was full of lies and manipulated testimonies, etc, etc. It convinced media to ignore my findings. The authorities won! Their cover up was a success.

However, my website about it is still quite popular. Now the children or grandchildren of the victims study what really happened and ask me why. It is all explained at the site.
I'm betting you "demonstrated" the same way you do everything else.  That would be, showing no actual evidence and simply saying, but of course that's impossible.
😂😂😂
You are funny.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on February 26, 2017, 10:21:17 PM
If you read heiwa's signature line you will see, according to him, his governments opinion of him.  Not sure if that qualifies as good standing.😂

Yes, "an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories" is what the Swedish authorities called me, when I demonstrated that their M/S Estonia 1994 accident investigation published 1997 was full of lies and manipulated testimonies, etc, etc. It convinced media to ignore my findings. The authorities won! Their cover up was a success.

However, my website about it is still quite popular. Now the children or grandchildren of the victims study what really happened and ask me why. It is all explained at the site.
I'm betting you "demonstrated" the same way you do everything else.  That would be, showing no actual evidence and simply saying, but of course that's impossible.
😂😂😂
You are funny.

No, I am serious. You have to study http://heiwaco.com (my website) about my disagreements with the Swedish, Finnish and Estonian authorities 1996-2010. I just wanted to assist in order to improve safety at sea. I didn't know that they were transporting stolen military equipment on a passenger ship that then was sunk by the competition killing 1000 innocent persons. Shit happens.

To prove their fantasises the Swedish authorities later (2008) suggested the the principle of Archimedes doesn't apply in Sweden.

Isn't it comical? But do not laugh too high! You may suddenly go missing!

Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on February 26, 2017, 10:54:03 PM
You just need to give us an inch.

(https://s18.postimg.org/4ceu1oiex/20161221_144323_1.jpg)

See, I could run a competition for a few k without anyone doubting I could pay. All anyone wants is proof you are willing and able to pay.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on February 27, 2017, 01:09:12 AM
You just need to give us an inch.

(https://s18.postimg.org/4ceu1oiex/20161221_144323_1.jpg)

See, I could run a competition for a few k without anyone doubting I could pay. All anyone wants is proof you are willing and able to pay.

As I always say, visit my office, coffee will be served and proof of money will be provided. It is actually invested in plenty ventures. I am rich, you know.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 01:18:32 AM
We just don't know tho, that's the issue.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on February 27, 2017, 03:17:02 AM
I think we know.   ;)
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on March 07, 2017, 11:04:39 AM
Strange. Free coffee. Friendly atmosphere. Help to assist explaining everything and filling in the application ...
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on March 07, 2017, 12:30:16 PM
Strange. Free coffee. Friendly atmosphere. Help to assist explaining everything and filling in the application ...
You forgot senile, biased, and proven liar judge that has been on record saying the challenge is unwinnable making it not a real challenge.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on March 07, 2017, 02:56:57 PM
Strange. Free coffee. Friendly atmosphere. Help to assist explaining everything and filling in the application ...

If you drop by my office I will also give you free coffee, a friendly atmosphere and help explaining what you need to do to win my  €1M challenge.

So far, nothing.  ???
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 07, 2017, 03:09:14 PM
Stop by my place. I'll slip you a mickey and rob your ass blind.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Crouton on March 07, 2017, 03:15:28 PM
Don't listen to these people Heiwa.  They're all trying to rob you.

Come to my place instead.  I'm an amateur heart surgeon and I can fix any heart condition you have on the cheap.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: rabinoz on March 07, 2017, 03:25:50 PM
Don't listen to these people Heiwa.  They're all trying to rob you.

Come to my place instead.  I'm an amateur heart surgeon and I can fix any heart condition you have on the cheap.
I don't think it's a heart surgeon he needs, the problem's a little higher up.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 07, 2017, 03:27:11 PM
Did I say rob your ass blind?

I meant - help you create a negative cash flow.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on March 10, 2017, 10:21:36 PM
Don't listen to these people Heiwa.  They're all trying to rob you.

Come to my place instead.  I'm an amateur heart surgeon and I can fix any heart condition you have on the cheap.

Thanks. No risk! People are too stupid trying to rob me and my heart is fine, e.g. this morning four miles jogging is followed by a swim in the sea nearby.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 11, 2017, 02:48:14 PM
. . . this morning four miles jogging is followed by a swim in the sea nearby.

Damn GPS.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Crouton on March 11, 2017, 02:57:39 PM
Don't listen to these people Heiwa.  They're all trying to rob you.

Come to my place instead.  I'm an amateur heart surgeon and I can fix any heart condition you have on the cheap.

Thanks. No risk! People are too stupid trying to rob me and my heart is fine, e.g. this morning four miles jogging is followed by a swim in the sea nearby.

Look I'm not going to tell you that my procedures don't carry a risk.  Conservatively I'd say your chances of living are at least 5% better if you go to an actual heart surgeon.  But I've got a few innovative ideas that the so called "real" heart surgeons don't.  I'm building a fully function human heart replacement out of hamburger and onions.  I call it 'hamburger and onion heart'.  I made four prototypes just today.  They did not function as intended but they did taste delicious when I grilled them up.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: onebigmonkey on March 30, 2017, 11:22:28 PM
I don't speak or read Japanese, and neither apparently does Google translate on some of these pages, but I can figure out enough to know that Japan knows how to get to the moon and insert something into orbit around it:

https://darts.isas.jaxa.jp/planet/odds/index.html.en
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on March 30, 2017, 11:42:51 PM
I don't speak or read Japanese, and neither apparently does Google translate on some of these pages, but I can figure out enough to know that Japan knows how to get to the moon and insert something into orbit around it:

https://darts.isas.jaxa.jp/planet/odds/index.html.en

Well, to get a job at JAXA you must believe in NAXA:s Apollo hoax and as Japan is still occupied by US military 2017, it is better to shut up. However, no Japanese has won my Challenge. It is like the a-bomb. USA is very proud of having dropped two a-bombs on Japan killing 100 000's of Japs 1945 but, if you like me suggest, that it was all propaganda and that nobody died of radiation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945 and later, many Japanese get upset.  Same at Fukushima 2011 and today 2017. 2011 the population was told that Fukushima would be dead for 1000 years but 2017 people are moving back. Radiation? It was all propaganda. I explain why at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on March 30, 2017, 11:48:44 PM
But of course no Japanese has won your challenge. Just like you have not won my challenge.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Kami on March 31, 2017, 01:54:45 AM
I don't speak or read Japanese, and neither apparently does Google translate on some of these pages, but I can figure out enough to know that Japan knows how to get to the moon and insert something into orbit around it:

https://darts.isas.jaxa.jp/planet/odds/index.html.en

Well, to get a job at JAXA you must believe in NAXA:s Apollo hoax and as Japan is still occupied by US military 2017, it is better to shut up. However, no Japanese has won my Challenge. It is like the a-bomb. USA is very proud of having dropped two a-bombs on Japan killing 100 000's of Japs 1945 but, if you like me suggest, that it was all propaganda and that nobody died of radiation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945 and later, many Japanese get upset.  Same at Fukushima 2011 and today 2017. 2011 the population was told that Fukushima would be dead for 1000 years but 2017 people are moving back. Radiation? It was all propaganda. I explain why at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Huh. So you tell people to their face that two events that horribly killed hundreds of thousands of their ancestors and destroyed two citites are fake and then you are surprised that they get upset? You must be a special kind of stupid. This is not even meant as an insult, but you really do seem to lack of basic common sense. A few examples:

- Being surprised that the (i think it was swedish) government does not want the technology of nukes published openly, for every man to read and build his own little nuke
- Being surprised that the CEO of ESA and a few other people who have better things to do than discuss conspiracies do not respond to your emails
- Being surprised that the french government will not detonate a nuke near your hometown (this is my favorite, actually)
- The point above

For all those things the outcome could have been predicted, if you thought about that for 10 seconds. But somehow you did not. And I am wondering why. Maybe I can find it at your website.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on March 31, 2017, 02:20:20 AM
I don't speak or read Japanese, and neither apparently does Google translate on some of these pages, but I can figure out enough to know that Japan knows how to get to the moon and insert something into orbit around it:

https://darts.isas.jaxa.jp/planet/odds/index.html.en

Well, to get a job at JAXA you must believe in NAXA:s Apollo hoax and as Japan is still occupied by US military 2017, it is better to shut up. However, no Japanese has won my Challenge. It is like the a-bomb. USA is very proud of having dropped two a-bombs on Japan killing 100 000's of Japs 1945 but, if you like me suggest, that it was all propaganda and that nobody died of radiation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945 and later, many Japanese get upset.  Same at Fukushima 2011 and today 2017. 2011 the population was told that Fukushima would be dead for 1000 years but 2017 people are moving back. Radiation? It was all propaganda. I explain why at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Huh. So you tell people to their face that two events that horribly killed hundreds of thousands of their ancestors and destroyed two citites are fake and then you are surprised that they get upset? You must be a special kind of stupid. This is not even meant as an insult, but you really do seem to lack of basic common sense. A few examples:

- Being surprised that the (i think it was swedish) government does not want the technology of nukes published openly, for every man to read and build his own little nuke
- Being surprised that the CEO of ESA and a few other people who have better things to do than discuss conspiracies do not respond to your emails
- Being surprised that the french government will not detonate a nuke near your hometown (this is my favorite, actually)
- The point above

For all those things the outcome could have been predicted, if you thought about that for 10 seconds. But somehow you did not. And I am wondering why. Maybe I can find it at your website.

Thanks for comments.

When I arrived in Japan/Yokohama May 1972 I wondered why the town looked recently bombed. It - napalm carpet bombings - actually happened May 1945 (thousands dead) but couldn't be discussed 27 years later. Only in the 1980's was a memorial erected. I had collaegues  from Nagasaki and Hiroshima that indicated to me that similar happened to their towns and that the a-bombs were just US propaganda to keep the occupying power happy. Similar in Germany - Rostock and Dresden looked newly bombed in the 1990's when I was there, even if it took place 45+ years earlier. You were not supposed to discuss it, i.e. bombing civilians back to stone age.

Re the Swedish government 1945 it asked a person I knew to build a Swedish a-bomb ... and the person agreed ... subject all details to be public, i.e. no secrets. He didn't get the job! Reason? Sweden planned to invent a fake a-bomb. As propaganda!

Re conspiracies, they are not my biz. I have only asked two EXA CEOs how they get their asstronuts back from space, i.e. how they do a re-entry. They cannot provide any evidence that it is possible. One suggested the Shuttle flew backwards and then landed as a glider with the asstronut aboard, the other said a capsule dropped down from the sky and at the last moment a parachute was activated so the asstronut would not be hurt. It doesn't sound professional.

Re Obama's decision to modernize the European defence with new a-bombs 2016, Obama didn't like my proposal to test one out over the Mediterranean Sea far away from shore for us to watch. Maybe I should ask Donald Trump? He seems to like show biz.

I report developments at my website all the time. I don't expect Main Stream Media to quote me, though. They just publish Fake News (propaganda) most of the time.

Anyway, thanks for your interest in my web pages. It takes more than 10 seconds to write them.

Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on April 27, 2017, 07:53:30 AM
I have a friend that is accused of mass murder (32 victims) and many other, awful things and he has been sentenced to 16+ years for it (6 months/murder) to be spent in the worst prison in Italy, i.e. Naples. He was quite good at navigating ships at sea ... and something went wrong.
Evidently he has appealed.
He considers himself innocent ... and I agree. I describe the drama at http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm .
In order for the public not to forget this terrible event I also propose that the place of the crime - it is still available for a visit - becomes a muséum! http://heiwaco.com/news811.htm .
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on April 27, 2017, 09:35:09 AM
I have a friend that is accused of mass murder (32 victims) and many other, awful things and he has been sentenced to 16+ years for it (6 months/murder) to be spent in the worst prison in Italy, i.e. Naples. He was quite good at navigating ships at sea ... and something went wrong.
Evidently he has appealed.
He considers himself innocent ... and I agree. I describe the drama at http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm .
In order for the public not to forget this terrible event I also propose that the place of the crime - it is still available for a visit - becomes a muséum! http://heiwaco.com/news811.htm .
Why doesn't it surprise me that you would have a friend that's a mass murderer
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on April 27, 2017, 10:20:47 AM
I have a friend that is accused of mass murder (32 victims) and many other, awful things and he has been sentenced to 16+ years for it (6 months/murder) to be spent in the worst prison in Italy, i.e. Naples. He was quite good at navigating ships at sea ... and something went wrong.
Evidently he has appealed.
He considers himself innocent ... and I agree. I describe the drama at http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm .
In order for the public not to forget this terrible event I also propose that the place of the crime - it is still available for a visit - becomes a muséum! http://heiwaco.com/news811.htm .
Why doesn't it surprise me that you would have a friend that's a mass murderer
Is it a question? Anyway, my friend is only accused of being a mass murderer. The judge will decide next month, if he is.

I only happened to know him through my job about safety at sea, where the objective is to minimize the risk of accidents by operating safe ships and following all safety rules.

In this case a stupid, strange accident happened but ... what really happened ... and who is really responsible ... and how to really improve safety at sea ... are questions that many refuse to answer. They, supported by media, think it is best to find a scape goat and forget the whole thing.

I have seen it before 1994 - http://heiwaco.com/news.htm .

What do you think? Do you think? What is 1+1? Do you know?

Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on April 27, 2017, 10:30:51 AM
I have a friend that is accused of mass murder (32 victims) and many other, awful things and he has been sentenced to 16+ years for it (6 months/murder)

Apparently a bit more than an accusation? 
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on April 27, 2017, 10:36:43 AM
I have a friend that is accused of mass murder (32 victims) and many other, awful things and he has been sentenced to 16+ years for it (6 months/murder) to be spent in the worst prison in Italy, i.e. Naples. He was quite good at navigating ships at sea ... and something went wrong.
Evidently he has appealed.
He considers himself innocent ... and I agree. I describe the drama at http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm .
In order for the public not to forget this terrible event I also propose that the place of the crime - it is still available for a visit - becomes a muséum! http://heiwaco.com/news811.htm .
Why doesn't it surprise me that you would have a friend that's a mass murderer
Is it a question? Anyway, my friend is only accused of being a mass murderer. The judge will decide next month, if he is.

I only happened to know him through my job about safety at sea, where the objective is to minimize the risk of accidents by operating safe ships and following all safety rules.

In this case a stupid, strange accident happened but ... what really happened ... and who is really responsible ... and how to really improve safety at sea ... are questions that many refuse to answer. They, supported by media, think it is best to find a scape goat and forget the whole thing.

I have seen it before 1994 - http://heiwaco.com/news.htm .

What do you think? Do you think? What is 1+1? Do you know?
So you know this person in a professional capacity.  Your profession being maritime safefety, and they may have accidentally killed dozens of people at sea.  coincidense? 
😂😂
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on April 27, 2017, 10:41:12 AM
I have a friend that is accused of mass murder (32 victims) and many other, awful things and he has been sentenced to 16+ years for it (6 months/murder)

Apparently a bit more than an accusation?

Another question? Anyway, my friend is appealing at the Supreme Court of Cassation at Rome/Italy and next month we will know the verdict. 16+ or 27 years in jail for mass murder or ... something else.
You really have to study the case at http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm . Do you really believe that a simple seaman on cruise ships goes around killing 27 passengers and 5 crew after a stupid accident? Before abandoning ship before everyone?

Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on April 27, 2017, 10:43:03 AM
I have a friend that is accused of mass murder (32 victims) and many other, awful things and he has been sentenced to 16+ years for it (6 months/murder) to be spent in the worst prison in Italy, i.e. Naples. He was quite good at navigating ships at sea ... and something went wrong.
Evidently he has appealed.
He considers himself innocent ... and I agree. I describe the drama at http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm .
In order for the public not to forget this terrible event I also propose that the place of the crime - it is still available for a visit - becomes a muséum! http://heiwaco.com/news811.htm .
Why doesn't it surprise me that you would have a friend that's a mass murderer
Is it a question? Anyway, my friend is only accused of being a mass murderer. The judge will decide next month, if he is.

I only happened to know him through my job about safety at sea, where the objective is to minimize the risk of accidents by operating safe ships and following all safety rules.

In this case a stupid, strange accident happened but ... what really happened ... and who is really responsible ... and how to really improve safety at sea ... are questions that many refuse to answer. They, supported by media, think it is best to find a scape goat and forget the whole thing.

I have seen it before 1994 - http://heiwaco.com/news.htm .

What do you think? Do you think? What is 1+1? Do you know?
So you know this person in a professional capacity.  Your profession being maritime safefety, and they may have accidentally killed dozens of people at sea.  coincidense? 
😂😂

You sound drunk or intoxicated. Pls sober up and make a new attempt.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on April 27, 2017, 10:47:02 AM
Do you really believe that a simple seaman on cruise ships goes around killing 27 passengers and 5 crew after a stupid accident? Before abandoning ship before everyone?

I will not answer your questions.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on April 27, 2017, 02:31:14 PM
I have a friend that is accused of mass murder (32 victims) and many other, awful things and he has been sentenced to 16+ years for it (6 months/murder)

Apparently a bit more than an accusation?

Another question? Anyway, my friend is appealing at the Supreme Court of Cassation at Rome/Italy and next month we will know the verdict. 16+ or 27 years in jail for mass murder or ... something else.
You really have to study the case at http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm . Do you really believe that a simple seaman on cruise ships goes around killing 27 passengers and 5 crew after a stupid accident? Before abandoning ship before everyone?
So he was convicted, not just accused.  Again, I'm not surprised
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on April 27, 2017, 06:27:44 PM
I have a friend that is accused of mass murder (32 victims) and many other, awful things and he has been sentenced to 16+ years for it (6 months/murder) to be spent in the worst prison in Italy, i.e. Naples.
No, he was convicted of manslaughter, not murder.  A friend would care enough to learn the difference.

He was quite good at navigating ships at sea ... and something went wrong.
He may have been quite good at navigating ships at sea where there isn't much of anything to run into, but he didn't seem to very good at navigating ships closer to shore where there was a well known reef.

Evidently he has appealed.
He considers himself innocent ...
Of course he does.  Everyone in prison considers themselves innocent.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Pezevenk on April 29, 2017, 02:36:35 PM
I have a friend that is accused of mass murder (32 victims) and many other, awful things and he has been sentenced to 16+ years for it (6 months/murder) to be spent in the worst prison in Italy, i.e. Naples. He was quite good at navigating ships at sea ... and something went wrong.
Evidently he has appealed.
He considers himself innocent ... and I agree. I describe the drama at http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm .
In order for the public not to forget this terrible event I also propose that the place of the crime - it is still available for a visit - becomes a muséum! http://heiwaco.com/news811.htm .

Not an issue. We accept mass murderers on this site. Intikam is apparenrly responsible for plenty of deaths.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on April 30, 2017, 01:19:47 AM
I have a friend that is accused of mass murder (32 victims) and many other, awful things and he has been sentenced to 16+ years for it (6 months/murder) to be spent in the worst prison in Italy, i.e. Naples. He was quite good at navigating ships at sea ... and something went wrong.
Evidently he has appealed.
He considers himself innocent ... and I agree. I describe the drama at http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm .
In order for the public not to forget this terrible event I also propose that the place of the crime - it is still available for a visit - becomes a muséum! http://heiwaco.com/news811.htm .

Not an issue. We accept mass murderers on this site. Intikam is apparenrly responsible for plenty of deaths.

The point I was trying to make is to make a muséum of the wreck for people to visit and to learn. There are plenty of muséum like insititutions, where the public can learn about the universe, astronomy, the Solar system, planet Earth orbiting the Sun, etc, etc, but no muséum of a flat earth for obvious reasons.
But a muséum of a real 290 m long wreck sank by one person alone would, IMHO, be a great thing. And it is quite easy - just put a roof over the dry-dock and ... the Costa Concordia wreck muséum can open!

If you can expose the Apollo 11 tin pot command module at a muséum at Washington, DC, you should be able to expose a ship wreck at Genoa, Italy.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 01, 2017, 12:33:59 AM
The Apollo CM is not a grave, and there are enough monuments to human stupidity around already. On the other hand maybe they should open it, then your 'friend' should serve his prison sentence in it recounting to visitors how he turned into a gutless coward after killing people by showing off.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 01:26:23 AM
I'm guessing he didn't go down with the ship?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 01, 2017, 01:54:51 AM
I'm guessing he didn't go down with the ship?
Correct, 14 January 2012 he thought a tug was coming to tow his stable, floating ship (but without electricity) to be repaired but ... suddenly the ship capsized ... and he jumped on the roof of a lifeboat. The underpaid, Asian hotel and restaurant staff - almost 1000 persons - had opened watertight doors, when evacuating the ship, water spread in the bottom and stability was lost ... and the ship sank partially on the rocks 50 m from shore.

Then the wreck was re-floated from the rocks, brought to Genoa and last September 2016 put in dry-dock to be scrapped. Who has heard of scapping a wreck in dry-dock? You repair and paint ships in dry-dock! So the wreck will remain for ever in this dry-dock and the best thing now five years later to do is to turn it into a muséum. With the master as director and chief guide.

I think it is a brilliant idea.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 02:10:13 AM
I'm guessing he didn't go down with the ship?
Correct, 14 January 2012 he thought a tug was coming to tow his stable, floating ship (but without electricity) to be repaired but ... suddenly the ship capsized ...

As an engineer, I am sure you understand you are missing a step or two, boats don't just "suddenly capsize" this is the way we build them, we design boats not to capsize, we design planes not to fall out of the sky and we design buildings not to collapse at free-fall, at least add in a single column failure or something.

You know as well as I that there had to be a sequence of structural and mechanical failures in order for a large boat to capsize.

It's not as simple as "it suddenly capsized" come on Heiwa.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 01, 2017, 03:03:21 AM
I'm guessing he didn't go down with the ship?
Correct, 14 January 2012 he thought a tug was coming to tow his stable, floating ship (but without electricity) to be repaired but ... suddenly the ship capsized ...

As an engineer, I am sure you understand you are missing a step or two, boats don't just "suddenly capsize" this is the way we build them, we design boats not to capsize, we design planes not to fall out of the sky and we design buildings not to collapse at free-fall, at least add in a single column failure or something.

You know as well as I that there had to be a sequence of structural and mechanical failures in order for a large boat to capsize.

It's not as simple as "it suddenly capsized" come on Heiwa.

Fact is that the ship suddenly capsized around 00.20 hrs on 14 January 2012 after having accidentally contacted a submerged rock at 21.45 hrs on 13 January 2012 up-flooding three watertight hull compartments above double bottom. The ship was floating and stable prior the capsize that caused the ship to sink on the rocks outside the shore.
The contact and up-flooding caused the malfunction of the ship's electrical generators and there was a Black-out. Only emergency lights worked. It was decided to Abandon ship and when doing so, watertight doors were incorrectly opened that could not be closed afterwards. Water spread in dry compartments, stability and buoyancy were lost and the ship capsized. The poor Master thought the ship was safe and could be towed for repairs.
Watertight doors are not permitted by the safety rules and when one or more are fitted an exemption must be issued how to operate them. The ship had no exemption and was not seaworthy.
Interesting case! 12 May 2017 we will know if my friend the Master is put in jail or allowed a new trial or just let go.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 03:07:49 AM
So there was a massive hole in the hull?

Now this makes more sense.

The captain had every obligation to make sure he was the last one off that ship, he sounds like a coward to me.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 01, 2017, 03:27:21 AM
The captain had every obligation to make sure he was the last one off that ship, he sounds like a coward to me.

Coward for sure. Also an incompetent navigator. And Heiwa's friend.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 01, 2017, 03:28:57 AM
So there was a massive hole in the hull?

Now this makes more sense.

The captain had every obligation to make sure he was the last one off that ship, he sounds like a coward to me.

Well, the structural damage of the side shell plate was abt 36 meters long and above the double bottom. Not serious, if internal, watertight integrity is maintained. But it wasn't. There were 25 watertight doors installed making the ship unsafe and not seaworthy. I explain it at, e.g. http://heiwaco.com/news86.htm .

The poor captain considers there is a conspiracy against him by the ship owner, italian authorities of all sorts, insurances and media to make him the sole scapegoat for everything.

IMO the damage was an accident. However, the ship was incorrectly designed from the start (like the sisterships and many other similar ships) so the capsize, sinking and killing people were just a consequence of it.

I consider the ship owner staff ashore and aboard, italian authorities of all sorts and insurances responsible for the mishaps. So it is very easy to cover-up everthing and just blame the captain (that should have drowned).
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 01, 2017, 04:05:46 AM
The captain drove the ship onto the rocks. 

Unlike Heiwa I have never been a dock worker so I am not an expert on hull design.
However, I do know that captains are not supposed to crash into continents.

I think that's on the first page of the manual.

Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 01, 2017, 04:19:09 AM
The captain drove the ship onto the rocks. 

Unlike Heiwa I have never been a dock worker so I am not an expert on hull design.
However, I do know that captains are not supposed to crash into continents.

I think that's on the first page of the manual.

No, the first page of International Safety Management manuals for the ship, written by the ship owner or me, doesn't normally say so.

There may be an instruction somewhere that the Master shall be informed/called to the bridge, when course is changed at sea, etc, but the actual navigation and maneuvering of the ship is always delegated to other crew/officers.

I knew many captains loving to maneuver their ships in and out of ports but ... a little turn at sea a dark night? 

Anyway, the last starboard ~50° turn starting at 21.39 hrs ending with a 'contact' at 21.45 hrs is a mystery.

If you start such a turn at 21.39 hrs, the turn should be finished at 21.41 hrs and you are on your new course far away from land. You should really study http://heiwaco.com/news81.htm about the mystery. It is interesting stuff.

Conspiracy theorists think that the last mysterious maneuver was to drop off a big bag of cocaine to be picked up by some mafioso in a yacht and in the excitement they got too close to land.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 01, 2017, 04:33:30 AM

Anyway, the last starboard ~50° turn starting at 21.39 hrs ending with a 'contact' at 21.45 hrs is a mystery.



Probably got a Loch Ness Monster tangled up on the prop and rudder.   ::)
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 01, 2017, 05:43:26 AM
IMO the damage was an accident.
Yes, it was an accident that never should have happened, but did because of the captain's incompetence.

Also, this has nothing at all to do with the topic (your lack of understanding of orbital mechanics).
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 01, 2017, 06:54:28 AM
IMO the damage was an accident.
Yes, it was an accident that never should have happened, but did because of the captain's incompetence.

Also, this has nothing at all to do with the topic (your lack of understanding of orbital mechanics).

It happened but we do not know how and why?

Incompetent captain? 

Couldn't turn the ship 56° starboard by turning the rudders for two minutes? Give me a break!

You being so smart knowing everything - can you explain the trajectory and dynamics of this strange turn ending in an accidental contact?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 01, 2017, 08:24:36 AM

You being so smart knowing everything - can you explain the trajectory and dynamics of this strange turn ending in an accidental contact?



Are you going to offer a 5 gallon bucket of 'Heiwa' money?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 01, 2017, 11:19:13 AM
IMO the damage was an accident.
Yes, it was an accident that never should have happened, but did because of the captain's incompetence.

Also, this has nothing at all to do with the topic (your lack of understanding of orbital mechanics).

It happened but we do not know how and why?

Incompetent captain? 

Couldn't turn the ship 56° starboard by turning the rudders for two minutes? Give me a break!

You being so smart knowing everything - can you explain the trajectory and dynamics of this strange turn ending in an accidental contact?
No, I'm not a safety at sea expert.  However, I do know that a ship's captain is responsible for the ship under his command.  I also know that showing off for your girlfriend is not always a good idea.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 01, 2017, 11:20:12 PM
IMO the damage was an accident.
Yes, it was an accident that never should have happened, but did because of the captain's incompetence.

Also, this has nothing at all to do with the topic (your lack of understanding of orbital mechanics).

It happened but we do not know how and why?

Incompetent captain? 

Couldn't turn the ship 56° starboard by turning the rudders for two minutes? Give me a break!

You being so smart knowing everything - can you explain the trajectory and dynamics of this strange turn ending in an accidental contact?
No, I'm not a safety at sea expert.  However, I do know that a ship's captain is responsible for the ship under his command.  I also know that showing off for your girlfriend is not always a good idea.
I know you are not an expert of anything. A ship's captain is not responsible for everything on a ship particularily when accidents happen. You really have to grow up and open your eyes.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 02, 2017, 05:42:09 AM
IMO the damage was an accident.
Yes, it was an accident that never should have happened, but did because of the captain's incompetence.

Also, this has nothing at all to do with the topic (your lack of understanding of orbital mechanics).

It happened but we do not know how and why?

Incompetent captain? 

Couldn't turn the ship 56° starboard by turning the rudders for two minutes? Give me a break!

You being so smart knowing everything - can you explain the trajectory and dynamics of this strange turn ending in an accidental contact?
No, I'm not a safety at sea expert.  However, I do know that a ship's captain is responsible for the ship under his command.  I also know that showing off for your girlfriend is not always a good idea.
I know you are not an expert of anything. A ship's captain is not responsible for everything on a ship particularily when accidents happen. You really have to grow up and open your eyes.
The captain was responsible for ordering the ship closer to shore than normal.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 02, 2017, 06:40:28 AM
IMO the damage was an accident.
Yes, it was an accident that never should have happened, but did because of the captain's incompetence.

Also, this has nothing at all to do with the topic (your lack of understanding of orbital mechanics).

It happened but we do not know how and why?

Incompetent captain? 

Couldn't turn the ship 56° starboard by turning the rudders for two minutes? Give me a break!

You being so smart knowing everything - can you explain the trajectory and dynamics of this strange turn ending in an accidental contact?
No, I'm not a safety at sea expert.  However, I do know that a ship's captain is responsible for the ship under his command.  I also know that showing off for your girlfriend is not always a good idea.
I know you are not an expert of anything. A ship's captain is not responsible for everything on a ship particularily when accidents happen. You really have to grow up and open your eyes.
The captain was responsible for ordering the ship closer to shore than normal.
Hm, it is the ship owner who owns and orders the ship to sail around paid for by passengers. The captain is just an employée doing what he is told paid for by the owner. And accidents happen all the time. Maybe it was the passengers fault sailing on a cheap, unsafe, boring cruise? Going from Civittavecchio to Savona - two Italian ports of no interest.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 02, 2017, 06:58:10 AM
Hm, it is the ship owner who owns and orders the ship to sail around paid for by passengers. The captain is just an employée doing what he is told paid for by the owner.
Did the ship owner order the captain to run the ship into a reef?

And accidents happen all the time.
This accident happened because the captain ordered the ship to go closer to shore than was safe.

Maybe it was the passengers fault sailing on a cheap, unsafe, boring cruise? Going from Civittavacchio to Savona - two Italian ports of no interest.
Yes, there was the suggestion that the captain wanted to make the cruise more interesting for his girlfriend.  How much more interesting can you get than to run the ship into a reef?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 02, 2017, 09:29:42 AM
IMO the damage was an accident.
Yes, it was an accident that never should have happened, but did because of the captain's incompetence.

Also, this has nothing at all to do with the topic (your lack of understanding of orbital mechanics).

It happened but we do not know how and why?

Incompetent captain? 

Couldn't turn the ship 56° starboard by turning the rudders for two minutes? Give me a break!

You being so smart knowing everything - can you explain the trajectory and dynamics of this strange turn ending in an accidental contact?
No, I'm not a safety at sea expert.  However, I do know that a ship's captain is responsible for the ship under his command.  I also know that showing off for your girlfriend is not always a good idea.
I know you are not an expert of anything. A ship's captain is not responsible for everything on a ship particularily when accidents happen. You really have to grow up and open your eyes.
The captain was responsible for ordering the ship closer to shore than normal.
Hm, it is the ship owner who owns and orders the ship to sail around paid for by passengers. The captain is just an employée doing what he is told paid for by the owner. And accidents happen all the time. Maybe it was the passengers fault sailing on a cheap, unsafe, boring cruise? Going from Civittavacchio to Savona - two Italian ports of no interest.

On what planet of stupid was this the victims' fault?

The captain ran away like a gutless coward while the people for whom he was responsible died thanks to his showing off. I hope he's getting a hard time and that he can live with himself.

Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 02, 2017, 01:27:38 PM
Well the captain is just an employee of the ship owner. And the passengers buy their tickets from the ship owner. And accidents happen. To simply blame the captain for everything is too simple. It seems the ship was not seaworthy to start with - the Italian authorities were fully informed - and the badly paid 900+ catering staff had no safety training. IMO the latter sank the ship by opening illegal watertight doors during the evacuation after the black out.
 
Anyway, the wreck is still in dry-dock at Genoa and will remain there many years - http://heiwaco.com/news811.htm .

It could be an interesting muséum.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 02, 2017, 03:16:32 PM
Well the captain is just an employee of the ship owner.
Yes, and the ship owner hired the captain to safely navigate the ship.

And accidents happen.
Accidents happen because someone screwed up.

To simply blame the captain for everything is too simple.
That's why there are thorough investigations of these accidents: to determine who screwed up.  Isn't that supposed to be your business?

It seems the ship was not seaworthy to start with...
I don't know about that.  It seemed pretty seaworthy before some idiot ran it into a reef.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 02, 2017, 07:38:50 PM
Well the captain is just an employee of the ship owner.
Yes, and the ship owner hired the captain to safely navigate the ship.

And accidents happen.
Accidents happen because someone screwed up.

To simply blame the captain for everything is too simple.
That's why there are thorough investigations of these accidents: to determine who screwed up.  Isn't that supposed to be your business?

It seems the ship was not seaworthy to start with...
I don't know about that.  It seemed pretty seaworthy before some idiot ran it into a reef.
Well, the ship owner hired a crew of 1100 to operate the ship, incl. some officers to navigate and some seamen to steer the ship. The captain was aboard to keep the passengers and ship owner happy. Accidents happens for many reasons and in this case the ship contacted a rock below water and a small leakage occurred. The ship didn't sink for it. No accident investigations were done as per international rules and regulations. As Germans died German authorities requested to attend the investigation ... which was refused by the Italians. It seems the ship sank when underpaid, non-Italian staff opened watertight doors during the panic and evacuation. Seaworthy ships are not permitted having such doors and must have a well trained crew ... responsibility of which is the ship owner. I am always paid by the ship owner doing my job and tell them things like above.
Anyway - assisted by media the public was told the captain sank the ship, bla, bla, bla. It is the same with a-bombs and manned space travel. Media report a-bombs explode and that people can fly in space, bla, bla and the public believe it. Same with 911! Arabs lands planes in tops of towers and ... bla, bla, bla ... towers collapse from top. Etc, etc.
Same with the M/S Estonia accident killing plenty people. The visor fell off according to media. ROTFL. Stupid people believe anything media say.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 02, 2017, 07:55:16 PM

The captain was aboard to keep the passengers and ship owner happy.



He failed.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 02, 2017, 09:03:45 PM
Well, the ship owner hired a crew of 1100 to operate the ship, incl. some officers to navigate and some seamen to steer the ship. The captain was aboard to keep the passengers and ship owner happy.
So you're saying that the ship's captain is not in charge of the seamen who steer the ship?

Are you sure that you know anything about ships?

Accidents happens for many reasons and in this case the ship contacted a rock below water and a small leakage occurred.
Right, the rock just jumped out in front of the ship.

The ship didn't sink for it.
Right, a piddling 53 meter long gash couldn't possibly cause enough leakage to be a problem.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 02, 2017, 09:26:00 PM
No accident investigations were done as per international rules and regulations. As Germans died German authorities requested to attend the investigation ... which was refused by the Italians.

So no investigation was done but Germany wasn't allowed to attend the investigation.

Here is the report of the investigation that didn't happen.

https://www.msb.se/Upload/Insats_och_beredskap/Brand_raddning/RITS/Concordia_Mission_final_report.pdf

You and your friend the captain have a similar grasp of reality. Tell him he's a coward from me.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 02, 2017, 10:25:17 PM
No accident investigations were done as per international rules and regulations. As Germans died German authorities requested to attend the investigation ... which was refused by the Italians.

So no investigation was done but Germany wasn't allowed to attend the investigation.

Here is the report of the investigation that didn't happen.

https://www.msb.se/Upload/Insats_och_beredskap/Brand_raddning/RITS/Concordia_Mission_final_report.pdf

You and your friend the captain have a similar grasp of reality. Tell him he's a coward from me.

Thanks for a report about how to handle people stranded on a small island.

Note - "At 2248hrs the Captain of the Costa Concordia asked the MRSC for tug assistance. The ITCG queries the Captain about the eventuality of an Abandon Ship with the reply being that such a possibility was being evaluated."


The Captain knew that the ship was safe and could be towed to a place for repairs. As there was no electricity aboard passengers and crew were evacuated to a nearby port and the local authorities were asked to assist.

During the Abandon ship there was panic and confusion as the crew was not trained for it. Actually the staff took the lifeboats reserved for the passengers. The life rafts were not used as nobody knew how to launch them.

90 minutes later the ship capsized and sank and 32 persons died. Reason - staff opened illegal watertight doors aboard, etc, etc.

To cover-up the fact that the ship was not seaworthy, it was decided to blame the Captain for everything.

I have seen it before! The Captain should have stayed aboard and drowned!
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 02, 2017, 10:36:00 PM

I have seen it before! The Captain should have stayed aboard and drowned!



No, the captain should have not have run his ship onto the rocks.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 03, 2017, 05:35:25 AM
Reason - staff opened illegal watertight doors aboard, etc, etc.
Are you saying that watertight doors are illegal on a ship? ???
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 03, 2017, 07:25:29 AM
Reason - staff opened illegal watertight doors aboard, etc, etc.
Are you saying that watertight doors are illegal on a ship? ???
Thanks for asking. Study http://heiwaco.com/news86.htm what I say.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Denspressure on May 03, 2017, 08:12:02 AM
IMO the damage was an accident.
Yes, it was an accident that never should have happened, but did because of the captain's incompetence.

Also, this has nothing at all to do with the topic (your lack of understanding of orbital mechanics).

It happened but we do not know how and why?

Incompetent captain? 

Couldn't turn the ship 56° starboard by turning the rudders for two minutes? Give me a break!

You being so smart knowing everything - can you explain the trajectory and dynamics of this strange turn ending in an accidental contact?
No, I'm not a safety at sea expert.  However, I do know that a ship's captain is responsible for the ship under his command.  I also know that showing off for your girlfriend is not always a good idea.
I know you are not an expert of anything. A ship's captain is not responsible for everything on a ship particularily when accidents happen. You really have to grow up and open your eyes.
The captain was responsible for ordering the ship closer to shore than normal.
Hm, it is the ship owner who owns and orders the ship to sail around paid for by passengers. The captain is just an employée doing what he is told paid for by the owner. And accidents happen all the time. Maybe it was the passengers fault sailing on a cheap, unsafe, boring cruise? Going from Civittavecchio to Savona - two Italian ports of no interest.
Your reasoning is more back-asswards than flat-earthers.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 03, 2017, 11:39:08 AM
Reason - staff opened illegal watertight doors aboard, etc, etc.
Are you saying that watertight doors are illegal on a ship? ???
Thanks for asking. Study http://heiwaco.com/news86.htm what I say.
Why can't you just copy and paste the relevant passage here?  Or cite some reputable source?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 03, 2017, 12:14:06 PM
Reason - staff opened illegal watertight doors aboard, etc, etc.
Are you saying that watertight doors are illegal on a ship? ???
Thanks for asking. Study http://heiwaco.com/news86.htm what I say.
Why can't you just copy and paste the relevant passage here?  Or cite some reputable source?
Because my web page is full of interesting links, pictures, quotes from rules, explanations, etc, etc. And no adverts. And all free of charge. I have several 100's of visitors/download every day and >2.3 million from the start.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 03, 2017, 12:31:36 PM
Reason - staff opened illegal watertight doors aboard, etc, etc.
Are you saying that watertight doors are illegal on a ship? ???
Thanks for asking. Study http://heiwaco.com/news86.htm what I say.
Why can't you just copy and paste the relevant passage here?  Or cite some reputable source?
Because my web page is full of interesting links, pictures, quotes from rules, explanations, etc, etc.
So why don't you just pick the most relevant information and post it here?

Or, better yet, we can drop this whole off topic distraction and get back on topic: i.e. your lack of understanding in orbital mechanics.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 03, 2017, 02:45:50 PM
Reason - staff opened illegal watertight doors aboard, etc, etc.
Are you saying that watertight doors are illegal on a ship? ???
Thanks for asking. Study http://heiwaco.com/news86.htm what I say.
Why can't you just copy and paste the relevant passage here?  Or cite some reputable source?
😂😂😂😂😂
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: The Real Celine Dion on May 03, 2017, 03:25:42 PM
I wonder if Anders knows anything about anything....
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 03, 2017, 05:34:32 PM
Reason - staff opened illegal watertight doors aboard, etc, etc.
Are you saying that watertight doors are illegal on a ship? ???
Thanks for asking. Study http://heiwaco.com/news86.htm what I say.
Why can't you just copy and paste the relevant passage here?  Or cite some reputable source?
Because my web page is full of interesting links, pictures, quotes from rules, explanations, etc, etc.
So why don't you just pick the most relevant information and post it here?

Or, better yet, we can drop this whole off topic distraction and get back on topic: i.e. your lack of understanding in orbital mechanics.
Safety at sea is more complicated than orbital mechanics and I am good at both. You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip - http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 03, 2017, 06:47:13 PM
Safety at sea is more complicated than orbital mechanics and I am good at both.
I have yet to see any evidence that you're any good at either.

You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip.
If space trips are as simple as you claim, then why should they be impossible? ???
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 03, 2017, 06:49:17 PM
More lies from Heiwa.  Seems that is the only thing he's good at.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 03, 2017, 06:55:52 PM
Reason - staff opened illegal watertight doors aboard, etc, etc.
Are you saying that watertight doors are illegal on a ship? ???
Thanks for asking. Study http://heiwaco.com/news86.htm what I say.
Why can't you just copy and paste the relevant passage here?  Or cite some reputable source?
Because my web page is full of interesting links, pictures, quotes from rules, explanations, etc, etc.
So why don't you just pick the most relevant information and post it here?

Or, better yet, we can drop this whole off topic distraction and get back on topic: i.e. your lack of understanding in orbital mechanics.
Safety at sea is more complicated than orbital mechanics and I am good at both. You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip - http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .

Simple but impossible.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d8/27/fe/d827fe112256adc7cb4eee6e884754e0.gif)
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 03, 2017, 09:26:41 PM

You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip.
If space trips are as simple as you claim, then why should they be impossible? ???

Space trips putting satellites in orbits one way are simple. Human space trips are impossible! You cannot stop and land afterwards. All space trips are one way ... until you run out of fuel.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Denspressure on May 04, 2017, 04:32:29 AM

You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip.
If space trips are as simple as you claim, then why should they be impossible? ???

Space trips putting satellites in orbits one way are simple. Human space trips are impossible! You cannot stop and land afterwards. All space trips are one way ... until you run out of fuel.

Of course you can stop.

Fire in the opposite direction.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 04, 2017, 05:04:38 AM

You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip.
If space trips are as simple as you claim, then why should they be impossible? ???

Space trips putting satellites in orbits one way are simple. Human space trips are impossible! You cannot stop and land afterwards. All space trips are one way ... until you run out of fuel.
Heiwa proves again the topic of the thread.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 05:27:42 AM

You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip.
If space trips are as simple as you claim, then why should they be impossible? ???

Space trips putting satellites in orbits one way are simple. Human space trips are impossible! You cannot stop and land afterwards. All space trips are one way ... until you run out of fuel.

Of course you can stop.

Fire in the opposite direction.

No! Of course not. No fuel for it. Lose http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm and you will understand. It is basic rocket science. No way to return, land and stop.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 04, 2017, 05:28:39 AM
Space trips putting satellites in orbits one way are simple.
Is that what Arianespace tells you?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 04, 2017, 05:30:41 AM

You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip.
If space trips are as simple as you claim, then why should they be impossible? ???

Space trips putting satellites in orbits one way are simple. Human space trips are impossible! You cannot stop and land afterwards. All space trips are one way ... until you run out of fuel.

Of course you can stop.

Fire in the opposite direction.

No! Of course not. No fuel for it. Lose http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm and you will understand. It is basic rocket science. No way to return, land and stop.
Heiwa proves AGAIN the topic of the thread.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 05:32:57 AM
Space trips putting satellites in orbits one way are simple.
Is that what Arianespace tells you?

Yes, human space travel is impossible.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 05:38:13 AM

You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip.
If space trips are as simple as you claim, then why should they be impossible? ???

Space trips putting satellites in orbits one way are simple. Human space trips are impossible! You cannot stop and land afterwards. All space trips are one way ... until you run out of fuel.

Of course you can stop.

Fire in the opposite direction.

No! Of course not. No fuel for it. Lose http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm and you will understand. It is basic rocket science. No way to return, land and stop.
Heiwa proves AGAIN the topic of the thread.

Hm? But how to re-enter, brake, land and stop when returning from space? Explain and win €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 04, 2017, 05:40:16 AM

You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip.
If space trips are as simple as you claim, then why should they be impossible? ???

Space trips putting satellites in orbits one way are simple. Human space trips are impossible! You cannot stop and land afterwards. All space trips are one way ... until you run out of fuel.

Of course you can stop.

Fire in the opposite direction.

No! Of course not. No fuel for it. Lose http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm and you will understand. It is basic rocket science. No way to return, land and stop.
Heiwa proves AGAIN the topic of the thread.

Hm? But how to re-enter, brake, land and stop when returning from space? Explain and win €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .
You've been shown multiple times and only proven your dishonesty and ignorance.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 05:45:47 AM

You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip.
If space trips are as simple as you claim, then why should they be impossible? ???

Space trips putting satellites in orbits one way are simple. Human space trips are impossible! You cannot stop and land afterwards. All space trips are one way ... until you run out of fuel.

Of course you can stop.

Fire in the opposite direction.

No! Of course not. No fuel for it. Lose http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm and you will understand. It is basic rocket science. No way to return, land and stop.
Heiwa proves AGAIN the topic of the thread.

Hm? But how to re-enter, brake, land and stop when returning from space? Explain and win €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .
You've been shown multiple times and only proven your dishonesty and ignorance.
When, where, how?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 04, 2017, 05:58:10 AM

You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip.
If space trips are as simple as you claim, then why should they be impossible? ???

Space trips putting satellites in orbits one way are simple. Human space trips are impossible! You cannot stop and land afterwards. All space trips are one way ... until you run out of fuel.

Of course you can stop.

Fire in the opposite direction.

No! Of course not. No fuel for it. Lose http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm and you will understand. It is basic rocket science. No way to return, land and stop.
Heiwa proves AGAIN the topic of the thread.

Hm? But how to re-enter, brake, land and stop when returning from space? Explain and win €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .
You've been shown multiple times and only proven your dishonesty and ignorance.
When, where, how?
Through this thread and others, every time you talk about it.  More lies from Heiwa.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 04, 2017, 06:15:03 AM
Yes, human space travel is impossible.
When did Arianespace say that? ???
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 07:36:34 AM
Yes, human space travel is impossible.
When did Arianespace say that? ???

Arianespace just puts satellites in any orbits. They will never recover them. Just ask them and they will confirm.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 07:39:21 AM

You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip.
If space trips are as simple as you claim, then why should they be impossible? ???

Space trips putting satellites in orbits one way are simple. Human space trips are impossible! You cannot stop and land afterwards. All space trips are one way ... until you run out of fuel.

Of course you can stop.

Fire in the opposite direction.

No! Of course not. No fuel for it. Lose http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm and you will understand. It is basic rocket science. No way to return, land and stop.
Heiwa proves AGAIN the topic of the thread.

Hm? But how to re-enter, brake, land and stop when returning from space? Explain and win €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .
You've been shown multiple times and only proven your dishonesty and ignorance.
When, where, how?
Through this thread and others, every time you talk about it.  More lies from Heiwa.
But when, how and where?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 04, 2017, 10:21:53 AM
Yes, human space travel is impossible.
When did Arianespace say that? ???

Arianespace just puts satellites in any orbits. They will never recover them. Just ask them and they will confirm.
Are you saying that if  Arianespace chooses not to do it, then it can't possibly be done by anyone else? ???
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 10:34:35 AM
Yes, human space travel is impossible.
When did Arianespace say that? ???

Arianespace just puts satellites in any orbits. They will never recover them. Just ask them and they will confirm.
Are you saying that if  Arianespace chooses not to do it, then it can't possibly be done by anyone else? ???

No, I just say that Arianespace only puts small satellites in orbits. It is a one-way business. These satellites cannot come back and land on Earth. Not even the rockets can land.  Just ask them or visit their web site http://www.arianespace.com/
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Kami on May 04, 2017, 10:59:45 AM
Sorry to bring this up again but I was away for some time. The sole reason we need a captain on ships nowadays is that he is responsible and can react in case something goes wrong. Guidance and collision detection nowadays is quite good but you need someone responsible - the captain. Jumping off the ship immediately is not the appropriate reaction. Noone expects him to drown but IMO he is responsible to stay as long as he can to help and coordinate the evacuation. I hope this guy serves a looooong time in jail.


On topic: heiwa, safety at sea is definitely not easy, but rocket science plays in a different league (there is a reason it is called rocket science)

While you have clearly demonstrated that you do not even understand the simplest orbital mechanics, I thought you at least had some grasp on your region of expertise. Seems that I was wrong.

If you understand anything about orbital mechanics please tell me whether I made any mistakes in the calculations I posted.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 11:18:36 AM
Sorry to bring this up again but I was away for some time. The sole reason we need a captain on ships nowadays is that he is responsible and can react in case something goes wrong. Guidance and collision detection nowadays is quite good but you need someone responsible - the captain. Jumping off the ship immediately is not the appropriate reaction. Noone expects him to drown but IMO he is responsible to stay as long as he can to help and coordinate the evacuation. I hope this guy serves a looooong time in jail.


On topic: heiwa, safety at sea is definitely not easy, but rocket science plays in a different league (there is a reason it is called rocket science)

While you have clearly demonstrated that you do not even understand the simplest orbital mechanics, I thought you at least had some grasp on your region of expertise. Seems that I was wrong.

If you understand anything about orbital mechanics please tell me whether I made any mistakes in the calculations I posted.
On a ship the chief engineer is responsible for the machinery and on passenger ships the ship's doctor looks after medical affairs, etc, etc. If you think a captain is responsible for everything, you sound like an American shipowner who is not responsible for anything except collecting the money.
Re orbital mechanics I pay since many years €1M to anyone who can describe the fuel consumption of manned trips to the Moon and planet Mars. http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm . It seems nobody knows how to do these basic calculations. I present my calculations at my website and it seems I get too heavy to get off the ground, even if my spacecraft is very light - without swimming pool and facilities we provide on a ship.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 04, 2017, 11:39:33 AM
No, I just say that Arianespace only puts small satellites in orbits. It is a one-way business. These satellites cannot come back and land on Earth. Not even the rockets can land.  Just ask them or visit their web site http://www.arianespace.com/
Ok, I will.

Hmmm....

Look what I just found:
Quote from: http://www.arianespace.com/press-release/successful-launch-of-ixv-reentry-demonstrator-by-vega/
Vega, the latest member of the family of launchers operated by Arianespace, has successfully launched the IXV (Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle) atmospheric reentry demonstrator. The fourth Vega launch took place on February 11 at 10:40 am (local time) from the Guiana Space Center in French Guiana. Developed by the European Space Agency, the IXV marks the latest step by Europe in the development of atmospheric reentry technologies, a key to manned flights.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Kami on May 04, 2017, 12:07:35 PM
Sorry to bring this up again but I was away for some time. The sole reason we need a captain on ships nowadays is that he is responsible and can react in case something goes wrong. Guidance and collision detection nowadays is quite good but you need someone responsible - the captain. Jumping off the ship immediately is not the appropriate reaction. Noone expects him to drown but IMO he is responsible to stay as long as he can to help and coordinate the evacuation. I hope this guy serves a looooong time in jail.


On topic: heiwa, safety at sea is definitely not easy, but rocket science plays in a different league (there is a reason it is called rocket science)

While you have clearly demonstrated that you do not even understand the simplest orbital mechanics, I thought you at least had some grasp on your region of expertise. Seems that I was wrong.

If you understand anything about orbital mechanics please tell me whether I made any mistakes in the calculations I posted.
On a ship the chief engineer is responsible for the machinery and on passenger ships the ship's doctor looks after medical affairs, etc, etc. If you think a captain is responsible for everything, you sound like an American shipowner who is not responsible for anything except collecting the money.
Re orbital mechanics I pay since many years €1M to anyone who can describe the fuel consumption of manned trips to the Moon and planet Mars. http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm . It seems nobody knows how to do these basic calculations. I present my calculations at my website and it seems I get too heavy to get off the ground, even if my spacecraft is very light - without swimming pool and facilities we provide on a ship.
The main reason ships dominate and have dominated international cargo transfer is that for them weight does not really matter. Build a ship twice the size, you can carry twice the stuff. In rocket science it is a little different. As you said, you have to keep it light. Your suggestion to put a swimming pool (or a sauna or sth similar) on a spacecraft again proves your ignorance or sheer incompetence.
I described how to calculate the fuel consumption to go to the moon on the first post of this article, starting from LEO. You ignored it. Your challenge is a lie and you constantly crying for it is a little pathetic, to be honest.

Of course the captain is not responsible for everything, but he is the ultimate authority on the ship. And if an accident happens, it is his responsibility to ensure a swift evacuation. You can not do that if you are not on the ship.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 04, 2017, 12:27:13 PM
Re orbital mechanics I pay since many years €1M to anyone who can describe the fuel consumption of manned trips to the Moon and planet Mars. http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm . It seems nobody knows how to do these basic calculations. I present my calculations at my website and it seems I get too heavy to get off the ground, even if my spacecraft is very light - without swimming pool and facilities we provide on a ship.

As you already know, fuel consumption for space travel is calculated using the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, so your challenge has been met.  Building a rocket that is light enough and powerful enough to make the trip with the fuel calculated is a completely different challenge.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 07:18:13 PM
No, I just say that Arianespace only puts small satellites in orbits. It is a one-way business. These satellites cannot come back and land on Earth. Not even the rockets can land.  Just ask them or visit their web site http://www.arianespace.com/
Ok, I will.

Hmmm....

Look what I just found:
Quote from: http://www.arianespace.com/press-release/successful-launch-of-ixv-reentry-demonstrator-by-vega/
Vega, the latest member of the family of launchers operated by Arianespace, has successfully launched the IXV (Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle) atmospheric reentry demonstrator. The fourth Vega launch took place on February 11 at 10:40 am (local time) from the Guiana Space Center in French Guiana. Developed by the European Space Agency, the IXV marks the latest step by Europe in the development of atmospheric reentry technologies, a key to manned flights.

Yes, the European Xpace Agecny, EXA, is into the fake human space travel biz together with NAXA and Xpaces. You know, you say you send humans into space and then tell media that they have magically returned by a reentry, slowing down and landing. A simple, magic Houdini trick!  EXA just subcontracts the launches of their fake spacecrafts to Arianespace and fakes the landings themselves. EXA is just 50 years behind NAXA to steal money from the tax payers that way. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 07:21:35 PM
Re orbital mechanics I pay since many years €1M to anyone who can describe the fuel consumption of manned trips to the Moon and planet Mars. http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm . It seems nobody knows how to do these basic calculations. I present my calculations at my website and it seems I get too heavy to get off the ground, even if my spacecraft is very light - without swimming pool and facilities we provide on a ship.

As you already know, fuel consumption for space travel is calculated using the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, so your challenge has been met.  Building a rocket that is light enough and powerful enough to make the trip with the fuel calculated is a completely different challenge.

LOL - Tsiolkovsky only calculates speed change ignoring influence of gravity. If you think Tsiolkovsky is the answer to win my Challenge, you know nothing about orbital mechanics.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 07:34:23 PM
Sorry to bring this up again but I was away for some time. The sole reason we need a captain on ships nowadays is that he is responsible and can react in case something goes wrong. Guidance and collision detection nowadays is quite good but you need someone responsible - the captain. Jumping off the ship immediately is not the appropriate reaction. Noone expects him to drown but IMO he is responsible to stay as long as he can to help and coordinate the evacuation. I hope this guy serves a looooong time in jail.


On topic: heiwa, safety at sea is definitely not easy, but rocket science plays in a different league (there is a reason it is called rocket science)

While you have clearly demonstrated that you do not even understand the simplest orbital mechanics, I thought you at least had some grasp on your region of expertise. Seems that I was wrong.

If you understand anything about orbital mechanics please tell me whether I made any mistakes in the calculations I posted.
On a ship the chief engineer is responsible for the machinery and on passenger ships the ship's doctor looks after medical affairs, etc, etc. If you think a captain is responsible for everything, you sound like an American shipowner who is not responsible for anything except collecting the money.
Re orbital mechanics I pay since many years €1M to anyone who can describe the fuel consumption of manned trips to the Moon and planet Mars. http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm . It seems nobody knows how to do these basic calculations. I present my calculations at my website and it seems I get too heavy to get off the ground, even if my spacecraft is very light - without swimming pool and facilities we provide on a ship.
The main reason ships dominate and have dominated international cargo transfer is that for them weight does not really matter. Build a ship twice the size, you can carry twice the stuff. In rocket science it is a little different. As you said, you have to keep it light. Your suggestion to put a swimming pool (or a sauna or sth similar) on a spacecraft again proves your ignorance or sheer incompetence.
I described how to calculate the fuel consumption to go to the moon on the first post of this article, starting from LEO. You ignored it. Your challenge is a lie and you constantly crying for it is a little pathetic, to be honest.

Of course the captain is not responsible for everything, but he is the ultimate authority on the ship. And if an accident happens, it is his responsibility to ensure a swift evacuation. You can not do that if you are not on the ship.

Thanks for agreeing that the captain is not responsible for everything. BTW - if an accident happens in space, how do you evacuate your spacecraft and save the people aboard? And who is responsible.

And shouldn't a space craft for humans have facilities for the people? Or should they just be locked up for the complete trip? That's inhuman!

Re your first post there are some calculations of yours what speed you have in orbit and what speed you must have to reach the Moon in another orbit ... and crash. Nothing about fuel consumption. I pointed it out in my answer to you then.

But as you are so clever, why don't you calculate the speed increase to put a spacecraft in orbit around the Sun like the 100% fake OSIRIS REx and what the trajectory looks like to return to Earth after about a year for a (fake) gravity sling shot. Study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for this hoax and waste of tax payers money.

(http://heiwaco.com/orex11.gif)

Note how OSIRIS REx was speeding away from Earth at high speed last September inside Earth's orbit around the Sun and how ISIRIS REx is now slowing down (!) in its strange orbit (trajectory!) now outside the Earth that is catching up from behind at constant speed. Earth and spacecraft OSIRIS REx will meet again in September. It is really MAGIC!
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 04, 2017, 07:56:24 PM
Yes, the European Xpace Agecny, EXA, is into the fake human space travel biz together with NAXA and Xpaces. You know, you say you send humans into space and then tell media that they have magically returned by a reentry, slowing down and landing. A simple, magic Houdini trick!
It is a truly pitiful engineer who can't tell the difference between technology and magic.

If you think Tsiolkovsky is the answer to win my Challenge, you know nothing about orbital mechanics.
Oh, I'm sure that no one will ever be able to do enough to win any of your silly little challenges.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 08:02:24 PM
Yes, the European Xpace Agecny, EXA, is into the fake human space travel biz together with NAXA and Xpaces. You know, you say you send humans into space and then tell media that they have magically returned by a reentry, slowing down and landing. A simple, magic Houdini trick!
It is a truly pitiful engineer who can't tell the difference between technology and magic.

If you think Tsiolkovsky is the answer to win my Challenge, you know nothing about orbital mechanics.
Oh, I'm sure that no one will ever be able to do enough to win any of your silly little challenges.

Yes, and you are a loser knowing nothing about orbital magics. Here is explain the tricks, incl. OSIRIS REx at my website and you cannot even understand them.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on May 04, 2017, 08:03:53 PM
Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 04, 2017, 08:10:46 PM
Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?
No, you must study his very popular website.  He explains it all there.
And by explain I mean he says, but of course that's impossible.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 08:13:22 PM
Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?

It is nothing wrong with the maths. But it is only maths of instant speed increase and no calculations of associated fuel consumption. If you do that, you will find that you are too heavy to get off the ground to start with. I though I explained that in Reply #1 of this thread.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 04, 2017, 08:16:49 PM
Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?

It is nothing wrong with the maths. But it is only maths of instant speed increase and no calculations of associated fuel consumption. If you do that, you will find that you are too heavy to get off the ground to start with. I though I explained that in Reply #1 of this thread.
No, you just claim it.  You show nothing to support.  Which is all you ever do.  Make claims you cannot back up.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on May 04, 2017, 08:21:23 PM
Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?

It is nothing wrong with the maths. But it is only maths of instant speed increase and no calculations of associated fuel consumption. If you do that, you will find that you are too heavy to get off the ground to start with. I though I explained that in Reply #1 of this thread.
No, you just claim it.  You show nothing to support.  Which is all you ever do.  Make claims you cannot back up.

Which pushes peoples buttons.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 08:38:56 PM
Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?

It is nothing wrong with the maths. But it is only maths of instant speed increase and no calculations of associated fuel consumption. If you do that, you will find that you are too heavy to get off the ground to start with. I though I explained that in Reply #1 of this thread.
No, you just claim it.  You show nothing to support.  Which is all you ever do.  Make claims you cannot back up.
?? No, I show that there are no calculations of fuel consumption, only calculations of speed changes. Read again my Reply #1! But you cannot change speed without using fuel.
And the amount of fuel required for any manned space trip is so large that ... you never get off the ground. It is basic rocket science. It is not even basic orbital mechanics - topic.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on May 04, 2017, 09:39:07 PM
The amount of fuel required for any manned space trip is so large that ... you never get off the ground. It is basic rocket science. It is not even basic orbital mechanics - topic.

Show us how in the context of F=ma.

Here. Copy and paste from your website if you have to. Saying you can prove it then refusing to and calling people stupid because you can't debunk their arguments is lame.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 10:31:45 PM
The amount of fuel required for any manned space trip is so large that ... you never get off the ground. It is basic rocket science. It is not even basic orbital mechanics - topic.

Show us how in the context of F=ma.

Here. Copy and paste from your website if you have to. Saying you can prove it then refusing to and calling people stupid because you can't debunk their arguments is lame.

?? Applying a force F to a mass m will displace the mass at increased speed a. Example - planet Earth applies force F by gravity (no fuel required!) to an apple in a tree on Earth. The apple drops from the tree at increased speed. Mass m remains unchanged. When the apple crashes against ground, ground applies a new force and applies it on the apple which stops!

To produce a force F to move a spacecraft fuel is required. But how much? That's the question.

However, the force F must also be applied in the right direction, at the right location and at the right time. If you are already moving at high speed changing direction all the time (e.g. in an orbit or somewhere in Universe), things get complicated.

And if your mass changes (is reduced) by producing the force F, then you have to consider it too.

All stupid idiots having failed my Challenge forgot these basics of orbital mechanics.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on May 04, 2017, 10:40:25 PM
So you can't show us that the mass of the shuttle is too great to accelerate it with the force available?

What's with you guys?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 04, 2017, 10:51:41 PM
The amount of fuel required for any manned space trip is so large that ... you never get off the ground. It is basic rocket science. It is not even basic orbital mechanics - topic.

Show us how in the context of F=ma.

Here. Copy and paste from your website if you have to. Saying you can prove it then refusing to and calling people stupid because you can't debunk their arguments is lame.

?? Applying a force F to a mass m will displace the mass at increased speed a. Example - planet Earth applies force F by gravity (no fuel required!) to an apple in a tree on Earth. The apple drops from the tree at increased speed. Mass m remains unchanged. When the apple crashes against ground, ground applies a new force and applies it on the apple which stops!

To produce a force F to move a spacecraft fuel is required. But how much? That's the question.

However, the force F must also be applied in the right direction, at the right location and at the right time. If you are already moving at high speed changing direction all the time (e.g. in an orbit or somewhere in Universe), things get complicated.

And if your mass changes (is reduced) by producing the force F, then you have to consider it too.

All stupid idiots having failed my Challenge forgot these basics of orbital mechanics.

So far you've utterly failed my challenge so perhaps you should think twice before calling others "stupid idiots".

In fact, if you were the professional you claim to be you probably wouldn't be using that kind of language anyway. That's more like something an immature teenager would post.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 04, 2017, 11:00:04 PM

You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip.
If space trips are as simple as you claim, then why should they be impossible? ???

Space trips putting satellites in orbits one way are simple. Human space trips are impossible! You cannot stop and land afterwards. All space trips are one way ... until you run out of fuel.

Of course you can stop.

Fire in the opposite direction.

No! Of course not. No fuel for it. Lose http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm and you will understand. It is basic rocket science. No way to return, land and stop.
Heiwa proves AGAIN the topic of the thread.

Hm? But how to re-enter, brake, land and stop when returning from space? Explain and win €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .
You've been shown multiple times and only proven your dishonesty and ignorance.
When, where, how?

Hello?... Hello? Did you forgot we are the same people who have watched you being told this over and over and over again? Did you think you could just wait a few weeks and then come back here and post as though those conversations never occurred? Do you think we've forgotten? What exactly is your point here? Everyone of us knows when, where, and how so you're just making yourself look ridiculous.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 11:14:05 PM
So you can't show us that the mass of the shuttle is too great to accelerate it with the force available?

What's with you guys?

That a 90 tons Shuttle with only 15 tons payload could not take off from ground, I show since many years at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm .

What the public saw at launches and was shown live on TV was a lightweight mock-up or prop sent away behind the clouds. The fake Shuttle then was vaporized when it ran out of fuel. The Shuttle seen landing weeks later was just dropped of from the top of a jumbo jet. What a stupid magic trick.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 04, 2017, 11:59:47 PM
Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?

It is nothing wrong with the maths. But it is only maths of instant speed increase and no calculations of associated fuel consumption. If you do that, you will find that you are too heavy to get off the ground to start with. I though I explained that in Reply #1 of this thread.
No, you just claim it.  You show nothing to support.  Which is all you ever do.  Make claims you cannot back up.
?? No, I show that there are no calculations of fuel consumption, only calculations of speed changes. Read again my Reply #1! But you cannot change speed without using fuel.
And the amount of fuel required for any manned space trip is so large that ... you never get off the ground. It is basic rocket science. It is not even basic orbital mechanics - topic.
Great, show us the math proves you have to carry so much fuel you can't launch.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 05, 2017, 03:28:11 AM
Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?

It is nothing wrong with the maths. But it is only maths of instant speed increase and no calculations of associated fuel consumption. If you do that, you will find that you are too heavy to get off the ground to start with. I though I explained that in Reply #1 of this thread.
No, you just claim it.  You show nothing to support.  Which is all you ever do.  Make claims you cannot back up.
?? No, I show that there are no calculations of fuel consumption, only calculations of speed changes. Read again my Reply #1! But you cannot change speed without using fuel.
And the amount of fuel required for any manned space trip is so large that ... you never get off the ground. It is basic rocket science. It is not even basic orbital mechanics - topic.
Great, show us the math proves you have to carry so much fuel you can't launch.

Just study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm , copy paste what you do not understand and I will explain why you do not understand.
Arianespace need plenty of fuel just to launch a small satellite into orbit 2017. NASA 50 years earlier launched 10 times heavier satellites/spacecraft using less fuel.
So NASA faked it 1969.
Actually they were told to fake. The public then didn't understand anything anyway.
Isn't it funny? We were fooled 1969 with asstronuts on the Moon.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 05, 2017, 05:13:53 AM
Sorry to bring this up again but I was away for some time. The sole reason we need a captain on ships nowadays is that he is responsible and can react in case something goes wrong. Guidance and collision detection nowadays is quite good but you need someone responsible - the captain. Jumping off the ship immediately is not the appropriate reaction. Noone expects him to drown but IMO he is responsible to stay as long as he can to help and coordinate the evacuation. I hope this guy serves a looooong time in jail.


On topic: heiwa, safety at sea is definitely not easy, but rocket science plays in a different league (there is a reason it is called rocket science)

While you have clearly demonstrated that you do not even understand the simplest orbital mechanics, I thought you at least had some grasp on your region of expertise. Seems that I was wrong.

If you understand anything about orbital mechanics please tell me whether I made any mistakes in the calculations I posted.
On a ship the chief engineer is responsible for the machinery and on passenger ships the ship's doctor looks after medical affairs, etc, etc. If you think a captain is responsible for everything, you sound like an American shipowner who is not responsible for anything except collecting the money.
Re orbital mechanics I pay since many years €1M to anyone who can describe the fuel consumption of manned trips to the Moon and planet Mars. http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm . It seems nobody knows how to do these basic calculations. I present my calculations at my website and it seems I get too heavy to get off the ground, even if my spacecraft is very light - without swimming pool and facilities we provide on a ship.
The main reason ships dominate and have dominated international cargo transfer is that for them weight does not really matter. Build a ship twice the size, you can carry twice the stuff. In rocket science it is a little different. As you said, you have to keep it light. Your suggestion to put a swimming pool (or a sauna or sth similar) on a spacecraft again proves your ignorance or sheer incompetence.
I described how to calculate the fuel consumption to go to the moon on the first post of this article, starting from LEO. You ignored it. Your challenge is a lie and you constantly crying for it is a little pathetic, to be honest.

Of course the captain is not responsible for everything, but he is the ultimate authority on the ship. And if an accident happens, it is his responsibility to ensure a swift evacuation. You can not do that if you are not on the ship.

Thanks for agreeing that the captain is not responsible for everything. BTW - if an accident happens in space, how do you evacuate your spacecraft and save the people aboard? And who is responsible.

And shouldn't a space craft for humans have facilities for the people? Or should they just be locked up for the complete trip? That's inhuman!

Re your first post there are some calculations of yours what speed you have in orbit and what speed you must have to reach the Moon in another orbit ... and crash. Nothing about fuel consumption. I pointed it out in my answer to you then.

But as you are so clever, why don't you calculate the speed increase to put a spacecraft in orbit around the Sun like the 100% fake OSIRIS REx and what the trajectory looks like to return to Earth after about a year for a (fake) gravity sling shot. Study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for this hoax and waste of tax payers money.

(http://heiwaco.com/orex11.gif)

Note how OSIRIS REx was speeding away from Earth at high speed last September inside Earth's orbit around the Sun and how ISIRIS REx is now slowing down (!) in its strange orbit (trajectory!) now outside the Earth that is catching up from behind at constant speed. Earth and spacecraft OSIRIS REx will meet again in September. It is really MAGIC!
More proof from Heiwa that he doesn't understand orbital mechanics. 
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 05, 2017, 05:16:23 AM
So you can't show us that the mass of the shuttle is too great to accelerate it with the force available?

What's with you guys?

That a 90 tons Shuttle with only 15 tons payload could not take off from ground, I show since many years at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm .

What the public saw at launches and was shown live on TV was a lightweight mock-up or prop sent away behind the clouds. The fake Shuttle then was vaporized when it ran out of fuel. The Shuttle seen landing weeks later was just dropped of from the top of a jumbo jet. What a stupid magic trick.
no, what you show only is your extreme ignorance.  Don't worry, we've all been laughing at you.  That was your goal, right?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 05, 2017, 07:23:30 AM


(http://heiwaco.com/orex11.gif)

Note how OSIRIS REx was speeding away from Earth at high speed last September inside Earth's orbit around the Sun and how ISIRIS REx is now slowing down (!) in its strange orbit (trajectory!) now outside the Earth that is catching up from behind at constant speed. Earth and spacecraft OSIRIS REx will meet again in September. It is really MAGIC!
More proof from Heiwa that he doesn't understand orbital mechanics.

Well - let's test your understanding of orbital mechanics or dynamics. It seems planet Earth orbits the Sun at almost constant speed in an almost cirkel - green in the figure above. The 360° orbit Earth takes a year. The Sun is the yellow spot in the middle.

Spacecraft OSIRIS REx was launched from Earth orbiting the Sun on 8 September 2016 into an ellpitical or hyperbolic (!) orbit around the Sun - red in the figure above.
The Atlas V rocket launched OSIRIS-REx with a hyperbolic escape velocity (!) of 5.4 km/s (over 12,000 mph). In space, OSIRIS-REx performs a series of Deep Space Maneuvers (DSM), changing velocity by another 0.52 km/s (1,163 mph).
See - http://www.asteroidmission.org/mission/#cruise
After a year and two weeks orbiting (!) the sun, OSIRIS-REx will make a flyby of Earth. Earth's gravitational field will pull the spacecraft towards the planet Earth where it can "borrow" a small amount of Earth's orbital energy. This additional energy is used to increase OSIRIS-REx's orbital inclination and sling it back into space for a rendezvous with Bennu.
The flyby will take place September 22, 2017 and the spacecraft will reach Bennu November 2018. Bennu is an asteroid orbiting around the Sun in the blue elliptical orbit inclined to the Earth orbit.

Now, what kind of trajectory is OSIRIS REx doing? It took off from Earth heading towards the Sun on 8 September 2016 leaving Earth behind in a hyperbolic orbit inside Earth's orbit. What is a hyperbolic orbit? Ever heard of one? What is OSIRIS REx orbiting around? The Sun?
1 May 2017 OSIRIS REx is still far ahead of planet Earth - actually 5.91 light minutes - outside Earth's orbit but now Earth is getting closer every day. OSIRIS REx will collide with Earth September 22, 2017.
But NO! There will only be a flyby.

Anyway - to show that you are clever - what was/is the OSIRIS REx speeds (relative Sun and Earth) the first of every month since launch until flyby? It is basic orbital dynamics!
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 05, 2017, 07:26:00 AM


(http://heiwaco.com/orex11.gif)

Note how OSIRIS REx was speeding away from Earth at high speed last September inside Earth's orbit around the Sun and how ISIRIS REx is now slowing down (!) in its strange orbit (trajectory!) now outside the Earth that is catching up from behind at constant speed. Earth and spacecraft OSIRIS REx will meet again in September. It is really MAGIC!
More proof from Heiwa that he doesn't understand orbital mechanics.

Well - let's test your understanding of orbital mechanics or dynamics. It seems planet Earth orbits the Sun at almost constant speed in an almost cirkel - green in the figure above. The 360° orbit Earth takes a year.

Spacecraft OSIRIS REx was launched from Earth orbiting the Sun on 8 September 2016 into an ellpitical or hyperbolic (!) orbit around the Sun - red in the figure above.
The Atlas V rocket launched OSIRIS-REx with a hyperbolic escape velocity (!) of 5.4 km/s (over 12,000 mph). In space, OSIRIS-REx perform a series of Deep Space Maneuvers, changing velocity by another 0.52 km/s (1,163 mph).
See - http://www.asteroidmission.org/mission/#cruise
After a year and two weeks orbiting (!) the sun, OSIRIS-REx will make a flyby of Earth. Earth's gravitational field will pull the spacecraft towards the planet Earth where it can "borrow" a small amount of Earth's orbital energy. This additional energy is used to increase OSIRIS-REx's orbital inclination and sling it back into space for a rendezvous with Bennu.
The flyby will take place September 22, 2017 and the spacecraft will reach Bennu November 2018. Bennu is an asteroid orbiting around the Sun in the blue elliptical orbit inclined to the Earth orbit.

Now, what kind of trajectory is OSIRIS REx doing? It took off from Earth heading towards the Sun on 8 September 2016 leaving Earth behind in a hyperbolic orbit inside Earth's orbit. What is a hyperbolic orbit? Ever heard of one? What is OSIRIS REx orbiting around? The Sun?
1 May 2017 OSIRIS REx is still far ahead of planet Earth - actually 5.91 light minutes - outside Earth's orbit but now Earth is getting closer every day. OSIRIS REx will collide with Earth September 22, 2017.
But NO! There will only be a flyby.

Anyway - to show that you are clever - what was/is the OSIRIS REx speeds (relative Sun and Earth) the first of every month since launch until flyby? It is basic orbital dynamics!
If you don't know what a hyberbolic orbit is then you only prove AGAIN that you don't understand orbital mechanics.  But at least you're staying on topic.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 05, 2017, 07:35:03 AM


(http://heiwaco.com/orex11.gif)

Note how OSIRIS REx was speeding away from Earth at high speed last September inside Earth's orbit around the Sun and how ISIRIS REx is now slowing down (!) in its strange orbit (trajectory!) now outside the Earth that is catching up from behind at constant speed. Earth and spacecraft OSIRIS REx will meet again in September. It is really MAGIC!
More proof from Heiwa that he doesn't understand orbital mechanics.

Well - let's test your understanding of orbital mechanics or dynamics. It seems planet Earth orbits the Sun at almost constant speed in an almost cirkel - green in the figure above. The 360° orbit Earth takes a year.

Spacecraft OSIRIS REx was launched from Earth orbiting the Sun on 8 September 2016 into an ellpitical or hyperbolic (!) orbit around the Sun - red in the figure above.
The Atlas V rocket launched OSIRIS-REx with a hyperbolic escape velocity (!) of 5.4 km/s (over 12,000 mph). In space, OSIRIS-REx perform a series of Deep Space Maneuvers, changing velocity by another 0.52 km/s (1,163 mph).
See - http://www.asteroidmission.org/mission/#cruise
After a year and two weeks orbiting (!) the sun, OSIRIS-REx will make a flyby of Earth. Earth's gravitational field will pull the spacecraft towards the planet Earth where it can "borrow" a small amount of Earth's orbital energy. This additional energy is used to increase OSIRIS-REx's orbital inclination and sling it back into space for a rendezvous with Bennu.
The flyby will take place September 22, 2017 and the spacecraft will reach Bennu November 2018. Bennu is an asteroid orbiting around the Sun in the blue elliptical orbit inclined to the Earth orbit.

Now, what kind of trajectory is OSIRIS REx doing? It took off from Earth heading towards the Sun on 8 September 2016 leaving Earth behind in a hyperbolic orbit inside Earth's orbit. What is a hyperbolic orbit? Ever heard of one? What is OSIRIS REx orbiting around? The Sun?
1 May 2017 OSIRIS REx is still far ahead of planet Earth - actually 5.91 light minutes - outside Earth's orbit but now Earth is getting closer every day. OSIRIS REx will collide with Earth September 22, 2017.
But NO! There will only be a flyby.

Anyway - to show that you are clever - what was/is the OSIRIS REx speeds (relative Sun and Earth) the first of every month since launch until flyby? It is basic orbital dynamics!
If you don't know what a hyberbolic orbit is then you only prove AGAIN that you don't understand orbital mechanics.  But at least you're staying on topic.
Just tell me the speeds of OSIRIS REx in its hyperbolic orbit the 1st of every months.
It seems that a spacecraft under standard assumptions traveling along a hyperbolic trajectory will coast to infinity, so I cannot understand how it can return to Earth after a year and two weeks?
Your clarifications will be highly appreciated.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 05, 2017, 07:42:33 AM


(http://heiwaco.com/orex11.gif)

Note how OSIRIS REx was speeding away from Earth at high speed last September inside Earth's orbit around the Sun and how ISIRIS REx is now slowing down (!) in its strange orbit (trajectory!) now outside the Earth that is catching up from behind at constant speed. Earth and spacecraft OSIRIS REx will meet again in September. It is really MAGIC!
More proof from Heiwa that he doesn't understand orbital mechanics.

Well - let's test your understanding of orbital mechanics or dynamics. It seems planet Earth orbits the Sun at almost constant speed in an almost cirkel - green in the figure above. The 360° orbit Earth takes a year.

Spacecraft OSIRIS REx was launched from Earth orbiting the Sun on 8 September 2016 into an ellpitical or hyperbolic (!) orbit around the Sun - red in the figure above.
The Atlas V rocket launched OSIRIS-REx with a hyperbolic escape velocity (!) of 5.4 km/s (over 12,000 mph). In space, OSIRIS-REx perform a series of Deep Space Maneuvers, changing velocity by another 0.52 km/s (1,163 mph).
See - http://www.asteroidmission.org/mission/#cruise
After a year and two weeks orbiting (!) the sun, OSIRIS-REx will make a flyby of Earth. Earth's gravitational field will pull the spacecraft towards the planet Earth where it can "borrow" a small amount of Earth's orbital energy. This additional energy is used to increase OSIRIS-REx's orbital inclination and sling it back into space for a rendezvous with Bennu.
The flyby will take place September 22, 2017 and the spacecraft will reach Bennu November 2018. Bennu is an asteroid orbiting around the Sun in the blue elliptical orbit inclined to the Earth orbit.

Now, what kind of trajectory is OSIRIS REx doing? It took off from Earth heading towards the Sun on 8 September 2016 leaving Earth behind in a hyperbolic orbit inside Earth's orbit. What is a hyperbolic orbit? Ever heard of one? What is OSIRIS REx orbiting around? The Sun?
1 May 2017 OSIRIS REx is still far ahead of planet Earth - actually 5.91 light minutes - outside Earth's orbit but now Earth is getting closer every day. OSIRIS REx will collide with Earth September 22, 2017.
But NO! There will only be a flyby.

Anyway - to show that you are clever - what was/is the OSIRIS REx speeds (relative Sun and Earth) the first of every month since launch until flyby? It is basic orbital dynamics!
If you don't know what a hyberbolic orbit is then you only prove AGAIN that you don't understand orbital mechanics.  But at least you're staying on topic.
Just tell me the speeds of OSIRIS REx in its hyperbolic orbit the 1st of every months.
It seems that a spacecraft under standard assumptions traveling along a hyperbolic trajectory will coast to infinity, so I cannot understand how it can return to Earth after a year and two weeks?
Your clarifications will be highly appreciated.
Why should I spend the time to do the work when you won't understand it, will deny it out of hand, and you will still only prove you don't understand orbital mechanics at all?  YOU are not worth my time.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 05, 2017, 09:12:47 AM

Just tell me the speeds of OSIRIS REx in its hyperbolic orbit the 1st of every months.
It seems that a spacecraft under standard assumptions traveling along a hyperbolic trajectory will coast to infinity, so I cannot understand how it can return to Earth after a year and two weeks?
Your clarifications will be highly appreciated.
Why should I spend the time to do the work when you won't understand it, will deny it out of hand, and you will still only prove you don't understand orbital mechanics at all?  YOU are not worth my time.

Well, it seems you cannot describe a hyperbolic orbit of OSIRIS REx spacecraft starting from Earth and ending at a flyby of Earth one year two weeks later. It confirms my understanding that the whole spacecraft and its trip is a hoax. Thanks!
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 05, 2017, 09:50:39 AM

Just tell me the speeds of OSIRIS REx in its hyperbolic orbit the 1st of every months.
It seems that a spacecraft under standard assumptions traveling along a hyperbolic trajectory will coast to infinity, so I cannot understand how it can return to Earth after a year and two weeks?
Your clarifications will be highly appreciated.
Why should I spend the time to do the work when you won't understand it, will deny it out of hand, and you will still only prove you don't understand orbital mechanics at all?  YOU are not worth my time.

Well, it seems you cannot describe a hyperbolic orbit of OSIRIS REx spacecraft starting from Earth and ending at a flyby of Earth one year two weeks later. It confirms my understanding that the whole spacecraft and its trip is a hoax. Thanks!
What part of you are not worth my time do you not understand?
No, it seems I'm not your lackey that will do whatever you ask when it is clear you don't have the basic understanding to start with.  At least you're good for humor though!
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 05, 2017, 10:13:25 AM

Just tell me the speeds of OSIRIS REx in its hyperbolic orbit the 1st of every months.
It seems that a spacecraft under standard assumptions traveling along a hyperbolic trajectory will coast to infinity, so I cannot understand how it can return to Earth after a year and two weeks?
Your clarifications will be highly appreciated.
Why should I spend the time to do the work when you won't understand it, will deny it out of hand, and you will still only prove you don't understand orbital mechanics at all?  YOU are not worth my time.

Well, it seems you cannot describe a hyperbolic orbit of OSIRIS REx spacecraft starting from Earth and ending at a flyby of Earth one year two weeks later. It confirms my understanding that the whole spacecraft and its trip is a hoax. Thanks!
What part of you are not worth my time do you not understand?
No, it seems I'm not your lackey that will do whatever you ask when it is clear you don't have the basic understanding to start with.  At least you're good for humor though!

Well, you said that the picture I posted of orbits around the was more proof from me that I don't understand orbital mechanics.

However, the picture is a fake. A spacecraft cannot move around the Sun as shown - start from Earth and then come back to Earth after one year two weeks. NASA suggests it is a hyperbolic orbit ... but it isn't. So the whole NASA OSIRIS REx project is a hoax!
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 05, 2017, 10:31:02 AM

Just tell me the speeds of OSIRIS REx in its hyperbolic orbit the 1st of every months.
It seems that a spacecraft under standard assumptions traveling along a hyperbolic trajectory will coast to infinity, so I cannot understand how it can return to Earth after a year and two weeks?
Your clarifications will be highly appreciated.
Why should I spend the time to do the work when you won't understand it, will deny it out of hand, and you will still only prove you don't understand orbital mechanics at all?  YOU are not worth my time.

Well, it seems you cannot describe a hyperbolic orbit of OSIRIS REx spacecraft starting from Earth and ending at a flyby of Earth one year two weeks later. It confirms my understanding that the whole spacecraft and its trip is a hoax. Thanks!
What part of you are not worth my time do you not understand?
No, it seems I'm not your lackey that will do whatever you ask when it is clear you don't have the basic understanding to start with.  At least you're good for humor though!

Well, you said that the picture I posted of orbits around the was more proof from me that I don't understand orbital mechanics.

However, the picture is a fake. A spacecraft cannot move around the Sun as shown - start from Earth and then come back to Earth after one year two weeks. NASA suggests it is a hyperbolic orbit ... but it isn't. So the whole NASA OSIRIS REx project is a hoax!
Nope.  I said NOTHING about the picture you posted.  Thank you for proving that not only are you completely ignorant about orbital mechanics but that you are also incapable of reading.

You also provided no reference for your claim that NASA said it was on a hyberbolic orbit.  On the contrary, this is what I found
Quote
Its hyperbolic escape speed from Earth was about 5.41 km/s (3.36 mi/s). On 28 December 2016, the spacecraft successfully performed its first deep space maneuver (DSM-1) to change its velocity by 431 m/s (1,550 km/h; 960 mph) using 354 kg (780 lb) of fuel. An additional, smaller firing of its thrusters on 18 January further refined its course for an Earth gravity assist in September 2017. The cruise phase will last until its encounter with Bennu in August 2018, after which it will enter its science and sample collection phase.
from here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSIRIS-REx
So thank you for FURTHER proving your ignorance.  Only as it left Earth was it on a hyberbolic trajectory which was modified on 28 December 2016 and thus was no longer hyperbolic.

So more LIES from Heiwa.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 05, 2017, 11:07:23 AM
Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?

It is nothing wrong with the maths. But it is only maths of instant speed increase and no calculations of associated fuel consumption. If you do that, you will find that you are too heavy to get off the ground to start with. I though I explained that in Reply #1 of this thread.
No, you just claim it.  You show nothing to support.  Which is all you ever do.  Make claims you cannot back up.
?? No, I show that there are no calculations of fuel consumption, only calculations of speed changes. Read again my Reply #1! But you cannot change speed without using fuel.
And the amount of fuel required for any manned space trip is so large that ... you never get off the ground. It is basic rocket science. It is not even basic orbital mechanics - topic.
Great, show us the math proves you have to carry so much fuel you can't launch.

Just study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm , copy paste what you do not understand and I will explain why you do not understand.
Arianespace need plenty of fuel just to launch a small satellite into orbit 2017. NASA 50 years earlier launched 10 times heavier satellites/spacecraft using less fuel.
So NASA faked it 1969.
Actually they were told to fake. The public then didn't understand anything anyway.
Isn't it funny? We were fooled 1969 with asstronuts on the Moon.
Again, show us the proof.  No I'm not studying your idiotic website.  Paste the relevant proof here or admit you are just a liar.
Show us your proof, don't just make more empty claims.
Because really that's all you have, empty claims.  You say you have proof on your website but just claiming, but that's impossible, is not proof, and we both know that's all you have.
Show us your evidence here.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 05, 2017, 11:18:03 AM
Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?

It is nothing wrong with the maths. But it is only maths of instant speed increase and no calculations of associated fuel consumption. If you do that, you will find that you are too heavy to get off the ground to start with. I though I explained that in Reply #1 of this thread.
No, you just claim it.  You show nothing to support.  Which is all you ever do.  Make claims you cannot back up.
?? No, I show that there are no calculations of fuel consumption, only calculations of speed changes. Read again my Reply #1! But you cannot change speed without using fuel.
And the amount of fuel required for any manned space trip is so large that ... you never get off the ground. It is basic rocket science. It is not even basic orbital mechanics - topic.
Great, show us the math proves you have to carry so much fuel you can't launch.

Just study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm , copy paste what you do not understand and I will explain why you do not understand.
Arianespace need plenty of fuel just to launch a small satellite into orbit 2017. NASA 50 years earlier launched 10 times heavier satellites/spacecraft using less fuel.
So NASA faked it 1969.
Actually they were told to fake. The public then didn't understand anything anyway.
Isn't it funny? We were fooled 1969 with asstronuts on the Moon.
Again, show us the proof.  No I'm not studying your idiotic website.  Paste the relevant proof here or admit you are just a liar.
Show us your proof, don't just make more empty claims.
Because really that's all you have, empty claims.  You say you have proof on your website but just claiming, but that's impossible, is not proof, and we both know that's all you have.
Show us your evidence here.
Well, you really have to study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for my solid evidence that most NASA activites are fake! No humans in space, no space crafts visiting the solar system, etc. Only one way satellite launches to orbit Earth are possible.
Why would I publish empty claims at my website? Ever heard of Fake News? Propaganda? Most NASA space info is like it. You have been fooled by NASA since it was created 1958. Soon 60 years! Main Stream Media are part of the hoax.
It is so easy because the public doesn't understand anything!
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 05, 2017, 12:02:40 PM
Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?

It is nothing wrong with the maths. But it is only maths of instant speed increase and no calculations of associated fuel consumption. If you do that, you will find that you are too heavy to get off the ground to start with. I though I explained that in Reply #1 of this thread.
No, you just claim it.  You show nothing to support.  Which is all you ever do.  Make claims you cannot back up.
?? No, I show that there are no calculations of fuel consumption, only calculations of speed changes. Read again my Reply #1! But you cannot change speed without using fuel.
And the amount of fuel required for any manned space trip is so large that ... you never get off the ground. It is basic rocket science. It is not even basic orbital mechanics - topic.
Great, show us the math proves you have to carry so much fuel you can't launch.

Just study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm , copy paste what you do not understand and I will explain why you do not understand.
Arianespace need plenty of fuel just to launch a small satellite into orbit 2017. NASA 50 years earlier launched 10 times heavier satellites/spacecraft using less fuel.
So NASA faked it 1969.
Actually they were told to fake. The public then didn't understand anything anyway.
Isn't it funny? We were fooled 1969 with asstronuts on the Moon.
Again, show us the proof.  No I'm not studying your idiotic website.  Paste the relevant proof here or admit you are just a liar.
Show us your proof, don't just make more empty claims.
Because really that's all you have, empty claims.  You say you have proof on your website but just claiming, but that's impossible, is not proof, and we both know that's all you have.
Show us your evidence here.
Well, you really have to study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for my solid evidence that most NASA activites are fake! No humans in space, no space crafts visiting the solar system, etc. Only one way satellite launches to orbit Earth are possible.
Why would I publish empty claims at my website? Ever heard of Fake News? Propaganda? Most NASA space info is like it. You have been fooled by NASA since it was created 1958. Soon 60 years! Main Stream Media are part of the hoax.
It is so easy because the public doesn't understand anything!
And once again you fail to support your claims.  It's kind of pathetic really.
You are making the claims here, support them here or go away.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 05, 2017, 05:48:00 PM

And once again you fail to support your claims.  It's kind of pathetic really.
You are making the claims here, support them here or go away.

? But this OSIRIS REx spacecraft is a hoax! I publish in this thread a NASA picture of its hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun and explain why a spacecraft cannot fly in a hyperbolic trajectory and some twerps suggest I do not understand orbital mechanics.
The NASA spacecraft was launched by some Mickey Mouse rocket that gave it a hyperbolic escape speed of 5.41 km/s, when everyone knows incl. kami that you need much more speed just to reach the Moon. But this NASA spacecraft orbits the Sun and will return to Earth after a year and two weeks for a flyby. It is of course ridiculous. 
I describe many other, similar NASA hoaxes at my website and I have plenty visitors. And nobody shows I am wrong.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 05, 2017, 06:22:38 PM
(http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000N2ecNIi4EIE/s/750/750/fence-post-and-barb-wire-on-a-farm-field-MG-6879.jpg)
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Pezevenk on May 06, 2017, 12:23:18 AM
Well, you really have to study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for my solid evidence that most NASA activites are fake! No humans in space, no space crafts visiting the solar system, etc. Only one way satellite launches to orbit Earth are possible.
Why would I publish empty claims at my website? Ever heard of Fake News? Propaganda? Most NASA space info is like it. You have been fooled by NASA since it was created 1958. Soon 60 years! Main Stream Media are part of the hoax.
It is so easy because the public doesn't understand anything!

Wow! It's a great thing that you understand it then! Are you, by any chance, really really smart?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 06, 2017, 12:28:41 AM
Well, you really have to study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for my solid evidence that most NASA activites are fake! No humans in space, no space crafts visiting the solar system, etc. Only one way satellite launches to orbit Earth are possible.
Why would I publish empty claims at my website? Ever heard of Fake News? Propaganda? Most NASA space info is like it. You have been fooled by NASA since it was created 1958. Soon 60 years! Main Stream Media are part of the hoax.
It is so easy because the public doesn't understand anything!

Wow! It's a great thing that you understand it then! Are you, by any chance, really really smart?

Depends what we're comparing to. I would say he's marginally smarter than the picture I posted. But compared to Papa Legba he is probably really smart.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 06, 2017, 12:53:25 AM
Well, you really have to study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for my solid evidence that most NASA activites are fake! No humans in space, no space crafts visiting the solar system, etc. Only one way satellite launches to orbit Earth are possible.
Why would I publish empty claims at my website? Ever heard of Fake News? Propaganda? Most NASA space info is like it. You have been fooled by NASA since it was created 1958. Soon 60 years! Main Stream Media are part of the hoax.
It is so easy because the public doesn't understand anything!

Wow! It's a great thing that you understand it then! Are you, by any chance, really really smart?

It helps. Plus some luck. Being strong and handsome is another advantage.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 06, 2017, 01:02:28 AM
Well, you really have to study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for my solid evidence that most NASA activites are fake! No humans in space, no space crafts visiting the solar system, etc. Only one way satellite launches to orbit Earth are possible.
Why would I publish empty claims at my website? Ever heard of Fake News? Propaganda? Most NASA space info is like it. You have been fooled by NASA since it was created 1958. Soon 60 years! Main Stream Media are part of the hoax.
It is so easy because the public doesn't understand anything!

Wow! It's a great thing that you understand it then! Are you, by any chance, really really smart?

It helps. Plus some luck. Being strong and handsome is another advantage.

How's your ability to detect sarcasm?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Pezevenk on May 06, 2017, 01:36:18 AM
Well, you really have to study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for my solid evidence that most NASA activites are fake! No humans in space, no space crafts visiting the solar system, etc. Only one way satellite launches to orbit Earth are possible.
Why would I publish empty claims at my website? Ever heard of Fake News? Propaganda? Most NASA space info is like it. You have been fooled by NASA since it was created 1958. Soon 60 years! Main Stream Media are part of the hoax.
It is so easy because the public doesn't understand anything!

Wow! It's a great thing that you understand it then! Are you, by any chance, really really smart?

It helps. Plus some luck. Being strong and handsome is another advantage.

How's your ability to detect sarcasm?

To be fair, his post did seem a bit like a joke.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Kami on May 06, 2017, 02:32:37 AM

Just tell me the speeds of OSIRIS REx in its hyperbolic orbit the 1st of every months.
It seems that a spacecraft under standard assumptions traveling along a hyperbolic trajectory will coast to infinity, so I cannot understand how it can return to Earth after a year and two weeks?
Your clarifications will be highly appreciated.
Why should I spend the time to do the work when you won't understand it, will deny it out of hand, and you will still only prove you don't understand orbital mechanics at all?  YOU are not worth my time.

Well, it seems you cannot describe a hyperbolic orbit of OSIRIS REx spacecraft starting from Earth and ending at a flyby of Earth one year two weeks later. It confirms my understanding that the whole spacecraft and its trip is a hoax. Thanks!
I do not understand what you want. Do you want me to describe the accurate path of the spacecraft, subject to the gravitational influence of the sun, the planets and several larger asteroids? I am not able to do that - a team of NASA scientists has worked months to develop this orbit, you can not expect some random guy on a conspiracy forum to reproduce this work.

If you want to understand the basic principles of orbital mechanics (different types of orbits, maneuvers, gravity assists etc.), just say so and I will try to explain them as simple as possible. I could thus also describe this orbit, however I could not calculate the accurate fuel consumption.



Re: Your first answer: Indeed, I did not calculate the necessary fuel consumption. For this an engine type and the mass of the payload needs to be specified. I told you however how it is possible, namely by using the famous rocket equation.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Kami on May 06, 2017, 02:36:45 AM

And once again you fail to support your claims.  It's kind of pathetic really.
You are making the claims here, support them here or go away.

? But this OSIRIS REx spacecraft is a hoax! I publish in this thread a NASA picture of its hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun and explain why a spacecraft cannot fly in a hyperbolic trajectory and some twerps suggest I do not understand orbital mechanics.
The NASA spacecraft was launched by some Mickey Mouse rocket that gave it a hyperbolic escape speed of 5.41 km/s, when everyone knows incl. kami that you need much more speed just to reach the Moon. But this NASA spacecraft orbits the Sun and will return to Earth after a year and two weeks for a flyby. It is of course ridiculous. 
I describe many other, similar NASA hoaxes at my website and I have plenty visitors. And nobody shows I am wrong.
Would you please don't lie about me? Keep lying about your website all you want but I never said that 5.41km/s is not enough to reach the moon. I actually calculated it - in this thread - to be about 3.13km/s.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 06, 2017, 06:40:41 AM
Well, you really have to study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for my solid evidence that most NASA activites are fake! No humans in space, no space crafts visiting the solar system, etc. Only one way satellite launches to orbit Earth are possible.
Why would I publish empty claims at my website? Ever heard of Fake News? Propaganda? Most NASA space info is like it. You have been fooled by NASA since it was created 1958. Soon 60 years! Main Stream Media are part of the hoax.
It is so easy because the public doesn't understand anything!

Wow! It's a great thing that you understand it then! Are you, by any chance, really really smart?

It helps. Plus some luck. Being strong and handsome is another advantage.
And heiwa proves he doesn't understand sarcasm.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 06, 2017, 06:57:44 AM

And once again you fail to support your claims.  It's kind of pathetic really.
You are making the claims here, support them here or go away.

? But this OSIRIS REx spacecraft is a hoax! I publish in this thread a NASA picture of its hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun and explain why a spacecraft cannot fly in a hyperbolic trajectory and some twerps suggest I do not understand orbital mechanics.
The NASA spacecraft was launched by some Mickey Mouse rocket that gave it a hyperbolic escape speed of 5.41 km/s, when everyone knows incl. kami that you need much more speed just to reach the Moon. But this NASA spacecraft orbits the Sun and will return to Earth after a year and two weeks for a flyby. It is of course ridiculous. 
I describe many other, similar NASA hoaxes at my website and I have plenty visitors. And nobody shows I am wrong.
Again you make claims with no support.  Surprise, another fail.  Show us your evidence.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 06, 2017, 09:05:30 AM
Well, you really have to study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for my solid evidence that most NASA activites are fake! No humans in space, no space crafts visiting the solar system, etc. Only one way satellite launches to orbit Earth are possible.
Why would I publish empty claims at my website? Ever heard of Fake News? Propaganda? Most NASA space info is like it. You have been fooled by NASA since it was created 1958. Soon 60 years! Main Stream Media are part of the hoax.
It is so easy because the public doesn't understand anything!

Wow! It's a great thing that you understand it then! Are you, by any chance, really really smart?

It helps. Plus some luck. Being strong and handsome is another advantage.

How's your ability to detect sarcasm?

To be fair, his post did seem a bit like a joke.

Which we all realize but I don't think he does.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 06, 2017, 10:17:14 AM

And once again you fail to support your claims.  It's kind of pathetic really.
You are making the claims here, support them here or go away.

? But this OSIRIS REx spacecraft is a hoax! I publish in this thread a NASA picture of its hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun and explain why a spacecraft cannot fly in a hyperbolic trajectory and some twerps suggest I do not understand orbital mechanics.
The NASA spacecraft was launched by some Mickey Mouse rocket that gave it a hyperbolic escape speed of 5.41 km/s, when everyone knows incl. kami that you need much more speed just to reach the Moon. But this NASA spacecraft orbits the Sun and will return to Earth after a year and two weeks for a flyby. It is of course ridiculous. 
I describe many other, similar NASA hoaxes at my website and I have plenty visitors. And nobody shows I am wrong.
Would you please don't lie about me? Keep lying about your website all you want but I never said that 5.41km/s is not enough to reach the moon. I actually calculated it - in this thread - to be about 3.13km/s.

Yes, but 3.13 km/s was just the extra velocity added to your spacecraft's velocity in orbit to get to the Moon. And you forgot to tell me the fuel required to speed up.

And why do you suggest that I lie, like all other annonymous twirps in this thread? Why would I lie? I put all my info on my web site with a photo of me + full style for contact, comments, etc. I exist. I am alive. I am real.

Why would I lie here?

Have you got a real name?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Denspressure on May 06, 2017, 06:28:54 PM
Hey Heiwa, want to cuddle like last time?

I posted a photo of us two on this forum. If you have not already seen it... I think you will like it.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 07, 2017, 03:24:09 AM

And once again you fail to support your claims.  It's kind of pathetic really.
You are making the claims here, support them here or go away.

? But this OSIRIS REx spacecraft is a hoax! I publish in this thread a NASA picture of its hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun and explain why a spacecraft cannot fly in a hyperbolic trajectory and some twerps suggest I do not understand orbital mechanics.
The NASA spacecraft was launched by some Mickey Mouse rocket that gave it a hyperbolic escape speed of 5.41 km/s, when everyone knows incl. kami that you need much more speed just to reach the Moon. But this NASA spacecraft orbits the Sun and will return to Earth after a year and two weeks for a flyby. It is of course ridiculous. 
I describe many other, similar NASA hoaxes at my website and I have plenty visitors. And nobody shows I am wrong.
Would you please don't lie about me? Keep lying about your website all you want but I never said that 5.41km/s is not enough to reach the moon. I actually calculated it - in this thread - to be about 3.13km/s.

Yes, but 3.13 km/s was just the extra velocity added to your spacecraft's velocity in orbit to get to the Moon. And you forgot to tell me the fuel required to speed up.

And why do you suggest that I lie, like all other annonymous twirps in this thread? Why would I lie? I put all my info on my web site with a photo of me + full style for contact, comments, etc. I exist. I am alive. I am real.

Why would I lie here?

Have you got a real name?
What a surprise, you still fail to post any evidence to support your claims.  Proving once again you are a liar and a fake.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 07, 2017, 03:41:47 AM

And once again you fail to support your claims.  It's kind of pathetic really.
You are making the claims here, support them here or go away.

? But this OSIRIS REx spacecraft is a hoax! I publish in this thread a NASA picture of its hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun and explain why a spacecraft cannot fly in a hyperbolic trajectory and some twerps suggest I do not understand orbital mechanics.
The NASA spacecraft was launched by some Mickey Mouse rocket that gave it a hyperbolic escape speed of 5.41 km/s, when everyone knows incl. kami that you need much more speed just to reach the Moon. But this NASA spacecraft orbits the Sun and will return to Earth after a year and two weeks for a flyby. It is of course ridiculous. 
I describe many other, similar NASA hoaxes at my website and I have plenty visitors. And nobody shows I am wrong.
Would you please don't lie about me? Keep lying about your website all you want but I never said that 5.41km/s is not enough to reach the moon. I actually calculated it - in this thread - to be about 3.13km/s.

Yes, but 3.13 km/s was just the extra velocity added to your spacecraft's velocity in orbit to get to the Moon. And you forgot to tell me the fuel required to speed up.

And why do you suggest that I lie, like all other annonymous twirps in this thread? Why would I lie? I put all my info on my web site with a photo of me + full style for contact, comments, etc. I exist. I am alive. I am real.

Why would I lie here?

Have you got a real name?
What a surprise, you still fail to post any evidence to support your claims.  Proving once again you are a liar and a fake.
No, I post all evidence to support my claims at http://heiwaco.com since twenty years and plenty anonymous twirps here and there post like you, out of the blue, that I am liar and a fake.
Why don't you develop your crazy ideas? Start by signing with a full style - name/address!
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 07, 2017, 09:10:37 AM
Twirp!
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 07, 2017, 09:24:04 AM
Twirp!
Nice, old English word with at least two meanings; contemptible person, silly fool.

Which one are you?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 07, 2017, 09:25:53 AM
Twirp!
Nice, old English word with at least two meanings; contemptible person, silly fool.

Which one are you?

You are the ultimate proof that it's possible to be both at once!
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 07, 2017, 09:45:33 AM
Twirp!
Nice, old English word with at least two meanings; contemptible person, silly fool.

Which one are you?

You are the ultimate proof that it's possible to be both at once!

No, I am a nice guy - http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm - no secrets there - full style. Not a twirp hiding behind some invented bla, bla Boots. So who are you? A real name? Mother? Do you live anywhere? 
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 07, 2017, 09:49:19 AM
Telling us who you are doesn't make you a nice guy. You're definitely a twirp in every sense.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 07, 2017, 09:51:38 AM
Telling us who you are doesn't make you a nice guy. You're definitely a twirp in every sense.
No, I am real! But you? Name? Address? Mother? Do you exist? You sound like some robot.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 07, 2017, 10:19:56 AM
Telling us who you are doesn't make you a nice guy. You're definitely a twirp in every sense.
No, I am real! But you? Name? Address? Mother? Do you exist? You sound like some robot.

All real twirps are real people. Leave my mother out of this.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 07, 2017, 11:42:24 AM
Telling us who you are doesn't make you a nice guy. You're definitely a twirp in every sense.
No, I am real! But you? Name? Address? Mother? Do you exist? You sound like some robot.
I see heiwa is desperately trying to change the subject away from his lies, failings, and shortcomings again.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 07, 2017, 12:36:30 PM

And once again you fail to support your claims.  It's kind of pathetic really.
You are making the claims here, support them here or go away.

? But this OSIRIS REx spacecraft is a hoax! I publish in this thread a NASA picture of its hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun and explain why a spacecraft cannot fly in a hyperbolic trajectory and some twerps suggest I do not understand orbital mechanics.
The NASA spacecraft was launched by some Mickey Mouse rocket that gave it a hyperbolic escape speed of 5.41 km/s, when everyone knows incl. kami that you need much more speed just to reach the Moon. But this NASA spacecraft orbits the Sun and will return to Earth after a year and two weeks for a flyby. It is of course ridiculous. 
I describe many other, similar NASA hoaxes at my website and I have plenty visitors. And nobody shows I am wrong.
Would you please don't lie about me? Keep lying about your website all you want but I never said that 5.41km/s is not enough to reach the moon. I actually calculated it - in this thread - to be about 3.13km/s.

Yes, but 3.13 km/s was just the extra velocity added to your spacecraft's velocity in orbit to get to the Moon. And you forgot to tell me the fuel required to speed up.

And why do you suggest that I lie, like all other annonymous twirps in this thread? Why would I lie? I put all my info on my web site with a photo of me + full style for contact, comments, etc. I exist. I am alive. I am real.

Why would I lie here?

Have you got a real name?
What a surprise, you still fail to post any evidence to support your claims.  Proving once again you are a liar and a fake.
No, I post all evidence to support my claims at http://heiwaco.com since twenty years and plenty anonymous twirps here and there post like you, out of the blue, that I am liar and a fake.
Why don't you develop your crazy ideas? Start by signing with a full style - name/address!
And still no evidence.  Again, no surprise, you never post anything to support your insane claims.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 07, 2017, 04:21:15 PM
The NAXA people faking the space trips, hyperbolic trajectories and gravity assisted sling shots meet at regular intervals to celebrate their success at the RNAXA Space Awards Gala 2017. What a miserable lot!



ROTFL

Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 07, 2017, 06:38:16 PM
ROTFL

So are the rest of us, believe me! For slightly different reasons.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 08, 2017, 06:05:57 AM
The NAXA people faking the space trips, hyperbolic trajectories and gravity assisted sling shots meet at regular intervals to celebrate their success at the RNAXA Space Awards Gala 2017. What a miserable lot!



ROTFL
Oh look, another post with no evidence.  Just admit you are a liar and a fake
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 08, 2017, 06:16:09 AM
The NAXA people faking the space trips, hyperbolic trajectories and gravity assisted sling shots meet at regular intervals to celebrate their success at the RNAXA Space Awards Gala 2017. What a miserable lot!

Ummm...  You do understand that RNASA is a part of the Rotary Club, not the US government, don't you?
Quote from: http://www.rnasa.org/
The Rotary National Award for Space Achievement (RNASA) Foundation was founded by the Space Center Rotary Club of Houston, Texas in 1985 to organize and coordinate an annual event to recognize outstanding achievements in space and create greater public awareness of the benefits of space exploration. Each year since 1987, the Foundation has presented the National Space Trophy and other awards honoring those who have contributed to our nation's space program at a gala event in April in Houston, Texas.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 08, 2017, 09:01:25 AM
The NAXA people faking the space trips, hyperbolic trajectories and gravity assisted sling shots meet at regular intervals to celebrate their success at the RNAXA Space Awards Gala 2017. What a miserable lot!

Ummm...  You do understand that RNASA is a part of the Rotary Club, not the US government, don't you?
Quote from: http://www.rnasa.org/
The Rotary National Award for Space Achievement (RNASA) Foundation was founded by the Space Center Rotary Club of Houston, Texas in 1985 to organize and coordinate an annual event to recognize outstanding achievements in space and create greater public awareness of the benefits of space exploration. Each year since 1987, the Foundation has presented the National Space Trophy and other awards honoring those who have contributed to our nation's space program at a gala event in April in Houston, Texas.

Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 08, 2017, 09:42:25 AM
Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.
Make up your mind, will you?

Either all space achievements are 100% fake or commercial satellites are real.  You can't have it both ways.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 08, 2017, 10:09:53 AM
Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.
Make up your mind, will you?

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

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

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

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

I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 08, 2017, 10:23:19 AM
Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.
Make up your mind, will you?

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

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

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

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

I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
All of those "100% fake achievements" build on the initial achievement of unmanned satellite launches.

Just because you aren't smart enough to figure out how hyperbolic trajectories or atmospheric reentry work, that doesn't mean that they're impossible.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 08, 2017, 10:39:13 AM
Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.
Make up your mind, will you?

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

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

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

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

I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
All of those "100% fake achievements" build on the initial achievement of unmanned satellite launches.

Just because you aren't smart enough to figure out how hyperbolic trajectories or atmospheric reentry work, that doesn't mean that they're impossible.
Well, you, an anonymous twirp, always tells me that I am not smart, bla, bla, and I offer you €1M to prove it and ... ? You just moan and groan like a retired NASA faker. Just carry on! Haven't you got a contract to fulfill, to do it?
Disgusting. Slave contract. White slaves! 2017!
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 08, 2017, 12:11:23 PM
The NAXA people faking the space trips, hyperbolic trajectories and gravity assisted sling shots meet at regular intervals to celebrate their success at the RNAXA Space Awards Gala 2017. What a miserable lot!

Ummm...  You do understand that RNASA is a part of the Rotary Club, not the US government, don't you?
Quote from: http://www.rnasa.org/
The Rotary National Award for Space Achievement (RNASA) Foundation was founded by the Space Center Rotary Club of Houston, Texas in 1985 to organize and coordinate an annual event to recognize outstanding achievements in space and create greater public awareness of the benefits of space exploration. Each year since 1987, the Foundation has presented the National Space Trophy and other awards honoring those who have contributed to our nation's space program at a gala event in April in Houston, Texas.

Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.
Prove it's fake.  Oh wait, you never back up your statements here.  Yet another failure
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Denspressure on May 08, 2017, 12:23:03 PM
Heiwa, I will give you 16 dollars if you post a picture of yourself on this forum naked.

Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 08, 2017, 12:46:00 PM
All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers

EVERYTHING is funded by taxpayers, dork.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 08, 2017, 01:12:00 PM
Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.
Make up your mind, will you?

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

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

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

The rest (NASA, ESA, SpaceX, bla, bla) is 100% fake. I explain it all at <snipped obviously> .

I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong at <snipped obviously> .

I pay you €1M to show that you're right.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 08, 2017, 01:16:48 PM

I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong . . .



(http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/lol-049.gif) (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/facebook-smileys.html)
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 08, 2017, 01:25:29 PM
No, you are wrong as usual like most anonymous twirps at this forum.

So far it's the non-anonymous twirp who appears to be wrong most of the time!
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 08, 2017, 03:34:28 PM
Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.
Make up your mind, will you?

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

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

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

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

I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
All of those "100% fake achievements" build on the initial achievement of unmanned satellite launches.

Just because you aren't smart enough to figure out how hyperbolic trajectories or atmospheric reentry work, that doesn't mean that they're impossible.
Well, you, an anonymous twirp, always tells me that I am not smart, bla, bla, and I offer you €1M to prove it and ... ? You just moan and groan like a retired NASA faker. Just carry on! Haven't you got a contract to fulfill, to do it?
Disgusting. Slave contract. White slaves! 2017!
I'm sorry, but it's hard to have a productive discussion when you go off on these rants that make you sound like a confused, angry old man.

I never claimed to an engineer of any kind, but you have.  I have posted a link to a textbook called Orbital Mechanics for Engineering Students (https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/66104/mod_resource/content/1/OrbitalMechanicsForEngineeringStudents-AerospaceEngineering.pdf) showing how to calculate various orbits.  I have posted links to other textbooks describing atmospheric reentry and calculating interplanetary trajectories. 

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

Anders, I'm not the least bit interested in your money or your "challenges".  I'd much rather you spend some of that money on a few textbooks that show you how to do what you claim can't be done.  I still have a hard time believing that a distinguished engineer as yourself would let someone telling you that a task is impossible stop you from finding a clever solution.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 08, 2017, 03:39:29 PM

I still have a hard time believing that a distinguished engineer as yourself would let someone telling you that a task is impossible stop you from finding a clever solution.



An engineer always starts out with a belief that the task is impossible. (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/lol-049.gif) (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/facebook-smileys.html)
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 08, 2017, 05:27:46 PM
Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.
Make up your mind, will you?

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

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

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

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

I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
All of those "100% fake achievements" build on the initial achievement of unmanned satellite launches.

Just because you aren't smart enough to figure out how hyperbolic trajectories or atmospheric reentry work, that doesn't mean that they're impossible.
Well, you, an anonymous twirp, always tells me that I am not smart, bla, bla, and I offer you €1M to prove it and ... ? You just moan and groan like a retired NASA faker. Just carry on! Haven't you got a contract to fulfill, to do it?
Disgusting. Slave contract. White slaves! 2017!
I'm sorry, but it's hard to have a productive discussion when you go off on these rants that make you sound like a confused, angry old man.

I never claimed to an engineer of any kind, but you have.  I have posted a link to a textbook called Orbital Mechanics for Engineering Students (https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/66104/mod_resource/content/1/OrbitalMechanicsForEngineeringStudents-AerospaceEngineering.pdf) showing how to calculate various orbits.  I have posted links to other textbooks describing atmospheric reentry and calculating interplanetary trajectories. 

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

Anders, I'm not the least bit interested in your money or your "challenges".  I'd much rather you spend some of that money on a few textbooks that show you how to do what you claim can't be done.  I still have a hard time believing that a distinguished engineer as yourself would let someone telling you that a task is impossible stop you from finding a clever solution.
LOL. My simple Challenge is just to calculate the fuel required (kg) for some manned space trips and to show that you can lift it off the ground ... and you provide links to some stupid reports. And you don't even have a name.
The Challenge is also to describe the sanitary facilities provided. The humans aboard must be able to be clean and happy.
And what is shown? A little capsule with some seats inside. Hilarious. Not even toilet paper!
The impossible Challenge is of course the re-entry and landing. It is suggested that there is air at 120 000 m altitude and that it will provide friction and turbulence for landing. But there is no air at 120 000 m altitude with birds flying around in it. The air is 115 000 m further down. Please, grow up and do not support the criminal idiots at NASA and their Rotary friends with their prizes.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 05:29:45 PM
If I post proof of who I am, will you post proof of your prize fund.

Even a picture of say you with 50k in cash would help assure us you could pay in the event you decided someone won your challenge.

P.S I won your challenge #1

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70589.0
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 08, 2017, 06:35:44 PM
If I post proof of who I am, will you post proof of your prize fund.

Even a picture of say you with 50k in cash would help assure us you could pay in the event you decided someone won your challenge.

P.S I won your challenge #1

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


There is no challenge. There is just a frustrated tard who enjoys yanking on dicks.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 08, 2017, 06:51:44 PM
If I post proof of who I am, will you post proof of your prize fund.

Even a picture of say you with 50k in cash would help assure us you could pay in the event you decided someone won your challenge.

P.S I won your challenge #1

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


There is no challenge. There is just a frustrated tard who enjoys yanking on dicks.

No - there are challenges - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . But no winners so far. Why do you get upset about it? You sound like a  tewwowist.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 07:10:20 PM
I won your challenge #1.

Edit.

Here is a quick example of a poster putting his money where his mouth is.

(http://i64.tinypic.com/178k69.jpg)20k.

It's really quite easy.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 08, 2017, 07:59:43 PM
LOL. My simple Challenge is just to calculate the fuel required (kg) for some manned space trips and to show that you can lift it off the ground ...
Then you owe NASA the Russian and Chinese space agencies a million euros, because they have obviously calculated the fuel required and demonstrated that the rockets can lift it off the ground as a part of multiple manned space trips.

... and you provide links to some stupid reports.
No, I provided links to text books that teach you how to calculate interplanetary trajectories and how to plan atmospheric reentry.

And you don't even have a name.
I have a name.  I simply choose not to share it here.  If you like, you can call me Mark.

The Challenge is also to describe the sanitary facilities provided. The humans aboard must be able to be clean and happy.
There are different standards of "clean and happy".  Just like early ships, early manned rockets aren't known for their luxury.

And what is shown? A little capsule with some seats inside. Hilarious. Not even toilet paper!
Do you have toilet paper on display in your business office?

The impossible Challenge is of course the re-entry and landing. It is suggested that there is air at 120 000 m altitude and that it will provide friction and turbulence for landing. But there is no air at 120 000 m altitude with birds flying around in it. The air is 115 000 m further down.
Of course there is air at 120 km, just not very much.  You do understand that air density gradually decreases as you go up, don't you?  That means that air density gradually increases as you go down.

To be sure, atmospheric reentry is a challenge, but it is a solvable one to those who understand the finer points of high speed aerodynamics.

Please, grow up and do not support the criminal idiots at NASA and their Rotary friends with their prizes.
Please lighten up and stop acting like a bitter old man.  There is simply no possible way that manned space flight could possibly be faked so many times by so many different agencies.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 08, 2017, 09:28:45 PM

The impossible Challenge is of course the re-entry and landing. It is suggested that there is air at 120 000 m altitude and that it will provide friction and turbulence for landing. But there is no air at 120 000 m altitude with birds flying around in it. The air is 115 000 m further down.
Of course there is air at 120 km, just not very much.  You do understand that air density gradually decreases as you go up, don't you?  That means that air density gradually increases as you go down.

To be sure, atmospheric reentry is a challenge, but it is a solvable one to those who understand the finer points of high speed aerodynamics.


Well, there is no air at 120 000 m altitude but there is thin air at 5000 m altitude making mountain climbing tiresome. Have you ever climbed a mountain? It is popular in Switzerland.
So using air friction/turbulence to stop a spacecraft at 120 000 m altitude doesn't work. Anyone knowing a little about high speed aerodynamics, like me, knows it. I actually describe it at my website. It is a pity you do not study it.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 08, 2017, 09:36:21 PM

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



You know what else is tiresome? 
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 08, 2017, 09:38:15 PM


Please, grow up and do not support the criminal idiots at NASA and their Rotary friends with their prizes.
Please lighten up and stop acting like a bitter old man.  There is simply no possible way that manned space flight could possibly be faked so many times by so many different agencies.

Me bitter? Anyway, it is quite easy to fake manned landings! The asstronuts or kosmoskowboys always drop down in a capsule below parachutes in front of a reception squad (and brass band) in some remote area. Media is not allowed to attend. All is military secret. It is said the capsule has arrived from space hitting the atmosphere at 120 000 m altitude at great speed. 
However, the capsule/parachutes are simply dropped from a (military) plane at low altitude. It is not magic at all. It is an old trick. You are not very bright, are you? Ever heard of Gagarin? He was #1. A Hero of the Sovietunion! I describe his fake re-entry and landing at my website. He just jumped from a plane ... without capsule.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 08, 2017, 09:44:08 PM

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



You know what else is tiresome?

No, tell me!

Anyway, it seems I am the topic and you do not have to discuss it, if you don't like it. You sound like a bitter, old man.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 08, 2017, 09:54:25 PM

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


You know what else is tiresome?


No, tell me!




You.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 08, 2017, 10:15:09 PM

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


You know what else is tiresome?


No, tell me!

You.

Are you sure? Anyway, there are plenty boring posts here by twirps explaining my lack of understanding, which I do not understand. What I understand, I present at my website downloaded 2 360 407 times. Very popular.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 10:42:49 PM
Stop ignoring my posts and pay me the prize for challenge #1.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70589.0
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 08, 2017, 11:12:53 PM
The media not attending the return of spacecraft:







Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on May 09, 2017, 12:56:24 AM
Edit.

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

Also.



Then send it to me.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 09, 2017, 05:33:45 AM
Well, there is no air at 120 000 m altitude but there is thin air at 5000 m altitude making mountain climbing tiresome.
Then it's a good thing that spacecraft don't need to breathe.  ::)

So using air friction/turbulence to stop a spacecraft at 120 000 m altitude doesn't work.
???  Who said anything about stopping the spacecraft at 120 km?  At about 120 km, the process of slowing the spacecraft down begins.  The spacecraft doesn't stop until it touches down at zero m.

Anyone knowing a little about high speed aerodynamics, like me, knows it.
Well, they do say that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  Maybe this text book can help you to learn more:
https://www.amazon.com/Dynamics-Atmospheric-Re-Entry-AIAA-Education/dp/1563470489
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 09, 2017, 06:38:07 AM
Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.
Make up your mind, will you?

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

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

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

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

I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
All of those "100% fake achievements" build on the initial achievement of unmanned satellite launches.

Just because you aren't smart enough to figure out how hyperbolic trajectories or atmospheric reentry work, that doesn't mean that they're impossible.
Well, you, an anonymous twirp, always tells me that I am not smart, bla, bla, and I offer you €1M to prove it and ... ? You just moan and groan like a retired NASA faker. Just carry on! Haven't you got a contract to fulfill, to do it?
Disgusting. Slave contract. White slaves! 2017!
I'm sorry, but it's hard to have a productive discussion when you go off on these rants that make you sound like a confused, angry old man.

I never claimed to an engineer of any kind, but you have.  I have posted a link to a textbook called Orbital Mechanics for Engineering Students (https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/66104/mod_resource/content/1/OrbitalMechanicsForEngineeringStudents-AerospaceEngineering.pdf) showing how to calculate various orbits.  I have posted links to other textbooks describing atmospheric reentry and calculating interplanetary trajectories. 

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

Anders, I'm not the least bit interested in your money or your "challenges".  I'd much rather you spend some of that money on a few textbooks that show you how to do what you claim can't be done.  I still have a hard time believing that a distinguished engineer as yourself would let someone telling you that a task is impossible stop you from finding a clever solution.
LOL. My simple Challenge is just to calculate the fuel required (kg) for some manned space trips and to show that you can lift it off the ground ... and you provide links to some stupid reports. And you don't even have a name.
The Challenge is also to describe the sanitary facilities provided. The humans aboard must be able to be clean and happy.
And what is shown? A little capsule with some seats inside. Hilarious. Not even toilet paper!
The impossible Challenge is of course the re-entry and landing. It is suggested that there is air at 120 000 m altitude and that it will provide friction and turbulence for landing. But there is no air at 120 000 m altitude with birds flying around in it. The air is 115 000 m further down. Please, grow up and do not support the criminal idiots at NASA and their Rotary friends with their prizes.
Show your evidence that those reports are wrong.  I have posted links that answered both those questions.  You ignore them.  You run away saying it's impossible.  Of course you never show any evidence as to why it's impossible.  As always, you fail.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: The Real Celine Dion on May 09, 2017, 02:53:24 PM
Heiwa, I don't understand how my car works. There's no way that my engine creates controlled explosions to move the pistons to make my car move. According to your insane logic, since I don't understand how car engines work then it is impossible for my car to move when I press the gas pedal. I don't completely understand how this computer I'm typing on works so I guess this is impossible also. You are an insult to every one of the thousands of NASA and other space agency's scientists who dedicate their lives to the exploration of space.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 09, 2017, 03:28:47 PM

LOL. My simple Fraudulent Joke is just to calculate the fuel required (kg) for some manned space trips and to show that you can lift it off the ground ... and you provide links to some stupid reports. And you don't even have a name.
The Fraudulent Joke is also to describe the sanitary facilities provided. The humans aboard must be able to be clean and happy.
And what is shown? A little capsule with some seats inside. Hilarious. Not even toilet paper!
The impossible Fraudulent Joke is of course the re-entry and landing. It is suggested that there is air at 120 000 m altitude and that it will provide friction and turbulence for landing. But there is no air at 120 000 m altitude with birds flying around in it. The air is 115 000 m further down. Please, grow up and do not support the criminal idiots at NASA and their Rotary friends with their prizes.
Show your evidence that those reports are wrong.  I have posted links that answered both those questions.  You ignore them.  You run away saying it's impossible.  Of course you never show any evidence as to why it's impossible.  As always, you fail.
He will come back in a day or a week and try to pretend that posts like this were never posted.

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

Hewia, you can try to act like your Fraudulent Joke has never been won and your questions have never been answered, but we have been here the whole time and we know.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Kami on May 10, 2017, 02:13:17 AM

LOL. My simple Fraudulent Joke is just to calculate the fuel required (kg) for some manned space trips and to show that you can lift it off the ground ... and you provide links to some stupid reports. And you don't even have a name.
The Fraudulent Joke is also to describe the sanitary facilities provided. The humans aboard must be able to be clean and happy.
And what is shown? A little capsule with some seats inside. Hilarious. Not even toilet paper!
The impossible Fraudulent Joke is of course the re-entry and landing. It is suggested that there is air at 120 000 m altitude and that it will provide friction and turbulence for landing. But there is no air at 120 000 m altitude with birds flying around in it. The air is 115 000 m further down. Please, grow up and do not support the criminal idiots at NASA and their Rotary friends with their prizes.
Show your evidence that those reports are wrong.  I have posted links that answered both those questions.  You ignore them.  You run away saying it's impossible.  Of course you never show any evidence as to why it's impossible.  As always, you fail.
He will come back in a day or a week and try to pretend that posts like this were never posted.

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

Hewia, you can try to act like your Fraudulent Joke has never been won and your questions have never been answered, but we have been here the whole time and we know.
You seem to be quite good at predicting heiwas behaviour. Plus you issure challenges. Suspicious....  >:(
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 10, 2017, 02:28:44 AM

LOL. My simple Fraudulent Joke is just to calculate the fuel required (kg) for some manned space trips and to show that you can lift it off the ground ... and you provide links to some stupid reports. And you don't even have a name.
The Fraudulent Joke is also to describe the sanitary facilities provided. The humans aboard must be able to be clean and happy.
And what is shown? A little capsule with some seats inside. Hilarious. Not even toilet paper!
The impossible Fraudulent Joke is of course the re-entry and landing. It is suggested that there is air at 120 000 m altitude and that it will provide friction and turbulence for landing. But there is no air at 120 000 m altitude with birds flying around in it. The air is 115 000 m further down. Please, grow up and do not support the criminal idiots at NASA and their Rotary friends with their prizes.
Show your evidence that those reports are wrong.  I have posted links that answered both those questions.  You ignore them.  You run away saying it's impossible.  Of course you never show any evidence as to why it's impossible.  As always, you fail.
He will come back in a day or a week and try to pretend that posts like this were never posted.

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

Hewia, you can try to act like your Fraudulent Joke has never been won and your questions have never been answered, but we have been here the whole time and we know.
You seem to be quite good at predicting heiwas behaviour. Plus you issure challenges. Suspicious....  >:(

Good detective skills.  Here is some corroborating evidence.  (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70452.msg1903694#msg1903694) ;D
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 10, 2017, 03:17:25 PM

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

LOL - is starts slowing down! No, it is just going faster and faster. Gravity you know! Ever heard about it?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 10, 2017, 03:20:45 PM
Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.
Make up your mind, will you?

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

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

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

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

I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
All of those "100% fake achievements" build on the initial achievement of unmanned satellite launches.

Just because you aren't smart enough to figure out how hyperbolic trajectories or atmospheric reentry work, that doesn't mean that they're impossible.
Well, you, an anonymous twirp, always tells me that I am not smart, bla, bla, and I offer you €1M to prove it and ... ? You just moan and groan like a retired NASA faker. Just carry on! Haven't you got a contract to fulfill, to do it?
Disgusting. Slave contract. White slaves! 2017!
I'm sorry, but it's hard to have a productive discussion when you go off on these rants that make you sound like a confused, angry old man.

I never claimed to an engineer of any kind, but you have.  I have posted a link to a textbook called Orbital Mechanics for Engineering Students (https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/66104/mod_resource/content/1/OrbitalMechanicsForEngineeringStudents-AerospaceEngineering.pdf) showing how to calculate various orbits.  I have posted links to other textbooks describing atmospheric reentry and calculating interplanetary trajectories. 

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

Anders, I'm not the least bit interested in your money or your "challenges".  I'd much rather you spend some of that money on a few textbooks that show you how to do what you claim can't be done.  I still have a hard time believing that a distinguished engineer as yourself would let someone telling you that a task is impossible stop you from finding a clever solution.
LOL. My simple Challenge is just to calculate the fuel required (kg) for some manned space trips and to show that you can lift it off the ground ... and you provide links to some stupid reports. And you don't even have a name.
The Challenge is also to describe the sanitary facilities provided. The humans aboard must be able to be clean and happy.
And what is shown? A little capsule with some seats inside. Hilarious. Not even toilet paper!
The impossible Challenge is of course the re-entry and landing. It is suggested that there is air at 120 000 m altitude and that it will provide friction and turbulence for landing. But there is no air at 120 000 m altitude with birds flying around in it. The air is 115 000 m further down. Please, grow up and do not support the criminal idiots at NASA and their Rotary friends with their prizes.
Show your evidence that those reports are wrong.  I have posted links that answered both those questions.  You ignore them.  You run away saying it's impossible.  Of course you never show any evidence as to why it's impossible.  As always, you fail.

The reports do not say how to calculate the fuel required for a manned space trip and how to get off the ground with it. And to land afterwards, which are the requirements of the Challenge.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 10, 2017, 03:48:29 PM
Edit.

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

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

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

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

Edit grammar
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 04:44:36 PM
Edit.

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

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

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

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

Edit grammar

Agreed.

(https://s7.postimg.org/vsksyeivv/Fast-and-_Furious-_Memes-20.jpg)

I'll take the win on a technicality.

Come on heiwa I could use some extra dollarydoos.

Edit.

Watch him dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge lol.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Kami on May 10, 2017, 04:50:01 PM
Watch him dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge lol.
Until now I have watched him ignore completely :D
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 10, 2017, 06:08:30 PM
Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.
Make up your mind, will you?

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

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

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

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

I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
All of those "100% fake achievements" build on the initial achievement of unmanned satellite launches.

Just because you aren't smart enough to figure out how hyperbolic trajectories or atmospheric reentry work, that doesn't mean that they're impossible.
Well, you, an anonymous twirp, always tells me that I am not smart, bla, bla, and I offer you €1M to prove it and ... ? You just moan and groan like a retired NASA faker. Just carry on! Haven't you got a contract to fulfill, to do it?
Disgusting. Slave contract. White slaves! 2017!
I'm sorry, but it's hard to have a productive discussion when you go off on these rants that make you sound like a confused, angry old man.

I never claimed to an engineer of any kind, but you have.  I have posted a link to a textbook called Orbital Mechanics for Engineering Students (https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/66104/mod_resource/content/1/OrbitalMechanicsForEngineeringStudents-AerospaceEngineering.pdf) showing how to calculate various orbits.  I have posted links to other textbooks describing atmospheric reentry and calculating interplanetary trajectories. 

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

Anders, I'm not the least bit interested in your money or your "challenges".  I'd much rather you spend some of that money on a few textbooks that show you how to do what you claim can't be done.  I still have a hard time believing that a distinguished engineer as yourself would let someone telling you that a task is impossible stop you from finding a clever solution.
LOL. My simple Challenge is just to calculate the fuel required (kg) for some manned space trips and to show that you can lift it off the ground ... and you provide links to some stupid reports. And you don't even have a name.
The Challenge is also to describe the sanitary facilities provided. The humans aboard must be able to be clean and happy.
And what is shown? A little capsule with some seats inside. Hilarious. Not even toilet paper!
The impossible Challenge is of course the re-entry and landing. It is suggested that there is air at 120 000 m altitude and that it will provide friction and turbulence for landing. But there is no air at 120 000 m altitude with birds flying around in it. The air is 115 000 m further down. Please, grow up and do not support the criminal idiots at NASA and their Rotary friends with their prizes.
Show your evidence that those reports are wrong.  I have posted links that answered both those questions.  You ignore them.  You run away saying it's impossible.  Of course you never show any evidence as to why it's impossible.  As always, you fail.

The reports do not say how to calculate the fuel required for a manned space trip and how to get off the ground with it. And to land afterwards, which are the requirements of the Challenge.
Once again you fail to provide any evidence.  And you have been given links that show how to calculate the fuel and links that show what fuel was consumed and when.
Yet another failure.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 10, 2017, 08:59:19 PM
Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.
Make up your mind, will you?

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

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

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

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

I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
All of those "100% fake achievements" build on the initial achievement of unmanned satellite launches.

Just because you aren't smart enough to figure out how hyperbolic trajectories or atmospheric reentry work, that doesn't mean that they're impossible.
Well, you, an anonymous twirp, always tells me that I am not smart, bla, bla, and I offer you €1M to prove it and ... ? You just moan and groan like a retired NASA faker. Just carry on! Haven't you got a contract to fulfill, to do it?
Disgusting. Slave contract. White slaves! 2017!
I'm sorry, but it's hard to have a productive discussion when you go off on these rants that make you sound like a confused, angry old man.

I never claimed to an engineer of any kind, but you have.  I have posted a link to a textbook called Orbital Mechanics for Engineering Students (https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/66104/mod_resource/content/1/OrbitalMechanicsForEngineeringStudents-AerospaceEngineering.pdf) showing how to calculate various orbits.  I have posted links to other textbooks describing atmospheric reentry and calculating interplanetary trajectories. 

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

Anders, I'm not the least bit interested in your money or your "challenges".  I'd much rather you spend some of that money on a few textbooks that show you how to do what you claim can't be done.  I still have a hard time believing that a distinguished engineer as yourself would let someone telling you that a task is impossible stop you from finding a clever solution.
LOL. My simple Challenge is just to calculate the fuel required (kg) for some manned space trips and to show that you can lift it off the ground ... and you provide links to some stupid reports. And you don't even have a name.
The Challenge is also to describe the sanitary facilities provided. The humans aboard must be able to be clean and happy.
And what is shown? A little capsule with some seats inside. Hilarious. Not even toilet paper!
The impossible Challenge is of course the re-entry and landing. It is suggested that there is air at 120 000 m altitude and that it will provide friction and turbulence for landing. But there is no air at 120 000 m altitude with birds flying around in it. The air is 115 000 m further down. Please, grow up and do not support the criminal idiots at NASA and their Rotary friends with their prizes.
Show your evidence that those reports are wrong.  I have posted links that answered both those questions.  You ignore them.  You run away saying it's impossible.  Of course you never show any evidence as to why it's impossible.  As always, you fail.

The reports do not say how to calculate the fuel required for a manned space trip and how to get off the ground with it. And to land afterwards, which are the requirements of the Challenge.
Once again you fail to provide any evidence.  And you have been given links that show how to calculate the fuel and links that show what fuel was consumed and when.
Yet another failure.
? To win my Challenges you must provide an application to me with required information, incl. full name and bank account for me to transfer the money. So far noone has done it.
Not even a copy of any application has been posted on the Internet.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 09:13:55 PM
Heiwa, I won your challenge #1.

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

Pay me.

Quote from: heiwacochallenge1
No structure of any kind collapses from top down!

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

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

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

Your challenge clearly states "any structure in the universe" my structure, for this example, has demolition charges in it. Just a classic top down controlled demolition, nothing fancy, no magic. Now, I believe there is the matter of the €1 000 000?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 10, 2017, 09:42:49 PM
Heiwa, I won your challenge #1.

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

Pay me.

Quote from: heiwacochallenge1
No structure of any kind collapses from top down!

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

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

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

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

You have to read the rules and the conditions required at http://heiwaco.com/chall1.htm, e.g. that you must drop the top on the bottom, etc, etc.
You also forgot to send me name/address/bank details.
So you are another loser!
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 09:49:15 PM
I've read them.

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

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

Top down building collapse.

Pay me.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 10, 2017, 10:25:14 PM
I've read them.

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

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

Top down building collapse.

Pay me.

You must have read something else. You must drop the top on the bottom by gravity! Not apply forces connected to ground pulling the top down, etc, etc. 
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 10:39:46 PM
Gravity and explosives. It's part of the building design your challenge states I can design.

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

Pay me.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 11, 2017, 03:15:06 AM
Gravity and explosives. It's part of the building design your challenge states I can design.

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

Pay me.

Pls read the rules! Just drop the small, weak top of your structure on the strong bottom part and see what happens. If the top destroys the bottom, send me the info about it, etc, etc.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 04:33:03 AM
I drop the small weak top on the strong bottom part, as it impacts the bottom structure, demolition charges remove the structural components of the the bottom structure sequentially from the top down causing a top down collapse and winning your challenge #1.

Pay me.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 11, 2017, 05:30:01 AM
I drop the small weak top on the strong bottom part, as it impacts the bottom structure, demolition charges remove the structural components of the the bottom structure sequentially from the top down causing a top down collapse and winning your challenge #1.

Pay me.

No, you didn't. You are another loser.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 05:38:19 AM
>muh feels. :(
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 11, 2017, 05:48:06 AM
I didn't say anything about your fake challenge.  You're trying to change the subject.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up. 
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake.  You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 11, 2017, 06:09:07 AM
I didn't say anything about your fake challenge.  You're trying to change the subject.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up. 
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake.  You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.
Hm, topic is my understanding in orbital mechanics. Don't change it. My understanding is that humans cannot orbit anywhere. If you orbit, you are going too fast up somewhere and cannot de-orbit, slow down, re-enter and land. I offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong. I also offer anyone the same amount to calculate the amount of fuel required for simple, manned space trips. And to explain the sanitary facilities.
Plenty twirps copy/paste links to various reports about it ... but always forget the fuel and the re-entry ... and the sanitary facilities.
Question! Do you never use a sanitary facility? If not, explain how it works in space!
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 11, 2017, 08:20:06 AM
I didn't say anything about your fake challenge.  You're trying to change the subject.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up. 
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake.  You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.
Hm, topic is my understanding in orbital mechanics. Don't change it. My understanding is that humans cannot orbit anywhere. If you orbit, you are going too fast up somewhere and cannot de-orbit, slow down, re-enter and land. I offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong. I also offer anyone the same amount to calculate the amount of fuel required for simple, manned space trips. And to explain the sanitary facilities.
Plenty twirps copy/paste links to various reports about it ... but always forget the fuel and the re-entry ... and the sanitary facilities.
Question! Do you never use a sanitary facility? If not, explain how it works in space!
You're a liar.  I personally have posted links to both of those subjects.  You ignored them.
Please explain why you think it can't work.  Be specific, give some evidence.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 11, 2017, 09:39:06 AM

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

LOL - is starts slowing down! No, it is just going faster and faster. Gravity you know! Ever heard about it?
Friction.  Have you ever heard of it?  How about terminal velocity?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 11, 2017, 10:18:16 AM
I didn't say anything about your fake challenge.  You're trying to change the subject.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up. 
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake.  You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.
Hm, topic is my understanding in orbital mechanics. Don't change it. My understanding is that humans cannot orbit anywhere. If you orbit, you are going too fast up somewhere and cannot de-orbit, slow down, re-enter and land. I offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong. I also offer anyone the same amount to calculate the amount of fuel required for simple, manned space trips. And to explain the sanitary facilities.
Plenty twirps copy/paste links to various reports about it ... but always forget the fuel and the re-entry ... and the sanitary facilities.
Question! Do you never use a sanitary facility? If not, explain how it works in space!
You're a liar.  I personally have posted links to both of those subjects.  You ignored them.
Please explain why you think it can't work.  Be specific, give some evidence.

Well, you didn't calculate the fuel required ... and how to get off the ground. You are a loser!
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 11, 2017, 10:21:08 AM

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

LOL - is starts slowing down! No, it is just going faster and faster. Gravity you know! Ever heard about it?
Friction.  Have you ever heard of it?  How about terminal velocity?

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

Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 11, 2017, 10:57:30 AM
I didn't say anything about your fake challenge.  You're trying to change the subject.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up. 
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake.  You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.
Hm, topic is my understanding in orbital mechanics. Don't change it. My understanding is that humans cannot orbit anywhere. If you orbit, you are going too fast up somewhere and cannot de-orbit, slow down, re-enter and land. I offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong. I also offer anyone the same amount to calculate the amount of fuel required for simple, manned space trips. And to explain the sanitary facilities.
Plenty twirps copy/paste links to various reports about it ... but always forget the fuel and the re-entry ... and the sanitary facilities.
Question! Do you never use a sanitary facility? If not, explain how it works in space!
You're a liar.  I personally have posted links to both of those subjects.  You ignored them.
Please explain why you think it can't work.  Be specific, give some evidence.

Well, you didn't calculate the fuel required ... and how to get off the ground. You are a loser!
Again, you lie.  You have been given links showing exactly that.  How about showing some evidence to support your position?  Something you continually fail to do.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 11, 2017, 11:14:05 AM
I didn't say anything about your fake challenge.  You're trying to change the subject.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up. 
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake.  You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.
Hm, topic is my understanding in orbital mechanics. Don't change it. My understanding is that humans cannot orbit anywhere. If you orbit, you are going too fast up somewhere and cannot de-orbit, slow down, re-enter and land. I offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong. I also offer anyone the same amount to calculate the amount of fuel required for simple, manned space trips. And to explain the sanitary facilities.
Plenty twirps copy/paste links to various reports about it ... but always forget the fuel and the re-entry ... and the sanitary facilities.
Question! Do you never use a sanitary facility? If not, explain how it works in space!
You're a liar.  I personally have posted links to both of those subjects.  You ignored them.
Please explain why you think it can't work.  Be specific, give some evidence.

Well, you didn't calculate the fuel required ... and how to get off the ground. You are a loser!
Again, you lie.  You have been given links showing exactly that.  How about showing some evidence to support your position?  Something you continually fail to do.
The Challenge is to calculate the fuel required for two manned space trips. Your links do not provide any info how to do it.
I am an old supporter of robotic, unmanned space trips. They are possible but of little scientific values = waste of time. The robots are too stupid like the people on Earth trying to control them.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 11, 2017, 11:45:01 AM
There is no friction in space! There is no friction at 120 000 m altitude.
If that was true (which it isn't), then the ISS (400 km) would not need its orbit to be boosted periodically.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 11, 2017, 12:54:36 PM
I didn't say anything about your fake challenge.  You're trying to change the subject.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up. 
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake.  You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.
Hm, topic is my understanding in orbital mechanics. Don't change it. My understanding is that humans cannot orbit anywhere. If you orbit, you are going too fast up somewhere and cannot de-orbit, slow down, re-enter and land. I offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong. I also offer anyone the same amount to calculate the amount of fuel required for simple, manned space trips. And to explain the sanitary facilities.
Plenty twirps copy/paste links to various reports about it ... but always forget the fuel and the re-entry ... and the sanitary facilities.
Question! Do you never use a sanitary facility? If not, explain how it works in space!
You're a liar.  I personally have posted links to both of those subjects.  You ignored them.
Please explain why you think it can't work.  Be specific, give some evidence.

Well, you didn't calculate the fuel required ... and how to get off the ground. You are a loser!
Again, you lie.  You have been given links showing exactly that.  How about showing some evidence to support your position?  Something you continually fail to do.
The Challenge is to calculate the fuel required for two manned space trips. Your links do not provide any info how to do it.
I am an old supporter of robotic, unmanned space trips. They are possible but of little scientific values = waste of time. The robots are too stupid like the people on Earth trying to control them.
Nobody is talking about your fake challenge.  You have been given links that show fuel use for apollo missions.  You lie and say no can show you that.
Where is your evidence to support your statements?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 03:01:03 PM
Heiwa tell me why I haven't won your challenge #1 or pay me.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 11, 2017, 04:51:31 PM
I didn't say anything about your fake challenge.  You're trying to change the subject.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up. 
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake.  You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.
Hm, topic is my understanding in orbital mechanics. Don't change it. My understanding is that humans cannot orbit anywhere. If you orbit, you are going too fast up somewhere and cannot de-orbit, slow down, re-enter and land. I offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong. I also offer anyone the same amount to calculate the amount of fuel required for simple, manned space trips. And to explain the sanitary facilities.
Plenty twirps copy/paste links to various reports about it ... but always forget the fuel and the re-entry ... and the sanitary facilities.
Question! Do you never use a sanitary facility? If not, explain how it works in space!
You're a liar.  I personally have posted links to both of those subjects.  You ignored them.
Please explain why you think it can't work.  Be specific, give some evidence.

Well, you didn't calculate the fuel required ... and how to get off the ground. You are a loser!
Again, you lie.  You have been given links showing exactly that.  How about showing some evidence to support your position?  Something you continually fail to do.
The Challenge is to calculate the fuel required for two manned space trips. Your links do not provide any info how to do it.
I am an old supporter of robotic, unmanned space trips. They are possible but of little scientific values = waste of time. The robots are too stupid like the people on Earth trying to control them.
Nobody is talking about your fake challenge.  You have been given links that show fuel use for apollo missions.  You lie and say no can show you that.
Where is your evidence to support your statements?
At http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . The Apollo missions were all fake because they couldn't carry the fuel with them, etc, etc.  Too heavy to get off the ground! You really aren't very bright.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 11, 2017, 04:55:48 PM
Heiwa tell me why I haven't won your challenge #1 or pay me.

Lol...I will give you one guess  ;D

I don't think you are getting your prize money...

Unless of course you will take an out of state, non stamped, post dated temporary check....
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 05:25:55 PM
I'll accept monopoly money at this point.

Are there any other engineers that can tell Heiwa I won?

If you don't like demolition charges I could design support structures set to fail sequentially in the event of an impact.

It's really quite simple to make a building collapse from the top down via demolition.

Quote
In the controlled demolition industry, building implosion is the strategic placing of explosive material and timing of its detonation so that a structure collapses on itself in a matter of seconds, minimizing the physical damage to its immediate surroundings. Despite its terminology, building implosion also includes the controlled demolition of other structures, such as bridges, smokestacks, towers, and tunnels.

Building implosion (which reduces to seconds a process which could take months or years to achieve by other methods) typically occurs in urban areas and often involves large landmark structures.

The actual use of the term "implosion" to refer to the destruction of a building is a misnomer. This had been stated of the destruction of 1515 Tower in West Palm Beach, Florida. "What happens is, you use explosive materials in critical structural connections to allow gravity to bring it down." [1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_implosion
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 11, 2017, 06:13:35 PM
I'll accept monopoly money at this point.

Are there any other engineers that can tell Heiwa I won?

If you don't like demolition charges I could design support structures set to fail sequentially in the event of an impact.

It's really quite simple to make a building collapse from the top down via demolition.

Quote
In the controlled demolition industry, building implosion is the strategic placing of explosive material and timing of its detonation so that a structure collapses on itself in a matter of seconds, minimizing the physical damage to its immediate surroundings. Despite its terminology, building implosion also includes the controlled demolition of other structures, such as bridges, smokestacks, towers, and tunnels.

Building implosion (which reduces to seconds a process which could take months or years to achieve by other methods) typically occurs in urban areas and often involves large landmark structures.

The actual use of the term "implosion" to refer to the destruction of a building is a misnomer. This had been stated of the destruction of 1515 Tower in West Palm Beach, Florida. "What happens is, you use explosive materials in critical structural connections to allow gravity to bring it down." [1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_implosion
You really have to study my Challenge rules at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .

They are not about orbital mechanics - topic. One Challenge is about fuel required for humans to travel to planet Mars. Nobody knows how much fuel is required. Plenty stupid clowns just suggest it is possible for humans to fly to Mars. When I ask them about the fuel required, they have no answers, even if I offer them €1M!

Another Challenge is about dropping the top A of a structure on the bottom B keeping A up and see what happens. If A crushes B, you win €1M! If A bounces on B, you just confirm an axiom of mine (which you can also prove using scientific reasoning). Plenty stupid clowns on the other hand suggest that tops of structures crush bottoms of same structures keeping them in position - just a little drop of A on B and POUFF, POUFF, POUFF - A crushes B. Magic!

Other stupid clowns believe nuclear weapons like a-bombs work because they read it in a newspaper and saw photos of destroyed towns. It was reported plenty people were killed by the a-bombs. It was not reported that the towns were destroyed long (months) before by conventional bombings, etc, etc, etc. and that it was just war propaganda to put fear into the enemy to give up.

Imagine what stupid people believe without a jota of evidence. And when I try to educate them, they get upset. One even believes, a serious case of idiocy, there is friction in vacuum space (the Universe) where humans are flying around. He mixes them up with angels, the poor sod.

But I enjoy trying to cure stupid idiots. Maybe 1 in a 100 is cured.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 06:35:37 PM
If there are demolition charges / explosive joints I could easily design a building to completely collapse from the top down after dropping part A on part B.

Pay me. There is no magic.

Monopoly money is fine.

Top down CD pdf (https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://global.ctbuh.org/paper/2414&ved=0ahUKEwi_9KTjm-nTAhVKNrwKHXhxBAEQFggsMAY&usg=AFQjCNG-glSkD7jq032EjtIUGgcoy_2UFg)

(https://s24.postimg.org/gxnwepac5/tumblr_m7qwoxsd6n1ruq9mqo1_500.jpg)
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 11, 2017, 07:40:08 PM
The Apollo missions were all fake because they couldn't carry the fuel with them, etc, etc.  Too heavy to get off the ground!

Evidently it could and did get off the ground.  Repeatedly.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 08:11:14 PM
Heiwa thinks everything is cgi.

::)

p.s can anyone tell me why I haven't won heiwas challenge #1?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 11, 2017, 08:15:48 PM
I didn't say anything about your fake challenge.  You're trying to change the subject.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up. 
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake.  You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.
Hm, topic is my understanding in orbital mechanics. Don't change it. My understanding is that humans cannot orbit anywhere. If you orbit, you are going too fast up somewhere and cannot de-orbit, slow down, re-enter and land. I offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong. I also offer anyone the same amount to calculate the amount of fuel required for simple, manned space trips. And to explain the sanitary facilities.
Plenty twirps copy/paste links to various reports about it ... but always forget the fuel and the re-entry ... and the sanitary facilities.
Question! Do you never use a sanitary facility? If not, explain how it works in space!
You're a liar.  I personally have posted links to both of those subjects.  You ignored them.
Please explain why you think it can't work.  Be specific, give some evidence.

Well, you didn't calculate the fuel required ... and how to get off the ground. You are a loser!
Again, you lie.  You have been given links showing exactly that.  How about showing some evidence to support your position?  Something you continually fail to do.
The Challenge is to calculate the fuel required for two manned space trips. Your links do not provide any info how to do it.
I am an old supporter of robotic, unmanned space trips. They are possible but of little scientific values = waste of time. The robots are too stupid like the people on Earth trying to control them.
Nobody is talking about your fake challenge.  You have been given links that show fuel use for apollo missions.  You lie and say no can show you that.
Where is your evidence to support your statements?
At http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . The Apollo missions were all fake because they couldn't carry the fuel with them, etc, etc.  Too heavy to get off the ground! You really aren't very bright.
Another fail.  Show your evidence to support your statement.  Why do you always run away from such requests?  What are you afraid of?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 14, 2017, 04:23:32 AM
I didn't say anything about your fake challenge.  You're trying to change the subject.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up. 
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake.  You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.
Hm, topic is my understanding in orbital mechanics. Don't change it. My understanding is that humans cannot orbit anywhere. If you orbit, you are going too fast up somewhere and cannot de-orbit, slow down, re-enter and land. I offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong. I also offer anyone the same amount to calculate the amount of fuel required for simple, manned space trips. And to explain the sanitary facilities.
Plenty twirps copy/paste links to various reports about it ... but always forget the fuel and the re-entry ... and the sanitary facilities.
Question! Do you never use a sanitary facility? If not, explain how it works in space!
You're a liar.  I personally have posted links to both of those subjects.  You ignored them.
Please explain why you think it can't work.  Be specific, give some evidence.

Well, you didn't calculate the fuel required ... and how to get off the ground. You are a loser!
Again, you lie.  You have been given links showing exactly that.  How about showing some evidence to support your position?  Something you continually fail to do.
The Challenge is to calculate the fuel required for two manned space trips. Your links do not provide any info how to do it.
I am an old supporter of robotic, unmanned space trips. They are possible but of little scientific values = waste of time. The robots are too stupid like the people on Earth trying to control them.
Nobody is talking about your fake challenge.  You have been given links that show fuel use for apollo missions.  You lie and say no can show you that.
Where is your evidence to support your statements?
At http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . The Apollo missions were all fake because they couldn't carry the fuel with them, etc, etc.  Too heavy to get off the ground! You really aren't very bright.
Another fail.  Show your evidence to support your statement.  Why do you always run away from such requests?  What are you afraid of?


This Don Pettit clown supports me 100%. Don lives in Hollywood and to avoid living in a gutter he prostitutes himself. Isn't it sad?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 14, 2017, 04:48:49 AM
I didn't say anything about your fake challenge.  You're trying to change the subject.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up. 
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake.  You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.
Hm, topic is my understanding in orbital mechanics. Don't change it. My understanding is that humans cannot orbit anywhere. If you orbit, you are going too fast up somewhere and cannot de-orbit, slow down, re-enter and land. I offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong. I also offer anyone the same amount to calculate the amount of fuel required for simple, manned space trips. And to explain the sanitary facilities.
Plenty twirps copy/paste links to various reports about it ... but always forget the fuel and the re-entry ... and the sanitary facilities.
Question! Do you never use a sanitary facility? If not, explain how it works in space!
You're a liar.  I personally have posted links to both of those subjects.  You ignored them.
Please explain why you think it can't work.  Be specific, give some evidence.

Well, you didn't calculate the fuel required ... and how to get off the ground. You are a loser!
Again, you lie.  You have been given links showing exactly that.  How about showing some evidence to support your position?  Something you continually fail to do.
The Challenge is to calculate the fuel required for two manned space trips. Your links do not provide any info how to do it.
I am an old supporter of robotic, unmanned space trips. They are possible but of little scientific values = waste of time. The robots are too stupid like the people on Earth trying to control them.
Nobody is talking about your fake challenge.  You have been given links that show fuel use for apollo missions.  You lie and say no can show you that.
Where is your evidence to support your statements?
At http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . The Apollo missions were all fake because they couldn't carry the fuel with them, etc, etc.  Too heavy to get off the ground! You really aren't very bright.
Another fail.  Show your evidence to support your statement.  Why do you always run away from such requests?  What are you afraid of?


This Don Pettit clown supports me 100%. Don lives in Hollywood and to avoid living in a gutter he prostitutes himself. Isn't it sad?
Supports you?  Now you show yourself to be a liar and a fake.  Just another fail where cannot support any of your claims.  You really are pathetic.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Kami on May 14, 2017, 05:19:38 AM
I didn't say anything about your fake challenge.  You're trying to change the subject.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up. 
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake.  You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.
Hm, topic is my understanding in orbital mechanics. Don't change it. My understanding is that humans cannot orbit anywhere. If you orbit, you are going too fast up somewhere and cannot de-orbit, slow down, re-enter and land. I offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong. I also offer anyone the same amount to calculate the amount of fuel required for simple, manned space trips. And to explain the sanitary facilities.
Plenty twirps copy/paste links to various reports about it ... but always forget the fuel and the re-entry ... and the sanitary facilities.
Question! Do you never use a sanitary facility? If not, explain how it works in space!
You're a liar.  I personally have posted links to both of those subjects.  You ignored them.
Please explain why you think it can't work.  Be specific, give some evidence.

Well, you didn't calculate the fuel required ... and how to get off the ground. You are a loser!
Again, you lie.  You have been given links showing exactly that.  How about showing some evidence to support your position?  Something you continually fail to do.
The Challenge is to calculate the fuel required for two manned space trips. Your links do not provide any info how to do it.
I am an old supporter of robotic, unmanned space trips. They are possible but of little scientific values = waste of time. The robots are too stupid like the people on Earth trying to control them.
Nobody is talking about your fake challenge.  You have been given links that show fuel use for apollo missions.  You lie and say no can show you that.
Where is your evidence to support your statements?
At http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . The Apollo missions were all fake because they couldn't carry the fuel with them, etc, etc.  Too heavy to get off the ground! You really aren't very bright.
Another fail.  Show your evidence to support your statement.  Why do you always run away from such requests?  What are you afraid of?


This Don Pettit clown supports me 100%. Don lives in Hollywood and to avoid living in a gutter he prostitutes himself. Isn't it sad?
He supports you 100%. Especially around 3:24.

Or when he floats arount in microgravity. The entire time.

Nice own-goal.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 14, 2017, 08:15:17 AM
I didn't say anything about your fake challenge.  You're trying to change the subject.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up. 
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake.  You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.
Hm, topic is my understanding in orbital mechanics. Don't change it. My understanding is that humans cannot orbit anywhere. If you orbit, you are going too fast up somewhere and cannot de-orbit, slow down, re-enter and land. I offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong. I also offer anyone the same amount to calculate the amount of fuel required for simple, manned space trips. And to explain the sanitary facilities.
Plenty twirps copy/paste links to various reports about it ... but always forget the fuel and the re-entry ... and the sanitary facilities.
Question! Do you never use a sanitary facility? If not, explain how it works in space!
You're a liar.  I personally have posted links to both of those subjects.  You ignored them.
Please explain why you think it can't work.  Be specific, give some evidence.

Well, you didn't calculate the fuel required ... and how to get off the ground. You are a loser!
Again, you lie.  You have been given links showing exactly that.  How about showing some evidence to support your position?  Something you continually fail to do.
The Challenge is to calculate the fuel required for two manned space trips. Your links do not provide any info how to do it.
I am an old supporter of robotic, unmanned space trips. They are possible but of little scientific values = waste of time. The robots are too stupid like the people on Earth trying to control them.
Nobody is talking about your fake challenge.  You have been given links that show fuel use for apollo missions.  You lie and say no can show you that.
Where is your evidence to support your statements?
At http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . The Apollo missions were all fake because they couldn't carry the fuel with them, etc, etc.  Too heavy to get off the ground! You really aren't very bright.
Another fail.  Show your evidence to support your statement.  Why do you always run away from such requests?  What are you afraid of?


This Don Pettit clown supports me 100%. Don lives in Hollywood and to avoid living in a gutter he prostitutes himself. Isn't it sad?
He supports you 100%. Especially around 3:24.

Or when he floats arount in microgravity. The entire time.

Nice own-goal.

Hm, Don is a treble doctor of pseudoscience inventing fantasies wherever he is; Hollywood, Los Alamos, Antarctica, Disneyland. Imagine this clown doing dental surgery ... in a hole in snow ... when he is not developing nuclear micro arms. The ultimate NASA twirp.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 14, 2017, 08:29:45 AM
Hm, Don is a treble doctor of pseudoscience inventing fantasies wherever he is; Hollywood, Los Alamos, Antarctica, Disneyland. Imagine this clown doing dental surgery ... in a hole in snow ... when he is not developing nuclear micro arms. The ultimate NASA twirp.
Anders, why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 14, 2017, 08:46:32 AM
Hm, Don is a treble doctor of pseudoscience inventing fantasies wherever he is; Hollywood, Los Alamos, Antarctica, Disneyland. Imagine this clown doing dental surgery ... in a hole in snow ... when he is not developing nuclear micro arms. The ultimate NASA twirp.
Anders, why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Anyone claiming to be an asstronut, doing magic tricks in space, designing nuclear arms at NM and doing dental surgery at snowy Antarctica must be doctor of pseudoscience many times over.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 14, 2017, 08:48:18 AM
Why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 14, 2017, 08:59:37 AM
Why do you say such stupid things?  ???
He's a pathological liar.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 14, 2017, 09:03:07 AM
Why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Stupid? Don Pettit is an expert of reduced gravity fluid flow and materials processing, atmospheric spectroscopy on noctilucent clouds seeded from sounding rockets, fumarole gas sampling from volcanoes, problems in detonation physics and similar pseudoscientific important matters.

And has done dental surgery in Antarctica. The person is a real clown. Working for NASA!
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 14, 2017, 09:07:29 AM
Why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 14, 2017, 09:34:43 AM
Hm, Don is a treble doctor of pseudoscience inventing fantasies wherever he is; Hollywood, Los Alamos, Antarctica, Disneyland. Imagine this clown doing dental surgery ... in a hole in snow ... when he is not developing nuclear micro arms. The ultimate NASA twirp.
Anders, why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Anyone claiming to be an asstronut, doing magic tricks in space, designing nuclear arms at NM and doing dental surgery at snowy Antarctica must be doctor of pseudoscience many times over.
So you're saying that dental surgery is pseudoscience? ???
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 14, 2017, 10:06:56 AM
Why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Stupid? Don Pettit is an expert of reduced gravity fluid flow and materials processing, atmospheric spectroscopy on noctilucent clouds seeded from sounding rockets, fumarole gas sampling from volcanoes, problems in detonation physics and similar pseudoscientific important matters.

And has done dental surgery in Antarctica. The person is a real clown. Working for NASA!
translation: I don't understand any of it!  But I am the infallible Heiwa.  If I don't understand it then I must insult him to make myself feel better!
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 14, 2017, 10:08:40 AM
Hm, Don is a treble doctor of pseudoscience inventing fantasies wherever he is; Hollywood, Los Alamos, Antarctica, Disneyland. Imagine this clown doing dental surgery ... in a hole in snow ... when he is not developing nuclear micro arms. The ultimate NASA twirp.
Anders, why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Anyone claiming to be an asstronut, doing magic tricks in space, designing nuclear arms at NM and doing dental surgery at snowy Antarctica must be doctor of pseudoscience many times over.
So you're saying that dental surgery is pseudoscience? ???
Yes, when Don Pettit does it in the snow of Antartica. Don learnt it at the NAXA University of Arizona. It teaches plenty pseudoscience.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 14, 2017, 10:13:13 AM
Why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Stupid? Don Pettit is an expert of reduced gravity fluid flow and materials processing, atmospheric spectroscopy on noctilucent clouds seeded from sounding rockets, fumarole gas sampling from volcanoes, problems in detonation physics and similar pseudoscientific important matters.

And has done dental surgery in Antarctica. The person is a real clown. Working for NASA!
translation: I don't understand any of it!  But I am the infallible Heiwa.  If I don't understand it then I must insult him to make myself feel better!

No, I just quote from Don's CV. The guy is a genius clown.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 14, 2017, 10:15:21 AM
Why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Stupid? Don Pettit is an expert of reduced gravity fluid flow and materials processing, atmospheric spectroscopy on noctilucent clouds seeded from sounding rockets, fumarole gas sampling from volcanoes, problems in detonation physics and similar pseudoscientific important matters.

And has done dental surgery in Antarctica. The person is a real clown. Working for NASA!
translation: I don't understand any of it!  But I am the infallible Heiwa.  If I don't understand it then I must insult him to make myself feel better!

No, I just quote from Don's CV. The guy is a genius clown.
And Heiwa proves AGAIN that insults is all he's got.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 14, 2017, 10:29:06 AM
Why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Stupid? Don Pettit is an expert of reduced gravity fluid flow and materials processing, atmospheric spectroscopy on noctilucent clouds seeded from sounding rockets, fumarole gas sampling from volcanoes, problems in detonation physics and similar pseudoscientific important matters.

And has done dental surgery in Antarctica. The person is a real clown. Working for NASA!
translation: I don't understand any of it!  But I am the infallible Heiwa.  If I don't understand it then I must insult him to make myself feel better!

No, I just quote from Don's CV. The guy is a genius clown.
And Heiwa proves AGAIN that insults is all he's got.
Hm, in this case I just speak out about a person claiming he has been over a year flying in space  and done dental surgery at Antarctica. If I hurt his feelings, I am not sorry at all.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Denspressure on May 14, 2017, 11:37:08 AM
Andres, why do you say stupid things ???
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 14, 2017, 11:54:09 AM
Andres, why do you say stupid things ???
But this is not a stupid thing I (Heiwa, aka Anders) say; Hm, in this case I just speak out about a person claiming he has been over a year flying in (a NASA) space(craft)  and done dental surgery at Antarctica. If I hurt his feelings, I am not sorry at all.
Do you believe, think humans can fly in space (in a NASA spacecraft)? Do you think amateurs can do dental surgery in Antarctica? If you do, do some serious research. How do you get up in space? And how do you get back? And dental surgery? In the snow!
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 14, 2017, 12:02:52 PM
Andres, why do you say stupid things ???
But this is not a stupid thing I (Heiwa, aka Anders) say; Hm, in this case I just speak out about a person claiming he has been over a year flying in (a NASA) space(craft)  and done dental surgery at Antarctica. If I hurt his feelings, I am not sorry at all.
Do you believe, think humans can fly in space (in a NASA spacecraft)? Do you think amateurs can do dental surgery in Antarctica? If you do, do some serious research. How do you get up in space? And how do you get back? And dental surgery? In the snow!
Repeating stupid things doesn't make them less stupid.
Naturally you can show some evidence to support your claims.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 14, 2017, 12:09:26 PM
Andres, why do you say stupid things ???
But this is not a stupid thing I (Heiwa, aka Anders) say; Hm, in this case I just speak out about a person claiming he has been over a year flying in (a NASA) space(craft)  and done dental surgery at Antarctica. If I hurt his feelings, I am not sorry at all.
Do you believe, think humans can fly in space (in a NASA spacecraft)? Do you think amateurs can do dental surgery in Antarctica? If you do, do some serious research. How do you get up in space? And how do you get back? And dental surgery? In the snow!
Repeating stupid things doesn't make them less stupid.
Naturally you can show some evidence to support your claims.
Yes! http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm

Study it. It is all true facts.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 14, 2017, 12:15:18 PM
Andres, why do you say stupid things ???
But this is not a stupid thing I (Heiwa, aka Anders) say; Hm, in this case I just speak out about a person claiming he has been over a year flying in (a NASA) space(craft)  and done dental surgery at Antarctica. If I hurt his feelings, I am not sorry at all.
Do you believe, think humans can fly in space (in a NASA spacecraft)? Do you think amateurs can do dental surgery in Antarctica? If you do, do some serious research. How do you get up in space? And how do you get back? And dental surgery? In the snow!
Repeating stupid things doesn't make them less stupid.
Naturally you can show some evidence to support your claims.
Yes! http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm

Study it. It is all true facts.
You made the claim here show your evidence here.  Of course you won't, you never do.  Which can only lead us to believe you are a liar and an idiot.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 14, 2017, 12:27:01 PM
Andres, why do you say stupid things ???
But this is not a stupid thing I (Heiwa, aka Anders) say; Hm, in this case I just speak out about a person claiming he has been over a year flying in (a NASA) space(craft)  and done dental surgery at Antarctica. If I hurt his feelings, I am not sorry at all.
Do you believe, think humans can fly in space (in a NASA spacecraft)? Do you think amateurs can do dental surgery in Antarctica? If you do, do some serious research. How do you get up in space? And how do you get back? And dental surgery? In the snow!
Repeating stupid things doesn't make them less stupid.
Naturally you can show some evidence to support your claims.
Yes! http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm

Study it. It is all true facts.
You made the claim here show your evidence here.  Of course you won't, you never do.  Which can only lead us to believe you are a liar and an idiot.
http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm ! Study it.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 14, 2017, 12:28:57 PM
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html ! Study it.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 14, 2017, 01:04:59 PM
Andres, why do you say stupid things ???
But this is not a stupid thing I (Heiwa, aka Anders) say; Hm, in this case I just speak out about a person claiming he has been over a year flying in (a NASA) space(craft)  and done dental surgery at Antarctica. If I hurt his feelings, I am not sorry at all.
Do you believe, think humans can fly in space (in a NASA spacecraft)? Do you think amateurs can do dental surgery in Antarctica? If you do, do some serious research. How do you get up in space? And how do you get back? And dental surgery? In the snow!
Repeating stupid things doesn't make them less stupid.
Naturally you can show some evidence to support your claims.
Yes! http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm

Study it. It is all true facts.
Heiwa proves that he thinks "true facts" means unsupported ignorant opinions.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 14, 2017, 01:06:00 PM
Andres, why do you say stupid things ???
But this is not a stupid thing I (Heiwa, aka Anders) say; Hm, in this case I just speak out about a person claiming he has been over a year flying in (a NASA) space(craft)  and done dental surgery at Antarctica. If I hurt his feelings, I am not sorry at all.
Do you believe, think humans can fly in space (in a NASA spacecraft)? Do you think amateurs can do dental surgery in Antarctica? If you do, do some serious research. How do you get up in space? And how do you get back? And dental surgery? In the snow!
Repeating stupid things doesn't make them less stupid.
Naturally you can show some evidence to support your claims.
Yes! http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm

Study it. It is all true facts.
You made the claim here show your evidence here.  Of course you won't, you never do.  Which can only lead us to believe you are a liar and an idiot.
http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm ! Study it.
Yet another fail.  Yep, a liar and an idiot
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 14, 2017, 04:09:09 PM
Hm, Don is a treble doctor of pseudoscience inventing fantasies wherever he is; Hollywood, Los Alamos, Antarctica, Disneyland. Imagine this clown doing dental surgery ... in a hole in snow ... when he is not developing nuclear micro arms. The ultimate NASA twirp.
Anders, why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Anyone claiming to be an asstronut, doing magic tricks in space, designing nuclear arms at NM and doing dental surgery at snowy Antarctica must be doctor of pseudoscience many times over.
So you're saying that dental surgery is pseudoscience? ???
Yes, when Don Pettit does it in the snow of Antartica. Don learnt it at the NAXA University of Arizona. It teaches plenty pseudoscience.
Who said that he did the dental surgery in the snow?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 14, 2017, 04:58:15 PM
Heiwa why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 14, 2017, 10:26:18 PM
Heiwa why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 10:30:15 PM
Pay me.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 15, 2017, 05:31:46 AM
Heiwa why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
And yet you knowingly invest in a company that supports manned space flight with resupply missions to the ISS.  What does that make you?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 15, 2017, 07:12:58 AM
Heiwa why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
And yet you knowingly invest in a company that supports manned space flight with resupply missions to the ISS.  What does that make you?

Hm, Arianespace just sends unmanned satellites into orbits. If EXA pays and says that they arrive at the fake IFS, what's the problem? You do not argue with your criminal clients.

Anyway, it will not last. The NAXA/JPL clowns like Don Pettit & Co cannot invent new magic tricks and dead planets out of the empty Universe forever. Even if the University of Arizona honors them with free, fake PhDs.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 16, 2017, 08:45:29 PM
Why do you say such stupid things? ???
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 16, 2017, 09:18:19 PM
http://www.arianespace.com/vehicle/soyuz/

Quote
The medium-lift Soyuz entered service from Europe’s Spaceport in French Guiana during 2011, bringing the industry's longest-operating launcher to the world's most modern launch base. Soyuz is a four-stage launcher, designed to extremely high reliability levels for its use in manned missions.


Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 16, 2017, 09:21:03 PM
Heiwa why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
And yet you knowingly invest in a company that supports manned space flight with resupply missions to the ISS.  What does that make you?

Hm, Arianespace just sends unmanned satellites into orbits. If EXA pays and says that they arrive at the fake IFS, what's the problem? You do not argue with your criminal clients.
Hmm...  So you're okay with aiding abetting a criminal organization?

Anyway, it will not last. The NAXA/JPL clowns like Don Pettit & Co cannot invent new magic tricks and dead planets out of the empty Universe forever. Even if the University of Arizona honors them with free, fake PhDs.
Why do you hate science so much?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 16, 2017, 09:39:28 PM
Heiwa why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
And yet you knowingly invest in a company that supports manned space flight with resupply missions to the ISS.  What does that make you?

Hm, Arianespace just sends unmanned satellites into orbits. If EXA pays and says that they arrive at the fake IFS, what's the problem? You do not argue with your criminal clients.
Hmm...  So you're okay with aiding abetting a criminal organization?

Anyway, it will not last. The NAXA/JPL clowns like Don Pettit & Co cannot invent new magic tricks and dead planets out of the empty Universe forever. Even if the University of Arizona honors them with free, fake PhDs.
Why do you hate science so much?

I love science being an educated, recognized scientist. But I do not like fake news and pseudoscience like nuclear arms, manned space flights, towers collapsing from top by gravity, bow visors falling off ships and fusion on Earth. http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 01:55:48 AM
Why do you hate science so much?

I actually think he is paid for it. Making himself and his ideas look stupid that is. He plays the part well.

Meanwhile.

Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Pezevenk on May 17, 2017, 04:18:34 AM
Why do you hate science so much?

I actually think he is paid for it. Making himself and his ideas look stupid that is. He plays the part well.

Meanwhile.



Why are you under the impression everyone's paid by everyone? And why do you think anyone cares about FES?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 17, 2017, 07:27:28 AM
Heiwa why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Prove it.  Back up your statements here, where you made them not on your obnoxious website.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 17, 2017, 07:29:28 AM
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html ! Study it.
Cool website btw
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 17, 2017, 07:31:33 AM
Heiwa why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
And yet you knowingly invest in a company that supports manned space flight with resupply missions to the ISS.  What does that make you?

Hm, Arianespace just sends unmanned satellites into orbits. If EXA pays and says that they arrive at the fake IFS, what's the problem? You do not argue with your criminal clients.
Hmm...  So you're okay with aiding abetting a criminal organization?

Anyway, it will not last. The NAXA/JPL clowns like Don Pettit & Co cannot invent new magic tricks and dead planets out of the empty Universe forever. Even if the University of Arizona honors them with free, fake PhDs.
Why do you hate science so much?

I love science being an educated, recognized scientist. But I do not like fake news and pseudoscience like nuclear arms, manned space flights, towers collapsing from top by gravity, bow visors falling off ships and fusion on Earth. http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm
Apparently the only thing you are recognized for, scientifically speaking, is being unscientific
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 17, 2017, 07:55:12 AM
Heiwa why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Prove it.  Back up your statements here, where you made them not on your obnoxious website.

Have you ever seen anything destroyed by a nuclear weapon in peace (testing) and war (to win it)?

Testing nuclear weapons seem only to be footage of FLASHES followed by no destruction of any kind.

It is suggested that a-bombs destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki August 1945 but anyone concerned knows the towns were destroyed months before by standard napalm carpet bombing. After that no nuclear weapons have ever been used un any war. Reason is that they do not work. They are just propaganda. North Korea is good at it.

Re manned space travel I have only seen various footage of people on the Moon and in the International Space Station but the footage is fake. No doubt about it. Trick films, IMHO. If you ask for details how much fuel is used fo a trip, you never get a real answer. If you ask for details about landings on Earth at 8000-11000 m/s speed, the only answer is that you brake using a heat shield. If you study a heat shield you find that it is made of plastic and burns at 250C. It cannot brake anything.

In spite of this plenty stupid people believe in nuclear weapons and manned space travel. I just feel sorry for them. They are totally brain washed.

Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 17, 2017, 09:17:12 AM
Heiwa why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Prove it.  Back up your statements here, where you made them not on your obnoxious website.

Have you ever seen anything destroyed by a nuclear weapon in peace (testing) and war (to win it)?

Testing nuclear weapons seem only to be footage of FLASHES followed by no destruction of any kind.

It is suggested that a-bombs destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki August 1945 but anyone concerned knows the towns were destroyed months before by standard napalm carpet bombing. After that no nuclear weapons have ever been used un any war. Reason is that they do not work. They are just propaganda. North Korea is good at it.

Re manned space travel I have only seen various footage of people on the Moon and in the International Space Station but the footage is fake. No doubt about it. Trick films, IMHO. If you ask for details how much fuel is used fo a trip, you never get a real answer. If you ask for details about landings on Earth at 8000-11000 m/s speed, the only answer is that you brake using a heat shield. If you study a heat shield you find that it is made of plastic and burns at 250C. It cannot brake anything.

In spite of this plenty stupid people believe in nuclear weapons and manned space travel. I just feel sorry for them. They are totally brain washed.
Again you offer no evidence to support your position.  And you lie.  You have been given all of that information you just ignore it.  Yet another fail.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Kami on May 17, 2017, 11:57:13 AM
Heiwa why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Prove it.  Back up your statements here, where you made them not on your obnoxious website.

Have you ever seen anything destroyed by a nuclear weapon in peace (testing) and war (to win it)?
No. Does that prove anything?
Quote
Testing nuclear weapons seem only to be footage of FLASHES followed by no destruction of any kind.

It is suggested that a-bombs destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki August 1945 but anyone concerned knows the towns were destroyed months before by standard napalm carpet bombing. After that no nuclear weapons have ever been used un any war. Reason is that they do not work. They are just propaganda. North Korea is good at it.
Any evidence for that?
Quote
Re manned space travel I have only seen various footage of people on the Moon and in the International Space Station but the footage is fake. No doubt about it. Trick films, IMHO.
Any evidence for that?
Quote
If you ask for details how much fuel is used fo a trip, you never get a real answer. If you ask for details about landings on Earth at 8000-11000 m/s speed, the only answer is that you brake using a heat shield. If you study a heat shield you find that it is made of plastic and burns at 250C. It cannot brake anything.
A heat shield is meant to burn. It is an isolating layer slowly burning away. It is designed that it lasts until the spacecraft has slowed down.
Quote
In spite of this plenty stupid people believe in nuclear weapons and manned space travel. I just feel sorry for them. They are totally brain washed.
Sure. Whatever.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 17, 2017, 03:05:47 PM
Heiwa why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Prove it.  Back up your statements here, where you made them not on your obnoxious website.

Have you ever seen anything destroyed by a nuclear weapon in peace (testing) and war (to win it)?
I have not personally seen it, but there were plenty of witnesses that survived the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts.  There were also plenty of military personnel who witnessed above ground tests in the '40s and '50s.

Testing nuclear weapons seem only to be footage of FLASHES followed by no destruction of any kind.
??? ??? ???  Are you saying that you've never seen films of tests like these?


It is suggested that a-bombs destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki August 1945 but anyone concerned knows the towns were destroyed months before by standard napalm carpet bombing.
Actually, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and other potential targets were left alone in the months leading up to the atomic bombings.

After that no nuclear weapons have ever been used un any war. Reason is that they do not work. They are just propaganda. North Korea is good at it.
Actually there are a few reasons why.  First of all, there haven't been any wars on the scale of WWII since 1945.  Secondly, after Russia got nukes, it didn't take very long to figure out that US and Russia tossing nukes back and forth would be a very bad thing for everyone.

BTW, from what I heard, Nixon was kicking around the idea of using nukes in Viet Nam.

Re manned space travel I have only seen various footage of people on the Moon and in the International Space Station but the footage is fake. No doubt about it. Trick films, IMHO. If you ask for details how much fuel is used fo a trip, you never get a real answer.
We have provided links to detailed mission reports that tell you exactly how much fuel was used.

If you ask for details about landings on Earth at 8000-11000 m/s speed, the only answer is that you brake using a heat shield. If you study a heat shield you find that it is made of plastic and burns at 250C. It cannot brake anything.
We have also provided links to text books explaining how to design atmospheric reentry scenarios.

In spite of this plenty stupid people believe in nuclear weapons and manned space travel. I just feel sorry for them. They are totally brain washed.
That's alright, in spite of you claiming to be an engineer, many of us feel sorry for you and your inability to understand basic concepts of nuclear fission and rocket science.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 03:13:05 PM
Why do you hate science so much?

I actually think he is paid for it. Making himself and his ideas look stupid that is. He plays the part well.

Meanwhile.



Why are you under the impression everyone's paid by everyone? And why do you think anyone cares about FES?

Not everyone.

I have my reasons to distrust Heiwa. I can share them if you like.

He actually is an engineer also which furthers my suspicions.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 17, 2017, 03:15:56 PM
Heiwa why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Prove it.  Back up your statements here, where you made them not on your obnoxious website.

Have you ever seen anything destroyed by a nuclear weapon in peace (testing) and war (to win it)?
I have not personally seen it, but there were plenty of witnesses that survived the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts.  There were also plenty of military personnel who witnessed above ground tests in the '40s and '50s.
And plenty of tests that were visible from Vegas in the 50's.  It became a tourist attraction.  Guess that's thousands of more people that have to be in on it.
http://www.citylab.com/politics/2014/08/atomic-tests-were-a-tourist-draw-in-1950s-las-vegas/375802/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a20536/who-are-you-miss-atomic-bomb/
http://www.upworthy.com/9-strange-but-true-photos-that-capture-las-vegas-brief-love-affair-with-nuclear-bombs
http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/11/11/the-forgotten-atomic-bomb-parties-of-las-vegas/
http://io9.gizmodo.com/5902390/wild-vegas-parties-celebrated-atomic-bomb-tests-of-the-1950s

Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 17, 2017, 06:56:02 PM
Heiwa why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Prove it.  Back up your statements here, where you made them not on your obnoxious website.

Have you ever seen anything destroyed by a nuclear weapon in peace (testing) and war (to win it)?
I have not personally seen it, but there were plenty of witnesses that survived the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts.  There were also plenty of military personnel who witnessed above ground tests in the '40s and '50s.

Testing nuclear weapons seem only to be footage of FLASHES followed by no destruction of any kind.
??? ??? ???  Are you saying that you've never seen films of tests like these?



Of course I have seen it! So the footage proves that instant militart destrcutive fission, i..e. a-bombs work? But it is just trick film! Like everything else shown about a-bombs in the 1940/50's. It was produced to scare you. Nothing else. IMO it proves what I say. Nuclear weapons are fake from the start. Just propaganda.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 17, 2017, 06:58:15 PM


I have my reasons to distrust Heiwa. I can share them if you like.

He actually is an engineer also which furthers my suspicions.

Please tell me about your distrust.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 17, 2017, 08:25:40 PM
Testing nuclear weapons seem only to be footage of FLASHES followed by no destruction of any kind.
??? ??? ???  Are you saying that you've never seen films of tests like these?



Of course I have seen it! So the footage proves that instant militart destrcutive fission, i..e. a-bombs work? But it is just trick film! Like everything else shown about a-bombs in the 1940/50's. It was produced to scare you. Nothing else. IMO it proves what I say. Nuclear weapons are fake from the start. Just propaganda.
Why do I get the feeling that you still wouldn't believe in atomic bombs even if you were vaporized by one? ::)
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 08:34:36 PM


I have my reasons to distrust Heiwa. I can share them if you like.

He actually is an engineer also which furthers my suspicions.

Please tell me about your distrust.

You raise a very valid and relevant point here.

Quote
The engineers find it difficult to believe the government’s claim that scattered fires brought about such an orderly collapse. Failure of heat-weakened steel would show “large deflection, asymmetric local failure, and slow progress,” David Scott, C.Eng., a chartered consulting structural engineer in the UK, told colleagues at the Institution of Structural Engineers in the UK. It’s “a gradual process,” agrees Anders Björkman, and “cannot be simultaneous everywhere.” A Swedish naval architect and marine engineer working in France, Björkman maintains that failures “will always be local and topple the mass above in the direction of the local collapse.”

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/199-news-media-events-60-structural-engineers.html

You are, of course, correct.

You then go on to discredit everything you say by claiming the towers were holgrams / cgi.

Furthermore you destroy any credibility you have left by parroting demonstrably incorrect physics in your "moon landing challenge." Also going on about the impossibility of sex in shpayze.

I'm not even going to touch your "nuclear challenge"

So in my eyes you make a totally correct statement, then you go in to destroy your credibility (a lot of posters would say on purpose.) And the credibilty of your arguments.

Why do it? It seems to me like you are doing a great job of making any alternative hypothesis look as stupid as you make yourself look.

That is all, fault my logic, if you like.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 17, 2017, 10:37:17 PM


I have my reasons to distrust Heiwa. I can share them if you like.

He actually is an engineer also which furthers my suspicions.

Please tell me about your distrust.

You raise a very valid and relevant point here.

Quote
The engineers find it difficult to believe the government’s claim that scattered fires brought about such an orderly collapse. Failure of heat-weakened steel would show “large deflection, asymmetric local failure, and slow progress,” David Scott, C.Eng., a chartered consulting structural engineer in the UK, told colleagues at the Institution of Structural Engineers in the UK. It’s “a gradual process,” agrees Anders Björkman, and “cannot be simultaneous everywhere.” A Swedish naval architect and marine engineer working in France, Björkman maintains that failures “will always be local and topple the mass above in the direction of the local collapse.”

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/199-news-media-events-60-structural-engineers.html

You are, of course, correct.

You then go on to discredit everything you say by claiming the towers were holgrams / cgi.

Furthermore you destroy any credibility you have left by parroting demonstrably incorrect physics in your "moon landing challenge." Also going on about the impossibility of sex in shpayze.

I'm not even going to touch your "nuclear challenge"

So in my eyes you make a totally correct statement, then you go in to destroy your credibility (a lot of posters would say on purpose.) And the credibilty of your arguments.

Why do it? It seems to me like you are doing a great job of making any alternative hypothesis look as stupid as you make yourself look.

That is all, fault my logic, if you like.
Thanks for clarifications.
Re 911 I only suggest that a small, weak top A of a structure cannot by gravity crush the intact, solid, strong bottom part C, which keeps it in place even after dropping A on C. I have shown it scientifically. So I suggest that any footage showing A crushing C is fake (even if plenty people are running around in the footage while A crushes C). Footage is easy to fake. Part B is a small part between top A and bottom C. It fails so A drops by gravity on C.

Same with men on the Moon. All footage of men on the Moon is fake and produced in studios on Earth! Easy to fake! And then you back it up with (http://heiwaco.com/apnyt.gif)

You see how easy it is!

Same with nuclear weapons:

(http://heiwaco.com/NYT1945.gif)

Easy as a pie!

You were mentioning 911!

(http://heiwaco.com/NYT911.jpg)

Just because something is mentioned on the first page of a newspaper, it doesn't mean that it happened.

See what I mean?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 10:40:34 PM
Yes yes, everything is cgi, you do your thing man.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 17, 2017, 10:53:05 PM
Yes yes, everything is cgi, you do your thing man.

No, my thing is to explain how you fake reality by propaganda. I have done it myself when I was in the military. 1970 I told representatives of the enemy how clever we were to beat them. And they never attacked us. I didn't use cgi to do it.

Anyway, it seems plenty people with funny names at this forum are totally brainwashed by propaganda of all types.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 17, 2017, 11:34:18 PM
(http://www.sensoria.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/website-img1.jpeg)

(http://www.familychoiceawards.com/wp-content/uploads/drupal_import/walterMitty.jpg)
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 17, 2017, 11:43:17 PM
. . . my thing is to  . . . fake reality by propaganda.

Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Kami on May 18, 2017, 04:50:15 AM
If anyone ever asks me for an example of circular reasoning I will link them to heiwa. A-bombs do not exist. Therefore the footage is faked. Therefore A-bombs do not exist. Excellent piece of logic.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 18, 2017, 05:38:09 AM
Anyway, it seems plenty people with funny names at this forum are totally brainwashed by propaganda of all types.
How do you tell the difference real news and propaganda?

How do you know that you aren't the one brainwashed by your own propaganda?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 18, 2017, 05:44:52 AM
If anyone ever asks me for an example of circular reasoning I will link them to heiwa. A-bombs do not exist. Therefore the footage is faked. Therefore A-bombs do not exist. Excellent piece of logic.

? End 1944 USA started terror fire bombing Japanese towns of no real military value. By end July 1945 or seven months later >60 big Japanese towns had been burnt down. But by chance USA Army had forgotten to wipe out the big ports of Nagasaki and Hiroshima with their important military industrial complexes. This is the official story established afterwards.
But then USA had developed and tested their a-bombs and ... they were used to vaporize both Hiroshima and Nagasaki in  nano-seconds August 1945. It was the first and last time nuclear weapons have been used in war according official history established by winner (and loser).
IMHO official history is just propaganda. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were fire bombed already spring 1945 but to cover up the fact that a-bombs don't work, they were used as official a-bomb targets August 1945. Footage of fire bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki were later used as evidence (LOL) that a-bombs work.

Only brain washed people believe/love a-bombs and manned space travel and arabs landing in NY skyscrapers. I just feel sorry for these fools.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 18, 2017, 05:56:38 AM
Anyway, it seems plenty people with funny names at this forum are totally brainwashed by propaganda of all types.
How do you tell the difference real news and propaganda?

How do you know that you aren't the one brainwashed by your own propaganda?

Thanks for asking.

I personally check the records, verify any scientific research and ask people involved.

Re instantaneous, military fission that transforms pure metal into radiation in a FLASH (the a-bomb) that lasts nanoseconds, it is pure pseudoscience, IMO. Fission is something completely different. Friends of mine were involved in that fake business building a bombs for Sweden and Stalin. Anyway ... after 8/1945 no a-bombs have been used in battle. 1000's of fake tests have been done ... all propaganda.

Re manned space travel it was a very popular business late 1950's, early 1960's with 1000's of people getting involved to make money out of it. We were all told it was a piece of cake to fly in space. But then everything became military secret for national security reasons and manned space travel became a closed shop for some fanatics. The only result was propaganda of successful trips ... of no value at all just costing a lot of money.

Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 18, 2017, 05:58:17 AM
Heiwa why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Prove it.  Back up your statements here, where you made them not on your obnoxious website.

Have you ever seen anything destroyed by a nuclear weapon in peace (testing) and war (to win it)?
I have not personally seen it, but there were plenty of witnesses that survived the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts.  There were also plenty of military personnel who witnessed above ground tests in the '40s and '50s.

Testing nuclear weapons seem only to be footage of FLASHES followed by no destruction of any kind.
??? ??? ???  Are you saying that you've never seen films of tests like these?



Of course I have seen it! So the footage proves that instant militart destrcutive fission, i..e. a-bombs work? But it is just trick film! Like everything else shown about a-bombs in the 1940/50's. It was produced to scare you. Nothing else. IMO it proves what I say. Nuclear weapons are fake from the start. Just propaganda.
Prove it or shut up.  You have failed again.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 18, 2017, 06:01:36 AM
If anyone ever asks me for an example of circular reasoning I will link them to heiwa. A-bombs do not exist. Therefore the footage is faked. Therefore A-bombs do not exist. Excellent piece of logic.

? End 1944 USA started terror fire bombing Japanese towns of no real military value. By end July 1945 or seven months later >60 big Japanese towns had been burnt down. But by chance USA Army had forgotten to wipe out the big ports of Nagasaki and Hiroshima with their important military industrial complexes. This is the official story established afterwards.
But then USA had developed and tested their a-bombs and ... they were used to vaporize both Hiroshima and Nagasaki in  nano-seconds August 1945. It was the first and last time nuclear weapons have been used in war according official history established by winner (and loser).
IMHO official history is just propaganda. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were fire bombed already spring 1945 but to cover up the fact that a-bombs don't work, they were used as official a-bomb targets August 1945. Footage of fire bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki were later used as evidence (LOL) that a-bombs work.

Only brain washed people believe/love a-bombs and manned space travel and arabs landing in NY skyscrapers. I just feel sorry for these fools.
You just did it again.  No evidence, just you making a claim.
More failure by you.  Sad really
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 18, 2017, 06:45:01 AM
Heiwa why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Prove it.  Back up your statements here, where you made them not on your obnoxious website.

Have you ever seen anything destroyed by a nuclear weapon in peace (testing) and war (to win it)?
I have not personally seen it, but there were plenty of witnesses that survived the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts.  There were also plenty of military personnel who witnessed above ground tests in the '40s and '50s.

Testing nuclear weapons seem only to be footage of FLASHES followed by no destruction of any kind.
??? ??? ???  Are you saying that you've never seen films of tests like these?



Of course I have seen it! So the footage proves that instant militart destrcutive fission, i..e. a-bombs work? But it is just trick film! Like everything else shown about a-bombs in the 1940/50's. It was produced to scare you. Nothing else. IMO it proves what I say. Nuclear weapons are fake from the start. Just propaganda.
Prove it or shut up.  You have failed again.
Yes - I have seen the movie! The house catches fire and flies away. I see it. Very strange. It is suggested that an a-bomb exploded on the other side of the street but ... I didn't see it. Not even the camera caught the exploding a-bomb.
I have always wondered who took the film and why he/she + camera were not v a p o r i z e d! I am told that a-bombs vaporize everything in the vicinity and that the r a d i a t i o n  kills everyone hanging around.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 18, 2017, 09:01:47 AM
Heiwa why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Prove it.  Back up your statements here, where you made them not on your obnoxious website.

Have you ever seen anything destroyed by a nuclear weapon in peace (testing) and war (to win it)?
I have not personally seen it, but there were plenty of witnesses that survived the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts.  There were also plenty of military personnel who witnessed above ground tests in the '40s and '50s.

Testing nuclear weapons seem only to be footage of FLASHES followed by no destruction of any kind.
??? ??? ???  Are you saying that you've never seen films of tests like these?



Of course I have seen it! So the footage proves that instant militart destrcutive fission, i..e. a-bombs work? But it is just trick film! Like everything else shown about a-bombs in the 1940/50's. It was produced to scare you. Nothing else. IMO it proves what I say. Nuclear weapons are fake from the start. Just propaganda.
Prove it or shut up.  You have failed again.
Yes - I have seen the movie! The house catches fire and flies away. I see it. Very strange. It is suggested that an a-bomb exploded on the other side of the street but ... I didn't see it. Not even the camera caught the exploding a-bomb.
I have always wondered who took the film and why he/she + camera were not v a p o r i z e d! I am told that a-bombs vaporize everything in the vicinity and that the r a d i a t i o n  kills everyone hanging around.
Fine.  Prove it's fake.  Just another failure.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Pezevenk on May 18, 2017, 10:48:04 AM
Heiwa why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Prove it.  Back up your statements here, where you made them not on your obnoxious website.

Have you ever seen anything destroyed by a nuclear weapon in peace (testing) and war (to win it)?
I have not personally seen it, but there were plenty of witnesses that survived the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts.  There were also plenty of military personnel who witnessed above ground tests in the '40s and '50s.

Testing nuclear weapons seem only to be footage of FLASHES followed by no destruction of any kind.
??? ??? ???  Are you saying that you've never seen films of tests like these?



Of course I have seen it! So the footage proves that instant militart destrcutive fission, i..e. a-bombs work? But it is just trick film! Like everything else shown about a-bombs in the 1940/50's. It was produced to scare you. Nothing else. IMO it proves what I say. Nuclear weapons are fake from the start. Just propaganda.
Prove it or shut up.  You have failed again.
Yes - I have seen the movie! The house catches fire and flies away. I see it. Very strange. It is suggested that an a-bomb exploded on the other side of the street but ... I didn't see it. Not even the camera caught the exploding a-bomb.
I have always wondered who took the film and why he/she + camera were not v a p o r i z e d! I am told that a-bombs vaporize everything in the vicinity and that the r a d i a t i o n  kills everyone hanging around.

That's like watching underwater footage and saying "That's fake! People need air and cameras don't work under water!".
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Dog on May 18, 2017, 02:29:09 PM
(....) IMO (....)

Whew. It sure is a good thing science doesn't care about your opinion.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 19, 2017, 07:58:47 PM
Heiwa why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Prove it.  Back up your statements here, where you made them not on your obnoxious website.

Have you ever seen anything destroyed by a nuclear weapon in peace (testing) and war (to win it)?
I have not personally seen it, but there were plenty of witnesses that survived the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts.  There were also plenty of military personnel who witnessed above ground tests in the '40s and '50s.

Testing nuclear weapons seem only to be footage of FLASHES followed by no destruction of any kind.
??? ??? ???  Are you saying that you've never seen films of tests like these?



Of course I have seen it! So the footage proves that instant militart destrcutive fission, i..e. a-bombs work? But it is just trick film! Like everything else shown about a-bombs in the 1940/50's. It was produced to scare you. Nothing else. IMO it proves what I say. Nuclear weapons are fake from the start. Just propaganda.
Prove it or shut up.  You have failed again.
Yes - I have seen the movie! The house catches fire and flies away. I see it. Very strange. It is suggested that an a-bomb exploded on the other side of the street but ... I didn't see it. Not even the camera caught the exploding a-bomb.
I have always wondered who took the film and why he/she + camera were not v a p o r i z e d! I am told that a-bombs vaporize everything in the vicinity and that the r a d i a t i o n  kills everyone hanging around.

That's like watching underwater footage and saying "That's fake! People need air and cameras don't work under water!".

You are right! Sending an underwater craft to 10 000 m below water is probably fake too like all manned flights in space. You have to verify the details of the claims. Do not rely on some flimsy footage of anything, e.g. a lunar lander on the Moon. It is much easier to do it in a studio on Earth.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 20, 2017, 12:10:04 AM
Heiwa why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Prove it.  Back up your statements here, where you made them not on your obnoxious website.

Have you ever seen anything destroyed by a nuclear weapon in peace (testing) and war (to win it)?
I have not personally seen it, but there were plenty of witnesses that survived the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts.  There were also plenty of military personnel who witnessed above ground tests in the '40s and '50s.

Testing nuclear weapons seem only to be footage of FLASHES followed by no destruction of any kind.
??? ??? ???  Are you saying that you've never seen films of tests like these?



Of course I have seen it! So the footage proves that instant militart destrcutive fission, i..e. a-bombs work? But it is just trick film! Like everything else shown about a-bombs in the 1940/50's. It was produced to scare you. Nothing else. IMO it proves what I say. Nuclear weapons are fake from the start. Just propaganda.
Prove it or shut up.  You have failed again.
Yes - I have seen the movie! The house catches fire and flies away. I see it. Very strange. It is suggested that an a-bomb exploded on the other side of the street but ... I didn't see it. Not even the camera caught the exploding a-bomb.
I have always wondered who took the film and why he/she + camera were not v a p o r i z e d! I am told that a-bombs vaporize everything in the vicinity and that the r a d i a t i o n  kills everyone hanging around.

That's like watching underwater footage and saying "That's fake! People need air and cameras don't work under water!".

You are right! Sending an underwater craft to 10 000 m below water is probably fake too like all manned flights in space. You have to verify the details of the claims. Do not rely on some flimsy footage of anything, e.g. a lunar lander on the Moon. It is much easier to do it in a studio on Earth.

Can you point to anywhere in DNO's quote that he specified a depth of 10, 000 m?

Why do you say such stupid things?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 20, 2017, 01:00:57 AM

Can you point to anywhere in DNO's quote that he specified a depth of 10, 000 m?

Heiwa denies the reality of the Trieste expedition to the Marianas Trench. He does this mostly by saying "It's a fake". Therefore everything is fake because plenty reasons.

Quote
Why do you say such stupid things?

Because he's an idiot who exists in a delusional fantasy world.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 20, 2017, 02:59:43 AM

Can you point to anywhere in DNO's quote that he specified a depth of 10, 000 m?

Heiwa denies the reality of the Trieste expedition to the Marianas Trench. He does this mostly by saying "It's a fake". Therefore everything is fake because plenty reasons.

? Plenty people claim plenty things, like Alexander Humboldt. Ever heard of him? He lived >200 years ago around the corner from me at Freiberg, when I lived there.
Alexander suggested he and a friend had  climbed Aconcagua and many other high mountains 200 years ago - they were the astronuts of their times - but media was not there to check anything. Media just reported it as ... FAKE NEWS!
Yes, Alex & Co had seen the mountains from afar ... and that was it.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 20, 2017, 04:49:04 AM
See what I mean?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Pezevenk on May 20, 2017, 04:57:46 AM
Heiwa why do you say such stupid things?  ???
Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Prove it.  Back up your statements here, where you made them not on your obnoxious website.

Have you ever seen anything destroyed by a nuclear weapon in peace (testing) and war (to win it)?
I have not personally seen it, but there were plenty of witnesses that survived the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts.  There were also plenty of military personnel who witnessed above ground tests in the '40s and '50s.

Testing nuclear weapons seem only to be footage of FLASHES followed by no destruction of any kind.
??? ??? ???  Are you saying that you've never seen films of tests like these?



Of course I have seen it! So the footage proves that instant militart destrcutive fission, i..e. a-bombs work? But it is just trick film! Like everything else shown about a-bombs in the 1940/50's. It was produced to scare you. Nothing else. IMO it proves what I say. Nuclear weapons are fake from the start. Just propaganda.
Prove it or shut up.  You have failed again.
Yes - I have seen the movie! The house catches fire and flies away. I see it. Very strange. It is suggested that an a-bomb exploded on the other side of the street but ... I didn't see it. Not even the camera caught the exploding a-bomb.
I have always wondered who took the film and why he/she + camera were not v a p o r i z e d! I am told that a-bombs vaporize everything in the vicinity and that the r a d i a t i o n  kills everyone hanging around.

That's like watching underwater footage and saying "That's fake! People need air and cameras don't work under water!".

You are right! Sending an underwater craft to 10 000 m below water is probably fake too like all manned flights in space. You have to verify the details of the claims. Do not rely on some flimsy footage of anything, e.g. a lunar lander on the Moon. It is much easier to do it in a studio on Earth.

Sigh.

I guess that's why I'm not a millionaire. I'm not THAT dense.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 20, 2017, 06:43:12 AM

Can you point to anywhere in DNO's quote that he specified a depth of 10, 000 m?

Heiwa denies the reality of the Trieste expedition to the Marianas Trench. He does this mostly by saying "It's a fake". Therefore everything is fake because plenty reasons.

? Plenty people claim plenty things, like Alexander Humboldt. Ever heard of him? He lived >200 years ago around the corner from me at Freiberg, when I lived there.
Alexander suggested he and a friend had  climbed Aconcagua and many other high mountains 200 years ago - they were the astronuts of their times - but media was not there to check anything. Media just reported it as ... FAKE NEWS!
Yes, Alex & Co had seen the mountains from afar ... and that was it.
Back to your lack of knowledge on orbital mechanics.  Can you support any of your claims about space travel with actual evidence?  Can you show such evidence here, in this forum where you made those claims without linking to your pathetic website?
Or will simply fail again.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 20, 2017, 07:32:31 AM

Can you point to anywhere in DNO's quote that he specified a depth of 10, 000 m?

Heiwa denies the reality of the Trieste expedition to the Marianas Trench. He does this mostly by saying "It's a fake". Therefore everything is fake because plenty reasons.

? Plenty people claim plenty things, like Alexander Humboldt. Ever heard of him? He lived >200 years ago around the corner from me at Freiberg, when I lived there.
Alexander suggested he and a friend had  climbed Aconcagua and many other high mountains 200 years ago - they were the astronuts of their times - but media was not there to check anything. Media just reported it as ... FAKE NEWS!
Yes, Alex & Co had seen the mountains from afar ... and that was it.
Back to your lack of knowledge on orbital mechanics.  Can you support any of your claims about space travel with actual evidence?  Can you show such evidence here, in this forum where you made those claims without linking to your pathetic website?
Or will simply fail again.
Thanks. There is no lack of orbital mechanics knowledge on my part! It is simple rocket science, as you know.
I explain my claims since many years at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm , i.e. humans cannot travel in space. It is a big site. Very popular. Downloaded 100 000's of times.

You have to study it. If you think I am wrong I pay you €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . My famous CHALLENGE.

I know plenty people say they have travelled or can travel in space but they have all failed my CHALLENGE. I think they simply lie or are totally brain washed. They cannot explain how it is done or how they did it.

What do you think?

Do you think?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 20, 2017, 07:49:54 AM

Can you point to anywhere in DNO's quote that he specified a depth of 10, 000 m?

Heiwa denies the reality of the Trieste expedition to the Marianas Trench. He does this mostly by saying "It's a fake". Therefore everything is fake because plenty reasons.

? Plenty people claim plenty things, like Alexander Humboldt. Ever heard of him? He lived >200 years ago around the corner from me at Freiberg, when I lived there.
Alexander suggested he and a friend had  climbed Aconcagua and many other high mountains 200 years ago - they were the astronuts of their times - but media was not there to check anything. Media just reported it as ... FAKE NEWS!
Yes, Alex & Co had seen the mountains from afar ... and that was it.
Back to your lack of knowledge on orbital mechanics.  Can you support any of your claims about space travel with actual evidence?  Can you show such evidence here, in this forum where you made those claims without linking to your pathetic website?
Or will simply fail again.
Thanks. There is no lack of orbital mechanics knowledge on my part! It is simple rocket science, as you know.
I explain my claims since many years at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm , i.e. humans cannot travel in space. It is a big site. Very popular. Downloaded 100 000's of times.

You have to study it. If you think I am wrong I pay you €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . My famous CHALLENGE.

I know plenty people say they have travelled or can travel in space but they have all failed my CHALLENGE. I think they simply lie or are totally brain washed. They cannot explain how it is done or how they did it.

What do you think?

Do you think?
I think you have failed yet again to post any evidence to support your claims.  By the way, no one is interested in your fake challenge.  Just show your evidence here where you are making your claims.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?  Are you really so stupid that you can't grasp that concept or is it that you can't produce the evidence?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 20, 2017, 08:18:40 AM
If you think I am wrong I pay you €1M

I think you are wrong. Pay up.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 20, 2017, 08:26:13 AM
Orbital mechanics, or rather dynamics – the objects are moving – is very simple at least in our part of the Universe.  Just look at the Moon. There must be both an attractive force and a repulsive force acting between us on Earth and the Moon. The strength of each one is maybe dependent on gravity and the distance between the Earth and the Moon. It seems the Moon orbits Earth elliptically in space. Don't ask me to prove it. Just look up!

On Wikipedia it says the perigee of the Moon is ~362 000 km and the apogee is ~405 000km with the midpoint of this elliptical orbit being ~384 000km from Earth.

Let’s start out at this midpoint with the moon having momentum leading it away from Earth in its orbit. As the Moon gets farther away from Earth beyond 384 000km, the attractive force comes to dominate the repulsive force. Meaning the Moon begins to be net pulled towards the Earth. First the momentum away from the Earth is decelerated until the Moon no longer has any momentum moving away from the Earth at the apogee ~405 000km.

As the attractive force is still dominant at this distance, the Moon begins gaining momentum moving towards Earth in its orbit. Until it builds up some good momentum and passes through the midpoint distance of 384 000km once again, but this time going the other way. You can see it yourself by looking up on the Moon. Use your eyes.

As the Moon travels closer to Earth, now the repulsive force begins to dominate. And gradually the repulsive force chips away at the Moon's momentum towards Earth. Until at ~362 000km the repulsive force has brought the Moon's momentum towards Earth to 0. And now the Moon begins to gain momentum moving away from Earth again. It is a simple example or orbital dynamics!

With this the Moon can remain in orbit of Earth for millions or billions of years. Kepler has explained it. One question remains; wouldn't this going back and forth between repulsive and attractive locations of force in orbit, eventually center the Moon at the midpoint distance. For this, I think the rotation of Earth, and the movement of Earth away from its own midpoint away from the Moon, will keep the Moon from achieving a resting midpoint. Another possibility is the action of other bodies like the Sun on the Earth-Moon system, will keep the system from rest distances. Yet another possibility is the idea of a tendency towards stability is based on observing things on Earth, where there is resistance like air resistance, which that tendency might not be true in space.
Anyway, the easiest way to understand orbital mechanics is to look out of the window and watch the Moon.
Our Solar System was, if you believe what you are told at school or by Wikipedia, formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. Imagine that! It was long before I was born and I am sorry I cannot prove it.

However, if you today, 4.6 billion years later, look further away from the tip of your nose and our Universe or Solar System and study other solar systems or galaxies in the sky above,  you will find that they do not orbit anything and pop up and disappear into nothing at regular intervals not following any rules of gravity and orbital dynamics.

Don't blame me for it.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 20, 2017, 08:31:39 AM
Orbital mechanics, or rather dynamics – the objects are moving – is very simple at least in our part of the Universe.  Just look at the Moon. There must be both an attractive force and a repulsive force acting between us on Earth and the Moon. The strength of each one is maybe dependent on gravity and the distance between the Earth and the Moon. It seems the Moon orbits Earth elliptically in space. Don't ask me to prove it. Just look up!

On Wikipedia it says the perigee of the Moon is ~362 000 km and the apogee is ~405 000km with the midpoint of this elliptical orbit being ~384 000km from Earth.

Let’s start out at this midpoint with the moon having momentum leading it away from Earth in its orbit. As the Moon gets farther away from Earth beyond 384 000km, the attractive force comes to dominate the repulsive force. Meaning the Moon begins to be net pulled towards the Earth. First the momentum away from the Earth is decelerated until the Moon no longer has any momentum moving away from the Earth at the apogee ~405 000km.

As the attractive force is still dominant at this distance, the Moon begins gaining momentum moving towards Earth in its orbit. Until it builds up some good momentum and passes through the midpoint distance of 384 000km once again, but this time going the other way. You can see it yourself by looking up on the Moon. Use your eyes.

As the Moon travels closer to Earth, now the repulsive force begins to dominate. And gradually the repulsive force chips away at the Moon's momentum towards Earth. Until at ~362 000km the repulsive force has brought the Moon's momentum towards Earth to 0. And now the Moon begins to gain momentum moving away from Earth again. It is a simple example or orbital dynamics!

With this the Moon can remain in orbit of Earth for millions or billions of years. Kepler has explained it. One question remains; wouldn't this going back and forth between repulsive and attractive locations of force in orbit, eventually center the Moon at the midpoint distance. For this, I think the rotation of Earth, and the movement of Earth away from its own midpoint away from the Moon, will keep the Moon from achieving a resting midpoint. Another possibility is the action of other bodies like the Sun on the Earth-Moon system, will keep the system from rest distances. Yet another possibility is the idea of a tendency towards stability is based on observing things on Earth, where there is resistance like air resistance, which that tendency might not be true in space.
Anyway, the easiest way to understand orbital mechanics is to look out of the window and watch the Moon.
Our Solar System was, if you believe what you are told at school or by Wikipedia, formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. Imagine that! It was long before I was born and I am sorry I cannot prove it.

However, if you today, 4.6 billion years later, look further away from the tip of your nose and our Universe or Solar System and study other solar systems or galaxies in the sky above,  you will find that they do not orbit anything and pop up and disappear into nothing at regular intervals not following any rules of gravity and orbital dynamics.

Don't blame me for it.
Prove it.  Show us these celestial bodies acting in some random fashion.  Show examples of what you are claiming.  Show some actual EVIDENCE.  Again, you fail.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 20, 2017, 08:35:10 AM
Orbital mechanics, or rather dynamics – the objects are moving – is very simple at least in our part of the Universe.  Just look at the Moon. There must be both an attractive force and a repulsive force acting between us on Earth and the Moon. The strength of each one is maybe dependent on gravity and the distance between the Earth and the Moon. It seems the Moon orbits Earth elliptically in space. Don't ask me to prove it. Just look up!

On Wikipedia it says the perigee of the Moon is ~362 000 km and the apogee is ~405 000km with the midpoint of this elliptical orbit being ~384 000km from Earth.

Let’s start out at this midpoint with the moon having momentum leading it away from Earth in its orbit. As the Moon gets farther away from Earth beyond 384 000km, the attractive force comes to dominate the repulsive force. Meaning the Moon begins to be net pulled towards the Earth. First the momentum away from the Earth is decelerated until the Moon no longer has any momentum moving away from the Earth at the apogee ~405 000km.

As the attractive force is still dominant at this distance, the Moon begins gaining momentum moving towards Earth in its orbit. Until it builds up some good momentum and passes through the midpoint distance of 384 000km once again, but this time going the other way. You can see it yourself by looking up on the Moon. Use your eyes.

As the Moon travels closer to Earth, now the repulsive force begins to dominate. And gradually the repulsive force chips away at the Moon's momentum towards Earth. Until at ~362 000km the repulsive force has brought the Moon's momentum towards Earth to 0. And now the Moon begins to gain momentum moving away from Earth again. It is a simple example or orbital dynamics!

With this the Moon can remain in orbit of Earth for millions or billions of years. Kepler has explained it. One question remains; wouldn't this going back and forth between repulsive and attractive locations of force in orbit, eventually center the Moon at the midpoint distance. For this, I think the rotation of Earth, and the movement of Earth away from its own midpoint away from the Moon, will keep the Moon from achieving a resting midpoint. Another possibility is the action of other bodies like the Sun on the Earth-Moon system, will keep the system from rest distances. Yet another possibility is the idea of a tendency towards stability is based on observing things on Earth, where there is resistance like air resistance, which that tendency might not be true in space.
Anyway, the easiest way to understand orbital mechanics is to look out of the window and watch the Moon.
Our Solar System was, if you believe what you are told at school or by Wikipedia, formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. Imagine that! It was long before I was born and I am sorry I cannot prove it.

However, if you today, 4.6 billion years later, look further away from the tip of your nose and our Universe or Solar System and study other solar systems or galaxies in the sky above,  you will find that they do not orbit anything and pop up and disappear into nothing at regular intervals not following any rules of gravity and orbital dynamics.

Don't blame me for it.
Prove it.  Show us these celestial bodies acting in some random fashion.  Show examples of what you are claiming.  Show some actual EVIDENCE.  Again, you fail.
? Can't you look up in the sky? Are you locked up in some asylum without windows?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 20, 2017, 08:59:25 AM
Orbital mechanics, or rather dynamics – the objects are moving – is very simple at least in our part of the Universe.  Just look at the Moon. There must be both an attractive force and a repulsive force acting between us on Earth and the Moon. The strength of each one is maybe dependent on gravity and the distance between the Earth and the Moon. It seems the Moon orbits Earth elliptically in space. Don't ask me to prove it. Just look up!

On Wikipedia it says the perigee of the Moon is ~362 000 km and the apogee is ~405 000km with the midpoint of this elliptical orbit being ~384 000km from Earth.

Let’s start out at this midpoint with the moon having momentum leading it away from Earth in its orbit. As the Moon gets farther away from Earth beyond 384 000km, the attractive force comes to dominate the repulsive force. Meaning the Moon begins to be net pulled towards the Earth. First the momentum away from the Earth is decelerated until the Moon no longer has any momentum moving away from the Earth at the apogee ~405 000km.

As the attractive force is still dominant at this distance, the Moon begins gaining momentum moving towards Earth in its orbit. Until it builds up some good momentum and passes through the midpoint distance of 384 000km once again, but this time going the other way. You can see it yourself by looking up on the Moon. Use your eyes.

As the Moon travels closer to Earth, now the repulsive force begins to dominate. And gradually the repulsive force chips away at the Moon's momentum towards Earth. Until at ~362 000km the repulsive force has brought the Moon's momentum towards Earth to 0. And now the Moon begins to gain momentum moving away from Earth again. It is a simple example or orbital dynamics!

With this the Moon can remain in orbit of Earth for millions or billions of years. Kepler has explained it. One question remains; wouldn't this going back and forth between repulsive and attractive locations of force in orbit, eventually center the Moon at the midpoint distance. For this, I think the rotation of Earth, and the movement of Earth away from its own midpoint away from the Moon, will keep the Moon from achieving a resting midpoint. Another possibility is the action of other bodies like the Sun on the Earth-Moon system, will keep the system from rest distances. Yet another possibility is the idea of a tendency towards stability is based on observing things on Earth, where there is resistance like air resistance, which that tendency might not be true in space.
Anyway, the easiest way to understand orbital mechanics is to look out of the window and watch the Moon.
Our Solar System was, if you believe what you are told at school or by Wikipedia, formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. Imagine that! It was long before I was born and I am sorry I cannot prove it.

However, if you today, 4.6 billion years later, look further away from the tip of your nose and our Universe or Solar System and study other solar systems or galaxies in the sky above,  you will find that they do not orbit anything and pop up and disappear into nothing at regular intervals not following any rules of gravity and orbital dynamics.

Don't blame me for it.
Prove it.  Show us these celestial bodies acting in some random fashion.  Show examples of what you are claiming.  Show some actual EVIDENCE.  Again, you fail.
? Can't you look up in the sky? Are you locked up in some asylum without windows?
Childish insults aside, that's a no, as usual.  You can't support your statements.  Pretty everything I see in the sky orbits something.  Perhaps you can give an example something not following the rules of gravity and orbital dynamics like you claim.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 20, 2017, 09:22:28 AM
Really?

You're ripping off shit from Cluesforum?

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1957&p=2403472&sid=0b04c8c504abb16830ab85a58a27ee9a#p2403472

You're a fucking fraud.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 20, 2017, 10:38:22 AM
Hm, do you suggest the Moon doesn't orbit Earth?

Or do you suggest Earth orbits the Moon?

What do you think? And can you prove what you think. You sound like Donald Trump. I like him and laugh all the time.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Dog on May 20, 2017, 10:45:48 AM
Guys he's been running his fraudulent challenges for years. You're not going to see a cent.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 20, 2017, 10:49:37 AM
Guys he's been running his fraudulent challenges for years. You're not going to see a cent.
You are right in a way. My Challenge is real of course. But the challengers are all stupid zeros. In spite of my efforts to cure them. I am disappointed.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 20, 2017, 11:11:12 AM
You have yet to win my challenge so I would watch my tongue if I were you. You are making yourself look foolish.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 20, 2017, 02:41:47 PM
Hm, do you suggest the Moon doesn't orbit Earth?

Or do you suggest Earth orbits the Moon?

What do you think? And can you prove what you think. You sound like Donald Trump. I like him and laugh all the time.
Check your meds, I think your mad cow is getting worse.  I do not suggest the moon isn't orbiting the earth.
I do state as a fact though, that you have once again failed to support your claims.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 20, 2017, 02:43:27 PM
Guys he's been running his fraudulent challenges for years. You're not going to see a cent.
You are right in a way. My Challenge is real of course. But the challengers are all stupid zeros. In spite of my efforts to cure them. I am disappointed.
Prove it.  Show us the escrow account you keep the money in.  No? Yep, it's fake.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 20, 2017, 03:56:54 PM
Hm, do you suggest the Moon doesn't orbit Earth?

Or do you suggest Earth orbits the Moon?

What do you think? And can you prove what you think. You sound like Donald Trump. I like him and laugh all the time.
Check your meds, I think your mad cow is getting worse.  I do not suggest the moon isn't orbiting the earth.
I do state as a fact though, that you have once again failed to support your claims.

All claims at http://heiwaco.com are facts.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 20, 2017, 04:04:25 PM
Why do you say such stupid things?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 20, 2017, 08:15:12 PM

Can you point to anywhere in DNO's quote that he specified a depth of 10, 000 m?

Heiwa denies the reality of the Trieste expedition to the Marianas Trench. He does this mostly by saying "It's a fake". Therefore everything is fake because plenty reasons.

? Plenty people claim plenty things, like Alexander Humboldt. Ever heard of him? He lived >200 years ago around the corner from me at Freiberg, when I lived there.
Alexander suggested he and a friend had  climbed Aconcagua and many other high mountains 200 years ago - they were the astronuts of their times - but media was not there to check anything. Media just reported it as ... FAKE NEWS!
Yes, Alex & Co had seen the mountains from afar ... and that was it.
Back to your lack of knowledge on orbital mechanics.  Can you support any of your claims about space travel with actual evidence?  Can you show such evidence here, in this forum where you made those claims without linking to your pathetic website?
Or will simply fail again.
Thanks. There is no lack of orbital mechanics knowledge on my part! It is simple rocket science, as you know.
I explain my claims since many years at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm , i.e. humans cannot travel in space. It is a big site. Very popular. Downloaded 100 000's of times.

You have to study it. If you think I am wrong I pay you €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . My famous CHALLENGE.

I know plenty people say they have travelled or can travel in space but they have all failed my CHALLENGE. I think they simply lie or are totally brain washed. They cannot explain how it is done or how they did it.

What do you think?

Do you think?

More lies from Heiwa the proven pathological liar.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 20, 2017, 08:17:45 PM
Orbital mechanics, or rather dynamics – the objects are moving – is very simple at least in our part of the Universe.  Just look at the Moon. There must be both an attractive force and a repulsive force acting between us on Earth and the Moon. The strength of each one is maybe dependent on gravity and the distance between the Earth and the Moon. It seems the Moon orbits Earth elliptically in space. Don't ask me to prove it. Just look up!

On Wikipedia it says the perigee of the Moon is ~362 000 km and the apogee is ~405 000km with the midpoint of this elliptical orbit being ~384 000km from Earth.

Let’s start out at this midpoint with the moon having momentum leading it away from Earth in its orbit. As the Moon gets farther away from Earth beyond 384 000km, the attractive force comes to dominate the repulsive force. Meaning the Moon begins to be net pulled towards the Earth. First the momentum away from the Earth is decelerated until the Moon no longer has any momentum moving away from the Earth at the apogee ~405 000km.

As the attractive force is still dominant at this distance, the Moon begins gaining momentum moving towards Earth in its orbit. Until it builds up some good momentum and passes through the midpoint distance of 384 000km once again, but this time going the other way. You can see it yourself by looking up on the Moon. Use your eyes.

As the Moon travels closer to Earth, now the repulsive force begins to dominate. And gradually the repulsive force chips away at the Moon's momentum towards Earth. Until at ~362 000km the repulsive force has brought the Moon's momentum towards Earth to 0. And now the Moon begins to gain momentum moving away from Earth again. It is a simple example or orbital dynamics!

With this the Moon can remain in orbit of Earth for millions or billions of years. Kepler has explained it. One question remains; wouldn't this going back and forth between repulsive and attractive locations of force in orbit, eventually center the Moon at the midpoint distance. For this, I think the rotation of Earth, and the movement of Earth away from its own midpoint away from the Moon, will keep the Moon from achieving a resting midpoint. Another possibility is the action of other bodies like the Sun on the Earth-Moon system, will keep the system from rest distances. Yet another possibility is the idea of a tendency towards stability is based on observing things on Earth, where there is resistance like air resistance, which that tendency might not be true in space.
Anyway, the easiest way to understand orbital mechanics is to look out of the window and watch the Moon.
Our Solar System was, if you believe what you are told at school or by Wikipedia, formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. Imagine that! It was long before I was born and I am sorry I cannot prove it.

However, if you today, 4.6 billion years later, look further away from the tip of your nose and our Universe or Solar System and study other solar systems or galaxies in the sky above,  you will find that they do not orbit anything and pop up and disappear into nothing at regular intervals not following any rules of gravity and orbital dynamics.

Don't blame me for it.
and with this, possibly the single worst explanation of orbits I've ever seen, Heiwa proves the title of the thread, AGAIN.  Of course to even get this he had to plagiarize it from the biggest joke of a forum out there.  We all know Heiwa couldn't explain it in his own words.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Denspressure on May 21, 2017, 02:32:11 AM
Hm, do you suggest the Moon doesn't orbit Earth?

Or do you suggest Earth orbits the Moon?

What do you think? And can you prove what you think. You sound like Donald Trump. I like him and laugh all the time.
Check your meds, I think your mad cow is getting worse.  I do not suggest the moon isn't orbiting the earth.
I do state as a fact though, that you have once again failed to support your claims.

All claims at http://heiwaco.com are facts.
Aside from all the misinformation and lies.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Denspressure on May 21, 2017, 02:32:44 AM
Why do you say such stupid things?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 21, 2017, 06:45:53 AM
Hm, do you suggest the Moon doesn't orbit Earth?

Or do you suggest Earth orbits the Moon?

What do you think? And can you prove what you think. You sound like Donald Trump. I like him and laugh all the time.
Check your meds, I think your mad cow is getting worse.  I do not suggest the moon isn't orbiting the earth.
I do state as a fact though, that you have once again failed to support your claims.

All claims at http://heiwaco.com are facts.
Another fail.  Show your evidence here, where you are making your idiotic claims.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 21, 2017, 09:42:00 AM
Hm, do you suggest the Moon doesn't orbit Earth?

Or do you suggest Earth orbits the Moon?

What do you think? And can you prove what you think. You sound like Donald Trump. I like him and laugh all the time.
Check your meds, I think your mad cow is getting worse.  I do not suggest the moon isn't orbiting the earth.
I do state as a fact though, that you have once again failed to support your claims.

All claims at http://heiwaco.com are facts.
Another fail.  Show your evidence here, where you are making your idiotic claims.
I do it all the time even if the full story is at my website.
One reason why human space travel just orbiting Earth or going to the Moon or Mars is impossible is simply that there are no toilet available onboard. Asstronuts and kosmoklowns apparently do not shit and piss.
If you ask NASA for details you do not get any reply. I assume NASA forgot that detail as these facilities are readily available on Earth and humans were never intended to fly in space.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 21, 2017, 10:23:22 AM
Idiot.

http://toilet-guru.com/spacecraft.php



Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 21, 2017, 10:36:02 AM
Hm, do you suggest the Moon doesn't orbit Earth?

Or do you suggest Earth orbits the Moon?

What do you think? And can you prove what you think. You sound like Donald Trump. I like him and laugh all the time.
Check your meds, I think your mad cow is getting worse.  I do not suggest the moon isn't orbiting the earth.
I do state as a fact though, that you have once again failed to support your claims.

All claims at http://heiwaco.com are facts.
Another fail.  Show your evidence here, where you are making your idiotic claims.
I do it all the time even if the full story is at my website.
One reason why human space travel just orbiting Earth or going to the Moon or Mars is impossible is simply that there are no toilet available onboard. Asstronuts and kosmoklowns apparently do not shit and piss.
If you ask NASA for details you do not get any reply. I assume NASA forgot that detail as these facilities are readily available on Earth and humans were never intended to fly in space.
more lies from Heiwa.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 21, 2017, 11:13:57 AM
Idiot.

http://toilet-guru.com/spacecraft.php

LOL. Did Apollo 11 contain all this shit?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 21, 2017, 12:09:47 PM
Hm, do you suggest the Moon doesn't orbit Earth?

Or do you suggest Earth orbits the Moon?

What do you think? And can you prove what you think. You sound like Donald Trump. I like him and laugh all the time.
Check your meds, I think your mad cow is getting worse.  I do not suggest the moon isn't orbiting the earth.
I do state as a fact though, that you have once again failed to support your claims.

All claims at http://heiwaco.com are facts.
Another fail.  Show your evidence here, where you are making your idiotic claims.
I do it all the time even if the full story is at my website.
One reason why human space travel just orbiting Earth or going to the Moon or Mars is impossible is simply that there are no toilet available onboard. Asstronuts and kosmoklowns apparently do not shit and piss.
If you ask NASA for details you do not get any reply. I assume NASA forgot that detail as these facilities are readily available on Earth and humans were never intended to fly in space.
See, that's a lie.  I have posted links to exactly how the toilets in space work as a direct reply to you spouting this nonsense.
Why do you say such stupid things?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 21, 2017, 12:15:55 PM
Hm, do you suggest the Moon doesn't orbit Earth?

Or do you suggest Earth orbits the Moon?

What do you think? And can you prove what you think. You sound like Donald Trump. I like him and laugh all the time.
Check your meds, I think your mad cow is getting worse.  I do not suggest the moon isn't orbiting the earth.
I do state as a fact though, that you have once again failed to support your claims.

All claims at http://heiwaco.com are facts.
Another fail.  Show your evidence here, where you are making your idiotic claims.
I do it all the time even if the full story is at my website.
One reason why human space travel just orbiting Earth or going to the Moon or Mars is impossible is simply that there are no toilet available onboard. Asstronuts and kosmoklowns apparently do not shit and piss.
If you ask NASA for details you do not get any reply. I assume NASA forgot that detail as these facilities are readily available on Earth and humans were never intended to fly in space.
See, that's a lie.  I have posted links to exactly how the toilets in space work as a direct reply to you spouting this nonsense.
Why do you say such stupid things?
Links? They prove nothing.
And why would you have toilets in space? No humans can ever use them.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 21, 2017, 01:15:43 PM
Hm, do you suggest the Moon doesn't orbit Earth?

Or do you suggest Earth orbits the Moon?

What do you think? And can you prove what you think. You sound like Donald Trump. I like him and laugh all the time.
Check your meds, I think your mad cow is getting worse.  I do not suggest the moon isn't orbiting the earth.
I do state as a fact though, that you have once again failed to support your claims.

All claims at http://heiwaco.com are facts.
Another fail.  Show your evidence here, where you are making your idiotic claims.
I do it all the time even if the full story is at my website.
One reason why human space travel just orbiting Earth or going to the Moon or Mars is impossible is simply that there are no toilet available onboard. Asstronuts and kosmoklowns apparently do not shit and piss.
If you ask NASA for details you do not get any reply. I assume NASA forgot that detail as these facilities are readily available on Earth and humans were never intended to fly in space.
See, that's a lie.  I have posted links to exactly how the toilets in space work as a direct reply to you spouting this nonsense.
Why do you say such stupid things?
Links? They prove nothing.
And why would you have toilets in space? No humans can ever use them.
Why do you say such stupid things.  I've shown exactly how toilets in space work and then you lie and say no one can show you how toilets would work in space.
Others have shown you flight plans and fuel consumption and then you lie and say no one can show you these things.
Why do you lie?
But, show some evidence that the toilets designed for space won't work there.  Oh wait, you're a failure and can't actually support your claims.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 21, 2017, 07:31:40 PM
Hm, do you suggest the Moon doesn't orbit Earth?

Or do you suggest Earth orbits the Moon?

What do you think? And can you prove what you think. You sound like Donald Trump. I like him and laugh all the time.
Check your meds, I think your mad cow is getting worse.  I do not suggest the moon isn't orbiting the earth.
I do state as a fact though, that you have once again failed to support your claims.

All claims at http://heiwaco.com are facts.
Another fail.  Show your evidence here, where you are making your idiotic claims.
I do it all the time even if the full story is at my website.
One reason why human space travel just orbiting Earth or going to the Moon or Mars is impossible is simply that there are no toilet available onboard. Asstronuts and kosmoklowns apparently do not shit and piss.
If you ask NASA for details you do not get any reply. I assume NASA forgot that detail as these facilities are readily available on Earth and humans were never intended to fly in space.
See, that's a lie.  I have posted links to exactly how the toilets in space work as a direct reply to you spouting this nonsense.
Why do you say such stupid things?
Links? They prove nothing.
And why would you have toilets in space? No humans can ever use them.
Why do you say such stupid things.  I've shown exactly how toilets in space work and then you lie and say no one can show you how toilets would work in space.
Others have shown you flight plans and fuel consumption and then you lie and say no one can show you these things.
Why do you lie?
But, show some evidence that the toilets designed for space won't work there.  Oh wait, you're a failure and can't actually support your claims.
Hm, you have to read what I say. It is quite simple. Humans cannot travel in space and then land on Earth afterwards. I show and prove it quite clearly at my website. I also explain the reasons for the hoaxes, incl. stealing money from the public. It is just show biz and magic tricks.

Here at this forum nobody has even been able to calculate the fuel for simple trips in space and when you ask about the sanitary facilities in space you just get the standard shit.

Plenty people are brain washed to believe in human space travel. I just feel sorry for you.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 21, 2017, 07:42:00 PM
I love you Heiwa. You own this game.   ;D
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 21, 2017, 08:18:43 PM
Hm, do you suggest the Moon doesn't orbit Earth?

Or do you suggest Earth orbits the Moon?

What do you think? And can you prove what you think. You sound like Donald Trump. I like him and laugh all the time.
Check your meds, I think your mad cow is getting worse.  I do not suggest the moon isn't orbiting the earth.
I do state as a fact though, that you have once again failed to support your claims.

All claims at http://heiwaco.com are facts.
Another fail.  Show your evidence here, where you are making your idiotic claims.
I do it all the time even if the full story is at my website.
One reason why human space travel just orbiting Earth or going to the Moon or Mars is impossible is simply that there are no toilet available onboard. Asstronuts and kosmoklowns apparently do not shit and piss.
If you ask NASA for details you do not get any reply. I assume NASA forgot that detail as these facilities are readily available on Earth and humans were never intended to fly in space.
See, that's a lie.  I have posted links to exactly how the toilets in space work as a direct reply to you spouting this nonsense.
Why do you say such stupid things?
Links? They prove nothing.
And why would you have toilets in space? No humans can ever use them.
Why do you say such stupid things.  I've shown exactly how toilets in space work and then you lie and say no one can show you how toilets would work in space.
Others have shown you flight plans and fuel consumption and then you lie and say no one can show you these things.
Why do you lie?
But, show some evidence that the toilets designed for space won't work there.  Oh wait, you're a failure and can't actually support your claims.
Hm, you have to read what I say. It is quite simple. Humans cannot travel in space and then land on Earth afterwards. I show and prove it quite clearly at my website. I also explain the reasons for the hoaxes, incl. stealing money from the public. It is just show biz and magic tricks.

Here at this forum nobody has even been able to calculate the fuel for simple trips in space and when you ask about the sanitary facilities in space you just get the standard shit.

Plenty people are brain washed to believe in human space travel. I just feel sorry for you.
More lies.  You have been shown about the fuel consumption, you have been shown the toilets, you have been shown the entire flight plans for the Apollo missions.  You have been shown these things in great detail.  Then you lie and say no one can show you these things.
You have never once presented any evidence at all on this forum and yet constantly demand that others show you proof.  When they do, you ignore it and lie some more.
Show some evidence here to support your claims or admit or just a pathetic failure.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 21, 2017, 09:08:56 PM
Idiot.

http://toilet-guru.com/spacecraft.php

LOL. Did Apollo 11 contain all this shit?

No, just this one:
Quote from: http://toilet-guru.com/spacecraft.php
(http://toilet-guru.com/pictures/spacecraft-dscf0217.jpg)
 Fecal Collection Assembly
Apollo

These two bags make up the fecal collection assembly, part of the personal hygiene system used by Apollo astronauts. These bags were not flown.
This self-contained system gave the astronaut flexibility and control in a weightless environment and allowed for simple and hygienic disposal.

Transferred from NASA Johnson Space Center
A19750739000
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 21, 2017, 11:13:55 PM

More lies.  You have been shown about the fuel consumption, you have been shown the toilets, you have been shown the entire flight plans for the Apollo missions.  You have been shown these things in great detail.  Then you lie and say no one can show you these things.
You have never once presented any evidence at all on this forum and yet constantly demand that others show you proof.  When they do, you ignore it and lie some more.
Show some evidence here to support your claims or admit or just a pathetic failure.
No - nobody has shown how you calculate fuel required for a space trip or the flight plans for the Apollo missions. I, on the other hand, analyse one proposed flight plan (Apollo 11) at my website. There are several versions to look at and the difference in fuel used is of the order 100's of tons.
The question then is how you get almost 3000 tons of fuel off the ground to go pissing on the Moon. It is suggested that a super rocket was used ... which is no longer in production with all drawings lost, etc. LOL.

Re the sanitary facilities it seems the asstronuts had to take off their spacesuits and piss and shit in plastic bags, etc, but they forgot the paper rolls required clean/dry yourself.

Only totally brainwashed twirps believe in human spacetravel.

And when you ask, what on Earth, the humans shall do up there, you only get nonsense answers. Collect Moon dust! Plant strawberries!
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 21, 2017, 11:51:23 PM
Why do you say such stupid lies?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 21, 2017, 11:54:17 PM
Why do you say such stupid lies?

Why do people keep responding to him?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 21, 2017, 11:54:39 PM
Why do you say such stupid lies?
Well - nobody has shown how you calculate fuel required for a space trip or the flight plans for the Apollo missions. I, on the other hand, analyse one proposed flight plan (Apollo 11) at my website. There are several versions to look at and the difference in fuel used is of the order 100's of tons.
The question then is how you get almost 3000 tons of fuel off the ground to go pissing on the Moon. It is suggested that a super rocket was used ... which is no longer in production with all drawings lost, etc. LOL.

Re the sanitary facilities it seems the asstronuts had to take off their spacesuits and piss and shit in plastic bags, etc, but they forgot the paper rolls required clean/dry yourself.

Only totally brainwashed twirps believe in human spacetravel.

And when you ask, what on Earth, the humans shall do up there, you only get nonsense answers. Collect Moon dust! Plant strawberries!

Please provide some answers!
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 21, 2017, 11:59:26 PM
Do you think it becomes less stupid if you post it twice?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 22, 2017, 01:04:55 AM
Do you think it becomes less stupid if you post it twice?
No, but it seems plenty people do not understand what I write. Maybe they are lazy or slow in their heads?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 22, 2017, 02:45:06 AM
Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htm

Quote
The bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes


Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 22, 2017, 09:13:22 AM
Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htm

Quote
The bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes


Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.

But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 22, 2017, 09:17:07 AM
Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htm

Quote
The bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes


Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.

But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
re onebigmonkey: apparently you are.  It appears in Heiwa's world it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down.  Of course he probably has his nurse wiping his ass.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 22, 2017, 09:22:46 AM
Do you think it becomes less stupid if you post it twice?
No, but it seems plenty people do not understand what I write. Maybe they are lazy or slow in their heads?

Well, it's more likely that what you write contains so many logical fallacies, half truths and even outright lies that no one takes you seriously anymore.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 22, 2017, 09:47:28 AM
Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htm

Quote
The bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes


Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.

But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
re onebigmonkey: apparently you are.  It appears in Heiwa's world it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down.  Of course he probably has his nurse wiping his ass.
Hm, I would assume it would be a part of normal asstronut training but ... I have never heard of it before now. Anyway, none of these shitters/tissue wipers have ever been in space. They just make it up on ground.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 22, 2017, 10:40:54 AM
Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htm

Quote
The bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes


Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.

But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
re onebigmonkey: apparently you are.  It appears in Heiwa's world it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down.  Of course he probably has his nurse wiping his ass.
Hm, I would assume it would be a part of normal asstronut training but ... I have never heard of it before now. Anyway, none of these shitters/tissue wipers have ever been in space. They just make it up on ground.
Translation: I haven't heard of it because my research skills are completely abysmal and I'm a pathological liar.  I have no proof of my claims but I'll refer you to my website anyway because the paltry hit count gives me a hard on.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 22, 2017, 11:03:31 AM
Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htm

Quote
The bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes


Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.

But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
re onebigmonkey: apparently you are.  It appears in Heiwa's world it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down.  Of course he probably has his nurse wiping his ass.
Can he seriously be this stupid?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 22, 2017, 11:25:34 AM
Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htm

Quote
The bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes


Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.

But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
re onebigmonkey: apparently you are.  It appears in Heiwa's world it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down.  Of course he probably has his nurse wiping his ass.
Can he seriously be this stupid?
Hm, I have been told that, travelling in space you are floating around inside your spacecraft all the time not in touch with anything. To move you must start a little rocket attached to your nose, or something, to get moving, according NASA. Flying to the toilet must be ... something. Imagine if you shit in the wrong direction not attached to whatever. In the wrong place! And the wiper tissue. Imagine if it is not flying about in front of you so you can wipe your ass or dry your pick.
I assume you have no idea about shitting inside a spacecraft.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 22, 2017, 11:40:38 AM
Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htm

Quote
The bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes


Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.

But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
re onebigmonkey: apparently you are.  It appears in Heiwa's world it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down.  Of course he probably has his nurse wiping his ass.
Can he seriously be this stupid?
Hm, I have been told that, travelling in space you are floating around inside your spacecraft all the time not in touch with anything. To move you must start a little rocket attached to your nose, or something, to get moving, according NASA. Flying to the toilet must be ... something. Imagine if you shit in the wrong direction not attached to whatever. In the wrong place! And the wiper tissue. Imagine if it is not flying about in front of you so you can wipe your ass or dry your pick.
I assume you have no idea about shitting inside a spacecraft.
So, yes, seriously that stupid.  I have posted links that show you exactly how that works.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 22, 2017, 12:02:24 PM
Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htm

Quote
The bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes


Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.

But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
re onebigmonkey: apparently you are.  It appears in Heiwa's world it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down.  Of course he probably has his nurse wiping his ass.
Can he seriously be this stupid?
Hm, I have been told that, travelling in space you are floating around inside your spacecraft all the time not in touch with anything. To move you must start a little rocket attached to your nose, or something, to get moving, according NASA. Flying to the toilet must be ... something. Imagine if you shit in the wrong direction not attached to whatever. In the wrong place! And the wiper tissue. Imagine if it is not flying about in front of you so you can wipe your ass or dry your pick.
I assume you have no idea about shitting inside a spacecraft.
Is this a weird fetish of yours?

If you shit in the wrong direction or place it's a mess no matter where you are! What does this have to do with orbital mechanics?  ???
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 22, 2017, 12:12:57 PM
Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htm

Quote
The bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes


Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.

But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
re onebigmonkey: apparently you are.  It appears in Heiwa's world it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down.  Of course he probably has his nurse wiping his ass.
Can he seriously be this stupid?
Hm, I have been told that, travelling in space you are floating around inside your spacecraft all the time not in touch with anything. To move you must start a little rocket attached to your nose, or something, to get moving, according NASA. Flying to the toilet must be ... something. Imagine if you shit in the wrong direction not attached to whatever. In the wrong place! And the wiper tissue. Imagine if it is not flying about in front of you so you can wipe your ass or dry your pick.
I assume you have no idea about shitting inside a spacecraft.
Is this a weird fetish of yours?

If you shit in the wrong direction or place it's a mess no matter where you are! What does this have to do with orbital mechanics?  ???
A lot. When in space or in orbit you are just floating around inside your spacecraft. You are weightless. However, when you shit or piss you act like a rocket! The piss/shit is ejected one way and you move the other way. You have to hold on to something ... and the shit/piss must end up in some container or similar. How do you do it? In your pants? When holding on to something?
Have you ever pissed/shitted in space?
You should try it.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 22, 2017, 12:14:20 PM
Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htm

Quote
The bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes


Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.

But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
re onebigmonkey: apparently you are.  It appears in Heiwa's world it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down.  Of course he probably has his nurse wiping his ass.
Can he seriously be this stupid?
Hm, I have been told that, travelling in space you are floating around inside your spacecraft all the time not in touch with anything. To move you must start a little rocket attached to your nose, or something, to get moving, according NASA. Flying to the toilet must be ... something. Imagine if you shit in the wrong direction not attached to whatever. In the wrong place! And the wiper tissue. Imagine if it is not flying about in front of you so you can wipe your ass or dry your pick.
I assume you have no idea about shitting inside a spacecraft.
Is this a weird fetish of yours?

If you shit in the wrong direction or place it's a mess no matter where you are! What does this have to do with orbital mechanics?  ???
A lot. When in space or in orbit you are just floating around inside your spacecraft. You are weightless. However, when you shit or piss you act like a rocket! The piss/shit is ejected one way and you move the other way. You have to hold on to something ... and the shit/piss must end up in some container or similar. How do you do it? In your pants? When holding on to something?
Have you ever pissed/shitted in space?
You should try it.
Heiwa thinks it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down.  Anyone really think this guy is an engineer?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 22, 2017, 12:33:12 PM
Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htm

Quote
The bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes


Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.

But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
re onebigmonkey: apparently you are.  It appears in Heiwa's world it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down.  Of course he probably has his nurse wiping his ass.
Can he seriously be this stupid?
Hm, I have been told that, travelling in space you are floating around inside your spacecraft all the time not in touch with anything. To move you must start a little rocket attached to your nose, or something, to get moving, according NASA. Flying to the toilet must be ... something. Imagine if you shit in the wrong direction not attached to whatever. In the wrong place! And the wiper tissue. Imagine if it is not flying about in front of you so you can wipe your ass or dry your pick.
I assume you have no idea about shitting inside a spacecraft.
Is this a weird fetish of yours?

If you shit in the wrong direction or place it's a mess no matter where you are! What does this have to do with orbital mechanics?  ???
A lot. When in space or in orbit you are just floating around inside your spacecraft. You are weightless. However, when you shit or piss you act like a rocket! The piss/shit is ejected one way and you move the other way. You have to hold on to something ... and the shit/piss must end up in some container or similar. How do you do it? In your pants? When holding on to something?
Have you ever pissed/shitted in space?
You should try it.

This really is a weird fetish of yours isn't it?

I probably will use the bathroom in space some day.

Some restraining devices to hold things in the appropriate position should not be too hard to figure out.

I think the key thing you're not understanding is that the people who are in space have full control of their bowels and they don't shit until it's directed in the right direction and place. the mistake you're making is assuming that just because you don't have full control of your bowel movements nobody else does either. This is incorrect.

I figured out how to piss out of a moving canoe when I was seven. It's a little tricky but with a little ingenuity it can be accomplished. You must be really stupid if you think the problems you are pointing out regarding using the bathroom in space are insurmountable. I really think those are problems that an average seven year old could solve. At most, ten years old.

But I think you know this, you just like to go on about it 'cause it get's you off.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 22, 2017, 12:59:53 PM
Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htm

Quote
The bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes


Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.

But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
re onebigmonkey: apparently you are.  It appears in Heiwa's world it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down.  Of course he probably has his nurse wiping his ass.
Can he seriously be this stupid?
Hm, I have been told that, travelling in space you are floating around inside your spacecraft all the time not in touch with anything. To move you must start a little rocket attached to your nose, or something, to get moving, according NASA. Flying to the toilet must be ... something. Imagine if you shit in the wrong direction not attached to whatever. In the wrong place! And the wiper tissue. Imagine if it is not flying about in front of you so you can wipe your ass or dry your pick.
I assume you have no idea about shitting inside a spacecraft.
Is this a weird fetish of yours?

If you shit in the wrong direction or place it's a mess no matter where you are! What does this have to do with orbital mechanics?  ???
A lot. When in space or in orbit you are just floating around inside your spacecraft. You are weightless. However, when you shit or piss you act like a rocket! The piss/shit is ejected one way and you move the other way. You have to hold on to something ... and the shit/piss must end up in some container or similar. How do you do it? In your pants? When holding on to something?
Have you ever pissed/shitted in space?
You should try it.

This really is a weird fetish of yours isn't it?

I probably will use the bathroom in space some day.

Some restraining devices to hold things in the appropriate position should not be too hard to figure out.

I think the key thing you're not understanding is that the people who are in space have full control of their bowels and they don't shit until it's directed in the right direction and place. the mistake you're making is assuming that just because you don't have full control of your bowel movements nobody else does either. This is incorrect.

I figured out how to piss out of a moving canoe when I was seven. It's a little tricky but with a little ingenuity it can be accomplished. You must be really stupid if you think the problems you are pointing out regarding using the bathroom in space are insurmountable. I really think those are problems that an average seven year old could solve. At most, ten years old.

But I think you know this, you just like to go on about it 'cause it get's you off.

Please, pissing/shitting from a boat at sea has nothing in common with doing it weightless inside a spacecraft in space. You talk nonsense as usual. Maybe your head is too small and your brains compressed?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 22, 2017, 01:08:01 PM
Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htm

Quote
The bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes


Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.

But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
re onebigmonkey: apparently you are.  It appears in Heiwa's world it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down.  Of course he probably has his nurse wiping his ass.
Can he seriously be this stupid?
Hm, I have been told that, travelling in space you are floating around inside your spacecraft all the time not in touch with anything. To move you must start a little rocket attached to your nose, or something, to get moving, according NASA. Flying to the toilet must be ... something. Imagine if you shit in the wrong direction not attached to whatever. In the wrong place! And the wiper tissue. Imagine if it is not flying about in front of you so you can wipe your ass or dry your pick.
I assume you have no idea about shitting inside a spacecraft.
Is this a weird fetish of yours?

If you shit in the wrong direction or place it's a mess no matter where you are! What does this have to do with orbital mechanics?  ???
A lot. When in space or in orbit you are just floating around inside your spacecraft. You are weightless. However, when you shit or piss you act like a rocket! The piss/shit is ejected one way and you move the other way. You have to hold on to something ... and the shit/piss must end up in some container or similar. How do you do it? In your pants? When holding on to something?
Have you ever pissed/shitted in space?
You should try it.

This really is a weird fetish of yours isn't it?

I probably will use the bathroom in space some day.

Some restraining devices to hold things in the appropriate position should not be too hard to figure out.

I think the key thing you're not understanding is that the people who are in space have full control of their bowels and they don't shit until it's directed in the right direction and place. the mistake you're making is assuming that just because you don't have full control of your bowel movements nobody else does either. This is incorrect.

I figured out how to piss out of a moving canoe when I was seven. It's a little tricky but with a little ingenuity it can be accomplished. You must be really stupid if you think the problems you are pointing out regarding using the bathroom in space are insurmountable. I really think those are problems that an average seven year old could solve. At most, ten years old.

But I think you know this, you just like to go on about it 'cause it get's you off.

Please, pissing/shitting from a boat at sea has nothing in common with doing it weightless inside a spacecraft in space. You talk nonsense as usual. Maybe your head is too small and your brains compressed?

So you're just going to ignore the rest of my post then?

Some restraining devices to hold things in the appropriate position should not be too hard to figure out.

I think the key thing you're not understanding is that the people who are in space have full control of their bowels and they don't shit until it's directed in the right direction and place. the mistake you're making is assuming that just because you don't have full control of your bowel movements nobody else does either. This is incorrect.

You must be really stupid if you think the problems you are pointing out regarding using the bathroom in space are insurmountable. I really think those are problems that an average seven year old could solve. At most, ten years old.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 22, 2017, 09:14:15 PM
If you shit in the wrong direction or place it's a mess no matter where you are! What does this have to do with orbital mechanics?  ???
Obviously the action of shitting in one direction produces the reaction of pushing the entire spacecraft in the other direction.  This means that if you shit hard enough in the wrong direction, your spacecraft will be thrown off course and you will become hopelessly lost in space forever.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 22, 2017, 09:48:36 PM
Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htm

Quote
The bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes


Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.

But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
re onebigmonkey: apparently you are.  It appears in Heiwa's world it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down.  Of course he probably has his nurse wiping his ass.
Can he seriously be this stupid?
Hm, I have been told that, travelling in space you are floating around inside your spacecraft all the time not in touch with anything. To move you must start a little rocket attached to your nose, or something, to get moving, according NASA. Flying to the toilet must be ... something. Imagine if you shit in the wrong direction not attached to whatever. In the wrong place! And the wiper tissue. Imagine if it is not flying about in front of you so you can wipe your ass or dry your pick.
I assume you have no idea about shitting inside a spacecraft.
Is this a weird fetish of yours?

If you shit in the wrong direction or place it's a mess no matter where you are! What does this have to do with orbital mechanics?  ???
A lot. When in space or in orbit you are just floating around inside your spacecraft. You are weightless. However, when you shit or piss you act like a rocket! The piss/shit is ejected one way and you move the other way. You have to hold on to something ... and the shit/piss must end up in some container or similar. How do you do it? In your pants? When holding on to something?
Have you ever pissed/shitted in space?
You should try it.

This really is a weird fetish of yours isn't it?

I probably will use the bathroom in space some day.

Some restraining devices to hold things in the appropriate position should not be too hard to figure out.

I think the key thing you're not understanding is that the people who are in space have full control of their bowels and they don't shit until it's directed in the right direction and place. the mistake you're making is assuming that just because you don't have full control of your bowel movements nobody else does either. This is incorrect.

I figured out how to piss out of a moving canoe when I was seven. It's a little tricky but with a little ingenuity it can be accomplished. You must be really stupid if you think the problems you are pointing out regarding using the bathroom in space are insurmountable. I really think those are problems that an average seven year old could solve. At most, ten years old.

But I think you know this, you just like to go on about it 'cause it get's you off.

Please, pissing/shitting from a boat at sea has nothing in common with doing it weightless inside a spacecraft in space. You talk nonsense as usual. Maybe your head is too small and your brains compressed?

So you're just going to ignore the rest of my post then?

Some restraining devices to hold things in the appropriate position should not be too hard to figure out.

I think the key thing you're not understanding is that the people who are in space have full control of their bowels and they don't shit until it's directed in the right direction and place. the mistake you're making is assuming that just because you don't have full control of your bowel movements nobody else does either. This is incorrect.

You must be really stupid if you think the problems you are pointing out regarding using the bathroom in space are insurmountable. I really think those are problems that an average seven year old could solve. At most, ten years old.
To be perfectly frank I do not believe the NASA stories of the no gravity toilet in the Apollo service modules and the low gravity toilet in the Apollo lunar modules and operating procedures. Apparently the asstronut must strip off his space suit and strap himself to the unit and ensure that the piss and shit is transferred to some containers (plastic bags), etc, etc. and then he cleans himself with some tissue paper disposed somewhere else before putting on the space suit again.
Personally I prefer my 'arab' style WC with a little shower (and towel) for ass cleaning. It works perfectly ... but not in space.
I have never understood why humans should fly up to piss and shit in space. It doesn't sound normal. Only sick minds can have invented it.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 22, 2017, 10:02:07 PM
Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htm

Quote
The bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes


Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.

But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
re onebigmonkey: apparently you are.  It appears in Heiwa's world it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down.  Of course he probably has his nurse wiping his ass.
Can he seriously be this stupid?
Hm, I have been told that, travelling in space you are floating around inside your spacecraft all the time not in touch with anything. To move you must start a little rocket attached to your nose, or something, to get moving, according NASA. Flying to the toilet must be ... something. Imagine if you shit in the wrong direction not attached to whatever. In the wrong place! And the wiper tissue. Imagine if it is not flying about in front of you so you can wipe your ass or dry your pick.
I assume you have no idea about shitting inside a spacecraft.
Is this a weird fetish of yours?

If you shit in the wrong direction or place it's a mess no matter where you are! What does this have to do with orbital mechanics?  ???
A lot. When in space or in orbit you are just floating around inside your spacecraft. You are weightless. However, when you shit or piss you act like a rocket! The piss/shit is ejected one way and you move the other way. You have to hold on to something ... and the shit/piss must end up in some container or similar. How do you do it? In your pants? When holding on to something?
Have you ever pissed/shitted in space?
You should try it.

This really is a weird fetish of yours isn't it?

I probably will use the bathroom in space some day.

Some restraining devices to hold things in the appropriate position should not be too hard to figure out.

I think the key thing you're not understanding is that the people who are in space have full control of their bowels and they don't shit until it's directed in the right direction and place. the mistake you're making is assuming that just because you don't have full control of your bowel movements nobody else does either. This is incorrect.

I figured out how to piss out of a moving canoe when I was seven. It's a little tricky but with a little ingenuity it can be accomplished. You must be really stupid if you think the problems you are pointing out regarding using the bathroom in space are insurmountable. I really think those are problems that an average seven year old could solve. At most, ten years old.

But I think you know this, you just like to go on about it 'cause it get's you off.

Please, pissing/shitting from a boat at sea has nothing in common with doing it weightless inside a spacecraft in space. You talk nonsense as usual. Maybe your head is too small and your brains compressed?

So you're just going to ignore the rest of my post then?

Some restraining devices to hold things in the appropriate position should not be too hard to figure out.

I think the key thing you're not understanding is that the people who are in space have full control of their bowels and they don't shit until it's directed in the right direction and place. the mistake you're making is assuming that just because you don't have full control of your bowel movements nobody else does either. This is incorrect.

You must be really stupid if you think the problems you are pointing out regarding using the bathroom in space are insurmountable. I really think those are problems that an average seven year old could solve. At most, ten years old.
To be perfectly frank I do not believe the NASA stories of the no gravity toilet in the Apollo service modules and the low gravity toilet in the Apollo lunar modules and operating procedures. Apparently the asstronut must strip off his space suit and strap himself to the unit and ensure that the piss and shit is transferred to some containers (plastic bags), etc, etc. and then he cleans himself with some tissue paper disposed somewhere else before putting on the space suit again.
Personally I prefer my 'arab' style WC with a little shower (and towel) for ass cleaning. It works perfectly ... but not in space.
I have never understood why humans should fly up to piss and shit in space. It doesn't sound normal. Only sick minds can have invented it.

These are certainly some of the weakest objections you have raised toward the possibility of space travel as they are something your average ten year old could solve. It's strange that you seem so fixated on them.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 22, 2017, 10:06:51 PM
If you shit in the wrong direction or place it's a mess no matter where you are! What does this have to do with orbital mechanics?  ???
Obviously the action of shitting in one direction produces the reaction of pushing the entire spacecraft in the other direction.  This means that if you shit hard enough in the wrong direction, your spacecraft will be thrown off course and you will become hopelessly lost in space forever.

My bad! Do you happen to know of any instances where space travelers lost their way due to misdirected feces etc?  ;D
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 23, 2017, 05:05:28 AM

To be perfectly frank I do not believe the NASA stories of the no gravity toilet in the Apollo service modules and the low gravity toilet in the Apollo lunar modules and operating procedures. Apparently the asstronut must strip off his space suit and strap himself to the unit and ensure that the piss and shit is transferred to some containers (plastic bags), etc, etc. and then he cleans himself with some tissue paper disposed somewhere else before putting on the space suit again.
Personally I prefer my 'arab' style WC with a little shower (and towel) for ass cleaning. It works perfectly ... but not in space.
I have never understood why humans should fly up to piss and shit in space. It doesn't sound normal. Only sick minds can have invented it.
As usual Heiwa's objections reduce to nothing but argument from incredulity.  He doesn't understand it so it must not be possible.  And add that to his apparent fecal obsession and that is all he has to offer.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 23, 2017, 05:43:13 AM
To be perfectly frank I do not believe the NASA stories of the no gravity toilet in the Apollo service modules and the low gravity toilet in the Apollo lunar modules and operating procedures.
That's because the Apollo command module and lunar module didn't have toilets of any kind.  It's already been pointed out that they used collection bags.

Apparently the asstronut must strip off his space suit and strap himself to the unit and ensure that the piss and shit is transferred to some containers (plastic bags), etc, etc. and then he cleans himself with some tissue paper disposed somewhere else before putting on the space suit again.
Apparently you don't understand that the astronauts only wore their space suits during lift off and when in the lunar module.  The rest of the time they wore much lighter and more comfortable flight suits for the vast majority of the trip.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4052/4680806980_e44c4fc902_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 23, 2017, 06:31:53 AM
To be perfectly frank I do not believe the NASA stories of the no gravity toilet in the Apollo service modules and the low gravity toilet in the Apollo lunar modules and operating procedures.
That's because the Apollo command module and lunar module didn't have toilets of any kind.  It's already been pointed out that they used collection bags.

Apparently the asstronut must strip off his space suit and strap himself to the unit and ensure that the piss and shit is transferred to some containers (plastic bags), etc, etc. and then he cleans himself with some tissue paper disposed somewhere else before putting on the space suit again.
Apparently you don't understand that the astronauts only wore their space suits during lift off and when in the lunar module.  The rest of the time they wore much lighter and more comfortable flight suits for the vast majority of the trip.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4052/4680806980_e44c4fc902_b.jpg)
Yes, asstronuts are dressed in pyjamas (flight suits) in space and attach some fittings to piss and shit into collection bags, etc, etc. Sounds great. Then they wash themselves, bla, bla.  But what is the whole purpose with these clowns up there? What do they produce ... apart from filled collection bags. I have never understood it.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 23, 2017, 07:36:56 AM
To be perfectly frank I do not believe the NASA stories of the no gravity toilet in the Apollo service modules and the low gravity toilet in the Apollo lunar modules and operating procedures.
That's because the Apollo command module and lunar module didn't have toilets of any kind.  It's already been pointed out that they used collection bags.

Apparently the asstronut must strip off his space suit and strap himself to the unit and ensure that the piss and shit is transferred to some containers (plastic bags), etc, etc. and then he cleans himself with some tissue paper disposed somewhere else before putting on the space suit again.
Apparently you don't understand that the astronauts only wore their space suits during lift off and when in the lunar module.  The rest of the time they wore much lighter and more comfortable flight suits for the vast majority of the trip.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4052/4680806980_e44c4fc902_b.jpg)
Yes, asstronuts are dressed in pyjamas (flight suits) in space and attach some fittings to piss and shit into collection bags, etc, etc. Sounds great. Then they wash themselves, bla, bla.  But what is the whole purpose with these clowns up there? What do they produce ... apart from filled collection bags. I have never understood it.

I think this is the closest thing to progress I've ever witnessed with Heiwa, his attempt at "switching" notwithstanding.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 23, 2017, 09:58:27 AM
To be perfectly frank I do not believe the NASA stories of the no gravity toilet in the Apollo service modules and the low gravity toilet in the Apollo lunar modules and operating procedures.
That's because the Apollo command module and lunar module didn't have toilets of any kind.  It's already been pointed out that they used collection bags.

Apparently the asstronut must strip off his space suit and strap himself to the unit and ensure that the piss and shit is transferred to some containers (plastic bags), etc, etc. and then he cleans himself with some tissue paper disposed somewhere else before putting on the space suit again.
Apparently you don't understand that the astronauts only wore their space suits during lift off and when in the lunar module.  The rest of the time they wore much lighter and more comfortable flight suits for the vast majority of the trip.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4052/4680806980_e44c4fc902_b.jpg)
Yes, asstronuts are dressed in pyjamas (flight suits) in space and attach some fittings to piss and shit into collection bags, etc, etc. Sounds great. Then they wash themselves, bla, bla.  But what is the whole purpose with these clowns up there? What do they produce ... apart from filled collection bags. I have never understood it.
That's really what it comes down to isn't it?  You don't understand it so it can't be true.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Dog on May 23, 2017, 02:23:12 PM
I have never understood it. anything.

FTFY
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 23, 2017, 03:22:40 PM
Yes, asstronuts are dressed in pyjamas (flight suits) in space and attach some fittings to piss and shit into collection bags, etc, etc. Sounds great. Then they wash themselves, bla, bla.  But what is the whole purpose with these clowns up there? What do they produce ... apart from filled collection bags. I have never understood it.
A sailor that doesn't understand the purpose of exploring the unknown? ???
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 23, 2017, 09:24:05 PM
Yes, asstronuts are dressed in pyjamas (flight suits) in space and attach some fittings to piss and shit into collection bags, etc, etc. Sounds great. Then they wash themselves, bla, bla.  But what is the whole purpose with these clowns up there? What do they produce ... apart from filled collection bags. I have never understood it.
A sailor that doesn't understand the purpose of exploring the unknown? ???
Yes, you are wrong as usual. What is, e.g., the purpose of sending humans to planet Mars apart from nobody winning my Challenge describing the trip. Mars has, we are told, already been explored by robots. There is nothing there for humans to enjoy. NOTHING! So why send humans there? To piss and shit through a special device strapped to your body? Only idiots would even consider flying to Mars.

More fun is a cruise on ship. But the ship must be safe. I describe it at my website.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Kami on May 24, 2017, 02:50:21 AM
If you shit in the wrong direction or place it's a mess no matter where you are! What does this have to do with orbital mechanics?  ???
Obviously the action of shitting in one direction produces the reaction of pushing the entire spacecraft in the other direction.  This means that if you shit hard enough in the wrong direction, your spacecraft will be thrown off course and you will become hopelessly lost in space forever.

My bad! Do you happen to know of any instances where space travelers lost their way due to misdirected feces etc?  ;D
Actually, there is an instance. On the space station MIR they used to eject the collected urine into space (why not, there is a lot of room out there). Unfortunately, it froze and stayed within a roughtly similar orbit as MIR, so finally some urine-ice-crystals started gathering on the solar panels, significantly reducing their efficiency. This is why on the ISS the urine now gets stored and brought back to ground (that, and the huge interest by researchers).

If you are interested in the actual urinating process i suggest you read chris hadfield's book, there he describes that in pretty good detail.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 24, 2017, 03:28:43 AM

 on the ISS the urine now gets stored and brought back to ground (that, and the huge interest by researchers).

If you are interested in the actual urinating process i suggest you read chris hadfield's book, there he describes that in pretty good detail.

What about the shit? Does asstronut Hadfield look into it?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Kami on May 24, 2017, 04:11:19 AM

 on the ISS the urine now gets stored and brought back to ground (that, and the huge interest by researchers).

If you are interested in the actual urinating process i suggest you read chris hadfield's book, there he describes that in pretty good detail.

What about the shit? Does asstronut Hadfield look into it?
Well, the process is not that much different... But no, he does not describe that as far as I remember.

What is it about your recent interest in shit? If you want to study shit in a huge abundance, i suggest this (http://www.heiwaco.com) website.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 24, 2017, 06:25:16 AM

 on the ISS the urine now gets stored and brought back to ground (that, and the huge interest by researchers).

If you are interested in the actual urinating process i suggest you read chris hadfield's book, there he describes that in pretty good detail.

What about the shit? Does asstronut Hadfield look into it?
Well, the process is not that much different... But no, he does not describe that as far as I remember.

What is it about your recent interest in shit? If you want to study shit in a huge abundance, i suggest this (http://www.heiwaco.com) website.
No, my interest is ship. And safety of them. Not very popular actually. If something goes wrong on a ship, the easiest solution is to arrest the Captain and jail him - http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm . Media support it. Many ships are shit.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 24, 2017, 06:44:03 AM

 on the ISS the urine now gets stored and brought back to ground (that, and the huge interest by researchers).

If you are interested in the actual urinating process i suggest you read chris hadfield's book, there he describes that in pretty good detail.

What about the shit? Does asstronut Hadfield look into it?
Well, the process is not that much different... But no, he does not describe that as far as I remember.

What is it about your recent interest in shit? If you want to study shit in a huge abundance, i suggest this (http://www.heiwaco.com) website.
No, my interest is ship. And safety of them. Not very popular actually. If something goes wrong on a ship, the easiest solution is to arrest the Captain and jail him - http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm . Media support it. Many ships are shit.
I don't know, you spend an awful lot of time talking about piss and shit.  Maybe you should move over to a fetish forum.  I'm sure there are some that specialize in bathroom fantasies.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 24, 2017, 07:22:38 AM

 on the ISS the urine now gets stored and brought back to ground (that, and the huge interest by researchers).

If you are interested in the actual urinating process i suggest you read chris hadfield's book, there he describes that in pretty good detail.

What about the shit? Does asstronut Hadfield look into it?
Well, the process is not that much different... But no, he does not describe that as far as I remember.

What is it about your recent interest in shit? If you want to study shit in a huge abundance, i suggest this (http://www.heiwaco.com) website.
No, my interest is ship. And safety of them. Not very popular actually. If something goes wrong on a ship, the easiest solution is to arrest the Captain and jail him - http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm . Media support it. Many ships are shit.
I don't know, you spend an awful lot of time talking about piss and shit.  Maybe you should move over to a fetish forum.  I'm sure there are some that specialize in bathroom fantasies.
Hm, Donald Trump has just told NASA to put humans on planet Mars by 2033! Nobody seems to know how long it will take to go there. Maybe it will take 200 days. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . The only thing that is certain is that the humans aboard must piss and shit a couple of times daily, even if there are no private facilities aboard the spacecraft.
It seems the solution is that the asstronuts undress and strap some device to their bodies into which the asstronuts then shit and piss. The fecals arrive in plastic bags.
I find that solution unsatisfactory.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 24, 2017, 07:57:04 AM

 on the ISS the urine now gets stored and brought back to ground (that, and the huge interest by researchers).

If you are interested in the actual urinating process i suggest you read chris hadfield's book, there he describes that in pretty good detail.

What about the shit? Does asstronut Hadfield look into it?
Well, the process is not that much different... But no, he does not describe that as far as I remember.

What is it about your recent interest in shit? If you want to study shit in a huge abundance, i suggest this (http://www.heiwaco.com) website.
No, my interest is ship. And safety of them. Not very popular actually. If something goes wrong on a ship, the easiest solution is to arrest the Captain and jail him - http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm . Media support it. Many ships are shit.
I don't know, you spend an awful lot of time talking about piss and shit.  Maybe you should move over to a fetish forum.  I'm sure there are some that specialize in bathroom fantasies.
Hm, Donald Trump has just told NASA to put humans on planet Mars by 2033! Nobody seems to know how long it will take to go there. Maybe it will take 200 days. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . The only thing that is certain is that the humans aboard must piss and shit a couple of times daily, even if there are no private facilities aboard the spacecraft.
It seems the solution is that the asstronuts undress and strap some device to their bodies into which the asstronuts then shit and piss. The fecals arrive in plastic bags.
I find that solution unsatisfactory.
Then you shouldn't go.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 24, 2017, 10:21:32 AM

 on the ISS the urine now gets stored and brought back to ground (that, and the huge interest by researchers).

If you are interested in the actual urinating process i suggest you read chris hadfield's book, there he describes that in pretty good detail.

What about the shit? Does asstronut Hadfield look into it?
Well, the process is not that much different... But no, he does not describe that as far as I remember.

What is it about your recent interest in shit? If you want to study shit in a huge abundance, i suggest this (http://www.heiwaco.com) website.
No, my interest is ship. And safety of them. Not very popular actually. If something goes wrong on a ship, the easiest solution is to arrest the Captain and jail him - http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm . Media support it. Many ships are shit.
I don't know, you spend an awful lot of time talking about piss and shit.  Maybe you should move over to a fetish forum.  I'm sure there are some that specialize in bathroom fantasies.
Hm, Donald Trump has just told NASA to put humans on planet Mars by 2033! Nobody seems to know how long it will take to go there. Maybe it will take 200 days. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . The only thing that is certain is that the humans aboard must piss and shit a couple of times daily, even if there are no private facilities aboard the spacecraft.
It seems the solution is that the asstronuts undress and strap some device to their bodies into which the asstronuts then shit and piss. The fecals arrive in plastic bags.
I find that solution unsatisfactory.
Then you shouldn't go.
I cannot afford it, but, you know, it is a joke. It is not possible.
So why would you go?
200 days shitting/pissing in a strap on gadget in space?
And then?
Planting strawberries on planet Mars?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Pezevenk on May 24, 2017, 10:44:47 AM
The takeaway from this is that according to Heiwa, space travel is impossible because he doesn't like pissing and shitting into gadgets. Ok.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Denspressure on May 24, 2017, 10:56:48 AM
Yes, asstronuts are dressed in pyjamas (flight suits) in space and attach some fittings to piss and shit into collection bags, etc, etc. Sounds great. Then they wash themselves, bla, bla.  But what is the whole purpose with these clowns up there? What do they produce ... apart from filled collection bags. I have never understood it.
A sailor that doesn't understand the purpose of exploring the unknown? ???
Yes, you are wrong as usual. What is, e.g., the purpose of sending humans to planet Mars apart from nobody winning my Challenge describing the trip. Mars has, we are told, already been explored by robots. There is nothing there for humans to enjoy. NOTHING! So why send humans there? To piss and shit through a special device strapped to your body? Only idiots would even consider flying to Mars.

More fun is a cruise on ship. But the ship must be safe. I describe it at my website.
Only idiots would build a sailing ship and sail into the unknown, looking for new land! Only idiots would try to find America.
Only idiots would build a ship to begin with. What is there to find at sea? nothing!
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 24, 2017, 11:28:31 AM
The takeaway from this is that according to Heiwa, space travel is impossible because he doesn't like pissing and shitting into gadgets. Ok.
Hm, sending satellites one-way into orbits in space is possible as no toilets are required. It is easy.

Things get difficult, dirty, smelly and shitty if you brings asstronuts aboard for obvious reasons.

Visit http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for full details.

Please do not suggest that I am against space exploration.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 24, 2017, 11:37:33 AM

 on the ISS the urine now gets stored and brought back to ground (that, and the huge interest by researchers).

If you are interested in the actual urinating process i suggest you read chris hadfield's book, there he describes that in pretty good detail.

What about the shit? Does asstronut Hadfield look into it?
Well, the process is not that much different... But no, he does not describe that as far as I remember.

What is it about your recent interest in shit? If you want to study shit in a huge abundance, i suggest this (http://www.heiwaco.com) website.
No, my interest is ship. And safety of them. Not very popular actually. If something goes wrong on a ship, the easiest solution is to arrest the Captain and jail him - http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm . Media support it. Many ships are shit.
I don't know, you spend an awful lot of time talking about piss and shit.  Maybe you should move over to a fetish forum.  I'm sure there are some that specialize in bathroom fantasies.
Hm, Donald Trump has just told NASA to put humans on planet Mars by 2033! Nobody seems to know how long it will take to go there. Maybe it will take 200 days. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . The only thing that is certain is that the humans aboard must piss and shit a couple of times daily, even if there are no private facilities aboard the spacecraft.
It seems the solution is that the asstronuts undress and strap some device to their bodies into which the asstronuts then shit and piss. The fecals arrive in plastic bags.
I find that solution unsatisfactory.
Then you shouldn't go.
I cannot afford it, but, you know, it is a joke. It is not possible.
So why would you go?
200 days shitting/pissing in a strap on gadget in space?
And then?
Planting strawberries on planet Mars?
Prove it.  Give us the evidence right here why it is not possible.  Or admit you're a liar.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Dog on May 24, 2017, 12:11:24 PM
Hm, sending satellites one-way into orbits in space is possible as no toilets are required. It is easy.

Things get difficult, dirty, smelly and shitty if you brings asstronuts aboard for obvious reasons.

Visit http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for full details.

Please do not suggest that I am against space exploration.

Why do you keep linking to your garbage site? We've told you about 100+ flaws on it years ago. And 5 seconds of reading shows you haven't fixed them.
Oh and you owe about 50 people 1 million euros.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Denspressure on May 24, 2017, 01:07:54 PM
The takeaway from this is that according to Heiwa, space travel is impossible because he doesn't like pissing and shitting into gadgets. Ok.
Hm, sending satellites one-way into orbits in space is possible as no toilets are required. It is easy.

Things get difficult, dirty, smelly and shitty if you brings asstronuts aboard for obvious reasons.

Visit http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for full details.

Please do not suggest that I am against space exploration.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/s2eX3vNCUfVcI/giphy.gif?response_id=5925e7100b146110c3a9bc11)
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 24, 2017, 01:20:38 PM
Please do not suggest that I am against space exploration.
Of course you're against space exploration.  If you were for it, then you would be looking for ways to make it possible instead of making shitty excuses.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 24, 2017, 02:58:44 PM
Please do not suggest that I am against space exploration.
Of course you're against space exploration.  If you were for it, then you would be looking for ways to make it possible instead of making shitty excuses.
;D I see what you did there.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 24, 2017, 06:19:17 PM
Please do not suggest that I am against space exploration.
Of course you're against space exploration.  If you were for it, then you would be looking for ways to make it possible instead of making shitty excuses.
Wrong as usual. But space is best explored by robots that do not need toilets. I hope you agree! Use common sense. Anyway, there is no way for the robots to land anywhere to explore anything. I have proven it since many years. How? Well, nobody has collected my €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 24, 2017, 06:42:04 PM
Please do not suggest that I am against space exploration.
Of course you're against space exploration.  If you were for it, then you would be looking for ways to make it possible instead of making shitty excuses.
Wrong as usual. But space is best explored by robots that do not need toilets. I hope you agree!
No, I don't agree.  At least not until robots become smarter than humans.

Use common sense.
I do.  Do you?

Anyway, there is no way for the robots to land anywhere to explore anything. I have proven it since many years. How? Well, nobody has collected my €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
See, there you go being against space exploration again.  Don't whine about why things can't be done.  Figure out how to get them done.  Isn't that what engineers are supposed to do?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 24, 2017, 07:01:10 PM
Anyway, there is no way for the robots to land anywhere to explore anything. I have proven it since many years. How? Well, nobody has collected my €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
See, there you go being against space exploration again.  Don't whine about why things can't be done.  Figure out how to get them done.  Isn't that what engineers are supposed to do?
Wrong again. To explore an object in space you must design a spacecraft that can land on the object after being launched from Earth. Nobody has managed it, incl. winning my €1M. Many has faked it. Just look at all them clowns/actors claiming they know how to do it. Liars. They are paid to lie.
My contribution is simply to show what they are. Liars.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 24, 2017, 07:57:22 PM
Anyway, there is no way for the robots to land anywhere to explore anything. I have proven it since many years. How? Well, nobody has collected my €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
See, there you go being against space exploration again.  Don't whine about why things can't be done.  Figure out how to get them done.  Isn't that what engineers are supposed to do?
Wrong again. To explore an object in space you must design a spacecraft that can land on the object after being launched from Earth. Nobody has managed it, incl. winning my €1M. Many has faked it. Just look at all them clowns/actors claiming they know how to do it. Liars. They are paid to lie.
My contribution is simply to show what they are. Liars.

So far you have utterly failed to win my €1M challenge. Offering this challenge is my way of exposing one of your logical fallacies. This is my contribution.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Pezevenk on May 25, 2017, 03:54:49 AM
The takeaway from this is that according to Heiwa, space travel is impossible because he doesn't like pissing and shitting into gadgets. Ok.
Hm, sending satellites one-way into orbits in space is possible as no toilets are required. It is easy.

Things get difficult, dirty, smelly and shitty if you brings asstronuts aboard for obvious reasons.

Visit http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for full details.

Please do not suggest that I am against space exploration.

Yes, that's already done. I don't understand your issue, just because it's sort of inconvenient to shit in space, it doesn't mean it's a serious problem. As far as I know, they're sending grown ups up there, not babies.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 25, 2017, 04:26:57 AM
Anyway, there is no way for the robots to land anywhere to explore anything. I have proven it since many years. How? Well, nobody has collected my €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
See, there you go being against space exploration again.  Don't whine about why things can't be done.  Figure out how to get them done.  Isn't that what engineers are supposed to do?
Wrong again. To explore an object in space you must design a spacecraft that can land on the object after being launched from Earth. Nobody has managed it, incl. winning my €1M. Many has faked it. Just look at all them clowns/actors claiming they know how to do it. Liars. They are paid to lie.
My contribution is simply to show what they are. Liars.
Are you sure that you're for space exploration?  There seems to be an awful lot of people doing an awful lot of "fake research" for space exploration to be impossible.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 25, 2017, 06:10:35 AM
Anyway, there is no way for the robots to land anywhere to explore anything. I have proven it since many years. How? Well, nobody has collected my €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
See, there you go being against space exploration again.  Don't whine about why things can't be done.  Figure out how to get them done.  Isn't that what engineers are supposed to do?
Wrong again. To explore an object in space you must design a spacecraft that can land on the object after being launched from Earth. Nobody has managed it, incl. winning my €1M. Many has faked it. Just look at all them clowns/actors claiming they know how to do it. Liars. They are paid to lie.
My contribution is simply to show what they are. Liars.
Are you sure that you're for space exploration?  There seems to be an awful lot of people doing an awful lot of "fake research" for space exploration to be impossible.
Yes, I am for space explorations. By robots. Humans have no chance in space apart from the lack of toilets.

But plenty criminals are paid to assist exploring space. Are you one of them?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 25, 2017, 06:21:56 AM
Anyway, there is no way for the robots to land anywhere to explore anything. I have proven it since many years. How? Well, nobody has collected my €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
See, there you go being against space exploration again.  Don't whine about why things can't be done.  Figure out how to get them done.  Isn't that what engineers are supposed to do?
Wrong again. To explore an object in space you must design a spacecraft that can land on the object after being launched from Earth. Nobody has managed it, incl. winning my €1M. Many has faked it. Just look at all them clowns/actors claiming they know how to do it. Liars. They are paid to lie.
My contribution is simply to show what they are. Liars.
Are you sure that you're for space exploration?  There seems to be an awful lot of people doing an awful lot of "fake research" for space exploration to be impossible.
Yes, I am for space explorations. By robots. Humans have no chance in space apart from the lack of toilets.

But plenty criminals are paid to assist exploring space. Are you one of them?
Prove it.  Show your evidence here where you make the claim.  Yet another failure.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 25, 2017, 06:29:42 AM
Anyway, there is no way for the robots to land anywhere to explore anything. I have proven it since many years. How? Well, nobody has collected my €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
See, there you go being against space exploration again.  Don't whine about why things can't be done.  Figure out how to get them done.  Isn't that what engineers are supposed to do?
Wrong again. To explore an object in space you must design a spacecraft that can land on the object after being launched from Earth. Nobody has managed it, incl. winning my €1M. Many has faked it. Just look at all them clowns/actors claiming they know how to do it. Liars. They are paid to lie.
My contribution is simply to show what they are. Liars.
Are you sure that you're for space exploration?  There seems to be an awful lot of people doing an awful lot of "fake research" for space exploration to be impossible.
Yes, I am for space explorations. By robots. Humans have no chance in space apart from the lack of toilets.

But plenty criminals are paid to assist exploring space. Are you one of them?
Proving the thread title with every post.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Pezevenk on May 25, 2017, 07:33:15 AM
Anyway, there is no way for the robots to land anywhere to explore anything. I have proven it since many years. How? Well, nobody has collected my €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
See, there you go being against space exploration again.  Don't whine about why things can't be done.  Figure out how to get them done.  Isn't that what engineers are supposed to do?
Wrong again. To explore an object in space you must design a spacecraft that can land on the object after being launched from Earth. Nobody has managed it, incl. winning my €1M. Many has faked it. Just look at all them clowns/actors claiming they know how to do it. Liars. They are paid to lie.
My contribution is simply to show what they are. Liars.
Are you sure that you're for space exploration?  There seems to be an awful lot of people doing an awful lot of "fake research" for space exploration to be impossible.
Yes, I am for space explorations. By robots. Humans have no chance in space apart from the lack of toilets.

But plenty criminals are paid to assist exploring space. Are you one of them?
Prove it.  Show your evidence here where you make the claim.  Yet another failure.

Well, how are you supposed to play the banjo while riding a purple werewolf and balancing 7 shot glasses on your nose in 0 gravity?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 25, 2017, 09:36:02 AM
Anyway, there is no way for the robots to land anywhere to explore anything. I have proven it since many years. How? Well, nobody has collected my €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
See, there you go being against space exploration again.  Don't whine about why things can't be done.  Figure out how to get them done.  Isn't that what engineers are supposed to do?
Wrong again. To explore an object in space you must design a spacecraft that can land on the object after being launched from Earth. Nobody has managed it, incl. winning my €1M. Many has faked it. Just look at all them clowns/actors claiming they know how to do it. Liars. They are paid to lie.
My contribution is simply to show what they are. Liars.
Are you sure that you're for space exploration?  There seems to be an awful lot of people doing an awful lot of "fake research" for space exploration to be impossible.
Yes, I am for space explorations. By robots. Humans have no chance in space apart from the lack of toilets.
Robots may not need to use a toilet, but they still need to land on whatever body they they intend to explore.

But plenty criminals are paid to assist exploring space. Are you one of them?
If you honestly think that criminals are exploring space, then why don't you report them to the appropriate police organization?  After all, if you aren't doing anything to stop the criminals, then you might as well be one of them.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 26, 2017, 12:36:18 AM
Anyway, there is no way for the robots to land anywhere to explore anything. I have proven it since many years. How? Well, nobody has collected my €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
See, there you go being against space exploration again.  Don't whine about why things can't be done.  Figure out how to get them done.  Isn't that what engineers are supposed to do?
Wrong again. To explore an object in space you must design a spacecraft that can land on the object after being launched from Earth. Nobody has managed it, incl. winning my €1M. Many has faked it. Just look at all them clowns/actors claiming they know how to do it. Liars. They are paid to lie.
My contribution is simply to show what they are. Liars.
Are you sure that you're for space exploration?  There seems to be an awful lot of people doing an awful lot of "fake research" for space exploration to be impossible.
Yes, I am for space explorations. By robots. Humans have no chance in space apart from the lack of toilets.
Robots may not need to use a toilet, but they still need to land on whatever body they they intend to explore.

But plenty criminals are paid to assist exploring space. Are you one of them?
If you honestly think that criminals are exploring space, then why don't you report them to the appropriate police organization?  After all, if you aren't doing anything to stop the criminals, then you might as well be one of them.

Hm, a robot spacecraft must first get out of orbit Earth into a trajectory to the target ... and it is not so easy. The target is moving all the time. And upon arrival you have to brake and land. As you have failed to win my Challenge, I assume you are not capable to explain how it is done ... and how much fuel is required.

Exploring space is not criminal but stealing money from people in order to explore space is, IMHO, criminal. But it has been going on for >60 years so nobody cares. I just laugh at the fools involved.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 26, 2017, 05:25:22 AM
Hm, a robot spacecraft must first get out of orbit Earth into a trajectory to the target ... and it is not so easy. The target is moving all the time.
People hit moving targets all the time.  Have you never been skeet shooting?

And upon arrival you have to brake and land.
Yes, thanks for stating the obvious.  We've covered this before.  Very difficult, but not impossible if you know what you're doing.

As you have failed to win my Challenge, I assume you are not capable to explain how it is done ... and how much fuel is required.
I don't know of anyone who really gives a rat's ass about your challenge, so I don't understand why you keep bringing it up.

Exploring space is not criminal but stealing money from people in order to explore space is, IMHO, criminal. But it has been going on for >60 years so nobody cares. I just laugh at the fools involved.
Who is stealing money from whom?  Governments have the legal authority to collect taxes from the people.  If they choose to spend it on impossible space exploration, then that's waste, not theft.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 26, 2017, 07:00:25 AM
We've covered this before.  Very difficult, but not impossible if you know what you're doing.

Heiwa is an engineer. You know the engineer credo, right?

EVERYTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE !!!



Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Pezevenk on May 26, 2017, 07:10:14 AM
We've covered this before.  Very difficult, but not impossible if you know what you're doing.

Heiwa is an engineer. You know the engineer credo, right?

EVERYTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE !!!

Actually it comes off less like he thinks it's impossible and more like he can't be bothered:
"Oh my God, you have to launch the spacecraft and then you gotta be pissing in gadgets and on top of that you have to calculate where your target will move to, and then you gotta... Ugh... You gotta brake and land and... Grrr what an ordeal! Leave me alone, I don't want to go to space!"
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 26, 2017, 07:15:59 AM
We've covered this before.  Very difficult, but not impossible if you know what you're doing.

Heiwa is an engineer. You know the engineer credo, right?

EVERYTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE !!!

Actually it comes off less like he thinks it's impossible and more like he can't be bothered:
"Oh my God, you have to launch the spacecraft and then you gotta be pissing in gadgets and on top of that you have to calculate where your target will move to, and then you gotta... Ugh... You gotta brake and land and... Grrr what an ordeal! Leave me alone, I don't want to go to space!"
That's really it.  He can't understand it and is too lazy to try so it must be impossible.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 26, 2017, 07:21:51 AM
He's actually just fucking with all of us. He's pretty good at it.   ;)
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 26, 2017, 07:30:02 AM
Hm, a robot spacecraft must first get out of orbit Earth into a trajectory to the target ... and it is not so easy. The target is moving all the time.
People hit moving targets all the time.  Have you never been skeet shooting?

And upon arrival you have to brake and land.
Yes, thanks for stating the obvious.  We've covered this before.  Very difficult, but not impossible if you know what you're doing.

As you have failed to win my Challenge, I assume you are not capable to explain how it is done ... and how much fuel is required.
I don't know of anyone who really gives a rat's ass about your challenge, so I don't understand why you keep bringing it up.

Exploring space is not criminal but stealing money from people in order to explore space is, IMHO, criminal. But it has been going on for >60 years so nobody cares. I just laugh at the fools involved.
Who is stealing money from whom?  Governments have the legal authority to collect taxes from the people.  If they choose to spend it on impossible space exploration, then that's waste, not theft.

The target may be moving at 25 000 m/s in 3D space far away. Not so easy to find. And then you have to stop and land which requires fuel ... that you cannot carry. And what are you going to do after having stopped and landed, apart from a piss and a shit? Exploring?
You sound like a grand child of those twirps that in the 1950's said human space travel was like ... a cruise over the Atlantic ... and asked for money to go to the Moon, etc, etc. They faked everything and the fakery is still going on. Ever heard of the Ponzi scheme? It works best when tax payers' money are involved.

Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 26, 2017, 07:36:29 AM
And what are you going to do after having stopped and landed, apart from a piss and a shit?

Eat and drink?  Why have a toilet if there is no ammo to shoot at it?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 26, 2017, 07:46:52 AM
Hey, just solved the toilet problem . . . a ½"x4" pipe nipple and a ball valve.
Put your butthole on the pipe and 'crack' the valve. It will suck your shit out quick.

Not sure I would pee into it though. Probably rip your dick off at the roots.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 26, 2017, 07:52:30 AM
Hm, a robot spacecraft must first get out of orbit Earth into a trajectory to the target ... and it is not so easy. The target is moving all the time.
People hit moving targets all the time.  Have you never been skeet shooting?

And upon arrival you have to brake and land.
Yes, thanks for stating the obvious.  We've covered this before.  Very difficult, but not impossible if you know what you're doing.

As you have failed to win my Challenge, I assume you are not capable to explain how it is done ... and how much fuel is required.
I don't know of anyone who really gives a rat's ass about your challenge, so I don't understand why you keep bringing it up.

Exploring space is not criminal but stealing money from people in order to explore space is, IMHO, criminal. But it has been going on for >60 years so nobody cares. I just laugh at the fools involved.
Who is stealing money from whom?  Governments have the legal authority to collect taxes from the people.  If they choose to spend it on impossible space exploration, then that's waste, not theft.

The target may be moving at 25 000 m/s in 3D space far away. Not so easy to find. And then you have to stop and land which requires fuel ... that you cannot carry. And what are you going to do after having stopped and landed, apart from a piss and a shit? Exploring?
You sound like a grand child of those twirps that in the 1950's said human space travel was like ... a cruise over the Atlantic ... and asked for money to go to the Moon, etc, etc. They faked everything and the fakery is still going on. Ever heard of the Ponzi scheme? It works best when tax payers' money are involved.
translation: I can't understand it so it must be impossible. 
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 26, 2017, 07:56:27 AM
And what are you going to do after having stopped and landed, apart from a piss and a shit?

Eat and drink?  Why have a toilet if there is no ammo to shoot at it?

Eat and drink? In space? You are joking! What was served on Apollo xx was no fresh fish, milk, eggs, meat, etc. Forget lobster and caviar on the ISS!  No, in space it is space rations. Something in a plastic bag. But why eat at all in space? There are much simpler solutions to keep cocumbers alive.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 26, 2017, 07:58:21 AM
And what are you going to do after having stopped and landed, apart from a piss and a shit?

Eat and drink?  Why have a toilet if there is no ammo to shoot at it?

Eat and drink? In space? You are joking! What was served on Apollo xx was no fresh fish, milk, eggs, meat, etc. Forget lobster and caviar on the ISS!  No, in space it is space rations. Something in a plastic bag. But why eat at all in space? There are much simpler solutions to keep cocumbers alive.
Not even bothering to disguise the trolling anymore?  Or just finally gone fully senile?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 26, 2017, 08:00:07 AM
Hm, a robot spacecraft must first get out of orbit Earth into a trajectory to the target ... and it is not so easy. The target is moving all the time.
People hit moving targets all the time.  Have you never been skeet shooting?

And upon arrival you have to brake and land.
Yes, thanks for stating the obvious.  We've covered this before.  Very difficult, but not impossible if you know what you're doing.

As you have failed to win my Challenge, I assume you are not capable to explain how it is done ... and how much fuel is required.
I don't know of anyone who really gives a rat's ass about your challenge, so I don't understand why you keep bringing it up.

Exploring space is not criminal but stealing money from people in order to explore space is, IMHO, criminal. But it has been going on for >60 years so nobody cares. I just laugh at the fools involved.
Who is stealing money from whom?  Governments have the legal authority to collect taxes from the people.  If they choose to spend it on impossible space exploration, then that's waste, not theft.

The target may be moving at 25 000 m/s in 3D space far away. Not so easy to find. And then you have to stop and land which requires fuel ... that you cannot carry. And what are you going to do after having stopped and landed, apart from a piss and a shit? Exploring?
You sound like a grand child of those twirps that in the 1950's said human space travel was like ... a cruise over the Atlantic ... and asked for money to go to the Moon, etc, etc. They faked everything and the fakery is still going on. Ever heard of the Ponzi scheme? It works best when tax payers' money are involved.
translation: I can't understand it so it must be impossible.
Please - when you travel anywhere. Don't you want to have a nice meal? A steak? Sallad? Wine. And a dessert. Ice cream? You sound like a total imbecille. A 0 IQ tomato.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 26, 2017, 08:03:38 AM
And what are you going to do after having stopped and landed, apart from a piss and a shit?

Eat and drink?  Why have a toilet if there is no ammo to shoot at it?

Eat and drink? In space? You are joking! What was served on Apollo xx was no fresh fish, milk, eggs, meat, etc. Forget lobster and caviar on the ISS!  No, in space it is space rations. Something in a plastic bag. But why eat at all in space? There are much simpler solutions to keep cocumbers alive.
Not even bothering to disguise the trolling anymore?  Or just finally gone fully senile?
No, here it is 17 pm and apero time. Dinner is served at 19 pm. Just come around. Have a good time.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 26, 2017, 08:11:48 AM
Hm, a robot spacecraft must first get out of orbit Earth into a trajectory to the target ... and it is not so easy. The target is moving all the time.
People hit moving targets all the time.  Have you never been skeet shooting?

And upon arrival you have to brake and land.
Yes, thanks for stating the obvious.  We've covered this before.  Very difficult, but not impossible if you know what you're doing.

As you have failed to win my Challenge, I assume you are not capable to explain how it is done ... and how much fuel is required.
I don't know of anyone who really gives a rat's ass about your challenge, so I don't understand why you keep bringing it up.

Exploring space is not criminal but stealing money from people in order to explore space is, IMHO, criminal. But it has been going on for >60 years so nobody cares. I just laugh at the fools involved.
Who is stealing money from whom?  Governments have the legal authority to collect taxes from the people.  If they choose to spend it on impossible space exploration, then that's waste, not theft.

The target may be moving at 25 000 m/s in 3D space far away. Not so easy to find. And then you have to stop and land which requires fuel ... that you cannot carry. And what are you going to do after having stopped and landed, apart from a piss and a shit? Exploring?
You sound like a grand child of those twirps that in the 1950's said human space travel was like ... a cruise over the Atlantic ... and asked for money to go to the Moon, etc, etc. They faked everything and the fakery is still going on. Ever heard of the Ponzi scheme? It works best when tax payers' money are involved.
translation: I can't understand it so it must be impossible.
Please - when you travel anywhere. Don't you want to have a nice meal? A steak? Sallad? Wine. And a dessert. Ice cream? You sound like a total imbecille. A 0 IQ tomato.
Translation: Of course I don't understand it but I'll throw around some insults to try to distract from that fact.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 26, 2017, 08:13:26 AM
And what are you going to do after having stopped and landed, apart from a piss and a shit?

Eat and drink?  Why have a toilet if there is no ammo to shoot at it?

Eat and drink? In space? You are joking! What was served on Apollo xx was no fresh fish, milk, eggs, meat, etc. Forget lobster and caviar on the ISS!  No, in space it is space rations. Something in a plastic bag. But why eat at all in space? There are much simpler solutions to keep cocumbers alive.
Not even bothering to disguise the trolling anymore?  Or just finally gone fully senile?
No, here it is 17 pm and apero time. Dinner is served at 19 pm. Just come around. Have a good time.
So senile then.  Your post was in no way a reply to mine.

Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 26, 2017, 08:16:09 AM
And what are you going to do after having stopped and landed, apart from a piss and a shit?

Eat and drink?  Why have a toilet if there is no ammo to shoot at it?

Eat and drink? In space? You are joking! What was served on Apollo xx was no fresh fish, milk, eggs, meat, etc. Forget lobster and caviar on the ISS!  No, in space it is space rations. Something in a plastic bag. But why eat at all in space? There are much simpler solutions to keep cocumbers alive.
Not even bothering to disguise the trolling anymore?  Or just finally gone fully senile?
No, here it is 17 pm and apero time. Dinner is served at 19 pm. Just come around. Have a good time.
So senile then.  Your post was in no way a reply to mine.
No, it was an invitation. Do you come?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 26, 2017, 08:22:34 AM
And what are you going to do after having stopped and landed, apart from a piss and a shit?

Eat and drink?  Why have a toilet if there is no ammo to shoot at it?

Eat and drink? In space? You are joking! What was served on Apollo xx was no fresh fish, milk, eggs, meat, etc. Forget lobster and caviar on the ISS!  No, in space it is space rations. Something in a plastic bag. But why eat at all in space? There are much simpler solutions to keep cocumbers alive.
Not even bothering to disguise the trolling anymore?  Or just finally gone fully senile?
No, here it is 17 pm and apero time. Dinner is served at 19 pm. Just come around. Have a good time.
So senile then.  Your post was in no way a reply to mine.
No, it was an invitation. Do you come?
Creepy, senile, old guy inviting me to his place.  No thank you. You'll have to be a predator on someone else.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 26, 2017, 08:54:13 AM
No, it was an invitation. Do you come?

You claim to be rich. I'm poor.
Fund my trip. I would love to hang out with you for a day or two.

I have a passport and all my travel shots.  ;)
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 26, 2017, 09:57:13 AM
As you have failed to win my Challenge, I assume you are not capable to explain how it is done
As you have failed to win my challenge I assume you have no idea what you're talking about.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 26, 2017, 10:04:54 AM
Please - when you travel anywhere. Don't you want to have a nice meal? A steak? Sallad? Wine. And a dessert. Ice cream?
That depends on whether you're traveling for business or pleasure. 

Yes, space travel requires certain sacrifices and hardships that some are not willing to endure.  Fuck 'em.  There are plenty of hardy adventurers who are more than willing endure much greater hardships than pissing and shitting in bags for the chance to explore the mysteries of space.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 26, 2017, 10:14:06 AM
It is not reasonable to conclude that the "climbers" of Mount Everest brought fine wine and food with them to the summit. Therefore I conclude they never climbed it at all. What would be the point if you couldn't have fine dining when you reached the top.

I suspect it was those clown at NASA that spread the Everest lie.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Pezevenk on May 26, 2017, 10:26:03 AM
He's actually just fucking with all of us. He's pretty good at it.   ;)

Probably, but I like it. Still, Intikam exists, so I don't think it's impossible that he's serious.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 26, 2017, 12:04:34 PM
He's actually just fucking with all of us. He's pretty good at it.   ;)

Probably, but I like it. Still, Intikam exists, so I don't think it's impossible that he's serious.


Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 26, 2017, 12:15:24 PM
Please - when you travel anywhere. Don't you want to have a nice meal? A steak? Sallad? Wine. And a dessert. Ice cream?
That depends on whether you're traveling for business or pleasure. 

Yes, space travel requires certain sacrifices and hardships that some are not willing to endure.  Fuck 'em.  There are plenty of hardy adventurers who are more than willing endure much greater hardships than pissing and shitting in bags for the chance to explore the mysteries of space.

Space travel is neither for pleasure nor business. It is for ... what? Exploration? Of what? Mysteries?

What mysteries are you talking about? There is nothing to explore in space. No angels flying around. No green men on the Moon or Mars to encounter. Nothing. Every place is dead! Only planet Earth is fairly comfortable to live at for obvious reasons.

Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 26, 2017, 12:45:21 PM
What mysteries are you talking about? There is nothing to explore in space. No angels flying around. No green men on the Moon or Mars to encounter. Nothing. Every place is dead! Only planet Earth is fairly comfortable to live at for obvious reasons.
How do you know that everyplace is dead?  Have you looked everyplace for life?  Scientists have found life in some pretty uncomfortable places on earth, so why shouldn't there be life in uncomfortable places in space?

Even is we never find life anywhere else, there is still a lot to learn in space.  Geology of other bodies, planetary and interplanetary weather patterns, insights into the formation of the solar system and the universe in general, just to name a few.  Some even look at the possibility of mining the moon and/or asteroids for valuable resources.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 26, 2017, 12:52:58 PM
Some even look at the possibility of mining the moon and/or asteroids for valuable resources.

I doubt recourse collection will ever be cost effective, but knowledge is priceless.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 26, 2017, 05:53:03 PM
What mysteries are you talking about? There is nothing to explore in space. No angels flying around. No green men on the Moon or Mars to encounter. Nothing. Every place is dead! Only planet Earth is fairly comfortable to live at for obvious reasons.
How do you know that everyplace is dead?  Have you looked everyplace for life?  Scientists have found life in some pretty uncomfortable places on earth, so why shouldn't there be life in uncomfortable places in space?

Even is we never find life anywhere else, there is still a lot to learn in space.  Geology of other bodies, planetary and interplanetary weather patterns, insights into the formation of the solar system and the universe in general, just to name a few.  Some even look at the possibility of mining the moon and/or asteroids for valuable resources.

Mining the Moon! You sound crazy. There is nothing to mine on the Moon. NASA had plans to plant strawberries there and ESA wants to build a hotel. All rididculous ideas.

Interplanetary weather patterns! Nonsense.

But what to expect. You cannot even calculate the trajectory and fuel required for a little trip to the Moon (and back). My Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Reason is that nobody has ever been on the Moon! NASA faked it 1969. But you believed it happened. LOL!

Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 26, 2017, 08:38:49 PM
Some even look at the possibility of mining the moon and/or asteroids for valuable resources.

I doubt recourse collection will ever be cost effective, but knowledge is priceless.
That depends.  If you want to colonize space, then it's probably a lot more cost effective to use the resources available in space, rather than to schlep those resources from earth.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 26, 2017, 08:44:53 PM
Mining the Moon! You sound crazy. There is nothing to mine on the Moon.
The moon appears to have large supplies of Helium-3, which is quite useful for fusion reactors.

NASA had plans to plant strawberries there and ESA wants to build a hotel. All rididculous ideas.
There was a time when the idea of non-stop intercontinental commercial air travel was ridiculous too.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 26, 2017, 09:46:36 PM
Why do you say such stupid things?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 26, 2017, 10:39:28 PM
What mysteries are you talking about? There is nothing to explore in space. No angels flying around. No green men on the Moon or Mars to encounter. Nothing. Every place is dead! Only planet Earth is fairly comfortable to live at for obvious reasons.
How do you know that everyplace is dead?  Have you looked everyplace for life?  Scientists have found life in some pretty uncomfortable places on earth, so why shouldn't there be life in uncomfortable places in space?

Even is we never find life anywhere else, there is still a lot to learn in space.  Geology of other bodies, planetary and interplanetary weather patterns, insights into the formation of the solar system and the universe in general, just to name a few.  Some even look at the possibility of mining the moon and/or asteroids for valuable resources.

Mining the Moon! You sound crazy. There is nothing to mine on the Moon. NASA had plans to plant strawberries there and ESA wants to build a hotel. All rididculous ideas.

Interplanetary weather patterns! Nonsense.

But what to expect. You cannot even calculate the trajectory and fuel required for a little trip to the Moon (and back). My Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Reason is that nobody has ever been on the Moon! NASA faked it 1969. But you believed it happened. LOL!
Accept of course, that's another lie.  You've been given that information many times.  Yet you fail to show any evidence to support your position.  Another fail.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 26, 2017, 10:40:43 PM
Mining the Moon! You sound crazy. There is nothing to mine on the Moon.
The moon appears to have large supplies of Helium-3, which is quite useful for fusion reactors.

LOL - only idiots believe in Helium-3 and that it is embedded in the Moon regolith by solar wind and can be used in a fusion reactor. I remind  you that nobody has won my famous €1M fusion Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall3.htm .
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 26, 2017, 10:43:57 PM
What mysteries are you talking about? There is nothing to explore in space. No angels flying around. No green men on the Moon or Mars to encounter. Nothing. Every place is dead! Only planet Earth is fairly comfortable to live at for obvious reasons.
How do you know that everyplace is dead?  Have you looked everyplace for life?  Scientists have found life in some pretty uncomfortable places on earth, so why shouldn't there be life in uncomfortable places in space?

Even is we never find life anywhere else, there is still a lot to learn in space.  Geology of other bodies, planetary and interplanetary weather patterns, insights into the formation of the solar system and the universe in general, just to name a few.  Some even look at the possibility of mining the moon and/or asteroids for valuable resources.

Mining the Moon! You sound crazy. There is nothing to mine on the Moon. NASA had plans to plant strawberries there and ESA wants to build a hotel. All rididculous ideas.

Interplanetary weather patterns! Nonsense.

But what to expect. You cannot even calculate the trajectory and fuel required for a little trip to the Moon (and back). My Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Reason is that nobody has ever been on the Moon! NASA faked it 1969. But you believed it happened. LOL!
Accept of course, that's another lie.  You've been given that information many times.  Yet you fail to show any evidence to support your position.  Another fail.
Sorry, nobody has been able to show how to calculate the fuel required for a trip to the Moon and back ... and how to get it off the ground on Earth. It is suggested that you need 100's of tons and an enormous rocket that does not exist ... and similar fantasies. Do not make up any stories about me.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: markjo on May 27, 2017, 04:04:19 AM
Mining the Moon! You sound crazy. There is nothing to mine on the Moon.
The moon appears to have large supplies of Helium-3, which is quite useful for fusion reactors.

LOL - only idiots believe in Helium-3 and that it is embedded in the Moon regolith by solar wind and can be used in a fusion reactor.
*sigh*  Sorry Anders, but I think that you jumped the shark on this one.

I remind  you that nobody has won my famous €1M fusion Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall3.htm .
I remind you that nobody gives a rat's ass about any of your €1M "challenges".
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 27, 2017, 04:09:20 AM
Mining the Moon! You sound crazy. There is nothing to mine on the Moon.
The moon appears to have large supplies of Helium-3, which is quite useful for fusion reactors.

LOL - only idiots believe in Helium-3 and that it is embedded in the Moon regolith by solar wind and can be used in a fusion reactor.
*sigh*  Sorry Anders, but I think that you jumped the shark on this one.

I remind  you that nobody has won my famous €1M fusion Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall3.htm .
I remind you that nobody gives a rat's ass about any of your €1M "challenges".
Sorry, you are wrong as usual. He-3 in the Moon regolith ash? You are insane.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 27, 2017, 05:06:38 AM
Mining the Moon! You sound crazy. There is nothing to mine on the Moon.
The moon appears to have large supplies of Helium-3, which is quite useful for fusion reactors.

LOL - only idiots believe in Helium-3 and that it is embedded in the Moon regolith by solar wind and can be used in a fusion reactor. I remind  you that nobody has won my famous €1M fusion Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall3.htm .
Nobody CARES about your fraudulent challenge because we all know that the sole judge is a biased pathological liar and likely senile.
You mistake our constant laughing at you for giving a damn about your contest or the non-existent money.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Badxtoss on May 27, 2017, 06:26:23 AM
What mysteries are you talking about? There is nothing to explore in space. No angels flying around. No green men on the Moon or Mars to encounter. Nothing. Every place is dead! Only planet Earth is fairly comfortable to live at for obvious reasons.
How do you know that everyplace is dead?  Have you looked everyplace for life?  Scientists have found life in some pretty uncomfortable places on earth, so why shouldn't there be life in uncomfortable places in space?

Even is we never find life anywhere else, there is still a lot to learn in space.  Geology of other bodies, planetary and interplanetary weather patterns, insights into the formation of the solar system and the universe in general, just to name a few.  Some even look at the possibility of mining the moon and/or asteroids for valuable resources.

Mining the Moon! You sound crazy. There is nothing to mine on the Moon. NASA had plans to plant strawberries there and ESA wants to build a hotel. All rididculous ideas.

Interplanetary weather patterns! Nonsense.

But what to expect. You cannot even calculate the trajectory and fuel required for a little trip to the Moon (and back). My Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Reason is that nobody has ever been on the Moon! NASA faked it 1969. But you believed it happened. LOL!
Accept of course, that's another lie.  You've been given that information many times.  Yet you fail to show any evidence to support your position.  Another fail.
Sorry, nobody has been able to show how to calculate the fuel required for a trip to the Moon and back ... and how to get it off the ground on Earth. It is suggested that you need 100's of tons and an enormous rocket that does not exist ... and similar fantasies. Do not make up any stories about me.
Liar.  You've been shown that multiple times.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 29, 2017, 10:38:39 PM
http://spacenews.com/4212765th-international-astronautical-congress-nasa-studying-habitation-module/

Chris Moore of NASA thought 2014 astronuts were going to land on an asteroid mid 2020's but I haven't heard from Chris lately. Maybe he is locked up in a mental institution? Anyway, Chris has miserably failed my Challenge.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 29, 2017, 11:02:37 PM
Why do you say such stupid things?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 29, 2017, 11:11:11 PM
Why do you say such stupid things?
It is not me; it is Chris Moore, deputy director of the Advanced Exploration Systems Division at NASA headquarters, who said it in a presentation at the 65th International Astronautical Congress  Oct. 3, 2014, i.e. that a spacecraft, intended to serve as a prototype of a habitat for future deep-space missions, could be in place before the first crewed mission visits a captured asteroid in the mid-2020s.

I have only asked Chris about the amount of fuel required, what the purpose of visiting an asteroid is and how to get the crew back to Earth from the asteroid. No reply!
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 30, 2017, 12:11:54 AM
Why do you say such stupid things?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 30, 2017, 12:13:50 AM
Plenty people gave you plenty calculations plenty times, you lying fraud.

Go to school:

Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 30, 2017, 03:41:22 AM
Plenty people gave you plenty calculations plenty times, you lying fraud.

Go to school:



Thanks for the lesson! Imagine what garbage propaganda NASA could invent in the past. ROTFL
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 30, 2017, 05:44:37 AM
http://spacenews.com/4212765th-international-astronautical-congress-nasa-studying-habitation-module/

Chris Moore of NASA thought 2014 astronuts were going to land on an asteroid mid 2020's but I haven't heard from Chris lately. Maybe he is locked up in a mental institution? Anyway, Chris has miserably failed my Challenge.
He can't fail if he didn't try.  Either provide proof he even knows about your fraudulent "challenge" and cares about it or retract your BS claim.  I'm betting you'll do neither because you're nothing but a pathological liar.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Kami on May 30, 2017, 12:08:32 PM
http://spacenews.com/4212765th-international-astronautical-congress-nasa-studying-habitation-module/

Chris Moore of NASA thought 2014 astronuts were going to land on an asteroid mid 2020's but I haven't heard from Chris lately. Maybe he is locked up in a mental institution? Anyway, Chris has miserably failed my Challenge.
He can't fail if he didn't try.  Either provide proof he even knows about your fraudulent "challenge" and cares about it or retract your BS claim.  I'm betting you'll do neither because you're nothing but a pathological liar.
Not even people that spend their free time arguing on a forum about the shape of the earth are bored enough to do this so-called 'challenge'. I highly doubt any serious NASA scientist would do it, especially as the judge does not even understand high-school physics.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Heiwa on May 30, 2017, 12:38:38 PM
http://spacenews.com/4212765th-international-astronautical-congress-nasa-studying-habitation-module/

Chris Moore of NASA thought 2014 astronuts were going to land on an asteroid mid 2020's but I haven't heard from Chris lately. Maybe he is locked up in a mental institution? Anyway, Chris has miserably failed my Challenge.
He can't fail if he didn't try.  Either provide proof he even knows about your fraudulent "challenge" and cares about it or retract your BS claim.  I'm betting you'll do neither because you're nothing but a pathological liar.
Not even people that spend their free time arguing on a forum about the shape of the earth are bored enough to do this so-called 'challenge'. I highly doubt any serious NASA scientist would do it, especially as the judge does not even understand high-school physics.
I agree, no serious NASA scientist would even try my Challenge. Why? There are no serious NASA scientists.
And what about the rest? Isn't €1M award tempting? Or is the Challenge impossible?
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 30, 2017, 12:42:38 PM
Nobody believes the €1M is real nor that the judge is competent. 
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Pezevenk on May 30, 2017, 12:54:13 PM
I dare Heiwa to post a photo of him holding even $10k. I'd love to see his excuse.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: The Real Celine Dion on May 30, 2017, 03:17:26 PM
I doubt he has fifty cents to his name.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: Twerp on May 30, 2017, 05:10:32 PM
http://spacenews.com/4212765th-international-astronautical-congress-nasa-studying-habitation-module/

Chris Moore of NASA thought 2014 astronuts were going to land on an asteroid mid 2020's but I haven't heard from Chris lately. Maybe he is locked up in a mental institution? Anyway, Chris has miserably failed my Challenge.
He can't fail if he didn't try.  Either provide proof he even knows about your fraudulent "challenge" and cares about it or retract your BS claim.  I'm betting you'll do neither because you're nothing but a pathological liar.
Not even people that spend their free time arguing on a forum about the shape of the earth are bored enough to do this so-called 'challenge'. I highly doubt any serious NASA scientist would do it, especially as the judge does not even understand high-school physics.

I agree, no serious NASA scientist would even try my Challenge. Why? There are no serious NASA scientists.
And what about the rest? Isn't €1M award tempting? Or is the Challenge impossible?

Maybe you should get one of your roommate's great-grand-kids to teach you how to quote.

No space travel denier has ever won my challenge and that proves that I'm right and they're wrong! Including you. Ha! See what I did there? I doubt it. Maybe your roommate's great grand-kids can explain it to you.
Title: Re: Heiwas lack of understanding in orbital mechanics
Post by: frenat on May 30, 2017, 05:21:16 PM
I doubt he has fifty cents to his name.
Quite likely.  His nu