The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: fjr66 on December 26, 2018, 01:32:53 AM

Title: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: fjr66 on December 26, 2018, 01:32:53 AM
How does Intercontinental ballistic missile from North Korea hit US? If it is guided by satellite, then why US government let the wrong satellite orbitting above their home land?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile)
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: rabinoz on December 26, 2018, 01:54:05 AM
How does Intercontinental ballistic missile from North Korea hit US? If it is guided by satellite, then why US government let the wrong satellite orbitting above their home land?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile)
ICBMs do not usually use GPS or similar satellite based navigation systems because they are too easily jammed or corrupted by the owners of the satellites.
Quote from: Charles Hixon
Are ICBMs guided after their initial boost? Can they be steered to the target? (https://www.quora.com/Are-ICBMs-guided-after-their-initial-boost-Can-they-be-steered-to-the-target)
Actually most warheads are not guided by GPS. They are completely self sufficient but are actually aimed at certain targets (or a set of selectable targets) prior to launch.

They often have two guidance tools.

1) INS- inertial navigation system, this spins a gyroscope (several actually) that is often pointed at a celestial object, because the inertia of the gyroscope causes it to resist being pointed in any other direction, it will always point towards this celestial object regardless of the direction changes the missile makes. This provides a reference for the computer to always know where it is in relation to this object, and therefore make adjustments accordingly. You may have heard this in some submarine movies like Crimson Tide, where they tell the crew to ďspin up the missilesĒ. This is a reference to starting the gyroscopes in preparation for launch.

2) Ground mapping radar. Preloaded satellite radar images of a target destination are loaded into the warheads computer. When the Warhead enters its terminal phase, it turns on its radar it then checks the image it is reading from the ground with the loaded image of the target and makes corrections for accurate delivery.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 26, 2018, 02:00:05 AM
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

The issue is the fantasy of it being widespread media pushed into the psyche of the general public.
We are a bunch of naive mind absorbent people who basically mimic what's fed to us, which is why things like ICBM's and what not become a mind reality but not a physical reality. In my honest opinion of course.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: inquisitive on December 26, 2018, 02:16:41 AM
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

The issue is the fantasy of it being widespread media pushed into the psyche of the general public.
We are a bunch of naive mind absorbent people who basically mimic what's fed to us, which is why things like ICBM's and what not become a mind reality but not a physical reality. In my honest opinion of course.
This from someone who does not understand how nuclear power stations work. Have you visited one?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: fjr66 on December 26, 2018, 02:26:34 AM
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

The issue is the fantasy of it being widespread media pushed into the psyche of the general public.
We are a bunch of naive mind absorbent people who basically mimic what's fed to us, which is why things like ICBM's and what not become a mind reality but not a physical reality. In my honest opinion of course.
This from someone who does not understand how nuclear power stations work. Have you visited one?

Radio communication blocked by horizon (maximum distance 100 km).
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: rabinoz on December 26, 2018, 02:37:33 AM
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.
Incorrect! Your empty words are meaningless.
Care to present your "logical looking into" the ICBM capability with actual numerical data and calculations?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Bullwinkle on December 26, 2018, 02:49:38 AM
Oh, goodness gracious, this thread will conjure Heiwa.  ;D
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 26, 2018, 02:57:26 AM
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.
Incorrect! Your empty words are meaningless.
Care to present your "logical looking into" the ICBM capability with actual numerical data and calculations?
My words are full to me and anyone else who has the logic to understand why a ICBM is nonsense.
They simply cannot hold enough fuel for starters.
Also they have no guidance system other than fins.
Missiles are simply darts thrown  slightly off vertical to create an  arc towards a target.
To do this they need an enormous amount of fuel just to reach a vertical cut off point before they hit that horizontal ready for down arcing.
You'd get a lot further if you launched the missile at an acute angle at launch.
Basic logic with simple objects, like darts, pea shooters and such can prove what will and won't work.

Either way the missiles are absolutely not going to go intercontinental.


The other issue we have is being shown so called ICBM's that apparently move over terrain to their target and have no need for arcing, apparently.
Anyone should be able to understand how nonsensical this is.
You need wings for starters but not just ordinary wings like a plane would have. Why?

Because a plane is basically a hollow tube with people in it and fuel in the wings, apparently.
In a so called ICBM moving horizontally as we are shown at times, it would require wings so large to cater for the actual pay load and also the stored fuel inside the actual cylindrical like structure...unless it acts like a plane in all ways except the obvious people inside, which would then make it an empty plane like missile.


Ahhhhh but scepti, a cruise missile is one just ICBM. No it's not. Not with those tiny wings.
They may all look good on movie camera but as we all know, movie camera's don't always depict real life events but make it appear so.

Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: JackBlack on December 26, 2018, 03:07:47 AM
How does Intercontinental ballistic missile from North Korea hit US? If it is guided by satellite
I can stop you there. They don't need to be guided by satellite.

They launch and can either go based purely upon where they are from and how they are moving, or they can instead use various means to monitor their environment, such as the multitude of radio towers used to help some planes navigate, or mapping.

Radio communication blocked by horizon (maximum distance 100 km).
No. The higher they are the further it can go.

No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.
You not liking something doesn't magically mean it is nonsense.
I would say it isn't rocket science, but in this case it is.

Why don't you provide some of this "logical looking into" for us?
Just how much fuel do you think they need?

Also, "missile" is a very broad term.
ICBMs are more akin to rockets than more common missiles.

They simply cannot hold enough fuel for starters.
Prove it.

Also they have no guidance system other than fins.
Do you mean control surfaces? If so, they are vastly different to guidance systems.
Fins can be used, but I think they are more likely to use various forms of thrust vectoring. That tends to work better at high altitudes.

You'd get a lot further if you launched the missile at an acute angle at launch.
No, yo uthen have a lot more air (by mass) to deal with.

Basic logic with simple objects, like darts, pea shooters and such can prove what will and won't work.
So back to the pathetic analogies?

The other issue we have is being shown so called ICBM's that apparently move over terrain to their target and have no need for arcing, apparently.
Where?
Are you confusing them with cruise missiles, i.e. guided missiles with significantly shorter range than an ICBM?

In a so called ICBM moving horizontally as we are shown at times, it would require wings so large to cater for the actual pay load and also the stored fuel inside the actual cylindrical like structure...unless it acts like a plane in all ways except the obvious people inside, which would then make it an empty plane like missile.
Or, the people and cargo are replaced by the payload. Did you ever think of that one?
But again, that is a cruise missile, not an ICBM.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: rabinoz on December 26, 2018, 04:02:41 AM
Oh, goodness gracious, this thread will conjure Heiwa.  ;D
Only if you mention nuclear war-heads, so pleased don't even ;) mention ;) nuclear war-heads ::)!
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on December 26, 2018, 05:58:49 AM
Jackb
Scepti doesnt beleive air resistance can be dimished.
Vacuums and smpty soace dont exist in his world.
Its so simple and basic.


Rab.
Its pronouced "nucular".
Is heiwa like the boogieman/ beetlejuice?
say nuke 3 times.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on December 26, 2018, 06:00:07 AM
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.
Incorrect! Your empty words are meaningless.
Care to present your "logical looking into" the ICBM capability with actual numerical data and calculations?
My words are full to me and anyone else who has the logic to understand why a ICBM is nonsense.
They simply cannot hold enough fuel for starters.
Also they have no guidance system other than fins.
Missiles are simply darts thrown  slightly off vertical to create an  arc towards a target.
To do this they need an enormous amount of fuel just to reach a vertical cut off point before they hit that horizontal ready for down arcing.
You'd get a lot further if you launched the missile at an acute angle at launch.
Basic logic with simple objects, like darts, pea shooters and such can prove what will and won't work.

Either way the missiles are absolutely not going to go intercontinental.


The other issue we have is being shown so called ICBM's that apparently move over terrain to their target and have no need for arcing, apparently.
Anyone should be able to understand how nonsensical this is.
You need wings for starters but not just ordinary wings like a plane would have. Why?

Because a plane is basically a hollow tube with people in it and fuel in the wings, apparently.
In a so called ICBM moving horizontally as we are shown at times, it would require wings so large to cater for the actual pay load and also the stored fuel inside the actual cylindrical like structure...unless it acts like a plane in all ways except the obvious people inside, which would then make it an empty plane like missile.


Ahhhhh but scepti, a cruise missile is one just ICBM. No it's not. Not with those tiny wings.
They may all look good on movie camera but as we all know, movie camera's don't always depict real life events but make it appear so.

You need to focus your energy on answering if air can actually moves in and out of pressure vessels via pump.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Bullwinkle on December 26, 2018, 06:13:50 AM

Scepti doesnt beleive air resistance can be dimished.

Nobody with a measurable I.Q. 'beleive' air resistance can be 'dimished'.   ;D

Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on December 26, 2018, 07:28:00 AM
Haha yes.
I spell figuratively.
Not literally.

Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Bullwinkle on December 26, 2018, 08:16:22 AM
Haha yes.
I spell figuratively.
Not literally.

and I'm picking on you literally, not figuratively.   ;D
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Stash on December 26, 2018, 01:55:22 PM
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

I've never heard this argument before. What's this based on?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: rabinoz on December 26, 2018, 02:27:34 PM
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.
Incorrect! Your empty words are meaningless.
Care to present your "logical looking into" the ICBM capability with actual numerical data and calculations?
My words are full to me and anyone else who has the logic to understand why a ICBM is nonsense.
They simply cannot hold enough fuel for starters.
You still have presented nothing to back that up. But remember that an ICBM is not an aircraft.
It is a rocket and apart from the initial burn to accelerate it to the appropriate sub-orbital trajectory it follows a "ballistic path" and needs no more fuel apart from small mid-course corrections.
The very name, InterContinental Ballistic Missile implies that.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Also they have no guidance system other than fins.
No that is incorrect, the fins on most rockets and ICBM's are simply for stability and some course adjustment during the initial launch while in the high density part of the atmosphere.
Once out of most of the atmosphere course adjustment is via vanes in the exhaust stream, a gimballed rocket engine and/or small manouvering thrusters.
And many have virtually no fins.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Missiles are simply darts thrown slightly off vertical to create an  arc towards a target.
To do this they need an enormous amount of fuel just to reach a vertical cut off point before they hit that horizontal ready for down arcing.
You'd get a lot further if you launched the missile at an acute angle at launch.
Basic logic with simple objects, like darts, pea shooters and such can prove what will and won't work.
No, they are far more than "simply darts thrown slightly off vertical to create an arc towards a target". They are steerable after launch and in the later phase during the re-entry and targetting phase.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Either way the missiles are absolutely not going to go intercontinental.
So you say, but you have given no valid reasons for your claim!

Quote from: sceptimatic
The other issue we have is being shown so called ICBM's that apparently move over terrain to their target and have no need for arcing, apparently.
Anyone should be able to understand how nonsensical this is.
You need wings for starters but not just ordinary wings like a plane would have. Why?
Now you are not talking about ICBMs at all but cruise-missiles and these do fly just like a plane.
Cruise-missiles can have very small wings

Quote from: sceptimatic
Because a plane is basically a hollow tube with people in it and fuel in the wings, apparently.
In a so called ICBM moving horizontally as we are shown at times, it would require wings so large to cater for the actual pay load and also the stored fuel inside the actual cylindrical like structure...unless it acts like a plane in all ways except the obvious people inside, which would then make it an empty plane like missile.
Incorrect because an ICBM does not move horizontally other than at the zenith of its almost parabolic trajectory so an ICBM.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Ahhhhh but scepti, a cruise missile is one just ICBM. No it's not. Not with those tiny wings.
They may all look good on movie camera but as we all know, movie camera's don't always depict real life events but make it appear so.
There are numerous types of guided an unguided missiles from small shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile through the whole range of sizes up to ICBMs.
Then the cruise-missiles that fly like small aircraft. These can have much smaller wings that aircraft because they do not have to fly at low speeds to take-off and land.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: fjr66 on December 26, 2018, 04:47:27 PM
Missiles are simply darts thrown  slightly off vertical to create an  arc towards a target.
To do this they need an enormous amount of fuel just to reach a vertical cut off point before they hit that horizontal ready for down arcing.
You'd get a lot further if you launched the missile at an acute angle at launch.
Basic logic with simple objects, like darts, pea shooters and such can prove what will and won't work.

Either way the missiles are absolutely not going to go intercontinental.
For long range we need rocket as a fuel, not just initial velocity.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: rabinoz on December 26, 2018, 06:30:22 PM
Missiles are simply darts thrown  slightly off vertical to create an  arc towards a target.
To do this they need an enormous amount of fuel just to reach a vertical cut off point before they hit that horizontal ready for down arcing.
You'd get a lot further if you launched the missile at an acute angle at launch.
Basic logic with simple objects, like darts, pea shooters and such can prove what will and won't work.

Either way the missiles are absolutely not going to go intercontinental.
For long range we need rocket as a fuel, not just initial velocity.
Once the ICBM has reached it's required velocity it is outside almost all the earth's atmosphere and flies a ballistic (hence the name) trajectory.
No more fuel is needed for propulsion, just a small amount for course corrections and final targetting.

The calculations are fairly straightforward over a flat plane with constant gravity and here is an online calculator: Ballistic Trajectory (2-D) Calculator. (http://www.convertalot.com/ballistic_trajectory_calculator.html) Try 9900 m/s and 45į launch angle.
But the more realistic case of launching through air over a rotating earth where gravity decreases with altitude is far harder and usually done by numerical integration.
Here is a PG student's version: BALLISTIC MISSILE TRAJECTORY ESTIMATION by Joseph Dituri (https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a462349.pdf)
It's all a bit hard for me ;).
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on December 27, 2018, 10:48:34 AM
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

The issue is the fantasy of it being widespread media pushed into the psyche of the general public.
We are a bunch of naive mind absorbent people who basically mimic what's fed to us, which is why things like ICBM's and what not become a mind reality but not a physical reality. In my honest opinion of course.
You're wrong.  I spent ten years in the US Navy; four and half of which I was stationed on the USS Andrew Jackson, a ballistic missile submarine.  My company is currently finishing up the design for new missile sub.  I've been there, seen it, worked on it, and helped design it. 

You on the other hand have only a belief and falsely call it fact...nothing but a lie. 

That's okay.  The so called "flat earth movement" will be undone by space tourism.  The flat earth is doomed by tourists buying their "I orbited the Globe" souvenir tee shirts.

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Gumwars on December 27, 2018, 07:43:52 PM
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

The issue is the fantasy of it being widespread media pushed into the psyche of the general public.
We are a bunch of naive mind absorbent people who basically mimic what's fed to us, which is why things like ICBM's and what not become a mind reality but not a physical reality. In my honest opinion of course.

Good grief, again??  Scepti, have you considered that when you make sweeping, baseless assumptions like this you are saying that swaths of people either don't exist, or are getting paid to do nothing.  You're saying companies like Allied Signal, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Rockwell, and countless others are fictional.  You're also saying that the countless deaths caused by the TLAM, ACLM, AGM-129, and others never happened, or were caused by something else. 

In all fairness, you are stretching well past its breaking point any plausibility in your argument.  It would be one thing if you offered alternatives that were on equal footing but you simply pop in and say; this thing doesn't exist because I believe it to be so.  A strong argument this does not make. 

As Mikey T. has pointed out and one that I can join, I've worked on some of these systems as well.  At Hill AFB, we used to regularly dispose of Polaris rocket motors that had exceeded their shelf life or were decomissioned following START-II.  Your notion of "so little stored propellant" is interesting given the 1st stage produces a 33 kiloton blast; enough to knock you over 3 miles from the detonation. 

I'm game for hearing what alternatives exist that perform the same function as these weapon systems bearing in mind they would also need to have the same tactical utility; what I mean is a cruise missile performs a specific role while engaging in-theater.  Given what it does (highly accurate targeting attack), I could see GPS or laser guided, aircraft dropped bombs doing some of the same work, but the damage would be very different.  You'd need to reconcile that too.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 27, 2018, 11:55:22 PM
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

I've never heard this argument before. What's this based on?
Logic and sense without having the physical proof's, like everyone else.
If you want to look into this stuff in a serious manner then look up ICBM's from submarines and ask yourself a few questions on how they're big enough and fuelled enough to get out of the deep water and also home in on a long distance target.

As has been said, ICBM's are apparently "rockets" and what is meant by that is, big so called space rocket types.

Ballistic missiles is about the ugliest you will get to long distance destruction.
Not 1000's of miles, just a hundred or so...and I think I'm being a bit generous saying that.


However, it's ICBM's we are talking about so it's just a case of...do they exist or are they just another fantasy?
I go with the latter.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 28, 2018, 12:03:52 AM
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

The issue is the fantasy of it being widespread media pushed into the psyche of the general public.
We are a bunch of naive mind absorbent people who basically mimic what's fed to us, which is why things like ICBM's and what not become a mind reality but not a physical reality. In my honest opinion of course.
You're wrong.  I spent ten years in the US Navy; four and half of which I was stationed on the USS Andrew Jackson, a ballistic missile submarine.  My company is currently finishing up the design for new missile sub.  I've been there, seen it, worked on it, and helped design it. 

You on the other hand have only a belief and falsely call it fact...nothing but a lie. 

That's okay.  The so called "flat earth movement" will be undone by space tourism.  The flat earth is doomed by tourists buying their "I orbited the Globe" souvenir tee shirts.

Mike
Were your missiles, ICBM's?

Did you see any launched from your sub?
Do you know how they were launched?
Do you know at what depth is the max launch of those missiles.
How tall were those missiles?

What fuel were they carrying?
I assume those missiles were fully fuelled just in case they had to be deployed in minutes, right?

I'm just being nosey and asking questions. I'll grill you until you start using classified and what not.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: JackBlack on December 28, 2018, 12:09:04 AM
Logic and sense without having the physical proof's, like everyone else.
No, not like everyone else. You have no logic or sense backing your claims.
All you have are baseless claims based upon wilful ignorance.

If you want to look into this stuff in a serious manner then look up ICBM's from submarines and ask yourself a few questions on how they're big enough and fuelled enough to get out of the deep water and also home in on a long distance target.
So more wilful ignorance?
Again, you are discussing cruise missiles, not ICBMs.
The two are vastly different. Stop pretending that they are the same.

ICBMs do not launch from depths.

Not 1000's of miles, just a hundred or so...and I think I'm being a bit generous saying that.
And I don't' really care if you think you are being generous.
You have backed it up with absolutely nothing.

There is no logic at all.

How are you arriving at your number of a hundred or so miles? It seems to just be more garbage pulled from thin air.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 28, 2018, 12:16:35 AM
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

The issue is the fantasy of it being widespread media pushed into the psyche of the general public.
We are a bunch of naive mind absorbent people who basically mimic what's fed to us, which is why things like ICBM's and what not become a mind reality but not a physical reality. In my honest opinion of course.

Good grief, again??  Scepti, have you considered that when you make sweeping, baseless assumptions like this you are saying that swaths of people either don't exist, or are getting paid to do nothing.
I don't think I'm saying people don't exist. Not sure how you come to that.

 
Quote from: Gumwars
  You're saying companies like Allied Signal, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Rockwell, and countless others are fictional.
Again, no I'm not.

Quote from: Gumwars
   You're also saying that the countless deaths caused by the TLAM, ACLM, AGM-129, and others never happened, or were caused by something else. 

In all fairness, you are stretching well past its breaking point any plausibility in your argument.
I have no real plausibility other than questioning and a massive dose of scepticism based on my own logical sense.
I can't physically prove they don't exist no more than you can physically prove they do. ICBM's we are talking about.


Quote from: Gumwars
  It would be one thing if you offered alternatives that were on equal footing but you simply pop in and say; this thing doesn't exist because I believe it to be so.  A strong argument this does not make. 
Offering alternatives to ICBM's is simple.
Simple ballistic missiles that don't go very far and basically land back in the drink.
I'm not sure if there are any documented cases of so called ICBM's being launched and hitting targets on other continents....have they?

Quote from: Gumwars

As Mikey T. has pointed out and one that I can join, I've worked on some of these systems as well.  At Hill AFB, we used to regularly dispose of Polaris rocket motors that had exceeded their shelf life or were decomissioned following START-II.  Your notion of "so little stored propellant" is interesting given the 1st stage produces a 33 kiloton blast; enough to knock you over 3 miles from the detonation.
Have you seen one launched and if so,w here were you on the sub at launch.
Also if the blast is 33 kilotons then there would be one hell of a water shift. Do you have any physical proof of any of this happening?
Tell me about the launch system unless you're going to cover yourself and go into super secret mode.
 
Quote from: Gumwars

I'm game for hearing what alternatives exist that perform the same function as these weapon systems bearing in mind they would also need to have the same tactical utility; what I mean is a cruise missile performs a specific role while engaging in-theater.  Given what it does (highly accurate targeting attack), I could see GPS or laser guided, aircraft dropped bombs doing some of the same work, but the damage would be very different.  You'd need to reconcile that too.
We all know what these missiles are supposed to perform. How many of us have witnessed them perform what we are told?

That's the issue.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 28, 2018, 12:29:51 AM

Again, you are discussing cruise missiles, not ICBMs.
The two are vastly different. Stop pretending that they are the same.
I'm discussing ICBM's mainly. I merely used cruise missiles as the winged horizontal variety of long distance supposed city annihilators.

Quote from: JackBlack
ICBMs do not launch from depths.
I don't believe they launch at all but seeing as you mention they don't launch from depths, then subs sitting in the middle of the sea with ready launch ability in the event of a supposed nuclear war to supposedly hit targets on continents, is basically pointless....unless you believe those subs are just sitting in the waters of the enemy with ready to fire so called nuclear tipped ballistic missiles that have a minimal range.

How much proof do you have against what I have?
Pictures?
Books?
Internet?
Or do you have absolute physical proof?


Quote from: JackBlack

You have backed it up with absolutely nothing.

There is no logic at all.

How are you arriving at your number of a hundred or so miles? It seems to just be more garbage pulled from thin air.
It could well be garbage what I'm spewing.
I could end up speculating without physical evidence that gleans zilch.

I'm not calling it a fact that all this doesn't exist. I'm questioning (hard) about the existence of this type of stuff and I will use all available wording to hammer that home.

What I won't use is....FACT.
However, I see plenty of people like yourself claiming I pass it off as fact...but it's not the truth, is it?

However, you calling what I say as garbage is all well and good. I can equally call what you are saying, garbage until you prove to me that what I am saying, is garbage.
How are you going to do that?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Lonegranger on December 28, 2018, 01:11:46 AM

Again, you are discussing cruise missiles, not ICBMs.
The two are vastly different. Stop pretending that they are the same.
I'm discussing ICBM's mainly. I merely used cruise missiles as the winged horizontal variety of long distance supposed city annihilators.

Quote from: JackBlack
ICBMs do not launch from depths.
I don't believe they launch at all but seeing as you mention they don't launch from depths, then subs sitting in the middle of the sea with ready launch ability in the event of a supposed nuclear war to supposedly hit targets on continents, is basically pointless....unless you believe those subs are just sitting in the waters of the enemy with ready to fire so called nuclear tipped ballistic missiles that have a minimal range.

How much proof do you have against what I have?
Pictures?
Books?
Internet?
Or do you have absolute physical proof?


Quote from: JackBlack

You have backed it up with absolutely nothing.

There is no logic at all.

How are you arriving at your number of a hundred or so miles? It seems to just be more garbage pulled from thin air.
It could well be garbage what I'm spewing.
I could end up speculating without physical evidence that gleans zilch.

I'm not calling it a fact that all this doesn't exist. I'm questioning (hard) about the existence of this type of stuff and I will use all available wording to hammer that home.

What I won't use is....FACT.
However, I see plenty of people like yourself claiming I pass it off as fact...but it's not the truth, is it?

However, you calling what I say as garbage is all well and good. I can equally call what you are saying, garbage until you prove to me that what I am saying, is garbage.
How are you going to do that?

As far as cruise missiles are concerned why donít you speak to someone from Baghdad. I think many of the residents who lived there in 1993 will have direct first hand experience of them.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 28, 2018, 01:32:39 AM


As far as cruise missiles are concerned why donít you speak to someone from Baghdad. I think many of the residents who lived there in 1993 will have direct first hand experience of them.
And what did they tell you?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Stash on December 28, 2018, 03:16:41 AM
I don't believe they launch at all but seeing as you mention they don't launch from depths, then subs sitting in the middle of the sea with ready launch ability in the event of a supposed nuclear war to supposedly hit targets on continents, is basically pointless....unless you believe those subs are just sitting in the waters of the enemy with ready to fire so called nuclear tipped ballistic missiles that have a minimal range.

How much proof do you have against what I have?
Pictures?
Books?
Internet?
Or do you have absolute physical proof?

I don't have an absolute physical proof. I don't think anyone does unless they rode one down to the target and actually lived to tell the tale. But here's a cool video:



If you think ICBM's are a myth, then just explain why and back it up with something other than "I just think so." I could deliver to you countless hours of missile launch/strike footage of the non-nuclear type (b/c if I had that, the nuclear type, I probably wouldn't be typing right now and you wouldn't be reading right now), so what's the big jam for you that these things exist?

The big jam is, all your other notions don't allow for them. All fine and good. But until you have, as you asked for above, for your other notions:

"How much proof do you have against what I have?
Pictures?
Books?
Internet?
Or do you have absolute physical proof?"


Seems hypocritical to ask for 'absolute physical proof' in this instance, where when it comes to, let's say a critical component of den pressure being this dome affair, you provide none. Not even a crappy youtube video. Curious.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 28, 2018, 04:31:52 AM
I don't believe they launch at all but seeing as you mention they don't launch from depths, then subs sitting in the middle of the sea with ready launch ability in the event of a supposed nuclear war to supposedly hit targets on continents, is basically pointless....unless you believe those subs are just sitting in the waters of the enemy with ready to fire so called nuclear tipped ballistic missiles that have a minimal range.

How much proof do you have against what I have?
Pictures?
Books?
Internet?
Or do you have absolute physical proof?

I don't have an absolute physical proof. I don't think anyone does unless they rode one down to the target and actually lived to tell the tale. But here's a cool video:



If you think ICBM's are a myth, then just explain why and back it up with something other than "I just think so." I could deliver to you countless hours of missile launch/strike footage of the non-nuclear type (b/c if I had that, the nuclear type, I probably wouldn't be typing right now and you wouldn't be reading right now), so what's the big jam for you that these things exist?

The big jam is, all your other notions don't allow for them. All fine and good. But until you have, as you asked for above, for your other notions:

"How much proof do you have against what I have?
Pictures?
Books?
Internet?
Or do you have absolute physical proof?"


Seems hypocritical to ask for 'absolute physical proof' in this instance, where when it comes to, let's say a critical component of den pressure being this dome affair, you provide none. Not even a crappy youtube video. Curious.
There's nothing really hypocritical about what I'm saying. I'm not pushing my theory out as fact and I'm not expecting anyone to accept anything I do say, as fact.

I think I have a right to question everything even if I do not have any physical evidence to prove my point.
I can make assumptions on anything based on what I believe from my side, just as you can by your acceptance of stuff you've never witnessed as a reality.

You are no more clued up on what the truth is than I am and yet you have a library of info on what I'm questioning.
In your mind it probably gives you some kind of authority over me when it comes down to proof but the stark reality could be a massive zero proof.


I simply look at what I'm shown and I try not to let special effects or potential special effects to alter my questioning mind, until I'm sure I'm on the wrong track with something.

The video you put up looks like the special effects I'm talking about.
Who's taking the footage?

Where are the fins on the so called missiles that balance the missile?
How could you possibly steer one to its target looking like that?

How can you literally propel one of those things out of a sub, vertically, using compressed air so that it jumps right out of the water by its entire length and then to immediately full thrust to carry that mass away from the water before it drops right back into it?

What about the so called massive kiloton blast on the water?

It all sounds fantastic and magical. It all appears to be the strong arm of the military and the super technological weaponry advances...but that's what I think it all is in terms of what I'm questioning. It's fantasy passed off as fact to the ever gullible masses.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Lonegranger on December 28, 2018, 05:38:53 AM


As far as cruise missiles are concerned why donít you speak to someone from Baghdad. I think many of the residents who lived there in 1993 will have direct first hand experience of them.
And what did they tell you?

The dead donít talk.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 28, 2018, 05:49:12 AM


As far as cruise missiles are concerned why donít you speak to someone from Baghdad. I think many of the residents who lived there in 1993 will have direct first hand experience of them.
And what did they tell you?

The dead donít talk.
Well you just asked me to speak to someone from Baghdad, so I'm asking you; what did they tell you?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on December 28, 2018, 05:58:33 AM
Yes scepti
We're all gullible massses and you are the enlightened one.
Strange how youre able to see so much truth with your head so far up own ass.
Sorry but if all your nonsense boils down to conspiracy theres about as much debating with you as there is wise and danang.
Credit that english appears to be your first language (despite using some made up definitions) and your responses are slightly more legible.

There will never be enough proof for you conspiracists so quit trolling.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on December 28, 2018, 06:02:59 AM
You need to concentrate on your denpressure theory and try to figure out how people manage to breath and why the supposed air resistance in a "vacumm" exists when clearly the feather doesnt flutter.

Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 28, 2018, 06:06:53 AM
Yes scepti
We're all gullible massses and you are the enlightened one.
Strange how youre able to see so much truth with your head so far up own ass.
Sorry but if all your nonsense boils down to conspiracy theres about as much debating with you as there is wise and danang.
Credit that english appears to be your first language (despite using some made up definitions) and your responses are slightly more legible.

There will never be enough proof for you conspiracists so quit trolling.
We're all gullible, including me.
However, it's all about doing your best to lessen the gullibility load. I'm attempting to do so. Maybe you can try it.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on December 28, 2018, 06:59:09 AM
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

The issue is the fantasy of it being widespread media pushed into the psyche of the general public.
We are a bunch of naive mind absorbent people who basically mimic what's fed to us, which is why things like ICBM's and what not become a mind reality but not a physical reality. In my honest opinion of course.
You're wrong.  I spent ten years in the US Navy; four and half of which I was stationed on the USS Andrew Jackson, a ballistic missile submarine.  My company is currently finishing up the design for new missile sub.  I've been there, seen it, worked on it, and helped design it. 

You on the other hand have only a belief and falsely call it fact...nothing but a lie. 

That's okay.  The so called "flat earth movement" will be undone by space tourism.  The flat earth is doomed by tourists buying their "I orbited the Globe" souvenir tee shirts.

Mike
Were your missiles, ICBM's?

Did you see any launched from your sub?
Do you know how they were launched?
Do you know at what depth is the max launch of those missiles.
How tall were those missiles?

What fuel were they carrying?
I assume those missiles were fully fuelled just in case they had to be deployed in minutes, right?

I'm just being nosey and asking questions. I'll grill you until you start using classified and what not.
We've already been down this road in another thread.  You won't accept anything I have to say so we're not going there again.  Google what you want to know. 

The fact is you have an unsupportable opinion and I have real world experience...you have belief and I have fact, you have claims and I have knowledge. 

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: JackBlack on December 28, 2018, 11:58:29 AM
I have no real plausibility other than questioning and a massive dose of scepticism based on my own logical sense.
Again, the problem is that your argument isn't based upon any logic.

but seeing as you mention they don't launch from depths, then subs sitting in the middle of the sea with ready launch ability in the event of a supposed nuclear war to supposedly hit targets on continents, is basically pointless
No, because the subs can surface quite quickly.

How much proof do you have against what I have?
Again, you have nothing.

Or do you have absolute physical proof?
It seems the only physical proof you would accept is an ICMB launch.
Even if I had physical proof, the only way you would accept it is if you had it physically.
Otherwise you would just dismiss it as me lying or the like.

I'm not calling it a fact that all this doesn't exist.
You are baselessly asserting that they don't exist and that they couldn't.
You are not simply questioning their existence.

However, it's all about doing your best to lessen the gullibility load. I'm attempting to do so. Maybe you can try it.
Falling for conspiracy BS and rejecting so much crap doesn't make you less gullible. It makes you more gullible.

Again, you say your rejection is based upon logic, but you are yet to back up any of your claims with logic.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 28, 2018, 03:24:33 PM
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

The issue is the fantasy of it being widespread media pushed into the psyche of the general public.
We are a bunch of naive mind absorbent people who basically mimic what's fed to us, which is why things like ICBM's and what not become a mind reality but not a physical reality. In my honest opinion of course.
You're wrong.  I spent ten years in the US Navy; four and half of which I was stationed on the USS Andrew Jackson, a ballistic missile submarine.  My company is currently finishing up the design for new missile sub.  I've been there, seen it, worked on it, and helped design it. 

You on the other hand have only a belief and falsely call it fact...nothing but a lie. 

That's okay.  The so called "flat earth movement" will be undone by space tourism.  The flat earth is doomed by tourists buying their "I orbited the Globe" souvenir tee shirts.

Mike
Were your missiles, ICBM's?

Did you see any launched from your sub?
Do you know how they were launched?
Do you know at what depth is the max launch of those missiles.
How tall were those missiles?

What fuel were they carrying?
I assume those missiles were fully fuelled just in case they had to be deployed in minutes, right?

I'm just being nosey and asking questions. I'll grill you until you start using classified and what not.
We've already been down this road in another thread.  You won't accept anything I have to say so we're not going there again.  Google what you want to know. 

The fact is you have an unsupportable opinion and I have real world experience...you have belief and I have fact, you have claims and I have knowledge. 

Mike
Your knowledge seems to be from text books.
You have no knowledge of the physical reality of so called ICBM's, is my guess.

You're asking me to google what I want to know. The problem with google and other sources is, it's reliant on being fed and that feeding may not necessarily be factual.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sokarul on December 28, 2018, 03:26:35 PM
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

The issue is the fantasy of it being widespread media pushed into the psyche of the general public.
We are a bunch of naive mind absorbent people who basically mimic what's fed to us, which is why things like ICBM's and what not become a mind reality but not a physical reality. In my honest opinion of course.
You're wrong.  I spent ten years in the US Navy; four and half of which I was stationed on the USS Andrew Jackson, a ballistic missile submarine.  My company is currently finishing up the design for new missile sub.  I've been there, seen it, worked on it, and helped design it. 

You on the other hand have only a belief and falsely call it fact...nothing but a lie. 

That's okay.  The so called "flat earth movement" will be undone by space tourism.  The flat earth is doomed by tourists buying their "I orbited the Globe" souvenir tee shirts.

Mike
Were your missiles, ICBM's?

Did you see any launched from your sub?
Do you know how they were launched?
Do you know at what depth is the max launch of those missiles.
How tall were those missiles?

What fuel were they carrying?
I assume those missiles were fully fuelled just in case they had to be deployed in minutes, right?

I'm just being nosey and asking questions. I'll grill you until you start using classified and what not.
We've already been down this road in another thread.  You won't accept anything I have to say so we're not going there again.  Google what you want to know. 

The fact is you have an unsupportable opinion and I have real world experience...you have belief and I have fact, you have claims and I have knowledge. 

Mike
Your knowledge seems to be from text books.
You have no knowledge of the physical reality of so called ICBM's, is my guess.

You're asking me to google what I want to know. The problem with google and other sources is, it's reliant on being fed and that feeding may not necessarily be factual.

Your knowledge seems to be from a toilet.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 28, 2018, 03:45:31 PM
Again, the problem is that your argument isn't based upon any logic.
That depends on who's deciding that. You have no authority to decide it.

Quote from: JackBlack
but seeing as you mention they don't launch from depths, then subs sitting in the middle of the sea with ready launch ability in the event of a supposed nuclear war to supposedly hit targets on continents, is basically pointless
No, because the subs can surface quite quickly.
How quickly and what does that prove?

Quote from: JackBlack
How much proof do you have against what I have?
Again, you have nothing.
That depends. You see, I have suspicions and questions.
What do you have?

Quote from: JackBlack
Or do you have absolute physical proof?
It seems the only physical proof you would accept is an ICMB launch.
Even if I had physical proof, the only way you would accept it is if you had it physically.
Otherwise you would just dismiss it as me lying or the like.
If you had physical proof and showed me then I'd have to accept it.
If you simply say you have physical proof without showing me proof, then, of course I'm going to call you out on it.
I could say I've seen missiles and they're not what we are told but if I can't provide the proof of it I'd be called out. Same thing here.
You don't hold any higher ground other than your reliance on being fed what you accept as facts to convey as some kind of authority on memorising or referencing those so called facts.

Quote from: JackBlack
I'm not calling it a fact that all this doesn't exist.
You are baselessly asserting that they don't exist and that they couldn't.
You are not simply questioning their existence.
Baselessly is the wrong word to be fair.
You see, I've gave a few good reasons as to why I don't accept them to be what we are told, so naturally my questioning of their existence is valid to me.
You merely saying it isn't does not make it so.

Quote from: JackBlack
However, it's all about doing your best to lessen the gullibility load. I'm attempting to do so. Maybe you can try it.
Falling for conspiracy BS and rejecting so much crap doesn't make you less gullible. It makes you more gullible.
Nahhh. I'd say there's no gullibility from me in questioning and/or refusing to believe something I can't physically verify.
I'd definitely say that those who accept stories told without physical proof are the one's bordering on the edge of gullibility and naivety.
 

Quote from: JackBlack
Again, you say your rejection is based upon logic, but you are yet to back up any of your claims with logic.
Same goes for you.
You see, if I could back up anything I question then I would have the facts and that would scupper what is potentially hidden from us.

The same goes for you.
If you can back up what you are saying against what I'm saying with your own facts, then it renders my questioning, pointless.
This is not the case and is why I'm typing away with you doing likewise.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Bullwinkle on December 28, 2018, 03:45:45 PM

Your knowledge seems to be from a toilet.

You seem to be a dick.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 28, 2018, 03:46:36 PM
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

The issue is the fantasy of it being widespread media pushed into the psyche of the general public.
We are a bunch of naive mind absorbent people who basically mimic what's fed to us, which is why things like ICBM's and what not become a mind reality but not a physical reality. In my honest opinion of course.
You're wrong.  I spent ten years in the US Navy; four and half of which I was stationed on the USS Andrew Jackson, a ballistic missile submarine.  My company is currently finishing up the design for new missile sub.  I've been there, seen it, worked on it, and helped design it. 

You on the other hand have only a belief and falsely call it fact...nothing but a lie. 

That's okay.  The so called "flat earth movement" will be undone by space tourism.  The flat earth is doomed by tourists buying their "I orbited the Globe" souvenir tee shirts.

Mike
Were your missiles, ICBM's?

Did you see any launched from your sub?
Do you know how they were launched?
Do you know at what depth is the max launch of those missiles.
How tall were those missiles?

What fuel were they carrying?
I assume those missiles were fully fuelled just in case they had to be deployed in minutes, right?

I'm just being nosey and asking questions. I'll grill you until you start using classified and what not.
We've already been down this road in another thread.  You won't accept anything I have to say so we're not going there again.  Google what you want to know. 

The fact is you have an unsupportable opinion and I have real world experience...you have belief and I have fact, you have claims and I have knowledge. 

Mike
Your knowledge seems to be from text books.
You have no knowledge of the physical reality of so called ICBM's, is my guess.

You're asking me to google what I want to know. The problem with google and other sources is, it's reliant on being fed and that feeding may not necessarily be factual.

Your knowledge seems to be from a toilet.
Maybe because I'm flush with it.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Lonegranger on December 28, 2018, 03:57:25 PM


As far as cruise missiles are concerned why donít you speak to someone from Baghdad. I think many of the residents who lived there in 1993 will have direct first hand experience of them.
And what did they tell you?

The dead donít talk.
Well you just asked me to speak to someone from Baghdad, so I'm asking you; what did they tell you?

Youíre just being deliberately obtuse.

The thing is you rail and rant against things people have not actually seen or witnessed for themselves......and then you carry on promoting things  that you have no proof for or witnessed yourself. I smell major double talk. By all means be skeptical, but do it in a equal, intelligent and measured way, and not the way you currently go about it.

Back to the cruise missiles. You remember the two gulf wars? I myself never went to Iraq, but a shedload of American and coalition soldiers did. Thousands died, mostly civilians. I never actually witnessed that nor did I witness WW2 or WW1 or any war in history apart from the one I fought in. One thing I know for sure is these events took place.

In one 48 hour period during Shock and Awe in particular over 800 cruise missiles fell on Baghdad alone. How many died during that period is unknown.  That it actually happened is fact as the footage is there to prove it.

Your stance of not taking verifiable testimony is just plain ridiculous and demonstrates nothing more than stubborn ignorance.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 28, 2018, 04:33:46 PM
Youíre just being deliberately obtuse.
To you I may be being obtuse but that's more because of your irritation as to why I won't back down rather than me deliberately being obtuse from my side of the fence. Think about that because I can sling the same thing back...yet I won't bother as it's definitely non-productive.

Quote from: Lonegranger
The thing is you rail and rant against things people have not actually seen or witnessed for themselves......and then you carry on promoting things  that you have no proof for or witnessed yourself.
I don't really rant. I simply question and give my reasons for the questions. The mere fact that I haven't witnessed the stuff I'm questioning, is one of the main reasons I'm questioning and being sceptical about.
I'm also arguing against people who have also not witnessed what they are arguing for, so it's definitely swings and roundabouts.
If you can prove my questioning to be inaccurate then I welcome it. But don't just cite a video of something you can't verify as a truth.

Quote from: Lonegranger
I smell major double talk. By all means be skeptical, but do it in a equal, intelligent and measured way, and not the way you currently go about it.
Double talk as in, how?
As for the way I go about stuff. That's me. That's the way I go about stuff just like you will go about your stuff in your way and everyone else in their way.
Accept it and argue it if you have an argument against it or whatever.
Merely trying to use the way I come across as some kind of bonus point to yourself, is pointless, to be fair.


Quote from: Lonegranger
Back to the cruise missiles. You remember the two gulf wars? I myself never went to Iraq, but a shedload of American and coalition soldiers did. Thousands died, mostly civilians. I never actually witnessed that nor did I witness WW2 or WW1 or any war in history apart from the one I fought in. One thing I know for sure is these events took place.
Those events may have taken place.
I'm not going to argue emotion with you so you can leave that stuff out. If you feel the need to use it then don't waste your time arguing with me.

Let's deal with what I'm arguing against without using human emotion to try to gain one-upmanship.
 

Quote from: Lonegranger
In one 48 hour period during Shock and Awe in particular over 800 cruise missiles fell on Baghdad alone. How many died during that period is unknown.  That it actually happened is fact as the footage is there to prove it.
Show me the footage of this barrage of 800 cruise missiles hitting Baghdad?
I'm not talking about a dark night bang and flash that appears out of nowhere. Show me cruise missiles launching and hitting their targets.
Also where did they launch them from?


Quote from: Lonegranger
Your stance of not taking verifiable testimony is just plain ridiculous and demonstrates nothing more than stubborn ignorance.
Show me verifiable testimony that ICBM's do what we are told they do?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on December 28, 2018, 05:21:25 PM
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

The issue is the fantasy of it being widespread media pushed into the psyche of the general public.
We are a bunch of naive mind absorbent people who basically mimic what's fed to us, which is why things like ICBM's and what not become a mind reality but not a physical reality. In my honest opinion of course.
You're wrong.  I spent ten years in the US Navy; four and half of which I was stationed on the USS Andrew Jackson, a ballistic missile submarine.  My company is currently finishing up the design for new missile sub.  I've been there, seen it, worked on it, and helped design it. 

You on the other hand have only a belief and falsely call it fact...nothing but a lie. 

That's okay.  The so called "flat earth movement" will be undone by space tourism.  The flat earth is doomed by tourists buying their "I orbited the Globe" souvenir tee shirts.

Mike
Were your missiles, ICBM's?

Did you see any launched from your sub?
Do you know how they were launched?
Do you know at what depth is the max launch of those missiles.
How tall were those missiles?

What fuel were they carrying?
I assume those missiles were fully fuelled just in case they had to be deployed in minutes, right?

I'm just being nosey and asking questions. I'll grill you until you start using classified and what not.
We've already been down this road in another thread.  You won't accept anything I have to say so we're not going there again.  Google what you want to know. 

The fact is you have an unsupportable opinion and I have real world experience...you have belief and I have fact, you have claims and I have knowledge. 

Mike
Your knowledge seems to be from text books.
You have no knowledge of the physical reality of so called ICBM's, is my guess.

You're asking me to google what I want to know. The problem with google and other sources is, it's reliant on being fed and that feeding may not necessarily be factual.
You don't have the first clue about nuclear power/weapons so you wouldn't have any idea what comes from text books and what doesn't.  Claiming you can tell where my knowledge comes from holds zero weight.  And, make no mistake about it, all you have opinions and beliefs and nothing else so donít pretend otherwise. 

As I've said before, nuc weapons aren't my area but there was one particular aspect of them that required additional class work and training.  What I do know is nuclear power.  I am my departments subject matter expert for reactor plant systems.  I know what I know no only from classes but from training, operation, maintenance, and design of all the systems involved.  You can't handle that so your only recourse is to dismiss it.   

I told you to google what you wanted to know because we've already had this discussion.  I've already answered all those questions and provided much more information.

You are not even remotely qualified to determine if what I post is from real world knowledge or regurgitated from a book and you know it.  You dismiss my knowledge because you can't face the fact that if what I say it true then all that you believe goes out the window.  Not that any of the matters because the so called ďflat earth movementĒ is doomed and will be dead in the very near future.

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: rabinoz on December 28, 2018, 05:23:44 PM
Your stance of not taking verifiable testimony is just plain ridiculous and demonstrates nothing more than stubborn ignorance.
Show me verifiable testimony that ICBM's do what we are told they do?
Please define what you would class as "verifiable testimony that ICBM's do what we are told they do" because, for obvious reasons few ICBMs are launched armed with nuclear warheads.
Besides that, none of the missiles launched at Baghdad were ICBMs.

But don't worry, Sceppy, we KNOW that a flat-earther simply has to subscribe to the following (it is probably in FE Indoctrination 101):
Quote from: The Flat Earth Society Wiki
Flat Earthers start with the knowledge that the earth is flat, as they believe that all the evidence which they are personally able to collect and verify confirms this fact. As a consequence all the evidence to the contrary, much of which they are unable to personally test/verify is viewed as being false.
P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated.
P2) The FET (Flat Earth Theory) is an obvious truth
You're forgiven ;D!
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Gumwars on December 28, 2018, 07:38:21 PM
I don't think I'm saying people don't exist. Not sure how you come to that.

Here's what you've previously stated:

Quote
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.

Your claim is that ICBMs do not exist, i.e., fictional.  That would mean the companies that used to build components for systems like the LGM-118 (Peacekeeper) and the LGM-30 (Minuteman), the engineers that designed the weapon, the integration team that put it all together, the logistics team that moves the missile and puts it in a silo, and many other unnamed technicians, administrators, and military personnel are not real.  All these people are involved with the creation, implementation, and maintenance of this weapon system; Scepti, that's a lot of folks involved here.  Here's the breakdown and why I've arrived at this conclusion regarding your perspective:

ICBMs are not real or they do not function as we've been told.  This rewording of your statement is an attempt to clean up the informal way you presented the argument.  An implication of this argument is that the thousands of people that manage these weapon systems are either fictional (from the first statement) or they are a part of yet another conspiracy (from the second).  I would lean more towards the first statement as what you explicitly wrote was, "[There's] no such thing as an ICBM."  As it is written, you're saying they don't exist.  However, I'll give you the benefit of doubt and work with the assumption that ICBMs have been misrepresented in their ability.

With that second position, you are still claiming an very large pool of people are in on a conspiracy or have been collectively duped.  While possible, this is far from plausible.  Just this refutation alone casts considerable doubt on your argument.  If ICBMs were built by grade schoolers you might have something to work with but these are literally rocket scientists. 


Again, no I'm not.

You've stated that ICBMs do not exist.  Therefore, the people, companies, and government entities responsible for those systems would either not exist or are actors in a grand charade.  As I'm making this an argument against the notion that this is a conspiratorial position, I would ask you to provide some evidence of conspiracies that have been proven and involve at least 1000 people.  If you can give me that, I would reconsider your argument.

I have no real plausibility other than questioning and a massive dose of scepticism based on my own logical sense.
I can't physically prove they don't exist no more than you can physically prove they do. ICBM's we are talking about.

Skepticism is always a good thing until it starts making you look like a fool.  Your second sentence is correct in the first half, and completely wrong in the second.  What I cannot do, in this forum, is provide evidence that you would accept.  I would be completely willing to make a trip to North Dakota and tour the silos with you.  I would also invite you to visit Boeing's headquarters in Chicago and ask them about the Minuteman systems.

Offering alternatives to ICBM's is simple.
Simple ballistic missiles that don't go very far and basically land back in the drink.
I'm not sure if there are any documented cases of so called ICBM's being launched and hitting targets on other continents....have they?

Except ICBMs don't land back in the drink.  The two systems we had until 2005 launched in stages and inserted a "kill" platform in low orbit.  It would then deploy MIRVs at set intervals hitting designated targets. 

As to your question, look up Minuteman III Glory Trip.  These were several tests conducted between 1970 and 1987.  The ICBMs were launched from Vandenberg AFB with dummy MIRVs with targets in the Marshall Islands.  That's a distance of roughly 4,700 miles which is approximately half the max distance for the weapon. 

Additionally, your query as to whether or not there's been a documented example of an ICBM actually hitting targets on a different continent poses one very difficult problem; countries usually don't conduct joint tests with highly classified weapon systems.  Alternatively, and as we are all still here discussing this topic, no actual deployment of this weapon has happened.

The Glory Trip tests proved that the Minuteman system could accurately hit targets using the MIRV sub assembly at considerable distances.  Going further out wasn't necessary.

Have you seen one launched and if so,w here were you on the sub at launch.
Also if the blast is 33 kilotons then there would be one hell of a water shift. Do you have any physical proof of any of this happening?
Tell me about the launch system unless you're going to cover yourself and go into super secret mode.

Yes, I have seen a launch.  Vandenberg AFB isn't too far from where I live and they launch ICBMs (and more) on a fairly regular basis.  No submarine required.

Kindly re-read my first response to you.  The booster section we demolished was at Hill AFB in Utah.  It was the primary stage of a Polaris missile, a submarine launched ICBM.  The explosion I'm referring to is a non-nuclear detonation (for those keeping notes 33 kilotons is twice the Fat Man) but very impressive.  There was no water shift as the bombing and gunnery ranges around Hill AFB are a blasted expanse of brown nothing and grass.  Lots of grass.

No super secret mode here.   

We all know what these missiles are supposed to perform. How many of us have witnessed them perform what we are told?

That's the issue.

Scepti, though your skepticism prevents you from believing most of what folks tell you, I was in the military for a decade, in EOD, and have been ringside dealing with many of the subcomponents involved with these weapons.  I've worked on the payloads, in particular the W87 warhead which is the nuke of choice for the MIRV (a 300kt blast...this is a "tactical" weapon). 

Back to your super secret stuff; the launch of an ICBM is identical to any other ballistic missile or rocket.  Both the Minuteman and Peacekeeper are multi-stage rockets, just like the Saturn V, Falcon Heavy, or other tools we use to get into orbit.  The missiles are assembled at an integration facility, placed in transportation canisters and moved by truck/train to the silos.  From there they are lowered by cranes into the silos where they wait for the hopefully-never-coming end of the world. 

Dude, there's healthy skepticism (ghosts and Mandela effect nonsense) and then there's outright denial of things that have ample evidence supporting their existence.  I understand the materialistic notion that often it helps if you have first hand experience with something.  However, if we take this to an extreme, how can knowledge of the world and universe grow?  If every person took this super extreme view of the world, and in order to truly know something that person needed to experience it, then we would continually walk over the same ground.  I can accept something if it logically follows in addition to the experiences I have.  ICBMs fit perfectly well in what I can accept as a real thing, though I've never been able to witness one flying its entire trajectory, deploy MIRVs, and then watch those fall through the atmosphere and hit targets.  In fact, no one has, because you can't. 

I think the best and only way I can put this to you is by pointing out the gap between what you don't know and what you accept.  I don't know what you do in your time away from here; I'd imagine it's probably not too different from what any of us do.  But many of us have asked you to go visit certain places, see some of the things we've seen with our own eyes, because we know if you do, that gap will shrink. 
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: JackBlack on December 28, 2018, 10:20:23 PM
Your knowledge seems to be from text books.
And you seem to have no knowledge.

You're asking me to google what I want to know. The problem with google and other sources is, it's reliant on being fed and that feeding may not necessarily be factual.
And you would say the same to anyone who says anything here. Either that they are just being fed information, or the information they are providing isn't factual.
If you aren't willing to accept the words of others you will need to get the physical proof yourself. Any attempt to appeal to it is just a pathetic dishonest distraction as you have no intention of accepting anything anyone says.

That depends on who's deciding that.
No it doesn't. It either is supported or is not.
So far all you have done is assert baseless claims and appealed to ignorance.
You have not used any logic to back it up.

How quickly and what does that prove?
Less than a few minutes. It proves your claim about their ready launch ability is crap.

You see, I have suspicions and questions.
i.e. nothing.

If you had physical proof and showed me then I'd have to accept it.
And how would I show it to you?
Do you mean, physcially, in person?
Or do you mean as an image or video? If you mean as an image or video, then what is wrong with all the existing ones?

Baselessly is the wrong word to be fair.
No, it is the correct word.
You make claims without providing any backing.
This makes them baseless.
If you don't think they are baselss, feel free to provide the reasons backing them up.

Again, where did you pull the hundred or so miles from? That seems extremely baseless.

You see, I've gave a few good reasons
No, you gave a bunch of baseless assertions.

Nahhh. I'd say there's no gullibility from me in questioning and/or refusing to believe something I can't physically verify.
But you can verify it. You just choose not to.
It is extreme gullibility to accept the delusional garbage of conspiracy theorists, which you cannot back up at all.

if I could back up anything I question then I would have the facts
Well thanks for admitting you have no facts and no backing.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on December 28, 2018, 11:43:55 PM
Interesting.
Jackbs line by line play highlights a key point.
Lets see a core sample report from that helium ice dome.

Quote from: sceptimatic on Today at 03:45:31 PM
"Nahhh. I'd say there's no gullibility from me in questioning and/or refusing to believe something I can't physically verify".
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Lonegranger on December 29, 2018, 12:47:10 AM
Youíre just being deliberately obtuse.
To you I may be being obtuse but that's more because of your irritation as to why I won't back down rather than me deliberately being obtuse from my side of the fence. Think about that because I can sling the same thing back...yet I won't bother as it's definitely non-productive.

Quote from: Lonegranger
The thing is you rail and rant against things people have not actually seen or witnessed for themselves......and then you carry on promoting things  that you have no proof for or witnessed yourself.
I don't really rant. I simply question and give my reasons for the questions. The mere fact that I haven't witnessed the stuff I'm questioning, is one of the main reasons I'm questioning and being sceptical about.
I'm also arguing against people who have also not witnessed what they are arguing for, so it's definitely swings and roundabouts.
If you can prove my questioning to be inaccurate then I welcome it. But don't just cite a video of something you can't verify as a truth.

Quote from: Lonegranger
I smell major double talk. By all means be skeptical, but do it in a equal, intelligent and measured way, and not the way you currently go about it.
Double talk as in, how?
As for the way I go about stuff. That's me. That's the way I go about stuff just like you will go about your stuff in your way and everyone else in their way.
Accept it and argue it if you have an argument against it or whatever.
Merely trying to use the way I come across as some kind of bonus point to yourself, is pointless, to be fair.


Quote from: Lonegranger
Back to the cruise missiles. You remember the two gulf wars? I myself never went to Iraq, but a shedload of American and coalition soldiers did. Thousands died, mostly civilians. I never actually witnessed that nor did I witness WW2 or WW1 or any war in history apart from the one I fought in. One thing I know for sure is these events took place.
Those events may have taken place.
I'm not going to argue emotion with you so you can leave that stuff out. If you feel the need to use it then don't waste your time arguing with me.

Let's deal with what I'm arguing against without using human emotion to try to gain one-upmanship.
 

Quote from: Lonegranger
In one 48 hour period during Shock and Awe in particular over 800 cruise missiles fell on Baghdad alone. How many died during that period is unknown.  That it actually happened is fact as the footage is there to prove it.
Show me the footage of this barrage of 800 cruise missiles hitting Baghdad?
I'm not talking about a dark night bang and flash that appears out of nowhere. Show me cruise missiles launching and hitting their targets.
Also where did they launch them from?


Quote from: Lonegranger
Your stance of not taking verifiable testimony is just plain ridiculous and demonstrates nothing more than stubborn ignorance.
Show me verifiable testimony that ICBM's do what we are told they do?

I donít give a fig what you believe, as for irritated why should I be? Itís just a debate forum.

What youíre doing is denying the deaths of thousands of people and the role players by all the service men and woman, who on hat night were certinally not make believe. I just wonder how you would cope if put in a life or death situation? Perhaps you could just not believe in all the 9mm, 7.62 or 60mm mortar rounds heading in your direction. Would you only believe in them once you got hit, not a pretty sight let me tell you!

Your argument is based on no more than just obstanatly denying things which is no argument at all. How about for once offering up some proof.

As for WW1 and WW2 that you were sceptical about, go visit Europe where most of the action took place.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 29, 2018, 12:50:21 AM
You don't have the first clue about nuclear power/weapons so you wouldn't have any idea what comes from text books and what doesn't.  Claiming you can tell where my knowledge comes from holds zero weight.  And, make no mistake about it, all you have opinions and beliefs and nothing else so donít pretend otherwise.
Of course I have opinions and belief's. I merely question because I have no direct physical proof, so I look at how I'm told stuff works and decide for myself if it's feasible.
I don't believe it is so I'm questioning.

You are the same but think text books give you authority for fact, like I said before.
 
Quote from: MicroBeta
As I've said before, nuc weapons aren't my area but there was one particular aspect of them that required additional class work and training.
What additional class work and training?

Quote from: MicroBeta
  What I do know is nuclear power.  I am my departments subject matter expert for reactor plant systems.  I know what I know no only from classes but from training, operation, maintenance, and design of all the systems involved.  You can't handle that so your only recourse is to dismiss it.
I can handle it if it's the truth. The potential reality is, you have no clue about nuclear power except (once again) reading up on what it's supposed to do.
However, since this isn't about nuclear power and is about ICBM's and such you don't need to try and prove anything. You couldn't do it in the nuclear thread so don't bother here.
   
Quote from: MicroBeta
I told you to google what you wanted to know because we've already had this discussion.  I've already answered all those questions and provided much more information.
You've answered some questions in the nuke thread but you dodged the one's that really questioned by using top secret and what not. Feel free to resurrect the nuke thread if you decide to answer questions.

Quote from: MicroBeta
You are not even remotely qualified to determine if what I post is from real world knowledge or regurgitated from a book and you know it.
I'm certainly not qualified to do that. I don't know you at all, just like you don't know me.
I can push you into an argument to defend yourself by saying I don't believe you know the PHYSICAL reality of what you claim and what you do know is from text books, pertaining to the stuff I'm questioning.
Can you prove me wrong?
Just saying stuff is not proving me wrong.
Quote from: MicroBeta
  You dismiss my knowledge because you can't face the fact that if what I say it true then all that you believe goes out the window.
That's where you fail.
You see, I'm after the facts. I want facts.
I don't want to live on conspiracy theories and guesses. It's a pain to want to know the truth and not being able to convince myself of something being exactly that.
This is why I'm questioning.
If you prove facts to me I'll be more than happy. Just don't think for a second that telling me you served on a sub is your authority on what I'm arguing about.
Getting all angry does not add any credence to what you say, either.

Quote from: MicroBeta
  Not that any of the matters because the so called ďflat earth movementĒ is doomed and will be dead in the very near future.

Mike
You seem to be some kind of authority on knowing the flat Earth movement is doomed and dead in the water. How is this?
Don't answer this because I already think I know the answer and it needs to go into the so called space travel topic....right?
Your authority again I suppose.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 29, 2018, 12:55:33 AM
Please define what you would class as "verifiable testimony that ICBM's do what we are told they do" because, for obvious reasons few ICBMs are launched armed with nuclear warheads.
Just tell me about the few ICBM's that were launched to their targets then and we will deal with them.
It might give me the verifiable facts from yourself. Maybe....eh?

Quote from: rabinoz
Besides that, none of the missiles launched at Baghdad were ICBMs.
Ok we can discount those missiles, because those are not my interest.


Quote from: rabinoz
But don't worry, Sceppy, we KNOW that a flat-earther simply has to subscribe to the following (it is probably in FE Indoctrination 101):
Quote from: The Flat Earth Society Wiki
Flat Earthers start with the knowledge that the earth is flat, as they believe that all the evidence which they are personally able to collect and verify confirms this fact. As a consequence all the evidence to the contrary, much of which they are unable to personally test/verify is viewed as being false.
P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated.
P2) The FET (Flat Earth Theory) is an obvious truth
You're forgiven ;D!
This strawman argument does nothing for you.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Stash on December 29, 2018, 01:51:49 AM
Please define what you would class as "verifiable testimony that ICBM's do what we are told they do" because, for obvious reasons few ICBMs are launched armed with nuclear warheads.
Just tell me about the few ICBM's that were launched to their targets then and we will deal with them.
It might give me the verifiable facts from yourself. Maybe....eh?

Gumwars brought up the ongoing Minute Man tests from vandeburg afb. Here's a vid of one:



Pretty ominous if it can do what and go where as claimed. So, there's all kinds of visual evidence that these "missiles" are real, so they exist. Your contention seems to be that, yeah, they exist, but they can't go as far as claimed?

So simply put, what is your reasoning as to why they can't go as far as claimed?
And that reasoning is based upon...X. What is 'X'? And what is 'X' evidenced by?

My 'X' evidence for why the claims are true is simply that we have verifiable real plane flights that humans pilot, serve, and passenger on that are 9000+ miles. Seems a missile without being encumbered by humans could easily make that distance.

So what's the big anti-ICBM thing with you? (Other than they have the potential to destroy the world 50 times over)
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: rabinoz on December 29, 2018, 03:09:05 AM
Please define what you would class as "verifiable testimony that ICBM's do what we are told they do" because, for obvious reasons few ICBMs are launched armed with nuclear warheads.
Just tell me about the few ICBM's that were launched to their targets then and we will deal with them.
It might give me the verifiable facts from yourself. Maybe....eh?
No! I asked of YOU "Please define what you would class as "verifiable testimony that ICBM's do what we are told they do" because, for obvious reasons few ICBMs are launched armed with nuclear warheads".
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 29, 2018, 04:34:24 AM
Quote from: Gumwars
Your claim is that ICBMs do not exist, i.e., fictional.  That would mean the companies that used to build components for systems like the LGM-118 (Peacekeeper) and the LGM-30 (Minuteman), the engineers that designed the weapon, the integration team that put it all together, the logistics team that moves the missile and puts it in a silo, and many other unnamed technicians, administrators, and military personnel are not real.

 All these people are involved with the creation, implementation, and maintenance of this weapon system; Scepti, that's a lot of folks involved here.  Here's the breakdown and why I've arrived at this conclusion regarding your perspective:

ICBMs are not real or they do not function as we've been told.  This rewording of your statement is an attempt to clean up the informal way you presented the argument.
Yep. I have no authority to state as a fact that they don't exist. I simply believe they don't from my side. This is why I change my stance to ensure I'm not putting anything out as fact which I cannot back up as fact, because I don't have any proof other than speculation/scepticism/my own logic and distrust of a lot of what is dished out to us based on many many years of us being taken for a ride.


Quote from: Gumwars
An implication of this argument is that the thousands of people that manage these weapon systems are either fictional (from the first statement) or they are a part of yet another conspiracy (from the second).
They could well be fictional.
TV actors or simply story book characters.

Quote from: Gumwars
With that second position, you are still claiming an very large pool of people are in on a conspiracy or have been collectively duped.
Duped would be the likely word. It only takes a select few to be in on any conspiring, in my opinion.

Quote from: Gumwars
  While possible, this is far from plausible.
If it's possible it's plausible.

Quote from: Gumwars
  Just this refutation alone casts considerable doubt on your argument.  If ICBMs were built by grade schoolers you might have something to work with but these are literally rocket scientists. 
Can grade school kids build rockets and launch them?


Quote from: Gumwars
As I'm making this an argument against the notion that this is a conspiratorial position, I would ask you to provide some evidence of conspiracies that have been proven and involve at least 1000 people.  If you can give me that, I would reconsider your argument.
Why would any conspiracy need to involve a thousand people actively knowing and taking part?
How many people are complicit in writing the bible? How many people follow the bible and its meanings?
You don't need to answer this part I'm just giving you extreme examples of potential dupes.

Quote from: Gumwars
Skepticism is always a good thing until it starts making you look like a fool.  Your second sentence is correct in the first half, and completely wrong in the second.  What I cannot do, in this forum, is provide evidence that you would accept.  I would be completely willing to make a trip to North Dakota and tour the silos with you.  I would also invite you to visit Boeing's headquarters in Chicago and ask them about the Minuteman systems.
You mean you're allowed into a silo that holds a so called ICBM?

As for being invited to Boeing's headquarters. What would we be shown?
What explanations would we get that we can't get from a text book or a picture book?
We would be placed in front of a man of woman who would be trained to reel off what they were taught to reel off and will have no physical clue in terms of being able to verify what they reel off.



Quote from: Gumwars
The two systems we had until 2005 launched in stages and inserted a "kill" platform in low orbit.  It would then deploy MIRVs at set intervals hitting designated targets.
You learned this from reading books, right?
Nothing wrong with that but it does not give you facts. It gives you a story to follow that may be more fiction than fact.

 
Quote from: Gumwars
As to your question, look up Minuteman III Glory Trip.  These were several tests conducted between 1970 and 1987.  The ICBMs were launched from Vandenberg AFB with dummy MIRVs with targets in the Marshall Islands.  That's a distance of roughly 4,700 miles which is approximately half the max distance for the weapon. 
Again you are basing this on story book reading passed off as factual, of which you absolutely cannot verify as that.

Quote from: Gumwars
Additionally, your query as to whether or not there's been a documented example of an ICBM actually hitting targets on a different continent poses one very difficult problem; countries usually don't conduct joint tests with highly classified weapon systems.  Alternatively, and as we are all still here discussing this topic, no actual deployment of this weapon has happened.
Which gives rise to the questioning of them. I happen to believe they're gimmicks but very clever one's for the public to fear or comfort over, depending on how people view this intercontinental missile nonsense. Again, in my opinion.

Quote from: Gumwars
The Glory Trip tests proved that the Minuteman system could accurately hit targets using the MIRV sub assembly at considerable distances.  Going further out wasn't necessary.
Not sure what this means.

Quote from: Gumwars
Have you seen one launched and if so,w here were you on the sub at launch.
Also if the blast is 33 kilotons then there would be one hell of a water shift. Do you have any physical proof of any of this happening?
Tell me about the launch system unless you're going to cover yourself and go into super secret mode.

Yes, I have seen a launch.  Vandenberg AFB isn't too far from where I live and they launch ICBMs (and more) on a fairly regular basis.  No submarine required.
They launch ICBM's from an air-force base?
Can you verify what rocket/missile was launched?

Quote from: Gumwars
Kindly re-read my first response to you.  The booster section we demolished was at Hill AFB in Utah.  It was the primary stage of a Polaris missile, a submarine launched ICBM.
You dismantle a primary stage?
What exactly does that entail. Is it an engine and if so, ask yourself why any missile requires an engine.
We get shown engines like the Apollo nonsense and to be fair, they are gimmicks to me.

Quote from: Gumwars
  The explosion I'm referring to is a non-nuclear detonation (for those keeping notes 33 kilotons is twice the Fat Man) but very impressive.  There was no water shift as the bombing and gunnery ranges around Hill AFB are a blasted expanse of brown nothing and grass.  Lots of grass.

No super secret mode here.
You witnessed this happen, right?
 
Quote from: Gumwars
We all know what these missiles are supposed to perform. How many of us have witnessed them perform what we are told?

That's the issue.

Scepti, though your skepticism prevents you from believing most of what folks tell you, I was in the military for a decade, in EOD, and have been ringside dealing with many of the subcomponents involved with these weapons.  I've worked on the payloads, in particular the W87 warhead which is the nuke of choice for the MIRV (a 300kt blast...this is a "tactical" weapon).
What did you do to actually work on this stuff?
Briefly.

 
Quote from: Gumwars
Back to your super secret stuff; the launch of an ICBM is identical to any other ballistic missile or rocket.
Quote from: Gumwars
Both the Minuteman and Peacekeeper are multi-stage rockets, just like the Saturn V, Falcon Heavy, or other tools we use to get into orbit.  The missiles are assembled at an integration facility, placed in transportation canisters and moved by truck/train to the silos.  From there they are lowered by cranes into the silos where they wait for the hopefully-never-coming end of the world.
Like a big so called Apollo rocket effigy, right?
Just sat in silo's?

 
Quote from: Gumwars
Dude, there's healthy skepticism (ghosts and Mandela effect nonsense) and then there's outright denial of things that have ample evidence supporting their existence.  I understand the materialistic notion that often it helps if you have first hand experience with something.  However, if we take this to an extreme, how can knowledge of the world and universe grow?
It can grow just like it is. On facts.
The rest of it is stories and that entails books growing on fact or FICTION.

Quote from: Gumwars
  If every person took this super extreme view of the world, and in order to truly know something that person needed to experience it, then we would continually walk over the same ground.  I can accept something if it logically follows in addition to the experiences I have.  ICBMs fit perfectly well in what I can accept as a real thing, though I've never been able to witness one flying its entire trajectory, deploy MIRVs, and then watch those fall through the atmosphere and hit targets.  In fact, no one has, because you can't.
Exactly, you can't.
It's down to a belief mechanism in each person. An acceptance just because it fits a narrative.
 
Quote from: Gumwars
I think the best and only way I can put this to you is by pointing out the gap between what you don't know and what you accept.  I don't know what you do in your time away from here; I'd imagine it's probably not too different from what any of us do.  But many of us have asked you to go visit certain places, see some of the things we've seen with our own eyes, because we know if you do, that gap will shrink.
That depends on the places visited.
If they're top secret then visiting them is left to someone narrating. A guide. A trained guide that follows protocol.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on December 29, 2018, 06:34:36 AM
Wow...
Scepti youre so full of yourself.
You claim fact and truth.
Yet your theories are baselsss and from yuor own mind.
Youre so enlightened and better than us gullible drones.

Why troll and ask for proof?
All proof is then dismissed as conspiracy.
Lets see a core sample from your truthful ice dome.
Possibly Truth and Fact must have been redefined.

By your logic, ill have to theorize you eat sht.
You say a lot of sht nonsense so you must eat sht.
I know this because i only deal in facts and truth.
Proove you dont.

Take your fedora off and go outside.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on December 29, 2018, 07:12:25 AM
They simply cannot hold enough fuel for starters.
Also they have no guidance system other than fins.
Modern ICBMs donít have fins.  Clearly you have no idea how the guidance systems work.  How can your comments to have any credibility when youíre so demonstrably wrong? 

Why canít ICBMs hold enough fuel?

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 29, 2018, 09:02:07 AM
Please define what you would class as "verifiable testimony that ICBM's do what we are told they do" because, for obvious reasons few ICBMs are launched armed with nuclear warheads.
Just tell me about the few ICBM's that were launched to their targets then and we will deal with them.
It might give me the verifiable facts from yourself. Maybe....eh?

Gumwars brought up the ongoing Minute Man tests from vandeburg afb. Here's a vid of one:



Pretty ominous if it can do what and go where as claimed. So, there's all kinds of visual evidence that these "missiles" are real, so they exist. Your contention seems to be that, yeah, they exist, but they can't go as far as claimed?

So simply put, what is your reasoning as to why they can't go as far as claimed?
And that reasoning is based upon...X. What is 'X'? And what is 'X' evidenced by?

My 'X' evidence for why the claims are true is simply that we have verifiable real plane flights that humans pilot, serve, and passenger on that are 9000+ miles. Seems a missile without being encumbered by humans could easily make that distance.

So what's the big anti-ICBM thing with you? (Other than they have the potential to destroy the world 50 times over)
That video is laughable. It reeks of movie nonsense.
Do you have anything that actually looks more realistic?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 29, 2018, 09:04:06 AM
Please define what you would class as "verifiable testimony that ICBM's do what we are told they do" because, for obvious reasons few ICBMs are launched armed with nuclear warheads.
Just tell me about the few ICBM's that were launched to their targets then and we will deal with them.
It might give me the verifiable facts from yourself. Maybe....eh?
No! I asked of YOU "Please define what you would class as "verifiable testimony that ICBM's do what we are told they do" because, for obvious reasons few ICBMs are launched armed with nuclear warheads".
Tell me about the few that are launched.
Tell me all about where they launched from and where to, with some proof.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 29, 2018, 09:14:15 AM
Wow...
Scepti youre so full of yourself.
You claim fact and truth.

I claim nothing of the sort. You claim that I claim it. That's your issue, not mine.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 29, 2018, 09:21:03 AM
Modern ICBMs donít have fins.  Clearly you have no idea how the guidance systems work.  How can your comments to have any credibility when youíre so demonstrably wrong? 
If they don't have fins then they don't go ballistic for starters.
Unless you want to tell me how the guidance system works on a pointed tube that spews out propellant.

Quote from: MicroBeta

Why canít ICBMs hold enough fuel?

Mike
A model rocket will answer that question.
Too much fuel needed to go ballistic and to carry the mass of the rocket.
Basically a ballistic rocket would be dead within a minute or so. Maybe I'm being a bit too kind.

Not only that but no way in hell would anything like a supposed ICBM be able to launch from an underground silo without blowing itself to smithereens.

Proof? Nahhh I don't have proof anymore than you do of them doing what is claimed they do.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: inquisitive on December 29, 2018, 10:15:36 AM
Modern ICBMs donít have fins.  Clearly you have no idea how the guidance systems work.  How can your comments to have any credibility when youíre so demonstrably wrong? 
3
If they don't have fins then they don't go ballistic for starters.
Unless you want to tell me how the guidance system works on a pointed tube that spews out propellant.

Quote from: MicroBeta

Why canít ICBMs hold enough fuel?

Mike
A model rocket will answer that question.
Too much fuel needed to go ballistic and to carry the mass of the rocket.
Basically a ballistic rocket would be dead within a minute or so. Maybe I'm being a bit too kind.

Not only that but no way in hell would anything like a supposed ICBM be able to launch from an underground silo without blowing itself to smithereens.

Proof? Nahhh I don't have proof anymore than you do of them doing what is claimed they do.
What are you trying to achive by saying you not believe ICBMs do not exist and you are unwilling to find out about the technology or people involved?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Stash on December 29, 2018, 12:25:32 PM
Modern ICBMs donít have fins.  Clearly you have no idea how the guidance systems work.  How can your comments to have any credibility when youíre so demonstrably wrong? 
If they don't have fins then they don't go ballistic for starters.
Unless you want to tell me how the guidance system works on a pointed tube that spews out propellant.

Quote from: MicroBeta

Why canít ICBMs hold enough fuel?

Mike
A model rocket will answer that question.
Too much fuel needed to go ballistic and to carry the mass of the rocket.
Basically a ballistic rocket would be dead within a minute or so. Maybe I'm being a bit too kind.

Not only that but no way in hell would anything like a supposed ICBM be able to launch from an underground silo without blowing itself to smithereens.

Proof? Nahhh I don't have proof anymore than you do of them doing what is claimed they do.

Your sense of logic deteriorates rapidly. I suppose the 1000's of plane flights per year that fly thousands of miles can't do so based upon model plane technology as well.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: JackBlack on December 29, 2018, 12:54:11 PM
I don't believe it is so I'm questioning.
You aren't simply questioning. You are dismissing it and asserting it to be false.
You have completely baseless assertions regarding it.
You baselessly assert the range is a few hundred miles with nothing backing it up.

Again, why do you think the range is so short? What line of reasoning did you go through to arrive at that number, or did you just pull it from thin air?

You see, I'm after the facts. I want facts.
I don't want to live on conspiracy theories and guesses. It's a pain to want to know the truth and not being able to convince myself of something being exactly that.
This is why I'm questioning.
BS. You don't want any facts.
You want to stick to the conspiracy theories and pretend you are better than everyone else for not believing all the lies.

Again, we have no way to provide you with physical evidence without you being here in person.
If you want physical proof, you need to seek it yourself, not ask for it in a forum.

If it's possible it's plausible.
No. They are very different.
If you purchase a lottery ticket, it is possible that you will win, but not plausible.
Plausible requires for it to not only be possible, but also easy to achieve/a high likelihood of success.
It needs to be probable to be plausible.

Can grade school kids build rockets and launch them?
They can definitely build small ones and get an idea for what is needed.
But they probably need more skills to be able to measure well enough to extrapolate to ICBMs.

Why would any conspiracy need to involve a thousand people actively knowing and taking part?
Because of all the people that would need to work on it (or more correctly, for the conspiracy, to pretend to work on it).


if so, ask yourself why any missile requires an engine.
An engine is simply something that makes it move under its own power.
The alternative to an engine is a launch mechanism that provides all the power to it at once, which would almost certainly destroy it.

If they don't have fins then they don't go ballistic for starters.
So bullets, the basis of ballistics, can't go ballistic?
Are you aware of just how stupid that is?

Unless you want to tell me how the guidance system works on a pointed tube that spews out propellant.
You have already been told, but like usual you ignore it.
You can change which way the propellant is pushed out.
Due to physics which you reject, this results in forces on the rocket to push it in various ways.


A model rocket will answer that question.
No it won't.
Not in the slightest.

You are going to need a lot more than a baseless assertion like that.
Just how to model rockets show ICBMs can't have enough fuel?
Do you not understand scaling and different types of fuel?

By that same absence of reasoning model planes refute long distance planes.
My quadcopter can only fly for a 20 minutes or so. So how do helicopters and planes manage to stay up for hours?
Yet plenty of people fly in such planes every day.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on December 29, 2018, 01:37:40 PM
Wow...
Scepti youre so full of yourself.
You claim fact and truth.

I claim nothing of the sort. You claim that I claim it. That's your issue, not mine.

Aah true true.
Your language was professing truth.
But you did disclaimer yourself.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: rabinoz on December 29, 2018, 02:40:25 PM
A model rocket will answer that question.
Possibly if you scale the results correctly.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Too much fuel needed to go ballistic and to carry the mass of the rocket.
Your evidence for such a claim, please. Here go and read up on the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation as described in:
Quote from: Wikipedia
Tsiolkovsky rocket equation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation)
The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, classical rocket equation, or ideal rocket equation, describes the motion of vehicles that follow the basic principle of a rocket: a device that can apply acceleration to itself using thrust by expelling part of its mass with high velocity and thereby move due to the conservation of momentum.

The equation relates the delta-v (the maximum change of velocity of the rocket if no other external forces act) with the effective exhaust velocity and the initial and final mass of a rocket, or other reaction engine.

For any such maneuver (or journey involving a sequence of such maneuvers):
The equation relates the delta-v (the maximum change of velocity of the rocket if no other external forces act) with the effective exhaust velocity and the initial and final mass of a rocket, or other reaction engine.

For any such maneuver (or journey involving a sequence of such maneuvers):
          (https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/9db5b4589ff9a385687c2474c5aef823eeece133)
where:
          Δv is delta-V Ė the maximum change of velocity of the vehicle (with no external forces acting).
          m0 is the initial total mass, including propellant, also known as wet mass.
          mf is the final total mass without propellant, also known as dry mass.
          ve is the effective exhaust velocity relative to the rocket.
          ln is the natural logarithm function.
By the way Tsiolkovsky published his rocket equation around 1900!

You prove it is not possible!
The launch mass of a Minuteman III is 35,300 kg and the final warhead mass is only 1150 kg and much of the difference is the propellant in three stages.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Basically a ballistic rocket would be dead within a minute or so. Maybe I'm being a bit too kind.
Why? For something like the Minuteman III there are 3 stages and the boost phase lasts up to 5 minutes reaching a velocity of up to 7.8 km/s.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Not only that but no way in hell would anything like a supposed ICBM be able to launch from an underground silo without blowing itself to smithereens.
Why? The US Minuteman III first stage is ignited in the silo and ejected by the compressed gases but the Polaris was ejected by compressed air.

Vandenberg Air Force Base Minute Man III Launch GT 218
At just after 0:18 secs see all the hot gases leaving the top of the silo before the missile leaves.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Proof? Nahhh I don't have proof anymore than you do of them doing what is claimed they do.
Sure, we know that you cannot believe nothing that you are incapable of understanding - there's no need to keep repeating it!
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on December 29, 2018, 03:21:18 PM
Modern ICBMs don’t have fins.  Clearly you have no idea how the guidance systems work.  How can your comments to have any credibility when you’re so demonstrably wrong? 
If they don't have fins then they don't go ballistic for starters.
Unless you want to tell me how the guidance system works on a pointed tube that spews out propellant.
Come on.  You already know they use inertial guidance and trust vector control.

Quote from: MicroBeta

Why can’t ICBMs hold enough fuel?

Mike
A model rocket will answer that question.
Too much fuel needed to go ballistic and to carry the mass of the rocket.
Basically a ballistic rocket would be dead within a minute or so. Maybe I'm being a bit too kind.
You are just repeating yourself.  What is the basis for your assumption that it would require too much fuel.

Not only that but no way in hell would anything like a supposed ICBM be able to launch from an underground silo without blowing itself to smithereens.

Proof? Nahhh I don't have proof anymore than you do of them doing what is claimed they do.
I don’t really need to show you any proof.  It’s just an ignorant claim on your part.  From an engineering standpoint venting the first stage thrust gases is actually pretty easy.  Not only that but some land-based silos use gas ejection systems similar to submarines.

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 29, 2018, 08:36:25 PM
Modern ICBMs donít have fins.  Clearly you have no idea how the guidance systems work.  How can your comments to have any credibility when youíre so demonstrably wrong? 
If they don't have fins then they don't go ballistic for starters.
Unless you want to tell me how the guidance system works on a pointed tube that spews out propellant.

Quote from: MicroBeta

Why canít ICBMs hold enough fuel?

Mike
A model rocket will answer that question.
Too much fuel needed to go ballistic and to carry the mass of the rocket.
Basically a ballistic rocket would be dead within a minute or so. Maybe I'm being a bit too kind.

Not only that but no way in hell would anything like a supposed ICBM be able to launch from an underground silo without blowing itself to smithereens.

Proof? Nahhh I don't have proof anymore than you do of them doing what is claimed they do.

Your sense of logic deteriorates rapidly. I suppose the 1000's of plane flights per year that fly thousands of miles can't do so based upon model plane technology as well.
I'd say your sense of logic deteriorates rapidly by using straw-man arguments to try and gain one-upmanship.
We are dealing with so called ICBM's.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 29, 2018, 09:27:03 PM
I don't believe it is so I'm questioning.
You aren't simply questioning. You are dismissing it and asserting it to be false.
Of course. From my point of view I am.
Nobody is proving it to be anything to the contrary, except for using sketchy videos and trying to explain why no ICBM's are credibly launched.
It doesn't bode well for a truth.

Quote from: JackBlack
You baselessly assert the range is a few hundred miles with nothing backing it up.
I do, you are right. I do this based on seeing missiles/rockets expelling their fuel in short order. I can see why this would be the case and so I liken it to all rockets, even those I believe are a fantasy, which is one reason as to why I believe they are just that.


Quote from: JackBlack
Again, we have no way to provide you with physical evidence without you being here in person.
Being where in person? Your home?
Where can I go that you know of that will provide me with ultimate proof of an ICBM?
Before you answer you need to actually be sure of what you say. Don't just name a base and tell me a silo is there...or whatever.

Quote from: JackBlack
If you want physical proof, you need to seek it yourself, not ask for it in a forum.
People like yourself assert that an ICBM is reality. I dispute it. You ask me for proof that it doesn't exist. I ask you for proof that they do.
That's how it works.
Providing me with obscure text or sketchy video/pictures is not proof. It's simply your acceptance as a proof, to you.
Telling me to go and physically see is providing me with zero proof.

Quote from: JackBlack
If it's possible it's plausible.
No. They are very different.
If you purchase a lottery ticket, it is possible that you will win, but not plausible.
Plausible requires for it to not only be possible, but also easy to achieve/a high likelihood of success.
It needs to be probable to be plausible.
It doesn't matter about a high likelihood of success.
It takes one lottery ticket to win a lottery.
If 10,000 buy one ticket each then your chances of winning are plausible, possible and as probable as each and everyone of the rest of those ticket buyers...unless it's rigged to ensure this is not the case..


Quote from: JackBlack
Can grade school kids build rockets and launch them?
They can definitely build small ones and get an idea for what is needed.
So, yes.

Quote from: JackBlack
But they probably need more skills to be able to measure well enough to extrapolate to ICBMs.
Assuming ICBM's are a reality of which we haven't quite got any concrete proof of.

Quote from: JackBlack
if so, ask yourself why any missile requires an engine.
An engine is simply something that makes it move under its own power.
We are talking about a so called ICBM which is basically a vertical rocket that apparently goes into near so called orbit before arcing onto its target.
Why an engine?
Why not a firework solid fuel type set up?

Engines work well in horizontal vehicles that have a means of using atmosphere and/or ground friction to push into/against.

A so called rocket with an engine is nonsensical. There's just no need for an engine and no realistic chance of an engine creating the thrust a rocket would require to lift it's own mass and fuel into a vertical to so called near orbit and to arc to a target on another continent.

I refuse to believe it because it appears to be illogical fantasy and there's good reason why nobody sees them in action.

Quote from: JackBlack
The alternative to an engine is a launch mechanism that provides all the power to it at once, which would almost certainly destroy it.
Absolutely not.
A firework with solid fuel works fine in using full thrust.
A missile is the same.
It's the reason they launch at such speed and also the reason they use their fuel up in short order.


Quote from: JackBlack
If they don't have fins then they don't go ballistic for starters.
So bullets, the basis of ballistics, can't go ballistic?
Are you aware of just how stupid that is?
They can certainly go vertical but certainly not stable vertical for too long, unless they have some kind of steadying grooves to make them spin..and even then they won't be stable for long.
We're talking seconds before stability is compromised.

Quote from: JackBlack
Unless you want to tell me how the guidance system works on a pointed tube that spews out propellant.
You have already been told, but like usual you ignore it.
You can change which way the propellant is pushed out.
Due to physics which you reject, this results in forces on the rocket to push it in various ways.

On a car, yes you can change the way propellant comes out. It's called a throttle.
On a rocket it's pointless because a rocket going vertical requires full thrust, so any change to that would destroy the rocket in short order in terms of vertical push and stability.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 29, 2018, 09:36:23 PM
The US Minuteman III first stage is ignited in the silo and ejected by the compressed gases but the Polaris was ejected by compressed air.
This is the issue.
A so called sub compressing a so called polaris missile out of a vertical tube from a depth under water which is ejected at such force as to somehow easily push through that dense water (by the way, anyone seen a bullet fired underwater?) and to not only reach the surface is short order, full of fuel and explosive, not to mention the actual structure of that so called rocket, it also manages to have it's entire length ejected out of the water with enough distance to its arse end to allow it to ignite and immediately full thrust into the atmosphere and then to somehow align itself to be able to hit the right arc by so called guidance....somehow and destroy the target thousands of miles away.

It all sounds fantastic for films.
Real life? I seriously seriously doubt it.

Quote from: rabinoz

Vandenberg Air Force Base Minute Man III Launch GT 218
At just after 0:18 secs see all the hot gases leaving the top of the silo before the missile leaves.


The reality of this would be a fire ball rocket, blown to smithereens. It's fiction in my opinion.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 29, 2018, 09:56:01 PM
Modern ICBMs donít have fins.  Clearly you have no idea how the guidance systems work.  How can your comments to have any credibility when youíre so demonstrably wrong? 
If they don't have fins then they don't go ballistic for starters.
Unless you want to tell me how the guidance system works on a pointed tube that spews out propellant.
Come on.  You already know they use inertial guidance and thrust vector control.
Inertial guidance? Briefly explain this and tell me how this works.
Also briefly explain the thrust vector control.
No need for any text book copying. Just give me the explainable basics for the dummy that I am.

Quote from: MicroBeta
Quote from: MicroBeta

Why canít ICBMs hold enough fuel?

Mike
A model rocket will answer that question.
Too much fuel needed to go ballistic and to carry the mass of the rocket.
Basically a ballistic rocket would be dead within a minute or so. Maybe I'm being a bit too kind.
You are just repeating yourself.  What is the basis for your assumption that it would require too much fuel.
Due to the short time I see genuine rockets expend their fuel.

Quote from: MicroBeta
Not only that but no way in hell would anything like a supposed ICBM be able to launch from an underground silo without blowing itself to smithereens.

Proof? Nahhh I don't have proof anymore than you do of them doing what is claimed they do.
I donít really need to show you any proof.
Correct, you don't. But then again you have no credence by stating this.
Quote from: MicroBeta
  Itís just an ignorant claim on your part.
It could be but is it any more ignorant than you being unwilling to show me your proof?

Quote from: MicroBeta
From an engineering standpoint venting the first stage thrust gases is actually pretty easy.
Tell me about it in the most basic way as to how easy this is.


Quote from: MicroBeta
  Not only that but some land-based silos use gas ejection systems similar to submarines.

Mike
Can you show me a diagram of how this would work?
Can you explain how it would work, as basic as you can.
Imagine shooting out a mammoth so called ICBM from a silo with compressed air and hoping it ignites once it leaves the silo.
However, it seems like it's some kind of safe-ish tried and tested set up....right? Would this be right?
So why are they still using silos that engulf in furnace like flames that spew out of the silo and engulf the rocket which would surely super heat the skin and fuel inside.
Or is there some magic coating on it?
You tell me you're clued up on all of this so how about basically explain the points I've put to you.

Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: rabinoz on December 29, 2018, 11:20:51 PM
Nobody is proving it to be anything to the contrary, except for using sketchy videos and trying to explain why no ICBM's are credibly launched.
Plenty of ICBM's have been credibly launched but not armed with nuclear warheads!

Quote from: sceptimatic
On a rocket it's pointless because a rocket going vertical requires full thrust, so any change to that would destroy the rocket in short order in terms of vertical push and stability.
Incorrect! It does not require "full thrust". The forward thrust is well in excess of the weight of the rocket. Look up the details for, say, the Minuteman III.
And a slight change in the direction of the thrust has a negligible effect on the nett forward thrust.

And virtually all large rockets are "steered" using gimballed motors.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 29, 2018, 11:47:07 PM
Nobody is proving it to be anything to the contrary, except for using sketchy videos and trying to explain why no ICBM's are credibly launched.
Plenty of ICBM's have been credibly launched but not armed with nuclear warheads!
Credibly to you is merely the acceptance that the story told to you is believable. That does not mean there have been real launches of ICBM's, it sim ply means you accept there have.
That's not proof of anything other than a reliance on a story/stories told/read to/by you.

Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: sceptimatic
On a rocket it's pointless because a rocket going vertical requires full thrust, so any change to that would destroy the rocket in short order in terms of vertical push and stability.
Incorrect! It does not require "full thrust". The forward thrust is well in excess of the weight of the rocket.
A vertical rocket requires full thrust for successful operation.
There is no throttle for vertical rockets because a throttle is counter-productive.


Quote from: rabinoz
Look up the details for, say, the Minuteman III.
And a slight change in the direction of the thrust has a negligible effect on the nett forward thrust.
The story about them is worthless to me. I see those things as fantasy. Even the videos are sketchy as all hell.
 
Quote from: rabinoz
And virtually all large rockets are "steered" using gimballed motors.
Give me a brief explanation how a gimballed motor would work on your ICBM in order to steer and balance it.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Stash on December 30, 2018, 12:09:47 AM
Modern ICBMs donít have fins.  Clearly you have no idea how the guidance systems work.  How can your comments to have any credibility when youíre so demonstrably wrong? 
If they don't have fins then they don't go ballistic for starters.
Unless you want to tell me how the guidance system works on a pointed tube that spews out propellant.

Quote from: MicroBeta

Why canít ICBMs hold enough fuel?

Mike
A model rocket will answer that question.
Too much fuel needed to go ballistic and to carry the mass of the rocket.
Basically a ballistic rocket would be dead within a minute or so. Maybe I'm being a bit too kind.

Not only that but no way in hell would anything like a supposed ICBM be able to launch from an underground silo without blowing itself to smithereens.

Proof? Nahhh I don't have proof anymore than you do of them doing what is claimed they do.

Your sense of logic deteriorates rapidly. I suppose the 1000's of plane flights per year that fly thousands of miles can't do so based upon model plane technology as well.
I'd say your sense of logic deteriorates rapidly by using straw-man arguments to try and gain one-upmanship.
We are dealing with so called ICBM's.

Actually, your main argument has been around fuel capacity and distance. We have planes that can go farther than ICBM's, so what's the big hurdle with fuel capacity and distance when it comes to a rocket? And somehow model rocketry is the key?

I think you're real problem with ICBM's is not fuel capacity or distance, it's height. B/c they fly high enough to present a problem for your dome. But you don't want to bring up the height/dome issue b/c that puts you in bind. You're whole thing here is that we can't give you physical evidence of an ICBM to your satisfaction b/c physical evidence is all you will accept. But if you bring up the real issue you have, you'd have to cough up some physical evidence of you dome, which you have none.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 30, 2018, 12:28:09 AM
Actually, your main argument has been around fuel capacity and distance.
And also vertical launch capability from silo's and submarines.

Quote from: Stash
We have planes that can go farther than ICBM's, so what's the big hurdle with fuel capacity and distance when it comes to a rocket? And somehow model rocketry is the key?
Planes are hollow tubes with big wings and jet engines/turbines and also horizontal in flight.

A rocket is a vertical tube full of propellant, whether it's a gas and liquid or a solid fuel.
The model rockets show how quickly they expend their fuel. It's generally in seconds rather than into minutes, unless we are shown so called ICBM's or so called space rockets. And only then do they become many minutes, yet are all video sketchy and obscure or movie worthy, with absolutely no physical evidence to show them as a reality.

Quote from: Stash
I think you're real problem with ICBM's is not fuel capacity or distance, it's height.
 B/c they fly high enough to present a problem for your dome.
 But you don't want to bring up the height/dome issue b/c that puts you in bind.
Nahhh. We can definitely leave out a dome on this score. We don't need to bring a dome into it. Let's just concentrate on the so called missiles.

Quote from: Stash
You're whole thing here is that we can't give you physical evidence of an ICBM to your satisfaction b/c physical evidence is all you will accept.
Correct I can't give physical evidence as to them not existing by my logic but then again if I could I would have no need to question them.
However, you have no physical evidence as to the legitimacy of them except to abide by stories told to you or read by you, or shown to you on sketchy videos and such.
You cannot deny this.


Quote from: Stash
But if you bring up the real issue you have, you'd have to cough up some physical evidence of you dome, which you have none.
I don't need to try and justify a dome where this is concerned.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Stash on December 30, 2018, 02:09:08 AM
A rocket is a vertical tube full of propellant, whether it's a gas and liquid or a solid fuel.
The model rockets show how quickly they expend their fuel. It's generally in seconds rather than into minutes, unless we are shown so called ICBM's or so called space rockets. And only then do they become many minutes, yet are all video sketchy and obscure or movie worthy, with absolutely no physical evidence to show them as a reality.

So we'll go with your model rocket theory - You make a connection between model rockets and ICBMs without so much as a smidge of data to back it up. Just an assertion.

I was looking at model rockets. Estes makes many including the 'Ascender'. Here are it's specs:
Pro Series II E2X
Length: 42.1 in. (106.9 cm)
Diameter: 2 in. (5.1 cm)
Estimated Weight: 11 oz. (311.8 g)

Projected Altitude: 2000 ft. (610 m).

Here are the specs for a Minuteman ICBM:
Minuteman first stage rocket booster, manufactured by Thiokol, weighed a total of 51,251 pounds. The motor case material was made of D6AC steel. This first stage was 18.6 feet long and 5.5 feet in diameter. The weight of the propellant itself was 45,670 pounds.
The second stage solid fuel rocket booster manufactured by Aerojet used titanium as its motor case material. Its total weight is 12,072 pounds, and the propellant alone weighs 10,380 pounds. The second stage booster has a length of 9.1 feet and a diameter of 3.7 feet.
Third stage booster was manufactured by the Hercules Powder Company. The motor case material used for this booster was made from S-901 fiberglass. Total weight of this booster was 4,484 pounds and the propellant alone weighed 3,668 pounds. The third stage booster has a length of 5.1 feet and a diameter of 3.1 feet. 

Of the 68k lbs of the missile, almost 60k is propellant alone, aka, fuel. Thatís an 88% fuel to weight ratio. Weíll say itís the same for the Ascender.

88% of 11 oz of the Ascender is 9.68 oz of propellant. Again, it can fly 2000 ft high.

So for every 10 oz (easy number) of propellant I can send it up 2000 feet, give or take. 60k pounds of ICBM fuel is 960,000 oz. divide by 10 = 96,000.

96,000 x 2000 ft = 192,000,000 feet or 36,363 miles.

So, according to your model rocket theory, my ICBM should be able to go straight up 36k miles. (Math is not my strong suit so doublecheck as needed)
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Lonegranger on December 30, 2018, 02:49:41 AM
Actually, your main argument has been around fuel capacity and distance.
And also vertical launch capability from silo's and submarines.

Quote from: Stash
We have planes that can go farther than ICBM's, so what's the big hurdle with fuel capacity and distance when it comes to a rocket? And somehow model rocketry is the key?
Planes are hollow tubes with big wings and jet engines/turbines and also horizontal in flight.

A rocket is a vertical tube full of propellant, whether it's a gas and liquid or a solid fuel.
The model rockets show how quickly they expend their fuel. It's generally in seconds rather than into minutes, unless we are shown so called ICBM's or so called space rockets. And only then do they become many minutes, yet are all video sketchy and obscure or movie worthy, with absolutely no physical evidence to show them as a reality.

Quote from: Stash
I think you're real problem with ICBM's is not fuel capacity or distance, it's height.
 B/c they fly high enough to present a problem for your dome.
 But you don't want to bring up the height/dome issue b/c that puts you in bind.
Nahhh. We can definitely leave out a dome on this score. We don't need to bring a dome into it. Let's just concentrate on the so called missiles.

Quote from: Stash
You're whole thing here is that we can't give you physical evidence of an ICBM to your satisfaction b/c physical evidence is all you will accept.
Correct I can't give physical evidence as to them not existing by my logic but then again if I could I would have no need to question them.
However, you have no physical evidence as to the legitimacy of them except to abide by stories told to you or read by you, or shown to you on sketchy videos and such.
You cannot deny this.


Quote from: Stash
But if you bring up the real issue you have, you'd have to cough up some physical evidence of you dome, which you have none.
I don't need to try and justify a dome where this is concerned.

Why is it on the one hand youíre scrupulously skeptical about the existance of real physical objects, ICBMs which thousands of people have been involved in manufacturing, transporting and seen with their own eyes yet you maintain the earth has a dome, and the sun is a carbon arc ? Two things no one has seen!

Should you wish you could examine the massive paper trails these ICBMs have created to find the truth. But what could you do to prove the existance of the dome?

The Russians once a year paraded their ICBMs for all the world to see. You could speak to any number of sub mariners, or other members of the armed forces who have come into contact with them yet there is not a single person in the world who has seen the dome! Just as there is not a single shred of proof for your ideas that relate to the sun!

Would you not agree there is some mismatch in your thinking depending on what you are dealing with? It strikes me that concepts and objects that contradict your world veiew are treated with the upmost scepticism, demanding outrageous levels of evidence ,while those ideas you subscribe too are accepted blindly.

If you treated the dome with the same level of skepticism that you treat ICBMs, I wonder if it would make you change your mind?

What do You Think?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: rabinoz on December 30, 2018, 02:56:17 AM
with absolutely no physical evidence to show them as a reality.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
you have no physical evidence as to the legitimacy of them except to abide by stories told to you or read by you, or shown to you on sketchy videos and such.
Please define what you would class as "physical evidence as to the legitimacy of them" because obviously no-one here has an ICBM in their basement!
Microbeta has served on a nuclear sub, but I doubt they give an ICBM to take home on leaving.

So exactly what you would class as "physical evidence as to the legitimacy of them"?
In another thread you posted:
My sun is a centre of Earth carbon arc and would be not seen as a beam going up but a beam after reflection from the dome back down to wherever it shines.
Firstly where is your physical evidence for such an assertion? There isn't even any "sketchy videos and such".
Then where is your carbon arc at the centre of the Earth?  Because commercial passenger planes fly almost over and observation flight go exactly over "the centre of the Earth".
I'm sure seeing your your carbon arc shining up from the centre of the Earth onto clouds would a very news-worthy event!
Take a look at:

Special Polar Flight - Flying over North Pole,
Sam Chui, 322,861 views

             
Awesome Arctic Flight to the Northpole 2016, Dji_Aviation
At: 12:38 min 89įN,
       14:06 min final seconds and
       14:30 min 90į North!!!
Why didn't those passengers see your carbon arc sun?

By the way, do you duck up to the North Pole every so often to replace the carbon electrodes?
Quote
The rods are slowly burnt away in use, and the distance between them needs to be regularly adjusted in order to maintain the arc.
Just wondering!
     
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: JackBlack on December 30, 2018, 03:07:56 AM
I'd say your sense of logic deteriorates rapidly by using straw-man arguments to try and gain one-upmanship.
We are dealing with so called ICBM's.
That argument wasn't a strawman. It was dealing with your either complete lack of an argument, or your strawman, depending upon how you want to view it.
Model rockets no more prove ICBMs are fake than model planes prove long distance planes are fake.

I do this based on seeing missiles/rockets expelling their fuel in short order.
And have you bothered timing that and seeing how it varies, especially with scaling?

Even if you want to claim that rockets to launch objects into orbit are fake, they take quite some time to expend all their fuel.

In order to conclude hundreds of miles you would need some math, or a very good reference for that (e.g. a similar rocket only capable of going a hundred or so miles.

So it still remains a baseless assertion.

Being where in person?
Anywhere. In order to get physical proof from someone you need to be there in person. As such appealing to it in a discussion on the internet and rejecting the evidence provided is just dishonest crap.

You ask me for proof that it doesn't exist. I ask you for proof that they do.
No, we ask for evidence and/or rational arguments.
A rational weighing of the available evidence would lead one to conclude that ICBMs do exist.

There is absolutely nothing to indicate they don't exist.

It doesn't matter about a high likelihood of success.
No, it does. That is literally the difference between something just being possible and something being plausible.

Everyone in a group having the same low odds of winning doesn't magically make you winning plausible.

Assuming ICBM's are a reality of which we haven't quite got any concrete proof of.
No, even if you want to just treat them as a hypothetical possibility to examine what would actually be needed.

We are talking about a so called ICBM which is basically a vertical rocket that apparently goes into near so called orbit before arcing onto its target.
No we aren't.
We are talking about an ICBM. While they may typically start going vertical, they do not remain that way as that would be extremely inefficient.

Why an engine?
Why not a firework solid fuel type set up?
i.e. why not a solid fuel based engine?
Even if it is using solid fuel it will still be an engine.

Engines work well in horizontal vehicles that have a means of using atmosphere and/or ground friction to push into/against.
Again, you not understanding physics, such as that every force has a reaction force, doesn't magically make that physics wrong.
You don't need to push against the atmosphere to move. You can easily do so by throwing things.

There's just no need for an engine
Without an engine it wont move, unless you try and dump all the kinetic energy in at once, which would likely destroy it.
So I would say there is a very big need.

and no realistic chance of an engine creating the thrust a rocket would require
Again, stop with the baseless assertions.

I refuse to believe it because it appears to be illogical fantasy
Yet you can't actually show any issue.
Instead you just assert it can't work.

A firework with solid fuel works fine in using full thrust.
Yes, a firework with a solid rocket engine works fine.
So what?
The alternative to an engine would be like a gun.

They can certainly go vertical but certainly not stable vertical for too long, unless they have some kind of steadying grooves to make them spin..and even then they won't be stable for long.
We're talking seconds before stability is compromised.
And there you go with yet more baseless assertions.

On a car, yes you can change the way propellant comes out. It's called a throttle.
That is because a car steers with wheels.

On a rocket it's pointless because a rocket going vertical requires full thrust, so any change to that would destroy the rocket in short order in terms of vertical push and stability.
And yet another baseless assertion.
Again, they don't go vertical. That would be stupidity. They will typically fly in a continuous arc, akin to an elliptical orbit which intersects Earth.
And no, there is no reason to assume a change in thrust would destroy the rocket.
Stop just asserting BS.

The model rockets show how quickly they expend their fuel. It's generally in seconds rather than into minutes
Likewise model planes show how quickly they expend their fuel. It's generally in minutes rather than into hours required for long distance flights.
So once again, according to your "reasoning", long distance planes don't exist.

Stop acting like you are doing this to be skeptical.
With all the nonsense you assert with absolutely no backing you are not skeptical in the slightest. You are quite happy to accept baseless garbage and promote it to everyone as if it explains everything.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 30, 2018, 03:19:45 AM
A rocket is a vertical tube full of propellant, whether it's a gas and liquid or a solid fuel.
The model rockets show how quickly they expend their fuel. It's generally in seconds rather than into minutes, unless we are shown so called ICBM's or so called space rockets. And only then do they become many minutes, yet are all video sketchy and obscure or movie worthy, with absolutely no physical evidence to show them as a reality.

So we'll go with your model rocket theory - You make a connection between model rockets and ICBMs without so much as a smidge of data to back it up. Just an assertion.

I was looking at model rockets. Estes makes many including the 'Ascender'. Here are it's specs:
Pro Series II E2X
Length: 42.1 in. (106.9 cm)
Diameter: 2 in. (5.1 cm)
Estimated Weight: 11 oz. (311.8 g)

Projected Altitude: 2000 ft. (610 m).

Here are the specs for a Minuteman ICBM:
Minuteman first stage rocket booster, manufactured by Thiokol, weighed a total of 51,251 pounds. The motor case material was made of D6AC steel. This first stage was 18.6 feet long and 5.5 feet in diameter. The weight of the propellant itself was 45,670 pounds.
The second stage solid fuel rocket booster manufactured by Aerojet used titanium as its motor case material. Its total weight is 12,072 pounds, and the propellant alone weighs 10,380 pounds. The second stage booster has a length of 9.1 feet and a diameter of 3.7 feet.
Third stage booster was manufactured by the Hercules Powder Company. The motor case material used for this booster was made from S-901 fiberglass. Total weight of this booster was 4,484 pounds and the propellant alone weighed 3,668 pounds. The third stage booster has a length of 5.1 feet and a diameter of 3.1 feet. 

Of the 68k lbs of the missile, almost 60k is propellant alone, aka, fuel. Thatís an 88% fuel to weight ratio. Weíll say itís the same for the Ascender.

88% of 11 oz of the Ascender is 9.68 oz of propellant. Again, it can fly 2000 ft high.

So for every 10 oz (easy number) of propellant I can send it up 2000 feet, give or take. 60k pounds of ICBM fuel is 960,000 oz. divide by 10 = 96,000.

96,000 x 2000 ft = 192,000,000 feet or 36,363 miles.

So, according to your model rocket theory, my ICBM should be able to go straight up 36k miles. (Math is not my strong suit so doublecheck as needed)
Sorry but None of that proves anything.

You're working from one reality to one fantasy. It proves nothing.


Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Stash on December 30, 2018, 03:26:57 AM
A rocket is a vertical tube full of propellant, whether it's a gas and liquid or a solid fuel.
The model rockets show how quickly they expend their fuel. It's generally in seconds rather than into minutes, unless we are shown so called ICBM's or so called space rockets. And only then do they become many minutes, yet are all video sketchy and obscure or movie worthy, with absolutely no physical evidence to show them as a reality.

So we'll go with your model rocket theory - You make a connection between model rockets and ICBMs without so much as a smidge of data to back it up. Just an assertion.

I was looking at model rockets. Estes makes many including the 'Ascender'. Here are it's specs:
Pro Series II E2X
Length: 42.1 in. (106.9 cm)
Diameter: 2 in. (5.1 cm)
Estimated Weight: 11 oz. (311.8 g)

Projected Altitude: 2000 ft. (610 m).

Here are the specs for a Minuteman ICBM:
Minuteman first stage rocket booster, manufactured by Thiokol, weighed a total of 51,251 pounds. The motor case material was made of D6AC steel. This first stage was 18.6 feet long and 5.5 feet in diameter. The weight of the propellant itself was 45,670 pounds.
The second stage solid fuel rocket booster manufactured by Aerojet used titanium as its motor case material. Its total weight is 12,072 pounds, and the propellant alone weighs 10,380 pounds. The second stage booster has a length of 9.1 feet and a diameter of 3.7 feet.
Third stage booster was manufactured by the Hercules Powder Company. The motor case material used for this booster was made from S-901 fiberglass. Total weight of this booster was 4,484 pounds and the propellant alone weighed 3,668 pounds. The third stage booster has a length of 5.1 feet and a diameter of 3.1 feet. 

Of the 68k lbs of the missile, almost 60k is propellant alone, aka, fuel. Thatís an 88% fuel to weight ratio. Weíll say itís the same for the Ascender.

88% of 11 oz of the Ascender is 9.68 oz of propellant. Again, it can fly 2000 ft high.

So for every 10 oz (easy number) of propellant I can send it up 2000 feet, give or take. 60k pounds of ICBM fuel is 960,000 oz. divide by 10 = 96,000.

96,000 x 2000 ft = 192,000,000 feet or 36,363 miles.

So, according to your model rocket theory, my ICBM should be able to go straight up 36k miles. (Math is not my strong suit so doublecheck as needed)
Sorry but None of that proves anything.

You're working from one reality to one fantasy. It proves nothing.

How so, I'm using your model rocket theory? At least I'm trying to play your theory out. All you've been doing is saying, "just cuz."
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: JackBlack on December 30, 2018, 03:28:18 AM
Sorry but None of that proves anything.
Likewise, all your baseless assertions prove nothing.
You have literally nothing to challenge the existence of ICBMs.

The best you have is an appeal to absence of physical evidence.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 30, 2018, 03:36:52 AM
Why is it on the one hand youíre scrupulously skeptical about the existance of real physical objects, ICBMs which thousands of people have been involved in manufacturing, transporting and seen with their own eyes yet you maintain the earth has a dome, and the sun is a carbon arc ? Two things no one has seen!
First of all you have no clue whether ICBM's are a reality or merely a made up fantasy. You simply accept them as real because of your adherence to official stories told by who you believe are authorities on them.
Seeing a big tube is not evidence of a big working rocket.

As for me believing the Earth has a dome and the sun is a carbon arc within it, is my physically unprovable theory or musing or whatever anyone wants to call it. I do not throw it out as fact. I defend it as my theory.


Quote from: Lonegranger
Should you wish you could examine the massive paper trails these ICBMs have created to find the truth. But what could you do to prove the existance of the dome?
What massive paper trails?
As for proving the existence of a dome. Can you prove the existence of an untouchable mirror?


Quote from: Lonegranger
The Russians once a year paraded their ICBMs for all the world to see. You could speak to any number of sub mariners, or other members of the armed forces who have come into contact with them yet there is not a single person in the world who has seen the dome! Just as there is not a single shred of proof for your ideas that relate to the sun!
Parading pipes with cones and what not does not mean those things are working rockets.
It wouldn't take much to mock up anything like that as a gimmick.

Quote from: Lonegranger
Would you not agree there is some mismatch in your thinking depending on what you are dealing with?
No I wouldn't.

Quote from: Lonegranger
It strikes me that concepts and objects that contradict your world veiew are treated with the upmost scepticism, demanding outrageous levels of evidence ,while those ideas you subscribe too are accepted blindly.
First of all, the stuff that contradicts my world view are the one's that are accepted blindly. My theories are not accepted at all by anyone that I can recall, so you're way off on that one.
Quote from: Lonegranger
If you treated the dome with the same level of skepticism that you treat ICBMs, I wonder if it would make you change your mind?
What do You Think?
Considering I came to the dome theory by process of experimentation with my overall theory, then it's hard to be sceptical over it.

ICBM's , in my opinion are gimmicks.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 30, 2018, 03:52:18 AM
with absolutely no physical evidence to show them as a reality.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
you have no physical evidence as to the legitimacy of them except to abide by stories told to you or read by you, or shown to you on sketchy videos and such.
Please define what you would class as "physical evidence as to the legitimacy of them" because obviously no-one here has an ICBM in their basement!
Seeing one launched from a submarine in how we are shown in the sketchy videos, except to physically observe it from a reasonable distance to jump out of the water, ignite and thrust into the sky after first checking the vertical launch tbe of the sub with the so called warhead inside of it.

Something like that.

Quote from: rabinoz

Microbeta has served on a nuclear sub, but I doubt they give an ICBM to take home on leaving.
He may have served on a sub. He may think he's served on a nuclear sub. He may think that sub had ICBM's aboard.
You have no clue whether he was on a sub or whether he's reading books on subs or war books or whatever.
It's very easy for anyone to reference anything they want to argue. It doesn't mean they are legitimate.

however, assuming he is legitimate in serving on the sub and what not, he cannot prove what I'm arguing against.



Quote from: rabinoz

In another thread you posted:
My sun is a centre of Earth carbon arc and would be not seen as a beam going up but a beam after reflection from the dome back down to wherever it shines.
Firstly where is your physical evidence for such an assertion? There isn't even any "sketchy videos and such".

Quote from: rabinoz

Then where is your carbon arc at the centre of the Earth?

Quote from: rabinoz

  Because commercial passenger planes fly almost over and observation flight go exactly over "the centre of the Earth".

Quote from: rabinoz

I'm sure seeing your your carbon arc shining up from the centre of the Earth onto clouds would a very news-worthy event!

Quote from: rabinoz

Take a look at:

Special Polar Flight - Flying over North Pole,
Sam Chui, 322,861 views

             
Awesome Arctic Flight to the Northpole 2016, Dji_Aviation
At: 12:38 min 89įN,
       14:06 min final seconds and
       14:30 min 90į North!!!
Why didn't those passengers see your carbon arc sun?

Quote from: rabinoz

By the way, do you duck up to the North Pole every so often to replace the carbon electrodes?

Quote from: rabinoz

The rods are slowly burnt away in use, and the distance between them needs to be regularly adjusted in order to maintain the arc.
Just wondering!
     
All of the rest of this pertaining to the sun and such, place it in a relevant thread or make a topic. It's no good in this one.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 30, 2018, 04:02:57 AM


How so, I'm using your model rocket theory? At least I'm trying to play your theory out. All you've been doing is saying, "just cuz."
Fine, keep using what you think. I'm simply saying you're using it for one reality and transferring it to something you do not have a clue about as a reality, except to be told it is.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 30, 2018, 04:04:25 AM
Sorry but None of that proves anything.
Likewise, all your baseless assertions prove nothing.
You have literally nothing to challenge the existence of ICBMs.

The best you have is an appeal to absence of physical evidence.
No more need for you to tell me then. Take a back seat.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on December 30, 2018, 04:59:52 AM

Considering I came to the dome theory by process of experimentation with my overall theory, then it's hard to be sceptical over it.

ICBM's , in my opinion are gimmicks.
[/quote]

Haha
Please define "process of experimentation"
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on December 30, 2018, 05:05:06 AM
Modern ICBMs donít have fins.  Clearly you have no idea how the guidance systems work.  How can your comments to have any credibility when youíre so demonstrably wrong? 
If they don't have fins then they don't go ballistic for starters.
Unless you want to tell me how the guidance system works on a pointed tube that spews out propellant.
Come on.  You already know they use inertial guidance and thrust vector control.
Inertial guidance? Briefly explain this and tell me how this works.
Also briefly explain the thrust vector control.
No need for any text book copying. Just give me the explainable basics for the dummy that I am.
Okay, Iíll bite.  Accelerometers provide inputs to a computer that takes the inputs to determine changes in direction.  The computer takes those inputs and vectors thrust from the engines to stay on course throughout it's flight.

Quote from: MicroBeta
Quote from: MicroBeta

Why canít ICBMs hold enough fuel?

Mike
A model rocket will answer that question.
Too much fuel needed to go ballistic and to carry the mass of the rocket.
Basically a ballistic rocket would be dead within a minute or so. Maybe I'm being a bit too kind.
You are just repeating yourself.  What is the basis for your assumption that it would require too much fuel.
Due to the short time I see genuine rockets expend their fuel.
I honestly hope you donít actually believe you can determine the range of all rockets because youíve watched rockets lift of and fly.

The amateur model rocketry record for altitude is ≈72 miles.  What does it tell you about how far ICBMs can fly if a model rocket that is carried around in pickup truck can reach 72 miles.

Quote from: MicroBeta
Not only that but no way in hell would anything like a supposed ICBM be able to launch from an underground silo without blowing itself to smithereens.

Proof? Nahhh I don't have proof anymore than you do of them doing what is claimed they do.
I donít really need to show you any proof.
Correct, you don't. But then again you have no credence by stating this.
Quote from: MicroBeta
  Itís just an ignorant claim on your part.
It could be but is it any more ignorant than you being unwilling to show me your proof?

Quote from: MicroBeta
From an engineering standpoint venting the first stage thrust gases is actually pretty easy.
Tell me about it in the most basic way as to how easy this is.


Quote from: MicroBeta
  Not only that but some land-based silos use gas ejection systems similar to submarines.

Mike
Can you show me a diagram of how this would work?
Can you explain how it would work, as basic as you can.
Imagine shooting out a mammoth so called ICBM from a silo with compressed air and hoping it ignites once it leaves the silo.
However, it seems like it's some kind of safe-ish tried and tested set up....right? Would this be right?
So why are they still using silos that engulf in furnace like flames that spew out of the silo and engulf the rocket which would surely super heat the skin and fuel inside.
Or is there some magic coating on it?
You tell me you're clued up on all of this so how about basically explain the points I've put to you.
Wow...ďsilos that engulf in furnace like flames that spew out of the silo and engulf the rocketĒ...rather graphic and so completely wrong. 

The exhaust is directed through ducts and out of the silo.  Temperatures and pressures in the silo during launch remain well below allowable values for the materials being used.  And, the reason itís still used is because itís cheaper and easier to build. 

Here's a link to all the diagrams you could want. 

http://www.themilitarystandard.com/missile/titan1/layout.php

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on December 30, 2018, 05:52:58 AM
Did anyone mention that model hobby rockets use solid fuel?
Little different that liquid...
Just a touch different.

Thanks for another great analogy.
Try again.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on December 30, 2018, 08:22:33 AM
Did anyone mention that model hobby rockets use solid fuel?
Little different that liquid...
Just a touch different.

Thanks for another great analogy.
Try again.
I was waiting for septimatic's next reply but since you brought it up....not only do they use solid fuel but there are kits to measure speed, acceleration, and height. 

One of the records model rocketry enthusiasts are contending for is maximum altitude with minimum drift.  From what I can find the current record is 8.2 km with horizontal drift 180 m.   They use the same inertial guidance and thrust vector control that ICBMs use; although, on a much smaller scale. 

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: JackBlack on December 30, 2018, 11:45:31 AM
I do not throw it out as fact. I defend it as my theory.
No, you repeatedly throw it out as fact.

Can you prove the existence of an untouchable mirror?
Yes, in a variety of ways.

First of all, the stuff that contradicts my world view are the one's that are accepted blindly. My theories are not accepted at all by anyone that I can recall
So you don't accept your own "theories"?

Considering I came to the dome theory by process of experimentation with my overall theory, then it's hard to be sceptical over it.
So because you baselessly asserted it, you accept it without scepticism?

This just shows how dishonest you are.
You reject what there is plenty of evidence for simply because it is mainstream and you haven't gotten your physical proof of being there for its launch, while accepting baselessly garbage of which there is no evidence for.

Take a back seat.
No thanks. I will keep calling out your BS until you start responding honestly and rationally.

Now care to try backing up your claim of hundreds of miles?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Stash on December 30, 2018, 01:48:59 PM
How so, I'm using your model rocket theory? At least I'm trying to play your theory out. All you've been doing is saying, "just cuz."
Fine, keep using what you think. I'm simply saying you're using it for one reality and transferring it to something you do not have a clue about as a reality, except to be told it is.

Isn't that exactly what you were doing with your model rocket theory? Using it for one reality and transferring it to something you do not have a clue about as a reality, except to assume it isn't?

It's your theory that model rocketry shows that ICBM's can't exist. I showed you that your theory actually shows the contrary. So now that we've dispensed with your model rocket/fuel argument, what else you got? No fin theory?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: rabinoz on December 30, 2018, 01:57:49 PM
Take a back seat.
No thanks. I will keep calling out your BS until you start responding honestly and rationally.
And sceptimatic isn't likely to "start responding . . . .  rationally" before Hell freezes over! I'll accept that he's responding honestly!
This might, or might not, help:
Quote
How to reason with flat earthers (it may not help though) (https://theconversation.com/how-to-reason-with-flat-earthers-it-may-not-help-though-95160)
Thinking that the earth might be flat appears to have grown in popularity in recent years. Indeed, flat earthers are gathering (https://www.flatearthconventionuk.co.uk/) for their annual conference this year in Birmingham, just two miles from my own university.

But the earth isnít flat. Unsurprisingly, this isnít hard to prove (http://). But as scads of YouTube videos demonstrate (http://), these proofs fail to convince everyone. A glance at the comments show thereís still vitriolic disagreement in some quarters.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
All you can do is to treat some as
Quote
A source of innocent merriment, Of innocent merriment!
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: rabinoz on December 30, 2018, 02:10:19 PM
As for me believing the Earth has a dome and the sun is a carbon arc within it, is my physically unprovable theory or musing or whatever anyone wants to call it. I do not throw it out as fact. I defend it as my theory.
Sceppy, you do not have a "theory" to defend!
Quote
Spoiler Alert: A Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, and Law Are Not the Same Thing (https://futurism.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law)
Hypothesis A hypothesis is a reasonable guess based on something that you observe in the natural world.
Theory A scientific theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported by repeated testing.
Law Scientific laws are short, sweet, and always true. Theyíre often expressed in a single statement and generally rely on a concise mathematical equation.
The most that you can claim on this topic and your denpressure is that you have hypotheses because none are "supported by repeated testing".
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on December 30, 2018, 08:36:22 PM
Just for Scepti.  2 SLBM Launches.





And to answer how a missile is fired through the water, it isn't.  It's ejected from it's launch tube through the water using compressed air, and once the missile breaks the surface, the solid fuel rocket fires.  A very rudimentary demonstration.

Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on December 30, 2018, 10:56:56 PM
Scepti can be summed up as conspiracy theorist with zero backing.
On par with danangs phew.
Thanks for coming out.
Your OPINION noted.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 30, 2018, 11:45:11 PM
Inertial guidance? Briefly explain this and tell me how this works.
Also briefly explain the thrust vector control.
No need for any text book copying. Just give me the explainable basics for the dummy that I am.
Okay, Iíll bite.  Accelerometers provide inputs to a computer that takes the inputs to determine changes in direction.  The computer takes those inputs and vectors thrust from the engines to stay on course throughout it's flight.
Ok, explain the rocket accelerometer and its inputs that manage to change direction and vector thrust to alter the trajectory.
Here's the way I see it.
If you don't keep a full thrust to keep a near vertical then your rocket will literally lose lift and go unstable and fall out of the sky.
Your rockets with engines are nonsense in terms of the word "engine".
No fins to control it and your rocket is an unstable useless missile.

This gimbal stuff is also ridiculous when supposedly working from the rocket's arse end (supposed engines).
I believe it's a dupe.
Missiles....fine.
Slow launching ICBM's...nonsense, just the same as slow launching so called space rockets. They're in the same band of duping.
The gullible public are being fed fantasy.

Quote from: MicroBeta
I honestly hope you donít actually believe you can determine the range of all rockets because youíve watched rockets lift of and fly.
Nope.
What I can do is watch rockets launch at "full thrust" and basically springboard into the air and hold that thrust until the fuel is spent. It then falls back to the ground, whether its a model rocket of a larger missile/rocket.
The major issue with them all is their very rapid depletion of their fuel.

Legitimate rockets that are launched are fairly easy to spot.
 Two key things to watch out for.

1. The springboard launch, meaning a rapid launch at full thrust.

2. The short time the full thrust lasts. Generally less than a minute with most, if not all.

Any potential fake launches like we see in the sketchy video footage will also show two major points.

1. A slow launch as if the rocket goes into slow motion as it leaves the launch pad. This alone should make people sit up and take notice of this nonsense.

2. The enormous underthrust of these so called rockets would literally blow them to smithereens and no silly venting is going to be good enough to stop that happening at those supposed lift off speeds which are akin to someone going up in an express elevator. It's nuts, it really is.

I know I know " just because it looks like that scepti"....nah, I see what I see because I see utter bull in my opinion.

Quote from: MicroBeta
The amateur model rocketry record for altitude is ≈72 miles.  What does it tell you about how far ICBMs can fly if a model rocket that is carried around in pickup truck can reach 72 miles.
I don't believe it at all.


Quote from: MicroBeta
Here's a link to all the diagrams you could want. 

http://www.themilitarystandard.com/missile/titan1/layout.php

Mike
The first diagram with the silo's and control entres look like the fantasy I'm talking about.
Those so called massive ICBM's in those silo's could not vent the stuff they would spew out.
Where would it go?
The slow motion lift off's from the silo's, as we are fed would blow these things to smithereens.
Fantasy war game stuff for our gullible minds.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 30, 2018, 11:46:54 PM
Did anyone mention that model hobby rockets use solid fuel?
Little different that liquid...
Just a touch different.

Thanks for another great analogy.
Try again.
And what fuel do the so called ICBM's apparently use?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 31, 2018, 12:01:39 AM
How so, I'm using your model rocket theory? At least I'm trying to play your theory out. All you've been doing is saying, "just cuz."
Fine, keep using what you think. I'm simply saying you're using it for one reality and transferring it to something you do not have a clue about as a reality, except to be told it is.

Isn't that exactly what you were doing with your model rocket theory? Using it for one reality and transferring it to something you do not have a clue about as a reality, except to assume it isn't?
All I have is assumptions. I can only base an argument on how I see potentials for reality and fakey.
I could be wrong but I have not been proved wrong except to be told I'm wrong.
That's not good enough to change my thought process.

The thing is (if you are honest about it) you are merely following a mainstream narrative with an acceptance that what you are following, is fact and yet you have no knowing if the stories are fact or fiction.
In your favour and anyone's favour who follows those narratives is, mass opinions of a belief for the stories against stand out opinions against them by the few.
The few will always be swallowed by the many, so it's easier to appear to stand proud with the crowd to reel off a story told, as  your mass truth, even if that story is a potential fabrication.

Quote from: Stash
It's your theory that model rocketry shows that ICBM's can't exist. I showed you that your theory actually shows the contrary. So now that we've dispensed with your model rocket/fuel argument, what else you got? No fin theory?
You haven't dispensed with anything with me. You've took the high ground to pacify yourself. Fair enough to you.
You've done nothing to dampen down my  mindset on this. Nothing at all.
Playing about with calculations for facts and potential fiction and marrying them up in your mind, is proving nothing of reality.

None of us can prove what the reality is. It's simply down to trying to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: rabinoz on December 31, 2018, 12:21:03 AM
Did anyone mention that model hobby rockets use solid fuel?
Little different that liquid...
Just a touch different.

Thanks for another great analogy.
Try again.
And what fuel do the so called ICBM's apparently use?
Commonly solid fuels like Ammonium perchlorate composite propellant. Any the wiser?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Stash on December 31, 2018, 12:27:16 AM
How so, I'm using your model rocket theory? At least I'm trying to play your theory out. All you've been doing is saying, "just cuz."
Fine, keep using what you think. I'm simply saying you're using it for one reality and transferring it to something you do not have a clue about as a reality, except to be told it is.

Isn't that exactly what you were doing with your model rocket theory? Using it for one reality and transferring it to something you do not have a clue about as a reality, except to assume it isn't?
All I have is assumptions. I can only base an argument on how I see potentials for reality and fakey.
I could be wrong but I have not been proved wrong except to be told I'm wrong.
That's not good enough to change my thought process.

The thing is (if you are honest about it) you are merely following a mainstream narrative with an acceptance that what you are following, is fact and yet you have no knowing if the stories are fact or fiction.
In your favour and anyone's favour who follows those narratives is, mass opinions of a belief for the stories against stand out opinions against them by the few.
The few will always be swallowed by the many, so it's easier to appear to stand proud with the crowd to reel off a story told, as  your mass truth, even if that story is a potential fabrication.

Fair points all around. I personally go with the preponderance of evidence mated with logic and plausibility. In the absence of such, highly skeptical, yes. I'm not a contrarian of mass thought and acceptance just to be so. Sometimes the masses are right, sometimes not. Each is to be taken on a case by case basis.

Quote from: Stash
It's your theory that model rocketry shows that ICBM's can't exist. I showed you that your theory actually shows the contrary. So now that we've dispensed with your model rocket/fuel argument, what else you got? No fin theory?
You haven't dispensed with anything with me. You've took the high ground to pacify yourself. Fair enough to you.
You've done nothing to dampen down my  mindset on this. Nothing at all.
Playing about with calculations for facts and potential fiction and marrying them up in your mind, is proving nothing of reality.

None of us can prove what the reality is. It's simply down to trying to sort the wheat from the chaff.

I took no high ground, I'm not even sure what you're referring to with that. You started your argument with your theory/observation of model rockets led you to believe that there isn't enough fuel to propel an ICBM as claimed, really, without backing up the assertion at all. I took your model rocket theory and rather unscientifically scaled it and showed that, you know what, that theory is probably not the right one for you to pursue.

You were the first to play with facts (model rockets) and apply them the to the potential fiction of ICBMs and marrying them up in your mind, not me. I just examined your theory more than you chose to do and found it neither here nor there.

Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 31, 2018, 12:39:01 AM
Just for Scepti.  2 SLBM Launches.





And to answer how a missile is fired through the water, it isn't.  It's ejected from it's launch tube through the water using compressed air, and once the missile breaks the surface, the solid fuel rocket fires.  A very rudimentary demonstration.


Forget the sketchy first video. I deem them as nonsense because they look it.

However, let's deal with the second video.
It's fine blowing a silly projectile from a tube in a tank but we need to look at what reality would be for a supposed ICBM from a sub deep underwater.

First of all you need to go and look at a bullet fired from a high powered gun and see what happens to the bullet underwater.
See also how far bullets travel underwater before the crushing water friction grips/crushes them to a stop.

Ok so let's deal with supposed compressed air pushing a so called big ICBM, fully fuelled and warhead heavy out of a tube, vertically from deep to not only negate the crushing water but also keep going until it pushes clear of that water many feet above, to then ignite.


Imagine the pressure required for one.
Ok, let's assume it was possible.

What do we have next?
We have a skin over the tube that keeps the compressed air in and the crushing water out from entering the tube.
Somehow there has to be some kind of equilibrium to keep this as balanced as possible so one compression doesn't nullify the other.

A nice solid metal cover would be ideal to separate these warring compressions but not practical to launch a so called ICBM from under....right? Seems sensible doesn't it?

Ok so now we have to launch the ICBM from the tube and having it bust the skin holding the water back.
The very nano second that skin breaks the rocket is up against the full force of that deep water. Think bullet.

That water is going to negate the push of the compressed air and naturally friction grip the missile full of fuel and warhead material, not to mention a strong cylindrical body, plus so called engine.

Once this missile leaves the tube the tube will also be hit with such force of water it would most likely create massive issues with the sub...but that's the least of the issues.

Now here's a bigger problem on top of what I've said.

The ICMB's inside these subs, as we are told, are pretty tall. Some are as big as the actual hull itself vertically standing, it appears. A few feet seems to be the clearance.
So here's the key.
What we have to achieve here is, managing to create enough compression under a few feet of massive rocket as well as up the sides of it and against the skin at the top, which means the compression is negating itself by acting against the rocket from either side.

I'm happy to be shown something different but it has to be good to clear this fantasy up.

You see, it all sounds great. People like to live on big country busting intercontinental travelling warheads launched depp underwater from subs that need no refuelling for 25 years and what not.
It makes good reading and also good films.
I love reading about it all but I tend to treat it all as I see it. A film and a story, in cases like this.


Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on December 31, 2018, 12:42:32 AM
Short of strapping him to a rocket and launching him -
What other kind of "proofs" are there?

Youre such a joke, scepti.
Claim fake news some more.
Everyones out to decieve you eh?
By your logic Ive never beeen to austrailia so rab is not real.
Ive never seen an oxygen molecule so breathing isnt real.
I theorize you eat your own sht.
Ive never seen you not not eat your own sht.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: rabinoz on December 31, 2018, 12:43:51 AM
Ok, explain the rocket accelerometer and its inputs that manage to change direction and vector thrust to alter the trajectory.
Here's the way I see it.
If you don't keep a full thrust to keep a near vertical then your rocket will literally lose lift and go unstable and fall out of the sky.
Your rockets with engines are nonsense in terms of the word "engine".
No fins to control it and your rocket is an unstable useless missile.

This gimbal stuff is also ridiculous when supposedly working from the rocket's arse end (supposed engines).
I believe it's a dupe.
It would be easier trying to explain these things to a child as to you because a child wants to learn but you believe that you know all you'll ever need to know.

You don't have the slightest notion of the most elementary physics that form the basis of things like rocket static stability let alone dynamic stability.

But worse than that is that you do not want to understand because somewhere along the line it might undermine your own hypotheses.

That is proven by your statements like, "This gimbal stuff is also ridiculous when supposedly working from the rocket's arse end . . . engines."
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 31, 2018, 12:48:41 AM
Did anyone mention that model hobby rockets use solid fuel?
Little different that liquid...
Just a touch different.

Thanks for another great analogy.
Try again.
And what fuel do the so called ICBM's apparently use?
Commonly solid fuels like Ammonium perchlorate composite propellant. Any the wiser?
I've looked it up on wiki.
Solid fuel but not like a packed gunpowder design.
Still a solid fuel though. A souped up firework.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on December 31, 2018, 12:54:59 AM
Aahaha
Kabool failed.
Im outofdate.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: rabinoz on December 31, 2018, 12:55:39 AM
It's fine blowing a silly projectile from a tube in a tank but we need to look at what reality would be for a supposed ICBM from a sub deep underwater.
No we do not because they do not launch an "ICBM from a sub deep underwater".  That was easy and painless!

Quote from: sceptimatic
First of all you need to go and look at a bullet fired from a high powered gun and see what happens to the bullet underwater.
See also how far bullets travel underwater before the crushing water friction grips/crushes them to a stop.
No we do not because the ICBM is not travelling at a high velocity while under water.  That was easy and painless!

Quote from: sceptimatic
Ok so let's deal with supposed compressed air pushing a so called big ICBM, fully fuelled and warhead heavy out of a tube, vertically from deep to not only negate the crushing water but also keep going until it pushes clear of that water many feet above, to then ignite.
A heavy ICBM also has a large area and they do not launch from very deep so "clear of that water" does not mean "many feet above"!

All of you arguments boil down to "Sceppy can't understand it, so it must be a fake" and that is simply a fallacy!
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: rabinoz on December 31, 2018, 01:10:51 AM
Did anyone mention that model hobby rockets use solid fuel?
Little different that liquid...
Just a touch different.

Thanks for another great analogy.
Try again.
And what fuel do the so called ICBM's apparently use?
Commonly solid fuels like Ammonium perchlorate composite propellant. Any the wiser?
I've looked it up on wiki.
Solid fuel but not like a packed gunpowder design.
Still a solid fuel though. I souped up firework.
And did you find this too?
Quote from: OverTheTop
What is the difference between black powder and composite? (https://forum.ausrocketry.com/viewtopic.php?t=5103#p59637)
Composite motors have a higher Specific Impulse value, compared to BP motors. As a simple explanation, Specific Impulse can be thought of as "fuel economy" for rocket engines.
The higher the number the more energy a given mass of fuel will give to the rocket when burnt.

BP motors have Isp around 100 s. Composite motors can have Isp of more than 2.5 times that. The unit for Isp is seconds .
And a 2.5 increase in the Isp means a massive increase in capability.

His BP refers to Black Powder as used in simple fireworks - probably not those we'll be seeing over the Brisbane River tonight!

But don't expect a free tutorial in Rocket Science because it does end up getting a bit complicated for tyros - it is after all  ;) Rocket Science ;).
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 31, 2018, 01:20:46 AM
How so, I'm using your model rocket theory? At least I'm trying to play your theory out. All you've been doing is saying, "just cuz."
Fine, keep using what you think. I'm simply saying you're using it for one reality and transferring it to something you do not have a clue about as a reality, except to be told it is.

Isn't that exactly what you were doing with your model rocket theory? Using it for one reality and transferring it to something you do not have a clue about as a reality, except to assume it isn't?
All I have is assumptions. I can only base an argument on how I see potentials for reality and fakey.
I could be wrong but I have not been proved wrong except to be told I'm wrong.
That's not good enough to change my thought process.

The thing is (if you are honest about it) you are merely following a mainstream narrative with an acceptance that what you are following, is fact and yet you have no knowing if the stories are fact or fiction.
In your favour and anyone's favour who follows those narratives is, mass opinions of a belief for the stories against stand out opinions against them by the few.
The few will always be swallowed by the many, so it's easier to appear to stand proud with the crowd to reel off a story told, as  your mass truth, even if that story is a potential fabrication.

Fair points all around. I personally go with the preponderance of evidence mated with logic and plausibility. In the absence of such, highly skeptical, yes. I'm not a contrarian of mass thought and acceptance just to be so. Sometimes the masses are right, sometimes not. Each is to be taken on a case by case basis.
Exactly right and it's the taking it on a case by case basis that creates the issues of what I'm arguing against as to what you are arguing for.
What I'm saying is, your general mindset is to follow mass thought even though you understand that mass following of something does not make it a fact.
The issue is in the ease of how people are willing to accept as a fact, something which cannot be proven so, merely by count of numbers/masses against sceptical views against it being a fact.

This is where mainstream authority is adhered to...and fair enough in that respect. It's a natural thing for people to generally mimic and blindly follow the crowd that follows the idol narrators, kind of thing.

A sceptic is not in that same band. They will be deemed as black sheep (the words convey a lot more than people realise) and contrarians, down to conspiracy nuts and so on and so on, whether they have any reason or no reason to be what they are.

The revered top scientist can become a nut job in short order for going against the grain.
People will shout " noo nooo, scientific scepticism is welcomed and new ideas are always welcome.
Of course...but it depends on what is welcome. That's the key.

Don't rock the boat that's already sailing, fix the one's that you're allowed to fix. If you get my meaning.

Quote from: Stash
It's your theory that model rocketry shows that ICBM's can't exist. I showed you that your theory actually shows the contrary. So now that we've dispensed with your model rocket/fuel argument, what else you got? No fin theory?
You haven't dispensed with anything with me. You've took the high ground to pacify yourself. Fair enough to you.
You've done nothing to dampen down my  mindset on this. Nothing at all.
Playing about with calculations for facts and potential fiction and marrying them up in your mind, is proving nothing of reality.

None of us can prove what the reality is. It's simply down to trying to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Quote from: Stash
I took no high ground, I'm not even sure what you're referring to with that.
No dig. I'm just saying you use a model rocket to cater for something you've never witnessed, as if the large rockets we are told about work from the basis of that model rocket.

I'm merely saying that a rocket burns its fuel in extreme short order by having to push vertical at full thrust to gain the required altitude.
I'm saying it's not too high and the rest of what we're told is sketchy as all hell. Not to mention so called ICBM's.

Quote from: Stash
You started your argument with your theory/observation of model rockets led you to believe that there isn't enough fuel to propel an ICBM as claimed, really, without backing up the assertion at all. I took your model rocket theory and rather unscientifically scaled it and showed that, you know what, that theory is probably not the right one for you to pursue.
Feel free to argue it. feel free to tell me I'm wrong.
I have no issue with that but I will only bow down when I feel I have nothing to add and I could be so wrong.
When that happens I'll happily hold my hands up.
I expect the same from others...but like I said: Mass opinion makes it extra hard for anyone to go sceptical.

Quote from: Stash
You were the first to play with facts (model rockets) and apply them the to the potential fiction of ICBMs and marrying them up in your mind, not me. I just examined your theory more than you chose to do and found it neither here nor there.
I played the facts because they are the facts. Model rockets last for seconds in vertical flight before their fuel is expended.
It's not a fact that this applies to ICBM's and space rockets. I don't claim that as a fact. I don't believe those two rockets exist but I can't state it as a fact, so I have to use what I know to be reality to glean some semblance of rationality from what we're told about bigger missile/rockets.

Fuel to mass ratio is the real key. Fuel being it's own mass on top of the actual mass of the rocket.
Putting it in that respect, this is where a model rocket on scale would have to be literally scaled up against a so called ICBM.
Basically a little and large of identical proportions.

If one (little) expends it's fuel in short order with it's fuel to mass ration, then the larger one is equally going to expend it's fuel in short order, rendering them both at a limited altitude in seconds.

That's what I'm getting at.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 31, 2018, 01:32:23 AM
Short of strapping him to a rocket and launching him -
What other kind of "proofs" are there?

Youre such a joke, scepti.
Claim fake news some more.
Everyones out to decieve you eh?
By your logic Ive never beeen to austrailia so rab is not real.
Ive never seen an oxygen molecule so breathing isnt real.
I theorize you eat your own sht.
Ive never seen you not not eat your own sht.
You've never seen a lot of stuff you're told about but you appear to accept it as fact as long as it's not disputed by the minority, it seems.

You are welcome to think how you wish but merely using what you are using in order to try and destroy my arguments, is weak in the extreme.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 31, 2018, 01:47:02 AM
Ok, explain the rocket accelerometer and its inputs that manage to change direction and vector thrust to alter the trajectory.
Here's the way I see it.
If you don't keep a full thrust to keep a near vertical then your rocket will literally lose lift and go unstable and fall out of the sky.
Your rockets with engines are nonsense in terms of the word "engine".
No fins to control it and your rocket is an unstable useless missile.

This gimbal stuff is also ridiculous when supposedly working from the rocket's arse end (supposed engines).
I believe it's a dupe.
It would be easier trying to explain these things to a child as to you because a child wants to learn but you believe that you know all you'll ever need to know.
Then explain it to me as if I'm that child. Or simply don't bother responding to me and accept that I'm the person you say I am that supposedly believes I know all I ever need to, which sort of takes away the entire point of me being the sceptical and inquisitive and innovative person that I am.
You decide what you want to do. I'm ok with whatever.

Quote from: rabinoz
You don't have the slightest notion of the most elementary physics that form the basis of things like rocket static stability let alone dynamic stability.
Enlighten me as if you were teaching a kid the very basics. Because that's all we really need. We don't need to know the composition of everything to find out how a rocket works in how I'm questioning.


Quote from: rabinoz
But worse than that is that you do not want to understand because somewhere along the line it might undermine your own hypotheses.
Or maybe you don't want to admit that I have something. By all means deny that but don't expect me to accept what you are saying, either.
Fair enough?

Quote from: rabinoz
That is proven by your statements like, "This gimbal stuff is also ridiculous when supposedly working from the rocket's arse end . . . engines."
Put me right them. Show me how you know it to be correct from your own personal proof.

I just look at the simplicity of stuff and to me a gimballed rocket nozzle/engine would be silly.
Prove me wrong.
A heavy gimple above something would be a much better stability tool.
Under it is like trying to balance a long stick on your finger. Move your finger and your stick is a unstable unless you can immediately sway your finger opposite the fall.
However, a so called rocket gimbal would not get the chance to do that, because once that power is shifted your rocket is a dead stick.

By all means show me otherwise if you can.

I'll just add.
If you hung your rocket on a big cable at the top and let your gimbal do the work then you can steady it because your top is going nowhere.

Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 31, 2018, 02:02:39 AM
It's fine blowing a silly projectile from a tube in a tank but we need to look at what reality would be for a supposed ICBM from a sub deep underwater.
No we do not because they do not launch an "ICBM from a sub deep underwater".  That was easy and painless!
Apparently they are very closely related it seems, so let's deal with the closely related ballistic sub missiles. The same issues arise. No change really, is there.
Hopefully that's not too painful for you.

Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: sceptimatic
First of all you need to go and look at a bullet fired from a high powered gun and see what happens to the bullet underwater.
See also how far bullets travel underwater before the crushing water friction grips/crushes them to a stop.
No we do not because the ICBM is not travelling at a high velocity while under water.  That was easy and painless!
Really?
Do they come equipped with large corks on the noses or something, as well as their arse ends to pop them out of the water?
So if they're not travelling at high velocity then how can they leave the tube and get through the deep water to be pushed right out of it before fuel burn?

Any idea of how fast they would leave the tube?

Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: sceptimatic
Ok so let's deal with supposed compressed air pushing a so called big ICBM, fully fuelled and warhead heavy out of a tube, vertically from deep to not only negate the crushing water but also keep going until it pushes clear of that water many feet above, to then ignite.
A heavy ICBM also has a large area and they do not launch from very deep so "clear of that water" does not mean "many feet above"!

All of you arguments boil down to "Sceppy can't understand it, so it must be a fake" and that is simply a fallacy!
First of all you deny the ICBM on subs and now you admit them. Do you actually know what you're arguing for?

If they don't launch from deep then they're not really fit for the purpose of what we are told. Right?

It says they generally launch them from about 160 feet depth.
I'd say that was deep enough to create massive pressure, wouldn't you?

Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: inquisitive on December 31, 2018, 02:10:14 AM
It's fine blowing a silly projectile from a tube in a tank but we need to look at what reality would be for a supposed ICBM from a sub deep underwater.
No we do not because they do not launch an "ICBM from a sub deep underwater".  That was easy and painless!
Apparently they are very closely related it seems, so let's deal with the closely related ballistic sub missiles. The same issues arise. No change really, is there.
Hopefully that's not too painful for you.

Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: sceptimatic
First of all you need to go and look at a bullet fired from a high powered gun and see what happens to the bullet underwater.
See also how far bullets travel underwater before the crushing water friction grips/crushes them to a stop.
No we do not because the ICBM is not travelling at a high velocity while under water.  That was easy and painless!
Really?
Do they come equipped with large corks on the noses or something, as well as their arse ends to pop them out of the water?
So if they're not travelling at high velocity then how can they leave the tube and get through the deep water to be pushed right out of it before fuel burn?

Any idea of how fast they would leave the tube?

Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: sceptimatic
Ok so let's deal with supposed compressed air pushing a so called big ICBM, fully fuelled and warhead heavy out of a tube, vertically from deep to not only negate the crushing water but also keep going until it pushes clear of that water many feet above, to then ignite.
A heavy ICBM also has a large area and they do not launch from very deep so "clear of that water" does not mean "many feet above"!

All of you arguments boil down to "Sceppy can't understand it, so it must be a fake" and that is simply a fallacy!
First of all you deny the ICBM on subs and now you admit them. Do you actually know what you're arguing for?

If they don't launch from deep then they're not really fit for the purpose of what we are told. Right?

It says they generally launch them from about 160 feet depth.
I'd say that was deep enough to create massive pressure, wouldn't you?
Why do you continue this discussion when you clearly do not understand the subject?  What else do you believe we are misled about? Satellites?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Stash on December 31, 2018, 02:35:36 AM
How so, I'm using your model rocket theory? At least I'm trying to play your theory out. All you've been doing is saying, "just cuz."
Fine, keep using what you think. I'm simply saying you're using it for one reality and transferring it to something you do not have a clue about as a reality, except to be told it is.

Isn't that exactly what you were doing with your model rocket theory? Using it for one reality and transferring it to something you do not have a clue about as a reality, except to assume it isn't?
All I have is assumptions. I can only base an argument on how I see potentials for reality and fakey.
I could be wrong but I have not been proved wrong except to be told I'm wrong.
That's not good enough to change my thought process.

The thing is (if you are honest about it) you are merely following a mainstream narrative with an acceptance that what you are following, is fact and yet you have no knowing if the stories are fact or fiction.
In your favour and anyone's favour who follows those narratives is, mass opinions of a belief for the stories against stand out opinions against them by the few.
The few will always be swallowed by the many, so it's easier to appear to stand proud with the crowd to reel off a story told, as  your mass truth, even if that story is a potential fabrication.

Fair points all around. I personally go with the preponderance of evidence mated with logic and plausibility. In the absence of such, highly skeptical, yes. I'm not a contrarian of mass thought and acceptance just to be so. Sometimes the masses are right, sometimes not. Each is to be taken on a case by case basis.
Exactly right and it's the taking it on a case by case basis that creates the issues of what I'm arguing against as to what you are arguing for.
What I'm saying is, your general mindset is to follow mass thought even though you understand that mass following of something does not make it a fact.
The issue is in the ease of how people are willing to accept as a fact, something which cannot be proven so, merely by count of numbers/masses against sceptical views against it being a fact.

Totally agree.

This is where mainstream authority is adhered to...and fair enough in that respect. It's a natural thing for people to generally mimic and blindly follow the crowd that follows the idol narrators, kind of thing.

Couldn't agree more. With the same token, it's a very narrow line between a kneejerk-presumption that some level of scientific authority supported by a preponderance of evidence, logic, plausibility and mass appeal is default conspiratorially in place to thwart the 'truth' so there must be a defatco alternate 'truth'. At a certain point, is everything just a lie? Is all knowledge from authority to be discarded? Is all knowlege from authority to be accepted? No. There has to be some middle ground. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to be typing this now.

A sceptic is not in that same band. They will be deemed as black sheep (the words convey a lot more than people realise) and contrarians, down to conspiracy nuts and so on and so on, whether they have any reason or no reason to be what they are.

The revered top scientist can become a nut job in short order for going against the grain.
People will shout " noo nooo, scientific scepticism is welcomed and new ideas are always welcome.
Of course...but it depends on what is welcome. That's the key.

Don't rock the boat that's already sailing, fix the one's that you're allowed to fix. If you get my meaning.

Again, I don't disagree. But defaulting to all things 'mainstream are wrong' knocks out 50%+ of the equation before you've really even had a chance to examine it. (Same can be said for mainstream examining alternative stuff) But when things get all 'conspiratorial' minded, I see the veil of reason drop and cloud, rather than reveal.

Quote from: Stash
I took no high ground, I'm not even sure what you're referring to with that.
No dig. I'm just saying you use a model rocket to cater for something you've never witnessed, as if the large rockets we are told about work from the basis of that model rocket.

I'm merely saying that a rocket burns its fuel in extreme short order by having to push vertical at full thrust to gain the required altitude.
I'm saying it's not too high and the rest of what we're told is sketchy as all hell. Not to mention so called ICBM's.

No dig taken. But literally you 'used a model rocket to cater for something you've never witnessed, as if the large rockets we are told about DON'T work from the basis of that model rocket.' That's where this all started. You using model rocketry to dispense with the reality (or not) of ICBM technology. That was you, not me. I just examined your theory, you did not.

Fuel to mass ratio is the real key. Fuel being it's own mass on top of the actual mass of the rocket.
Putting it in that respect, this is where a model rocket on scale would have to be literally scaled up against a so called ICBM.
Basically a little and large of identical proportions.

If one (little) expends it's fuel in short order with it's fuel to mass ration, then the larger one is equally going to expend it's fuel in short order, rendering them both at a limited altitude in seconds.

That's what I'm getting at.

I'm picking up what you're putting down. But put a little something behind it. I did a little homework, back of the envelope calculations to show how your model rocket theory doesn't work. All you've done so far is say, "nope, just cuz". Put a little effort in to back up your assertions. How does the fuel to mass ratio not work? What's your calculation. I at least tried with my calculations, you've done just short of zero.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Stash on December 31, 2018, 03:05:09 AM
It's fine blowing a silly projectile from a tube in a tank but we need to look at what reality would be for a supposed ICBM from a sub deep underwater.
No we do not because they do not launch an "ICBM from a sub deep underwater".  That was easy and painless!
Apparently they are very closely related it seems, so let's deal with the closely related ballistic sub missiles. The same issues arise. No change really, is there.
Hopefully that's not too painful for you.

Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: sceptimatic
First of all you need to go and look at a bullet fired from a high powered gun and see what happens to the bullet underwater.
See also how far bullets travel underwater before the crushing water friction grips/crushes them to a stop.
No we do not because the ICBM is not travelling at a high velocity while under water.  That was easy and painless!
Really?
Do they come equipped with large corks on the noses or something, as well as their arse ends to pop them out of the water?
So if they're not travelling at high velocity then how can they leave the tube and get through the deep water to be pushed right out of it before fuel burn?

Any idea of how fast they would leave the tube?

Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: sceptimatic
Ok so let's deal with supposed compressed air pushing a so called big ICBM, fully fuelled and warhead heavy out of a tube, vertically from deep to not only negate the crushing water but also keep going until it pushes clear of that water many feet above, to then ignite.
A heavy ICBM also has a large area and they do not launch from very deep so "clear of that water" does not mean "many feet above"!

All of you arguments boil down to "Sceppy can't understand it, so it must be a fake" and that is simply a fallacy!
First of all you deny the ICBM on subs and now you admit them. Do you actually know what you're arguing for?

If they don't launch from deep then they're not really fit for the purpose of what we are told. Right?

It says they generally launch them from about 160 feet depth.
I'd say that was deep enough to create massive pressure, wouldn't you?

I guess by your same argument torpedoes don't exist. Or do they?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 31, 2018, 04:57:42 AM
This is where mainstream authority is adhered to...and fair enough in that respect. It's a natural thing for people to generally mimic and blindly follow the crowd that follows the idol narrators, kind of thing.

Couldn't agree more. With the same token, it's a very narrow line between a kneejerk-presumption that some level of scientific authority supported by a preponderance of evidence, logic, plausibility and mass appeal is default conspiratorially in place to thwart the 'truth' so there must be a defatco alternate 'truth'.
There does have to be a truth. Unfortunately all we can do is accept something as a truth without any evidence. Or accept it as a truth because we physically have the facts that physically show it to be the truth.
In the first instance, we simply accept with no real mind to question. Let's call them our run of the mill explanations that we simply accept because it's just easier to do so, regardless. Including myself.
In between that there's stuff that I just don't blindly accept which is why I question it,regardless of people telling me I have no proof, because i simply refer them back to the first instance of acceptance for them.




Quote from: Stash
At a certain point, is everything just a lie?
 Is all knowledge from authority to be discarded?
Is all knowlege from authority to be accepted? No. There has to be some middle ground. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to be typing this now.
Of course. It's a 3 way thing.
Let's be totally honest. If we all accepted everything then nothing would exist to debate.

In terms of knowledge from authority being discarded, it depends on how that's actually portrayed. Because authority deems something to be the expertise of those in authority but it can also be construed as people simply taking an authoritative role over something they are simply gatekeeping for others of higher authority.

Sounds a bit confusing but I'm sure you understand what I'm getting at.
The victors get to choose history and all that stuff.

The issue is, we are fed a mixture of truth's, lies and a mix of both, in possibly equal measures.
My arguments may not stand up to those who have the ease of some official reference of the issue at hand, written by what is deemed as an authority on it.
I'm at a disadvantage in  that respect because I can't reference anything. I have to rely on trying to logically pick apart what's being told/conveyed to me.


Quote from: Stash
(Same can be said for mainstream examining alternative stuff) But when things get all 'conspiratorial' minded, I see the veil of reason drop and cloud, rather than reveal.
The major problem with anything that is deemed to be at loggerheads with a mainstream ideal, will, in short order be termed "a conspiracy theory" and the people who push it will be cast off as "conspiracy nutters".

It's a case of anything worthwhile to the system will be accepted and anything that goes against it, denied in whichever way is suitable for those who want to keep the charade up.
That in itself can be termed as a conspiracy in me saying it.
The thing is I think those who are awake to issues know we are being lied to even if they accept a lot of stuff.

One lie can be 100 lies or a million, just as one truth can be the same.
The problem again is in , do we accept one lie being just that and feeling there's a genuine reason as to why, while discarding the notion that there could be more lies?

Or is one truth told for every 99 lies out of 100?

Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 31, 2018, 05:01:49 AM

I guess by your same argument torpedoes don't exist. Or do they?
This goes back to what I said earlier about acceptance of something because there's no thought to argue it.
I wouldn't bother arguing whether torpedoes exist but if stories were told about them doing stuff that I found to be questionable then I might do just that.
However I'm not questioning them at this time because I don't find them worth questioning. It seems quite feasible as to what they do.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on December 31, 2018, 05:24:45 AM
Inertial guidance? Briefly explain this and tell me how this works.
Also briefly explain the thrust vector control.
No need for any text book copying. Just give me the explainable basics for the dummy that I am.
Okay, Iíll bite.  Accelerometers provide inputs to a computer that takes the inputs to determine changes in direction.  The computer takes those inputs and vectors thrust from the engines to stay on course throughout it's flight.
Ok, explain the rocket accelerometer and its inputs that manage to change direction and vector thrust to alter the trajectory.
Here's the way I see it.
If you don't keep a full thrust to keep a near vertical then your rocket will literally lose lift and go unstable and fall out of the sky.
Your rockets with engines are nonsense in terms of the word "engine".
No fins to control it and your rocket is an unstable useless missile.

This gimbal stuff is also ridiculous when supposedly working from the rocket's arse end (supposed engines).
I believe it's a dupe.
Missiles....fine.
Slow launching ICBM's...nonsense, just the same as slow launching so called space rockets. They're in the same band of duping.
The gullible public are being fed fantasy.
Here is a link to the same sort of system you can purchase for model rocketry.

https://bps.space/signal/

Here is a quote from the website...

Quote
Model rockets have fins and launch quickly; real space launch vehicles don't. With thrust vectoring, your rockets can slowly ascend and build speed, instead of leaving your sight in seconds. Signal R2, a thrust vectoring kit, is here to bridge that gap, enabling model rockets that look, and work like the real thing.

The way you see it is completely wrong.  As you can clearly see your whole spring board is completely wrong.  Your claim that itís not possible for the slow liftoff with gradual acceleration is proven wrong. 

Every single claim youíve ever made about how you ďlogicallyĒ concluded rockets work is PROVEN completely wrong by model rocket enthusiasts competing for highest flight, least drift from liftoff, etc.

Hereís another thing for you.  You canít dismiss this.  Unless youíre willing to build and launch the rocket all your claims arenít worth shit.  Your so-called logical approach to how rockets work is completely and utterly destroyed by model rocketry.  This is actually a situation of Case Closed.

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 31, 2018, 06:02:54 AM
Here is a link to the same sort of system you can purchase for model rocketry.

https://bps.space/signal/

Here is a quote from the website...

Quote
Model rockets have fins and launch quickly; real space launch vehicles don't. With thrust vectoring, your rockets can slowly ascend and build speed, instead of leaving your sight in seconds. Signal R2, a thrust vectoring kit, is here to bridge that gap, enabling model rockets that look, and work like the real thing.
Model rockets launch quickly. Like I said earlier. No issue there and you can verify that one yourself.

Real space launch vehicles don't?
Real space rocket won't, because they don't exist.

Let's try ballistic missiles from silo's and/or submarines.

Does a ballistic missile just saunter out of a silo?
Do you seriously think that would be a good idea?
Do you seriously think it's feasible for a rocket to just saunter out of a silo or a sub tube, vertically?

Like I said before. If the rocket launches like a bat out of hell, like a springboard then you have a real rocket/missile.
If it crawls out in a slow motion looking way, then you have special effects, or to put it plainly, you have no genuine working rocket.

Pretty simple and easy to understand once you actually see what's what.

Quote from: MicroBeta

The way you see it is completely wrong.  As you can clearly see your whole spring board is completely wrong.  Your claim that itís not possible for the slow liftoff with gradual acceleration is proven wrong.
Gradual acceleration vertically is pointless nonsense.
The whole point of a rocket/missile is to be stable after launch.
To be stable after launch it must full thrust and springboard into the atmosphere in order for that atmosphere to grip and steady it under immense speed.

A slow launch would render any missile as a mass of burning fuel on the launch pad or close to it after it destabilizes.
No silly gimbal is going to arrest something like that.
 
Quote from: MicroBeta

Every single claim youíve ever made about how you ďlogicallyĒ concluded rockets work is PROVEN completely wrong by model rocket enthusiasts competing for highest flight, least drift from liftoff, etc.
Model rocket enthusiasts have proven nothing. What are they proving?
They're proving that rockets work by full thrust launch at immediate constant velocity, vertically for a short time before they arc.


Quote from: MicroBeta

Hereís another thing for you.  You canít dismiss this.  Unless youíre willing to build and launch the rocket all your claims arenít worth shit.
I've launched rockets and they all do the same thing. Immediate springboard thrust and immediate near constant velocity before full arcing.

Quote from: MicroBeta

  Your so-called logical approach to how rockets work is completely and utterly destroyed by model rocketry.  This is actually a situation of Case Closed.

Mike
Case wide open. You can close the case from your part if you want. I'll call this you decking out due to having no proof against what I'm saying.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on December 31, 2018, 07:04:49 AM
Just for Scepti.  2 SLBM Launches.





And to answer how a missile is fired through the water, it isn't.  It's ejected from it's launch tube through the water using compressed air, and once the missile breaks the surface, the solid fuel rocket fires.  A very rudimentary demonstration.


Forget the sketchy first video. I deem them as nonsense because they look it.

However, let's deal with the second video.
It's fine blowing a silly projectile from a tube in a tank but we need to look at what reality would be for a supposed ICBM from a sub deep underwater.

First of all you need to go and look at a bullet fired from a high powered gun and see what happens to the bullet underwater.
See also how far bullets travel underwater before the crushing water friction grips/crushes them to a stop.

Ok so let's deal with supposed compressed air pushing a so called big ICBM, fully fuelled and warhead heavy out of a tube, vertically from deep to not only negate the crushing water but also keep going until it pushes clear of that water many feet above, to then ignite.


Imagine the pressure required for one.
Ok, let's assume it was possible.

What do we have next?
We have a skin over the tube that keeps the compressed air in and the crushing water out from entering the tube.
Somehow there has to be some kind of equilibrium to keep this as balanced as possible so one compression doesn't nullify the other.

A nice solid metal cover would be ideal to separate these warring compressions but not practical to launch a so called ICBM from under....right? Seems sensible doesn't it?

Ok so now we have to launch the ICBM from the tube and having it bust the skin holding the water back.
The very nano second that skin breaks the rocket is up against the full force of that deep water. Think bullet.

That water is going to negate the push of the compressed air and naturally friction grip the missile full of fuel and warhead material, not to mention a strong cylindrical body, plus so called engine.

Once this missile leaves the tube the tube will also be hit with such force of water it would most likely create massive issues with the sub...but that's the least of the issues.

Now here's a bigger problem on top of what I've said.

The ICMB's inside these subs, as we are told, are pretty tall. Some are as big as the actual hull itself vertically standing, it appears. A few feet seems to be the clearance.
So here's the key.
What we have to achieve here is, managing to create enough compression under a few feet of massive rocket as well as up the sides of it and against the skin at the top, which means the compression is negating itself by acting against the rocket from either side.

I'm happy to be shown something different but it has to be good to clear this fantasy up.

You see, it all sounds great. People like to live on big country busting intercontinental travelling warheads launched depp underwater from subs that need no refuelling for 25 years and what not.
It makes good reading and also good films.
I love reading about it all but I tend to treat it all as I see it. A film and a story, in cases like this.

There is nothing sketchy about the first video.  It's a missile coming out of the water and then it's engine igniting.  The video is clear, nothing sketchy about it.


Your firing the gun under water analogy would apply if the missile was ignited under water.  It isn't.  It's a two stage launch.  The missile is ejected from its launch tube via compressed air.  The compressed air only needs to get the missile to pop above the surface and then the missile fires its engine.  The pressure of the water above it is taken into consideration when launching a missile.  They have specific depths that they must launch from to ensure the compressed air pushing the missile overcomes the pressure of the water above it, so the missile is above the water when it ignites.

The water entering the launch tube after the missile is launched is not going to damage the sub.  You don't know what you are talking about.

Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Crutchwater on December 31, 2018, 07:08:26 AM
Facts are, nuclear weapons exist. They have been used in anger.

Long range rocketry is a real thing.
Precision guidance is a real thing. It has filtered down to the most basic consumer level in drone  technology.

Submarines exist, and have for a century.

There is loads of footage of sub launched ballistic missiles. Call it fake if you like, your opinion is noted.

Earth bound carbon arc sun is fantasy.
Helium dome is fantasy.

Things fall.

These are the facts.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on December 31, 2018, 07:32:22 AM
Here is a link to the same sort of system you can purchase for model rocketry.

https://bps.space/signal/

Here is a quote from the website...

Quote
Model rockets have fins and launch quickly; real space launch vehicles don't. With thrust vectoring, your rockets can slowly ascend and build speed, instead of leaving your sight in seconds. Signal R2, a thrust vectoring kit, is here to bridge that gap, enabling model rockets that look, and work like the real thing.
Model rockets launch quickly. Like I said earlier. No issue there and you can verify that one yourself.

Real space launch vehicles don't?
Real space rocket won't, because they don't exist.

Let's try ballistic missiles from silo's and/or submarines.

Does a ballistic missile just saunter out of a silo?
Do you seriously think that would be a good idea?
Do you seriously think it's feasible for a rocket to just saunter out of a silo or a sub tube, vertically?

Like I said before. If the rocket launches like a bat out of hell, like a springboard then you have a real rocket/missile.
If it crawls out in a slow motion looking way, then you have special effects, or to put it plainly, you have no genuine working rocket.

Pretty simple and easy to understand once you actually see what's what.

Quote from: MicroBeta

The way you see it is completely wrong.  As you can clearly see your whole spring board is completely wrong.  Your claim that itís not possible for the slow liftoff with gradual acceleration is proven wrong.
Gradual acceleration vertically is pointless nonsense.
The whole point of a rocket/missile is to be stable after launch.
To be stable after launch it must full thrust and springboard into the atmosphere in order for that atmosphere to grip and steady it under immense speed.

A slow launch would render any missile as a mass of burning fuel on the launch pad or close to it after it destabilizes.
No silly gimbal is going to arrest something like that.
 
Quote from: MicroBeta

Every single claim youíve ever made about how you ďlogicallyĒ concluded rockets work is PROVEN completely wrong by model rocket enthusiasts competing for highest flight, least drift from liftoff, etc.
Model rocket enthusiasts have proven nothing. What are they proving?
They're proving that rockets work by full thrust launch at immediate constant velocity, vertically for a short time before they arc.


Quote from: MicroBeta

Hereís another thing for you.  You canít dismiss this.  Unless youíre willing to build and launch the rocket all your claims arenít worth shit.
I've launched rockets and they all do the same thing. Immediate springboard thrust and immediate near constant velocity before full arcing.

Quote from: MicroBeta

  Your so-called logical approach to how rockets work is completely and utterly destroyed by model rocketry.  This is actually a situation of Case Closed.

Mike
Case wide open. You can close the case from your part if you want. I'll call this you decking out due to having no proof against what I'm saying.
Wow.  Thatís a whole lot of handwaving strawmen.  You completely ignored the link and the videos that prove you wrong.

Everything Iíve posted is not only fact, it is verifiable.  These rockets do everything you say rockets canít do and they exactly replicate how ICBM's work.

The videos at the bottom of that page prove you wrong.  The acceleration graphs contradicts every single claim youíve made about rockets.

You canít just dismiss verifiable evidence.

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 31, 2018, 08:02:39 AM

There is nothing sketchy about the first video.  It's a missile coming out of the water and then it's engine igniting.  The video is clear, nothing sketchy about it.
The video looks nonsense and is sketchy.


Quote from: NotSoSkeptical
Your firing the gun under water analogy would apply if the missile was ignited under water.
Sorry but the missile is just a bullet so what I said does apply.


Quote from: NotSoSkeptical
  It isn't.  It's a two stage launch.  The missile is ejected from its launch tube via compressed air.  The compressed air only needs to get the missile to pop above the surface and then the missile fires its engine.
Yeah and the pop above the water from the deep from a tube with compressed air is my issue for starters.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical
  The pressure of the water above it is taken into consideration when launching a missile.
Of course it is, in potential fantasy land.
I'm well aware there'll be answers to the questions. It just comes down to how feasible they are.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical
  They have specific depths that they must launch from to ensure the compressed air pushing the missile overcomes the pressure of the water above it, so the missile is above the water when it ignites.
Yeah. There's nothing I know that can do that. Not compressed air in a few feet of tube under a so called vertical missile, as well as all around it to push against a so called skin.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical
The water entering the launch tube after the missile is launched is not going to damage the sub.  You don't know what you are talking about.
Yeah and I'm sure you do, eh?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: inquisitive on December 31, 2018, 08:15:50 AM
Surely time to end this 'discussion'?  Tell Scepti he is correct and that he needs to tell the wider world.  We could contact the local paper in his area, would be a good story.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on December 31, 2018, 08:23:32 AM

There is nothing sketchy about the first video.  It's a missile coming out of the water and then it's engine igniting.  The video is clear, nothing sketchy about it.
The video looks nonsense and is sketchy.


Quote from: NotSoSkeptical
Your firing the gun under water analogy would apply if the missile was ignited under water.
Sorry but the missile is just a bullet so what I said does apply.


Quote from: NotSoSkeptical
  It isn't.  It's a two stage launch.  The missile is ejected from its launch tube via compressed air.  The compressed air only needs to get the missile to pop above the surface and then the missile fires its engine.
Yeah and the pop above the water from the deep from a tube with compressed air is my issue for starters.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical
  The pressure of the water above it is taken into consideration when launching a missile.
Of course it is, in potential fantasy land.
I'm well aware there'll be answers to the questions. It just comes down to how feasible they are.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical
  They have specific depths that they must launch from to ensure the compressed air pushing the missile overcomes the pressure of the water above it, so the missile is above the water when it ignites.
Yeah. There's nothing I know that can do that. Not compressed air in a few feet of tube under a so called vertical missile, as well as all around it to push against a so called skin.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical
The water entering the launch tube after the missile is launched is not going to damage the sub.  You don't know what you are talking about.
Yeah and I'm sure you do, eh?

A missile is not a bullet.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Heavenly Breeze on December 31, 2018, 08:55:10 AM
I'm amazed you. You are discussing with such enthusiasm what death brings. That I feel uneasy. This is the essence of the people living on the ball, they think that they can escape from this planet. Are you sure you can escape on Mars?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on December 31, 2018, 09:46:16 AM
I'm amazed you. You are discussing with such enthusiasm what death brings. That I feel uneasy. This is the essence of the people living on the ball, they think that they can escape from this planet. Are you sure you can escape on Mars?
I apologize if this discussion upsets you.  I understand how you feel.

Keep in mind we are discussing the operation of the rockets and not the weapon.

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: JCM on December 31, 2018, 10:06:56 AM
I suppose the idea of SpaceX landing their rockets to reuse again is impossible as well? 



If landing those two rockets at the same time doesnít give you goosebumps...

Watching a delta heavy launch and land its rockets is on my bucket list.  I hope sceptimatic if you were able you would watch this amazing feat as well.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 31, 2018, 10:16:31 AM
Facts are, nuclear weapons exist. They have been used in anger.
No facts but plenty of propaganda in my opinion.

Quote from: Here to laugh at you
Long range rocketry is a real thing.
Depends on  what you class as long range.
A score of miles is more long range than 1 mile.
Quote from: Here to laugh at you
Precision guidance is a real thing. It has filtered down to the most basic consumer level in drone  technology.
When drones become vertical rockets we can talk about drones.
As it stands they're not so a guidance system on a drone is irrelevant.

Quote from: Here to laugh at you
Submarines exist, and have for a century.
We are not arguing about subs as a vehicle, just what they supposedly eject , as in apparent ICBM's or as close to as we are told.

Quote from: Here to laugh at you
There is loads of footage of sub launched ballistic missiles. Call it fake if you like, your opinion is noted.

There's loads of footage of superman doing all kinds of amazing stuff. Is that fake?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 31, 2018, 10:17:51 AM
Here is a link to the same sort of system you can purchase for model rocketry.

https://bps.space/signal/

Here is a quote from the website...

Quote
Model rockets have fins and launch quickly; real space launch vehicles don't. With thrust vectoring, your rockets can slowly ascend and build speed, instead of leaving your sight in seconds. Signal R2, a thrust vectoring kit, is here to bridge that gap, enabling model rockets that look, and work like the real thing.
Model rockets launch quickly. Like I said earlier. No issue there and you can verify that one yourself.

Real space launch vehicles don't?
Real space rocket won't, because they don't exist.

Let's try ballistic missiles from silo's and/or submarines.

Does a ballistic missile just saunter out of a silo?
Do you seriously think that would be a good idea?
Do you seriously think it's feasible for a rocket to just saunter out of a silo or a sub tube, vertically?

Like I said before. If the rocket launches like a bat out of hell, like a springboard then you have a real rocket/missile.
If it crawls out in a slow motion looking way, then you have special effects, or to put it plainly, you have no genuine working rocket.

Pretty simple and easy to understand once you actually see what's what.

Quote from: MicroBeta

The way you see it is completely wrong.  As you can clearly see your whole spring board is completely wrong.  Your claim that itís not possible for the slow liftoff with gradual acceleration is proven wrong.
Gradual acceleration vertically is pointless nonsense.
The whole point of a rocket/missile is to be stable after launch.
To be stable after launch it must full thrust and springboard into the atmosphere in order for that atmosphere to grip and steady it under immense speed.

A slow launch would render any missile as a mass of burning fuel on the launch pad or close to it after it destabilizes.
No silly gimbal is going to arrest something like that.
 
Quote from: MicroBeta

Every single claim youíve ever made about how you ďlogicallyĒ concluded rockets work is PROVEN completely wrong by model rocket enthusiasts competing for highest flight, least drift from liftoff, etc.
Model rocket enthusiasts have proven nothing. What are they proving?
They're proving that rockets work by full thrust launch at immediate constant velocity, vertically for a short time before they arc.


Quote from: MicroBeta

Hereís another thing for you.  You canít dismiss this.  Unless youíre willing to build and launch the rocket all your claims arenít worth shit.
I've launched rockets and they all do the same thing. Immediate springboard thrust and immediate near constant velocity before full arcing.

Quote from: MicroBeta

  Your so-called logical approach to how rockets work is completely and utterly destroyed by model rocketry.  This is actually a situation of Case Closed.

Mike
Case wide open. You can close the case from your part if you want. I'll call this you decking out due to having no proof against what I'm saying.
Wow.  Thatís a whole lot of handwaving strawmen.  You completely ignored the link and the videos that prove you wrong.

Everything Iíve posted is not only fact, it is verifiable.  These rockets do everything you say rockets canít do and they exactly replicate how ICBM's work.

The videos at the bottom of that page prove you wrong.  The acceleration graphs contradicts every single claim youíve made about rockets.

You canít just dismiss verifiable evidence.

Mike
You haven't provided verifiable evidence. You provided what you believe is verifiable evidence.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 31, 2018, 10:27:12 AM

There is nothing sketchy about the first video.  It's a missile coming out of the water and then it's engine igniting.  The video is clear, nothing sketchy about it.
The video looks nonsense and is sketchy.


Quote from: NotSoSkeptical
Your firing the gun under water analogy would apply if the missile was ignited under water.
Sorry but the missile is just a bullet so what I said does apply.


Quote from: NotSoSkeptical
  It isn't.  It's a two stage launch.  The missile is ejected from its launch tube via compressed air.  The compressed air only needs to get the missile to pop above the surface and then the missile fires its engine.
Yeah and the pop above the water from the deep from a tube with compressed air is my issue for starters.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical
  The pressure of the water above it is taken into consideration when launching a missile.
Of course it is, in potential fantasy land.
I'm well aware there'll be answers to the questions. It just comes down to how feasible they are.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical
  They have specific depths that they must launch from to ensure the compressed air pushing the missile overcomes the pressure of the water above it, so the missile is above the water when it ignites.
Yeah. There's nothing I know that can do that. Not compressed air in a few feet of tube under a so called vertical missile, as well as all around it to push against a so called skin.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical
The water entering the launch tube after the missile is launched is not going to damage the sub.  You don't know what you are talking about.
Yeah and I'm sure you do, eh?

A missile is not a bullet.
It is a large bullet when supposedly ejected from a tube in a sub by compressed air.
The only difference is in the means of ejection of the projectile.

So, as we know, a bullet fired in water will be immediately slowed so much so as to be rendered basically useless for travel in that water, after only feet.
So given that provable fact, we have to contend with being told how a 20 odd foot long missile full of solid fuel and a warhead can be propelled from a tube inside that sub by compressed air under it as well as compressed air all around it and above it to counteract the immense pressure on the skin covering that is supposedly keeping that compressed air from escaping and also keeping the water pressure from breaching the skin/membrane.

Not only that but we have to accept that this compressed air can also propel the 20 odd foot solid fuel and warhead laden missile up into the water and have enough force to clear the surface by a good few feet before the rocket apparently ignites and immediately thrusts into the air and manages to follow a set trajectory to a target thousands of miles away.

And people think I have no need to question this. I think I have every need to question what I definitely believe is a fantasy.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Crutchwater on December 31, 2018, 10:31:24 AM
A bullet has exhausted it's propellent before it leaves the barrel.

Rockets carry their own propellent.

BIG difference!
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 31, 2018, 10:32:59 AM
I suppose the idea of SpaceX landing their rockets to reuse again is impossible as well? 

Of course they're impossible. They don't exist. They're gimmicks.

Quote from: JCM

If landing those two rockets at the same time doesnít give you goosebumps...

It makes me cringe to think people fall for this nonsense.

Quote from: JCM


Watching a delta heavy launch and land its rockets is on my bucket list.
I'd like to give you some advice and tell you to cross it off and add something realistic but you'll live in hope of crossing it off yourself so good luck with that.
Hopefully you'll live to be 100 or more and have enough time to realise you were duped.
Quote from: JCM

  I hope sceptimatic if you were able you would watch this amazing feat as well.
If this stuff were real I'd be more than happy to watch it. I know in my mind they do not exist but each to their own.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on December 31, 2018, 10:36:28 AM
A bullet has exhausted it's propellent before it leaves the barrel.

Rockets carry their own propellent.

BIG difference!
We are talking about a missile being ejected out of the water by compressed air from inside a submarine missile tube.
Just like a bullet that compressed air would be spent as the missile exited the tube.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: JCM on December 31, 2018, 10:41:14 AM
I suppose the idea of SpaceX landing their rockets to reuse again is impossible as well? 

Of course they're impossible. They don't exist. They're gimmicks.

Quote from: JCM

If landing those two rockets at the same time doesnít give you goosebumps...

It makes me cringe to think people fall for this nonsense.

Quote from: JCM


Watching a delta heavy launch and land its rockets is on my bucket list.
I'd like to give you some advice and tell you to cross it off and add something realistic but you'll live in hope of crossing it off yourself so good luck with that.
Hopefully you'll live to be 100 or more and have enough time to realise you were duped.
Quote from: JCM

  I hope sceptimatic if you were able you would watch this amazing feat as well.
If this stuff were real I'd be more than happy to watch it. I know in my mind they do not exist but each to their own.

Here is an amateur rocketeer attempting to re land his rocket exactly like SpaceX ...



Literally thousands of people watched the SpaceX launch and landings...  here are some amateur videos of it...


What is fake?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on December 31, 2018, 11:53:56 AM
Please define "verifiable evidence".
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: JackBlack on December 31, 2018, 12:11:42 PM
If you don't keep a full thrust to keep a near vertical then your rocket will literally lose lift and go unstable and fall out of the sky.
Pure BS. If you wish to convince anyone of such garbage you will need to do vastly more than just baselessly assert it.
Again, they don't go purely vertical, and they have more than enough thrust to provide lift to balance their weight.

Stop just baselessly asserting garbage. If you want anyone to take you seriously you need to back up your claims.

This gimbal stuff is also ridiculous
And can you provide anything more than you dismissing it as ridiculous?

Again, you not liking something doesn't mean it is fake.

They're in the same band of duping.
The gullible public are being fed fantasy.
Sure, they are in the same band of "duping".
You don't like, them so you pretend they are ridiculous and reject them with absolutely no rational justification for your rejection.
You are the gullible one hear.

What I can do is watch rockets launch at "full thrust" and basically springboard into the air and hold that thrust until the fuel is spent. It then falls back to the ground, whether its a model rocket of a larger missile/rocket.
Then you haven't watched closely. Yes, they hold the thrust, but they continue to accelerate. After the fuel is spent, it continues going up, slowly accelerating, before reaching a vertical velocity of 0 and then falling back down.

Again, there are plenty of rocket videos you can watch (and even some opportunities to watch them live) where they don't do that.

Again, you not understanding scale doesn't mean reality is wrong.

The major issue with them all is their very rapid depletion of their fuel.
Again, just like with model planes and cars a major issue with them all is their very rapid depletion of their fuel.
That doesn't mean that bigger ones will have the same problem.

1. The springboard launch, meaning a rapid launch at full thrust.
2. The short time the full thrust lasts. Generally less than a minute with most, if not all.
Again, you not understanding reality doesn't mean reality is wrong.
If you wish to assert such BS you need to back it up.

1. A slow launch as if the rocket goes into slow motion as it leaves the launch pad. This alone should make people sit up and take notice of this nonsense.
That simply means their thrust to weight ratio is not massive. It doesn't make them fake.

2. The enormous underthrust of these so called rockets would literally blow them to smithereens
Why?
Stop just asserting BS.
Either back up your insanity or don't say it at all.

Those so called massive ICBM's in those silo's could not vent the stuff they would spew out.
Just what venting do you think it needs?

All I have is assumptions.
Then stop asserting your baseless, incorrect assumptions as facts.

The thing is (if you are honest about it) you are merely following
No, stop lying.
Not everyone is as ignorant as you.
Just because you don't like reality doesn't mean everyone is just following a narrative.


You've done nothing to dampen down my  mindset on this.
And no one ever will, because you don't give a damn about reality.
But that wont stop people calling you out on your BS.

Forget the sketchy first video. I deem them as nonsense because they look it.
Why not just be honest, you don't want any evidence.
You just want to pretend they are fake.

It's fine blowing a silly projectile from a tube in a tank but we need to look at what reality would be for a supposed ICBM from a sub deep underwater.
And before you would do that, you need to make sure you are doing it correctly.

First of all you need to go and look at a bullet fired from a high powered gun and see what happens to the bullet underwater.
Why?
An ICBM isn't a bullet.

See also how far bullets travel underwater before the crushing water friction grips/crushes them to a stop.
And then you need to know how that will change with scale.
Bullets are tiny. They have a very large surface area relative to their size, and they travel very quickly.
All that means that they will have a lot of friction slowing them down.

Ok so let's deal with supposed compressed air pushing a so called big ICBM, fully fuelled and warhead heavy out of a tube, vertically from deep to not only negate the crushing water but also keep going until it pushes clear of that water many feet above, to then ignite.
Okay, lets actually deal with it.
Show the math which is used to determine the pressure involved.
Until you do, any argument based upon the pressure is childish garbage.

need no refuelling for 25 years and what not.
It's amazing how little refuelling you need when you have a stable fuel that you aren't using.

I love reading about it all but I tend to treat it all as I see it.
Meanwhile, others will treat reality as reality, even if you don't want to.

What I'm saying is, your general mindset is to follow mass thought even though you understand that mass following of something does not make it a fact.
Or to put it more honestly:
To accept the mountains of evidence presented for something rather than rejecting it all due to paranoid delusions.
Some will even go a step further and actually understand the mechanics and thus realise it is 100% possible.

Meanwhile other people will be completely insane and reject it simply because they don't like it, without even thinking about it honestly and rationally.
They will then make completely insane claims, baselessly assert them as fact and pretend their delusions are justified.

A sceptic
You aren't a sceptic. You are happy to believe baseless garbage. So who cares?
Also, sceptics don't repeatedly demand proof. They ask for evidence.

The revered top scientist can become a nut job in short order for going against the grain.
If they do so without evidence.
If they do so with evidence they typically get a nobel prize.

No dig. I'm just saying you use a model rocket to cater for something you've never witnessed, as if the large rockets we are told about work from the basis of that model rocket.
Again, you not understanding how reality works doesn't mean everyone is as ignorant as you or that reality doesn't work.

I'm merely saying that a rocket burns its fuel in extreme short order by having to push vertical at full thrust to gain the required altitude.
And what we are saying is that is baseless garbage which no sane person would ever accept.
We have also shown just how flawed your pathetic analogy is.

It's not a fact that this applies to ICBM's and space rockets. I don't claim that as a fact.
Yes you do. You claim that real rockets burn their fuel in seconds and that if it doesn't, it is fake.
Stop lying.

Fuel to mass ratio is the real key.
No it is not. That is only one part.
The total mass is also important, as is the burn rate.
Again, if you understood the physics you would know that.
You can even do simple experiments to test it for yourself.
But you don't, because you don't care about the truth. All you care about is rejecting reality to pretend you are better than everyone else.

If one (little) expends it's fuel in short order with it's fuel to mass ration, then the larger one is equally going to expend it's fuel in short order
So big cars (i.e. ones people drive around in) will expend all their fuel in no more than 10 to 20 minutes. Large planes (i.e. jets people fly in) will expend their fuel in no more than 10 to 20 minutes, rendering them both at a limited range and nothing like the hours people often claim they are capable of,

Again, your argument is pure BS based upon wilful ignorance.
You need more than repeating the same baseless assertion.
Then explain it to me as if I'm that child.
That would require you to stop asserting so much baseless BS, or stop rejecting people saying that is wrong.
A key first step would be realising that the same amount (or same ratio) of fuel could burn at a different rate.
If you have 1 kg of fuel, that could be gone in 1 second, or 1 hour (as examples). Burning it at these different rates would have vastly different effects.

But you don't seem to care and instead repeatedly assert they burn through their fuel at the same time.

me being the sceptical and inquisitive and innovative person that I am.
You are neither sceptical nor inquisitive.
You have shown you do not give a damn about reality, being quite happy to reject things backed up by mountains of evidence while accepting baseless garbage backed up by nothing and/or refuted by plenty of evidence.
I just look at the simplicity of stuff and to me a gimballed rocket nozzle/engine would be silly.
Prove me wrong.
No. You thinking something is silly doesn't magically mean it can't be real. Even "silly" things can't be real.
Most people understand how gimbals work.
So if you want to challenge that you will need vastly more than "it's silly"

A heavy gimple above something would be a much better stability tool.
Prove it.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: JackBlack on December 31, 2018, 12:18:23 PM
Move your finger and your stick is a unstable unless you can immediately sway your finger opposite the fall.
i.e. have the rocket tilt to the desired level and then go back to pushing it?

Your analogy fails because you are comparing balancing a stick on your finger, to pushing a stick.
If you hung your rocket on a big cable at the top and let your gimbal do the work then you can steady it because your top is going nowhere.
You just wont have a rocket anymore, as the top will be going no where other than possibly blowing up, and you need a way to get the fuel up to it. It also means that in order to work, the rocket engine will blow straight down over the rocket body, which wont be all that great if you have explosives inside. So that is a very stupid idea.
Regardless, this is just yet another baseless assertion of yours. Do you have any proof?

If they don't launch from deep then they're not really fit for the purpose of what we are told. Right?
No. Not right. You are yet to substantiate that.

I'd say that was deep enough to create massive pressure, wouldn't you?
That depends on your idea of "MASSIVE!!!!" But you are yet to show why pressure would be an issue.

Unfortunately all we can do is accept something as a truth without any evidence. Or accept it as a truth because we physically have the facts that physically show it to be the truth.
False dichotomy.
There is a range of options, not just those two.
You can be in a position of complete ignorance, and just accept without any evidence.
Or you can have some evidence, but not enough to prove it. For example, evidence of the laws of physics and how rockets work which show them to be possible.

The major problem with anything that is deemed to be at loggerheads with a mainstream ideal, will, in short order be termed "a conspiracy theory"
No, it isn't because it is at odds with a mainstream ideal. It is because it is baselessly asserted with absolutely no justification.
Plenty of things have been presented which go against the mainstream ideal which were backed up with evidence, which meant it got accepted.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: JackBlack on December 31, 2018, 12:19:53 PM
Now, if you want, we can treat you like a child and you can try to learn.
But that requires you to stop making loads of baseless assertions and instead actually listen and/or discuss what is being said.
It also means one point at a time.

So if you want to try that, we can.
Lets start with the basics, the fundamental principle of how a rocket works:
Newton's third law.
Do you understand that?
That for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction?
i.e. if you push something away from you, it pushes back.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on December 31, 2018, 12:44:04 PM
Here is a link to the same sort of system you can purchase for model rocketry.

https://bps.space/signal/

Here is a quote from the website...

Quote
Model rockets have fins and launch quickly; real space launch vehicles don't. With thrust vectoring, your rockets can slowly ascend and build speed, instead of leaving your sight in seconds. Signal R2, a thrust vectoring kit, is here to bridge that gap, enabling model rockets that look, and work like the real thing.
Model rockets launch quickly. Like I said earlier. No issue there and you can verify that one yourself.

Real space launch vehicles don't?
Real space rocket won't, because they don't exist.

Let's try ballistic missiles from silo's and/or submarines.

Does a ballistic missile just saunter out of a silo?
Do you seriously think that would be a good idea?
Do you seriously think it's feasible for a rocket to just saunter out of a silo or a sub tube, vertically?

Like I said before. If the rocket launches like a bat out of hell, like a springboard then you have a real rocket/missile.
If it crawls out in a slow motion looking way, then you have special effects, or to put it plainly, you have no genuine working rocket.

Pretty simple and easy to understand once you actually see what's what.

Quote from: MicroBeta

The way you see it is completely wrong.  As you can clearly see your whole spring board is completely wrong.  Your claim that it’s not possible for the slow liftoff with gradual acceleration is proven wrong.
Gradual acceleration vertically is pointless nonsense.
The whole point of a rocket/missile is to be stable after launch.
To be stable after launch it must full thrust and springboard into the atmosphere in order for that atmosphere to grip and steady it under immense speed.

A slow launch would render any missile as a mass of burning fuel on the launch pad or close to it after it destabilizes.
No silly gimbal is going to arrest something like that.
 
Quote from: MicroBeta

Every single claim you’ve ever made about how you “logically” concluded rockets work is PROVEN completely wrong by model rocket enthusiasts competing for highest flight, least drift from liftoff, etc.
Model rocket enthusiasts have proven nothing. What are they proving?
They're proving that rockets work by full thrust launch at immediate constant velocity, vertically for a short time before they arc.


Quote from: MicroBeta

Here’s another thing for you.  You can’t dismiss this.  Unless you’re willing to build and launch the rocket all your claims aren’t worth shit.
I've launched rockets and they all do the same thing. Immediate springboard thrust and immediate near constant velocity before full arcing.

Quote from: MicroBeta

  Your so-called logical approach to how rockets work is completely and utterly destroyed by model rocketry.  This is actually a situation of Case Closed.

Mike
Case wide open. You can close the case from your part if you want. I'll call this you decking out due to having no proof against what I'm saying.
Wow.  That’s a whole lot of handwaving strawmen.  You completely ignored the link and the videos that prove you wrong.

Everything I’ve posted is not only fact, it is verifiable.  These rockets do everything you say rockets can’t do and they exactly replicate how ICBM's work.

The videos at the bottom of that page prove you wrong.  The acceleration graphs contradicts every single claim you’ve made about rockets.

You can’t just dismiss verifiable evidence.

Mike
You haven't provided verifiable evidence. You provided what you believe is verifiable evidence.
Here’s what I’ve got; a website that lays out all the technology, explanations of how it works, and videos showing the guidance system in action.  Additionally, there are plenty of videos on Youtube demonstrating the rockets; all of which perform exactly like ICBMs and NASA launch vehicles.

Here’s what you have: unverifiable conjecture and opinion that you present as fact and call everything nonsense.

You claim to be logical so which or the above makes the most sense.

The fact is what I've posted is easily verifiable but you will never accept anything posted in this or any other thread as evidence.  You know it, I know it, and everyone else knows it.  I could get the equipment, video the construction, and video the launch but you’ll just say you have no way to know the video wasn’t faked...IOW, you’ll be calling me a liar...again.

It’s up to you to verify what I presented because that’s the only evidence you will ever accept.  You need to get the rocket, the kit from BPS, and do the launch yourself.  If you’re unable to do so, for whatever reason, then have someone you trust to do it for you.  Until you do, your opinions have zero credibility...or as you would say it doesn’t “wash with me”. 

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on December 31, 2018, 02:34:48 PM
No point talking phsyics with scepit.
Hes redefined many common words so that nothing makes sense.

Density of water vs air is x1,000.
Simply and basically saying anything flying through air then hitting water would be like hitting a wall.
The drag would slow it down quit dramatically.
Simply go swimming pool.
Basically jump off a high diving board.
Land on you belly.
You have to see things from our prospective.
Youre a moron.

Slow launch means the force of GRAVITY or the push of the atmosphere is lets say 10 x mass.
Simply means you take the amount of material something is, and multiply it by 10.
If the thing pushes on a man made scale, it would take at least 10 times that to negate it.
So basically you can think it like At full thrust, meaning the max rate of burn of SOLID fuel (thanks for that correection) is simply much more than a slow burn which is just a bit more.
for a basic and simple example of numbers, say the rocket is 15kg mass.
The weight then is simply 150newtons.
So basically if you had to get this off the ground you could use 11newtons.
Would go very high or fast, just enough to get off the ground.
Think of it basically like riding a bicycle from standstill.
You simply start peddaling.
Dont fall right, dont fall left, go straight.
Basically you could pedal really hard and fast using a high rate of energy (what common gullible folk call power).
Simply put this is equivalent to full thrust.
Basicaly try again and do the opposite and do a slow start.
Pedal not so hard.
Simply shows by true experiment that you can indeed simply go without having to go full thrust.

Heres a fake video of a stunt plane simply balancimg thrust vs fall.

Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on December 31, 2018, 02:45:14 PM
No point talking phsyics with scepit.
Hes redefined many common words so that nothing makes sense.

Density of water vs air is x1,000.
Simply and basically saying anything flying through air then hitting water would be like hitting a wall.
The drag would slow it down quit dramatically.
Simply go swimming pool.
Basically jump off a high diving board.
Land on you belly.
You have to see things from our prospective.
Youre a moron.

Slow launch means the force of GRAVITY or the push of the atmosphere is lets say 10 x mass.
Simply means you take the amount of material something is, and multiply it by 10.
If the thing pushes on a man made scale, it would take at least 10 times that to negate it.
So basically you can think it like At full thrust, meaning the max rate of burn of SOLID fuel (thanks for that correection) is simply much more than a slow burn which is just a bit more.
for a basic and simple example of numbers, say the rocket is 15kg mass.
The weight then is simply 150newtons.
So basically if you had to get this off the ground you could use 11newtons.
Would go very high or fast, just enough to get off the ground.
Think of it basically like riding a bicycle from standstill.
You simply start peddaling.
Dont fall right, dont fall left, go straight.
Basically you could pedal really hard and fast using a high rate of energy (what common gullible folk call power).
Simply put this is equivalent to full thrust.
Basicaly try again and do the opposite and do a slow start.
Pedal not so hard.
Simply shows by true experiment that you can indeed simply go without having to go full thrust.

Heres a fake video of a stunt plane simply balancimg thrust vs fall.

What really irks septimatic is that the guidance system I showed him has a relatively slow launch as it continues to accelerate.  It's the exact opposite of his claims.  AAMOF, he says how model rockets with inertial guidance, thrust vector control systems operates is impossible.    I wish he would be open minded enough to verify it himself but I doubt he will.

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 01, 2019, 02:11:02 AM
Here is an amateur rocketeer attempting to re land his rocket exactly like SpaceX ...


Not very successful. Imagine trying to do that with a large rocket. Splat, crash, boom.

Quote from: JCM
Literally thousands of people watched the SpaceX launch and landings...  here are some amateur videos of it...


What is fake?
If you think they're real then you go right ahead. I can't help you on that and I don't really want to try.
I'd like to think that one day you'll see it all for what it is + nonsense but I don't know you and your mindset and how enthalled you are with all this fakery/duping of the public.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 01, 2019, 02:21:53 AM
Please define "verifiable evidence".
Something which I can't refute. Something that forces me to accept the potentials of it being more of a reality than anything else.

As an instance. If you show me a video of you eating 2 full sized cooked turkeys in 1 hour then I'm going to call bull on it.
If you show me the video and the stop watch is clearly showing it to be true then I would ask you to do it live as I was talking to you.
If After 1 hour you managed to do what you'd shown me in another video, I'd be convinced.

However, if you said you ate one average sized turkey in one hour with video evidence (not live) I'd be more inclined to accept it, even if you were duping me. Why?
Because I wouldn't feel the need to actually bother to question that, as I would be inclined to accept that it can be done.

This is basically how I work with anything.

If something seems too good to be true or simply borders on what I think is a dupe or fantasy...I call it out as that from my point of view.

If a horde of people tell me I'm wrong then all they have to do is prove I'm wrong by finding a way that actually shows it from their perspective of physical belief, not from their acceptance of something shown to them that cannot be verified by them.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 01, 2019, 03:14:19 AM
What I can do is watch rockets launch at "full thrust" and basically springboard into the air and hold that thrust until the fuel is spent. It then falls back to the ground, whether its a model rocket of a larger missile/rocket.
Then you haven't watched closely. Yes, they hold the thrust, but they continue to accelerate.
Vertically I do not believe they do continue to accelerate, hence the springboard launch. From that point it's basically constant velocity in one respect but arcing would leave open argument against that in terms of how we're told.

Quote from: JackBlack

 After the fuel is spent, it continues going up, slowly accelerating, before reaching a vertical velocity of 0 and then falling back down.
Nope. After the fuel is spent it is a dead stick before accelerating down until it hits terminal velocity or the ground before it reaches terminal velocity. In which case it would be accelerating all the way to the ground.


Quote from: JackBlack

The major issue with them all is their very rapid depletion of their fuel.
Again, just like with model planes and cars a major issue with them all is their very rapid depletion of their fuel.
That doesn't mean that bigger ones will have the same problem.
I'm not discussing model planes, I'm discussing vertical rocket launch and flight.


Quote from: JackBlack

1. A slow launch as if the rocket goes into slow motion as it leaves the launch pad. This alone should make people sit up and take notice of this nonsense.
That simply means their thrust to weight ratio is not massive. It doesn't make them fake.
It makes them fake. The thrust to mass ratio has to be sufficient to push that rocket up at the immediate constant velocity and sustain that until the thrust, wanes.

Quote from: JackBlack

First of all you need to go and look at a bullet fired from a high powered gun and see what happens to the bullet underwater.
Why?
An ICBM isn't a bullet.
A bullet is a projectile when it leaves it's tube (casing) after being compressed out of it and out of the barrel of the gun.

The so called ICBM (ballistic missile/Projectile) is apparently in its tube under pressure or compressed air and compressed out of the tube into the water.

So, yes, we are dealing with a similar scenario.


Quote from: JackBlack

See also how far bullets travel underwater before the crushing water friction grips/crushes them to a stop.
And then you need to know how that will change with scale.
Bullets are tiny. They have a very large surface area relative to their size, and they travel very quickly.
All that means that they will have a lot of friction slowing them down.
To eject a 20 odd foot fully laden ballistic missile out of a tube from a sub under 100 feet (example) of water would require that missile to be ejected at some force to negate the water friction and also clear the actual water surface.
Chances of that is zero in my opinion.
Chances of it even surviving intact is the same. Again, in my opinion.



Quote from: JackBlack

It's not a fact that this applies to ICBM's and space rockets. I don't claim that as a fact.
Yes you do. You claim that real rockets burn their fuel in seconds and that if it doesn't, it is fake.
Stop lying.
I'm not lying. I'm giving my opinion on what I believe. If I'm wrong then someone needs to show me I'm wrong.
Merely citing text or pictures or sketchy video is not proving anything other than stories can be told and movies can be made.


Quote from: JackBlack

If one (little) expends it's fuel in short order with it's fuel to mass ration, then the larger one is equally going to expend it's fuel in short order
So big cars (i.e. ones people drive around in) will expend all their fuel in no more than 10 to 20 minutes. Large planes (i.e. jets people fly in) will expend their fuel in no more than 10 to 20 minutes, rendering them both at a limited range and nothing like the hours people often claim they are capable of,

Again, your argument is pure BS based upon wilful ignorance.
You need more than repeating the same baseless assertion.
Using cars and planes is not what we are arguing about.
Stick with the rockets or ICBM's as we are told.

Quote from: JackBlack

Then explain it to me as if I'm that child.
That would require you to stop asserting so much baseless BS, or stop rejecting people saying that is wrong.
A key first step would be realising that the same amount (or same ratio) of fuel could burn at a different rate.
If you have 1 kg of fuel, that could be gone in 1 second, or 1 hour (as examples). Burning it at these different rates would have vastly different effects.
That depends on what effects you're wanting.
In a vertical rocket under its own thrust, it's pretty simple. Launch at full thrust and keep that full thrust until ability to fully thrust is spent.

Whether that's with water and air or liquid fuel and compressed air or gas or solid fuel and oxidiser.
The same scenario plays out. Springboard launch at full thrust and height attained before fuel depletion in short order. Generally under a minute.

Quote from: JackBlack

But you don't seem to care and instead repeatedly assert they burn through their fuel at the same time.

No I don't. I assert they burn their fuel in short order. In seconds rather than minutes.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 01, 2019, 03:22:05 AM
Move your finger and your stick is a unstable unless you can immediately sway your finger opposite the fall.
i.e. have the rocket tilt to the desired level and then go back to pushing it?
Your analogy fails because you are comparing balancing a stick on your finger, to pushing a stick.
A so called slow launching rocket from a launch pad would be like balancing a stick on your finger.
Having a gimbal underneath it to supposedly balance it by nozzle thrust would destabilise the rocket like me trying to push up an unbalanced stick . It going to flip very quickly.

Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 01, 2019, 03:27:37 AM
Now, if you want, we can treat you like a child and you can try to learn.
But that requires you to stop making loads of baseless assertions and instead actually listen and/or discuss what is being said.
It also means one point at a time.

So if you want to try that, we can.
Lets start with the basics, the fundamental principle of how a rocket works:
Newton's third law.
Do you understand that?
That for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction?
i.e. if you push something away from you, it pushes back.
By all means treat me like a child and explain stuff. Just make sure you keep it up while explaining to me as if I was a child.

Back to so called Newton's law.

For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. I agree with that regardless of who said it.

I don't agree if you push something away from you it pushes back. It depends on what you are pushing against.
The correct word is, if you push on something it resists your push with the same resistant force to your applied energy against it.


Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 01, 2019, 04:03:18 AM
Hereís what Iíve got; a website that lays out all the technology, explanations of how it works, and videos showing the guidance system in action.  Additionally, there are plenty of videos on Youtube demonstrating the rockets; all of which perform exactly like ICBMs and NASA launch vehicles.
The starship enterprise performs how you imagine.

Here's a youtube video on it.



Here's a diagram on it.(https://i.postimg.cc/2jcgkbLQ/b24c1bed9c1bfca25ae73a763a82c3bf.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
I can get you many more for it if you feel you want to know more about how it works.



Quote from: MicroBeta
Hereís what you have: unverifiable conjecture and opinion that you present as fact and call everything nonsense.
I don't present anything I say as fact unless I know or believe it to be fact. I present it as a musing, theory. hypothesis or an opinion as to how I see whatever I'm questioning.
I call things nonsense because from my mindset they are nonsense.
You don't have to take it personal. When I personally call you a nonsense then bother yourself over it.



Quote from: MicroBeta
You claim to be logical so which or the above makes the most sense.
I'd say we need to figure out which does, because we are both giving opinions on what's real and what's not. You believe you are backed up by video and diagrams and stuff.
The reality is you are referencing stuff that you have no proof of, in my opinion.
I can't prove anything to you so it's down to logical thoughts or what's perceived as logical, or illogical.

Quote from: MicroBeta
The fact is what I've posted is easily verifiable but you will never accept anything posted in this or any other thread as evidence.
You know it, I know it, and everyone else knows it.
If it's easily verifiable then verify it and shut me up.

Quote from: MicroBeta
I could get the equipment, video the construction, and video the launch but youíll just say you have no way to know the video wasnít faked...IOW, youíll be calling me a liar...again.
I have no issues with model rockets.

Quote from: MicroBeta
Itís up to you to verify what I presented because thatís the only evidence you will ever accept.
I can't verify it and if I could I wouldn't need to be debating it.
If you want me to shut up then make it extremely difficult for me to argue against what you're saying.

Quote from: MicroBeta
  You need to get the rocket, the kit from BPS, and do the launch yourself.  If youíre unable to do so, for whatever reason, then have someone you trust to do it for you.  Until you do, your opinions have zero credibility...or as you would say it doesnít ďwash with meĒ. 

Mike
Like I said. I don't have any issue with model rockets.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 01, 2019, 04:16:42 AM
No point talking phsyics with scepit.
Hes redefined many common words so that nothing makes sense.

Density of water vs air is x1,000.
Simply and basically saying anything flying through air then hitting water would be like hitting a wall.
The drag would slow it down quit dramatically.
Simply go swimming pool.
Basically jump off a high diving board.
Land on you belly.
You have to see things from our prospective.
Youre a moron.

Slow launch means the force of GRAVITY or the push of the atmosphere is lets say 10 x mass.
Simply means you take the amount of material something is, and multiply it by 10.
If the thing pushes on a man made scale, it would take at least 10 times that to negate it.
So basically you can think it like At full thrust, meaning the max rate of burn of SOLID fuel (thanks for that correection) is simply much more than a slow burn which is just a bit more.
for a basic and simple example of numbers, say the rocket is 15kg mass.
The weight then is simply 150newtons.
So basically if you had to get this off the ground you could use 11newtons.
Would go very high or fast, just enough to get off the ground.
Think of it basically like riding a bicycle from standstill.
You simply start peddaling.
Dont fall right, dont fall left, go straight.
Basically you could pedal really hard and fast using a high rate of energy (what common gullible folk call power).
Simply put this is equivalent to full thrust.
Basicaly try again and do the opposite and do a slow start.
Pedal not so hard.
Simply shows by true experiment that you can indeed simply go without having to go full thrust.

Heres a fake video of a stunt plane simply balancimg thrust vs fall.

No full thrust means you have a pointless rocket.

We are not talking about pedalling bicycles slowly or engine throttling on a plane.
We are talking about a solid fuel rocket launching at full thrust.


We are also talking about launching from underwater at 100 or more feet in depth of a big 20 odd foot long and fairly large diameter missile, (as we are told) from a tube inside a sub that apparently manages to pop out of the water under the strength of compressed air that also has to engulf the entire missile in order to keep that missile tube membrane from being breached by the massive water pressure.


It's counteractive.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 01, 2019, 04:19:06 AM
What really irks septimatic is that the guidance system I showed him has a relatively slow launch as it continues to accelerate.  It's the exact opposite of his claims.  AAMOF, he says how model rockets with inertial guidance, thrust vector control systems operates is impossible.    I wish he would be open minded enough to verify it himself but I doubt he will.

Mike
The guidance system is only one issue on a so called ICBM.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: rabinoz on January 01, 2019, 04:23:58 AM
Newton's third law.
Do you understand that?
That for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction?
i.e. if you push something away from you, it pushes back.
By all means treat me like a child and explain stuff. Just make sure you keep it up while explaining to me as if I was a child.

Back to so called Newton's law.

For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. I agree with that regardless of who said it.

I don't agree if you push something away from you it pushes back. It depends on what you are pushing against.
The correct word is, if you push on something it resists your push with the same resistant force to your applied energy against it.
And that something can be something that was "part" of the rocket - that is the burnt propellant ejected at very high velocity. Even a gas is something that has mass.

For example the SpaceX Falcon 9 first stage, depending on the model, burns about 335 tonnes of propellant in about 170 sec or close to an average of 2 tonnes/sec.
This burnt propellant is ejected at about 2700 m/s (6035 mph) at sea-level.
That generates about 510 tonnes of thrust at sea-level. Those figures are a bit high once out of most of the atmosphere.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: rabinoz on January 01, 2019, 04:37:57 AM
No full thrust means you have a pointless rocket.

We are not talking about pedalling bicycles slowly or engine throttling on a plane.
We are talking about a solid fuel rocket launching at full thrust.
SLBMs are ejected fro the tube by compressed air and the engine is not ignited until it leaves the water.

Quote from: sceptimatic
We are also talking about launching from underwater at 100 or more feet in depth of a big 20 odd foot long and fairly large diameter missile, (as we are told) from a tube inside a sub that apparently manages to pop out of the water under the strength of compressed air that also has to engulf the entire missile in order to keep that missile tube membrane from being breached by the massive water pressure.
Who says it's 100 feet or more?
Quote from: Timothy Mauch, former Submarine sonar Chief Petty Officer at United States Navy (1976-1991)
Back when I was active duty on an Ohio (25 years ago) all of those depth were classified. Itís still classified, and will probably remain classified until maybe 20 years after the last SSBN is retired. As in other answers, we donít even talk about it ourselves anywhere outside of a secure location (on the boat or in a classroom at TTF). The walls have ears. The worst part is that, even after 25 years, when the question is asked, the numbers pop right into my head. Not talking about things that are not open source (i.e. still classified) is the hardest thing I've ever had to do in my life. I think Iíll go back to sleep.

But even at 100 feet the pressure is only about 3 times atmospheric pressure (roughly 50 psi) so there is no "massive water pressure" and what is this "missile tube membrane"?
The standard pressure in a SCUBA tank is 3000 psi! So I fail to see any problems.

Quote from: sceptimatic
It's counteractive.
You simply do not want to understand so you won't whatever is carefully explained to you.

Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 01, 2019, 05:06:12 AM
Itís up to you to verify what I presented because thatís the only evidence you will ever accept.
I can't verify it and if I could I wouldn't need to be debating it.
If you want me to shut up then make it extremely difficult for me to argue against what you're saying.
We both know thereís nothing that I could post that would ďmake it extremely difficultĒ for you to argue against.  You simply will not accept or believe anything you donít see for yourself.  Donít pretend otherwise.

Why canít you get a rocket and thrust vector controller and then launch the thing to see that is starts slow and accelerates as it climbs; to see inertial guidance and thrust vector control in action?  The board even has an altimeter and Bluetooth so itíll be easy to download all the data after the launch.

So, why canít you verify it?

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 01, 2019, 05:32:52 AM
Newton's third law.
Do you understand that?
That for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction?
i.e. if you push something away from you, it pushes back.
By all means treat me like a child and explain stuff. Just make sure you keep it up while explaining to me as if I was a child.

Back to so called Newton's law.

For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. I agree with that regardless of who said it.

I don't agree if you push something away from you it pushes back. It depends on what you are pushing against.
The correct word is, if you push on something it resists your push with the same resistant force to your applied energy against it.
And that something can be something that was "part" of the rocket - that is the burnt propellant ejected at very high velocity. Even a gas is something that has mass.

For example the SpaceX Falcon 9 first stage, depending on the model, burns about 335 tonnes of propellant in about 170 sec or close to an average of 2 tonnes/sec.
This burnt propellant is ejected at about 2700 m/s (6035 mph) at sea-level.
That generates about 510 tonnes of thrust at sea-level. Those figures are a bit high once out of most of the atmosphere.
Sorry but I don't believe a word of it. I honestly do not believe any of those rockets exist. In the meantime let's sort of the ICBM's and what they're supposedly capable of which when scrutinised, appear to be another fiction.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 01, 2019, 05:49:25 AM
SLBMs are ejected fro the tube by compressed air and the engine is not ignited until it leaves the water.
Pay attention.

Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: sceptimatic
We are also talking about launching from underwater at 100 or more feet in depth of a big 20 odd foot long and fairly large diameter missile, (as we are told) from a tube inside a sub that apparently manages to pop out of the water under the strength of compressed air that also has to engulf the entire missile in order to keep that missile tube membrane from being breached by the massive water pressure.
Who says it's 100 feet or more?
Ballistic missile submarine - Wikipedia.
I can only go on what's fed to mainstream. I'll look for more info if you think it's worth it?
If you want to say they only launch from a few feet under water then we'll deal with that, but it seems to be another major issue with a compressed air launch, wouldn't you think?

Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: Timothy Mauch, former Submarine sonar Chief Petty Officer at United States Navy (1976-1991)
Back when I was active duty on an Ohio (25 years ago) all of those depth were classified. Itís still classified, and will probably remain classified until maybe 20 years after the last SSBN is retired. As in other answers, we donít even talk about it ourselves anywhere outside of a secure location (on the boat or in a classroom at TTF). The walls have ears. The worst part is that, even after 25 years, when the question is asked, the numbers pop right into my head. Not talking about things that are not open source (i.e. still classified) is the hardest thing I've ever had to do in my life. I think Iíll go back to sleep.
Ok so it's all classified and nobody knows until ...well...whenever.

This being the case renders anything you try to back up as, irrelevant inasmuch as what you think my thoughts are.


Quote from: rabinoz
But even at 100 feet the pressure is only about 3 times atmospheric pressure (roughly 50 psi) so there is no "massive water pressure" and what is this "missile tube membrane"?
The standard pressure in a SCUBA tank is 3000 psi! So I fail to see any problems.
Great, so all we need is a big strong cover and not a membrane.
How does that work?
Would it just pop off, opened by compressed air against massive water pressure?
Would it blow apart as the missile is ejected under compressed air pressure against the mass of water?
Have you ever tried to open a car door under 10 feet of water when there's air inside the car?
You see, sealing the tube to hold back the water from a missile, you could easily place a big heavy metal cover on it and lock it down.
That would be fine until you had to launch from depth.
You must open the steel hatch and there has to be a breakable membrane to allow the launch of a missile. Don't you agree this would be the case?

We have some problems here, don;t we?



Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: sceptimatic
It's counteractive.
You simply do not want to understand so you won't whatever is carefully explained to you.
I wouldn't put this much effort in if I didn't want to understand.

What you really mean is, I don't and won't just accept what you people say.
But I will if you provide proof, or your adherence to mainstream so called facts are an adherence based on unproven hypothetical schooling.

I'm similar but my schooling is coming from myself and trying to get to potential reality.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 01, 2019, 07:43:59 AM
Please define "verifiable evidence".
Something which I can't refute. Something that forces me to accept the potentials of it being more of a reality than anything else.

As an instance. If you show me a video of you eating 2 full sized cooked turkeys in 1 hour then I'm going to call bull on it.
If you show me the video and the stop watch is clearly showing it to be true then I would ask you to do it live as I was talking to you.
If After 1 hour you managed to do what you'd shown me in another video, I'd be convinced.

However, if you said you ate one average sized turkey in one hour with video evidence (not live) I'd be more inclined to accept it, even if you were duping me. Why?
Because I wouldn't feel the need to actually bother to question that, as I would be inclined to accept that it can be done.

This is basically how I work with anything.

If something seems too good to be true or simply borders on what I think is a dupe or fantasy...I call it out as that from my point of view.

If a horde of people tell me I'm wrong then all they have to do is prove I'm wrong by finding a way that actually shows it from their perspective of physical belief, not from their acceptance of something shown to them that cannot be verified by them.


Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 01, 2019, 11:06:48 AM

We both know thereís nothing that I could post that would ďmake it extremely difficultĒ for you to argue against.  You simply will not accept or believe anything you donít see for yourself.  Donít pretend otherwise.
I'll accept anything that doesn't set off my alarm bells.
However, acceptance is not necessarily a belief in something. It's simply placing something way down in the pecking order in terms of bothering to look into.

Quote from: MicroBeta
Why canít you get a rocket and thrust vector controller and then launch the thing to see that is starts slow and accelerates as it climbs; to see inertial guidance and thrust vector control in action?
I have no wish to buy a rocket.


Quote from: MicroBeta
  The board even has an altimeter and Bluetooth so itíll be easy to download all the data after the launch.

So, why canít you verify it?

Mike
Do you have one?
Title: Re: I DONT WANT TO UNDERSTAND ROCKETS!
Post by: JackBlack on January 01, 2019, 01:19:27 PM
Something which I can't refute.
Well you are yet to refute anything. So far all you have done is dismiss it.

As an instance. If you show me a video of you eating 2 full sized cooked turkeys in 1 hour then I'm going to call bull on it.
If you show me the video and the stop watch is clearly showing it to be true then I would ask you to do it live as I was talking to you.
If After 1 hour you managed to do what you'd shown me in another video, I'd be convinced.
i.e. all your requests for physical evidence have been extremely dishonest and you will just move the goalposts when it is provided to demand a live launch showing everything?

Vertically I do not believe they do continue to accelerate
Again, your belief has no bearing upon reality.
Provide the evidence that they don't continue to accelerate.


After the fuel is spent it is a dead stick before accelerating down
And even "dead sticks" will keep going up rather than stopping instantly.
Again, you not liking physics doesn't mean physics is wrong.

I'm not discussing model planes
I don't care. I am showing you the massive flaw in your reasoning.
According to you, a model rocket using up all its fuel quickly shows that real rockets will do as well and can't possibly last for the few minutes required.
That is the same form as claiming that a model plane or car or fuel quickly shows that real planes and cars do as well and can't possible last the the hours required.

It shows your argument to be garbage.
It shows you can't use a model rocket lasting a few minutes to refute a full scale rocket

It makes them fake. The thrust to mass ratio has to be sufficient to push that rocket up at the immediate constant velocity and sustain that until the thrust, wanes.
No it doesn't.
Again, you not understanding how they work just means you are ignorant. It doesn't make them fake.
They do not need to magically accelerate to a specific velocity and hold it.
No rocket works like that.

A bullet is a projectile when it leaves it's tube (casing) after being compressed out of it and out of the barrel of the gun.
And a bullet has massively different properties to an ICBM.
The most significant for this are the surface area to mass ratio and the fact that ICBMs launch with air around them at a much slower speed than a bullet.

To eject a 20 odd foot fully laden ballistic missile out of a tube from a sub under 100 feet (example) of water would require that missile to be ejected at some force to negate the water friction and also clear the actual water surface.
And what force?
You are yet to do any math to show this is a problem at all.
As such, I will continue to dismiss your appeals to your own ignorance as ignorance.

I'm not lying.
No, you are lying.
You are claiming things as fact.
You are not attaching "in my opinion" or "I believe" to every statement you make and instead are rejecting reality with nothing to back you up.


That depends on what effects you're wanting.
Yes, it depends upon what you want.
If you want to go high, you want a high thrust which will keep you moving up quickly, but not so fast that air resistance will become a limiting factor.
If they wanted full thrust until it runs out, they would be launched with a bomb, which would likely destroy them.

It is actually better to not go "full thrust" and no rocket does that.

No I don't.
Yes you do.
You pretend that the fuel needs to be consumed at the same rate and thus it all goes in a few seconds.
You don't understand how scale works or the fact that fuel can be spent at different rates.
This leads to foolishly thinking that planes and cars can't be real because their fuel only lasts 10s of minutes, not the hours required to make them practical.

A so called slow launching rocket from a launch pad would be like balancing a stick on your finger.
No it wouldn't.
Again, for the stick, you are supporting its weight, not moving it.

I don't agree if you push something away from you it pushes back. It depends on what you are pushing against.
Why should it depend upon what you are pushing against?

The correct word is, if you push on something it resists your push with the same resistant force to your applied energy against it.
And other than intentionally confusing wording and mixing up force and energy, that is the same.
If you push an object, it pushes you back by "resisting" that push.

Regardless you end up with the same result.
The rocket pushes away its spent fuel and in the process it is pushed by that fuel.
If it pushes the fuel away quickly, it will be pushed more.
If you push away the fuel at a higher rate, there will be more getting pushed and thus the rocket is pushed more.

Ballistic missile submarine - Wikipedia.
Where?
The closest I can find is this:
"modern vessels typically launch while submerged at keel depths of usually less than 50 metres"
However that is less than, not greater than.
It is also the keel depth, not the depth at the top of the launch tube.
Based upon the length of the missile alone that puts the top at less than 36 m for the Trident II and less than 34 for the R-39. And that is without anything around it.
So I would say that based upon tht 100 m is getting to the high end of the range they launch from and they likely launch from a much shallower depth.

We have some problems here, don;t we?
No. You have problems with understanding.
You haven't shown any actual issues.
They would have a metal cover for cruising, and an additional membrane which would be ruptured as the missile launched.
They can either have it rupture with the air being compressed from the missile, or they can have it rupture from the missile itself by having a small vent to let the air out.

I'll accept anything that doesn't set off my alarm bells.
So you aren't sceptical at all and instead will happily accept any garbage which fits with your delusional model.

I have no wish to buy a rocket.
Then stop with the dishonest demands for physical proof.
If you want physical proof all it takes is for you to go and buy a model kit (or a few) and build some and carefully observe them (with instruments or even a camera, preferably high speed). But an altimeter and/or accelerometer would be better. You can also experiment with putting in different amounts of fuel or trying to set it up with different burn speeds, but the latter would be difficult without different geometries.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 01, 2019, 01:26:24 PM

We both know there’s nothing that I could post that would “make it extremely difficult” for you to argue against.  You simply will not accept or believe anything you don’t see for yourself.  Don’t pretend otherwise.
I'll accept anything that doesn't set off my alarm bells.
However, acceptance is not necessarily a belief in something. It's simply placing something way down in the pecking order in terms of bothering to look into.

Quote from: MicroBeta
Why can’t you get a rocket and thrust vector controller and then launch the thing to see that is starts slow and accelerates as it climbs; to see inertial guidance and thrust vector control in action?
I have no wish to buy a rocket.


Quote from: MicroBeta
  The board even has an altimeter and Bluetooth so it’ll be easy to download all the data after the launch.

So, why can’t you verify it?

Mike
Do you have one?
Currently, I do not.  It's been a few years but with some of the new technology I'm thinking about getting back into model rocketry.  After the electronics, the rockets are cheaper when scratch built.

However, I still don't understand why won't test this yourself.  Potentially the very first run could prove you correct about rockets.  That opens the door for credibility in your other theories.  On the other hand, it might prove that Newtonian physics is correct.  Either way the result will be definitive.

Sooner or later you are going to have to do real world testing of your claims...or have someone do it for you.  Either way, IMHO, in the end you need a couple of real world tests for proof of concept.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 01, 2019, 02:05:06 PM
Same reason he hasnt gone and bought/ made a vacuum chamber.
Theres a guy on youtube who does only vacuum experiments.
Would quickly show him "verifiable proof" his denP is bonkers.
Leave him be, He prefers "thought" experiements.
Side note, he never denied eating sht.

Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 01, 2019, 02:51:21 PM

We both know thereís nothing that I could post that would ďmake it extremely difficultĒ for you to argue against.  You simply will not accept or believe anything you donít see for yourself.  Donít pretend otherwise.
I'll accept anything that doesn't set off my alarm bells.
However, acceptance is not necessarily a belief in something. It's simply placing something way down in the pecking order in terms of bothering to look into.

Quote from: MicroBeta
Why canít you get a rocket and thrust vector controller and then launch the thing to see that is starts slow and accelerates as it climbs; to see inertial guidance and thrust vector control in action?
I have no wish to buy a rocket.


Quote from: MicroBeta
  The board even has an altimeter and Bluetooth so itíll be easy to download all the data after the launch.

So, why canít you verify it?

Mike
Do you have one?
Currently, I do not.  It's been a few years but with some of the new technology I'm thinking about getting back into model rocketry.  After the electronics, the rockets are cheaper when scratch built.

However, I still don't understand why won't test this yourself.  Potentially the very first run could prove you correct about rockets.  That opens the door for credibility in your other theories.  On the other hand, it might prove that Newtonian physics is correct.  Either way the result will be definitive.

Sooner or later you are going to have to do real world testing of your claims...or have someone do it for you.  Either way, IMHO, in the end you need a couple of real world tests for proof of concept.
Of course I need real world tests as physical proof.
The issue is in attaining them.
A model rocket won't show me real world tests, except for showing how a rocket attains constant velocity in extreme short order. No acceleration vertically.
A springboard effect where zero to constant velocity is achieved very quickly. That's as close as you get to acceleration.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 01, 2019, 02:54:05 PM

Theres a guy on youtube who does only vacuum experiments.
Would quickly show him "verifiable proof" his denP is bonkers.

But he hasn't shown it to be anything. Neither have you because you're still trying to understand it at the basic level and you fail that.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Gumwars on January 01, 2019, 04:03:42 PM
Yep. I have no authority to state as a fact that they don't exist. I simply believe they don't from my side. This is why I change my stance to ensure I'm not putting anything out as fact which I cannot back up as fact, because I don't have any proof other than speculation/scepticism/my own logic and distrust of a lot of what is dished out to us based on many many years of us being taken for a ride.

If that's the case, prefacing your statements with "This is my opinion" would greatly enhance your position.  Even saying that it is your belief is unoffensive.  Dense (in my opinion), but unoffensive.  You do realize that nothing you've stated can be proven, right?

They could well be fictional.
TV actors or simply story book characters.

Again, this is your opinion and very far from reality.  Depending on where you hang your hat, you could easily find a community college and take an astronomy class or even a group of enthusiasts that engage in hobby rocketry to start down a path of really verifying what you suspect, or learning something new.

Duped would be the likely word. It only takes a select few to be in on any conspiring, in my opinion.

Examples sir.  Otherwise this is reckless conjecture.

If it's possible it's plausible.

Categorically incorrect.  Logically, nearly anything is possible and if we speaking philosophically, even those impossible things are possible.  However, we aren't speaking philosophically, are we?  You've made the claim (and have not clearly expressed it as an opinion) that ICBMs as a object in the real world, are fictional.  So, we are specifically discussing what is both possible (meaning it can happen) and plausible (meaning that it is both possible and likely happening).  Therefore, what is plausible is inclusive of what is possible, but just because something is possible does not automatically make it plausible.

Can grade school kids build rockets and launch them?

Stop being pedantic. 

Why would any conspiracy need to involve a thousand people actively knowing and taking part?
How many people are complicit in writing the bible? How many people follow the bible and its meanings?
You don't need to answer this part I'm just giving you extreme examples of potential dupes.

Apples and oranges.  You're comparing a multi-thousand year old religion to technology researched and developed over the past century.  This is a bad example, and let me tell you why:

If a historic record existed that either refuted or verified every act in the bible, the world would be a very different place, a.k.a., very hard to be a conspiracy.  What you're contending is the idea that ICBM technology not being real is like denouncing that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.  Multiple nations, independently, developed systems like this.  The bible was forced on countless people over thousands of years while rocketry and atomic/nuclear development have been independent ventures often conducted by nations nearly at or in open war with each other. 

You mean you're allowed into a silo that holds a so called ICBM?

You're allowed into the ones that have been retired.  In fact, if you're interested, you can even buy one as a very durable shelter. https://www.missilebases.com/ (https://www.missilebases.com/)

As for being invited to Boeing's headquarters. What would we be shown?
What explanations would we get that we can't get from a text book or a picture book?
We would be placed in front of a man of woman who would be trained to reel off what they were taught to reel off and will have no physical clue in terms of being able to verify what they reel off.

I'm going to answer your question with a question.  Do you believe people with 4, 6, or 10 year plus degrees are duped?  Because that's what you're saying here.  I tell you to go get the information from the company that builds some of the damn things and your response is that "I still won't believe them." 

You learned this from reading books, right?
Nothing wrong with that but it does not give you facts. It gives you a story to follow that may be more fiction than fact.

I answered this further down.  No, I didn't learn all of that from books.  A lot of it was hands on.

Again you are basing this on story book reading passed off as factual, of which you absolutely cannot verify as that.

I'm not passing it off at all.  I'm repeating known, corroborated, and verifiable events that happened.  You can visit San Luis Obispo or Santa Barbara and watch the damn things go flying into the black sky yourself.  Are you saying that verifiable history isn't to be trusted?  Are you implying that we must all, and universally, abandon education, all history, all science, and then what?

Which gives rise to the questioning of them. I happen to believe they're gimmicks but very clever one's for the public to fear or comfort over, depending on how people view this intercontinental missile nonsense. Again, in my opinion.

As this is your opinion, your position here is, well, your position.  My knowledge of geopolitics and logic lead me to a different conclusion.  I don't believe China, Russia, or the US would be so keen as to lob a dummy nuclear weapon at one another to see if they could actually do it.  As rocketry is a product of purely mathematical endeavors (which I admittedly are not an expert of), a missile's flight path is a product of the amount of energy put into it along with its trajectory.  Enough propellant with the missile pointed in the right direction yields a parabolic arc with known flight times and location where it will fall back to Earth. 

Not sure what this means.

It means that with a known amount of energy, they were able to deliver the payload to a desired target.  Since they now know how much energy is needed to hit a target at 4700 miles, then it becomes a matter of projecting what the maximum distance would be given how much propellant the missile can hold.  Therefore, they didn't need to test to the maximum distance once that variable was settled.

They launch ICBM's from an air-force base?

Yes.

http://www.spacearchive.info/vafbsked.htm (http://www.spacearchive.info/vafbsked.htm)

Can you verify what rocket/missile was launched?

Yes.

http://www.spacearchive.info/vafbsked.htm (http://www.spacearchive.info/vafbsked.htm)


You dismantle a primary stage?
What exactly does that entail. Is it an engine and if so, ask yourself why any missile requires an engine.
We get shown engines like the Apollo nonsense and to be fair, they are gimmicks to me.

It's a huge cylinder of solid rocket fuel.  Dismantling is basically sliding it out of its section.


You witnessed this happen, right?

Yup.  I was the airman that primed the single block of C4 and taped it to the section.  It was the biggest shot I've ever worked on. 
 
We all know what these missiles are supposed to perform. How many of us have witnessed them perform what we are told?

That's the issue.

Thankfully, we've never had to see them in action.  You do realize what these things are for, don't you?  I NEVER want to see these things flying.

What did you do to actually work on this stuff?
Briefly.

As stated in my previous response to you, I was an EOD technician.  I served for 10 years with the USAF.  Our training required us to know how to disarm or neutralize conventional and improvised nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.  We trained for roughly 45 days on the US nuclear arsenal.  The entire school took roughly a year.  My work entailed being able to identify weapon systems and then render them safe for disposal.
 
Like a big so called Apollo rocket effigy, right?
Just sat in silo's?

Yup.
 
It can grow just like it is. On facts.
The rest of it is stories and that entails books growing on fact or FICTION.

Nothing you've stated here is born in fact.  Nearly everything you've discussed, on this thread, is born from ignorance.  I don't mean that as an insult.  It is a conclusion I've arrived based on observation after our many discussions on this forum. 

Exactly, you can't.
It's down to a belief mechanism in each person. An acceptance just because it fits a narrative.

The often misquoted Occam's Razor very much applies here.  The simplest solution (or more specifically, the solution with the fewest assumptions) is likely the correct one.  Should a solution demand more assumptions, then you are compelled to provide support for those assumptions.  My world does not require endless assertions and assumptions about how and why it is a globe.  Nor do I recklessly cast out ideas like nuclear fission, rocketry, or space flight.  The reason behind that is driven by both my understanding of those systems and rejecting the patchwork of half fact, pseudo-science nonsense furthered by places like TFES.
 
That depends on the places visited.
If they're top secret then visiting them is left to someone narrating. A guide. A trained guide that follows protocol.

Because they're all shills in on the conspiracy, right?  Dude, I'm not talking about any top secret places.  You can set up a tour at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, visit the beach near Vandenberg, join an astronomy club, get into RC aircraft, or any other countless hobby that puts you steps closer towards the industries that are closer to this supposed conspiracy. 

The problem with your perspective, and the perspective of every "true believer" on this forum is that you are all, collectively, afraid of going out into the world and really seeing anything that challenges your worldview. 

For all your bluster, name calling, division, and ignorance, the lot of you are cowards.  Not one of you will ever leave the mental comfort of the intellectual prison you've built here. 
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: JackBlack on January 01, 2019, 04:14:42 PM
Of course I need real world tests as physical proof.
Then go by the rocket and do the test.

A model rocket won't show me real world tests, except for showing how a rocket attains constant velocity in extreme short order. No acceleration vertically.
And this just shows you haven't bothered doing the test.
Even model rockets accelerate upwards.

There is no magic springboard effect.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: rabinoz on January 01, 2019, 04:28:29 PM
I have no wish to buy a rocket.
Because you know you'll be proven wrong and the whole house of cards you've dreamt up as your World View will start to tumble around your ears.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 01, 2019, 07:07:49 PM

Of course I need real world tests as physical proof.
The issue is in attaining them.
A model rocket won't show me real world tests, except for showing how a rocket attains constant velocity in extreme short order. No acceleration vertically.
A springboard effect where zero to constant velocity is achieved very quickly. That's as close as you get to acceleration.
[/quote]

Still never denied eating sht...

What is this spring board effect you keep referring to?

Also, You fail to understand that going from zero velocity to "constant" velocity requires ACCELERATION.
The world is analog.
Not digital.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 01, 2019, 07:14:16 PM
Of course I need real world tests as physical proof.
The issue is in attaining them.
A model rocket won't show me real world tests, except for showing how a rocket attains constant velocity in extreme short order. No acceleration vertically.
A springboard effect where zero to constant velocity is achieved very quickly. That's as close as you get to acceleration.
Bullshit.  This is one of you biggest cop outs yet. 

And, your claim that a model rocket will only show what your version of how rockets fly.  Youíve already decided that you donít need to test a model rocket with the equipment I proposed because, as you claim, the rocket will show ďhow a rocket attains constant velocity in extreme short orderĒ.

This is you presenting your opinion as FACT plain and simple and you saying otherwise is a flat out lie.  IMHO, you won't test because you know it will match all the videos that show the model taking off slow and accelerating throughout it's flight.   

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: JackBlack on January 01, 2019, 07:15:33 PM
What is this spring board effect you keep referring to?
He believes that all of a rockets acceleration happens right at launch, I assume similar to a diver's springboard.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 01, 2019, 07:24:32 PM
He shouldve stuck with the gun analogy.
It wouldve made more sense...

And he wont try the that model rocket experiment or the vacuum chamber or any other experiement that risks him gettig his fedora dirty or requires him to go outside.
Keep eyes closed and fingers in ears and never have to accept reality.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: rabinoz on January 01, 2019, 09:34:39 PM
He shouldve stuck with the gun analogy.
It wouldve made more sense...

And he wont try the that model rocket experiment or the vacuum chamber or any other experiement that risks him gettig his fedora dirty or requires him to go outside.
Keep eyes closed and fingers in ears and never have to accept reality.
Maybe he can understand this kiddies version:
Quote from: Science ABC
Why Do Rockets Follow A Curved Trajectory While Going Into Space? (https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/universe/why-do-rockets-follow-a-curved-trajectory-while-going-into-space.html)
(https://www.scienceabc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Rocket-from-ground.webp)
Do you notice the rather intriguing thing about the path that the rocket follows? Instead of moving in a straight line, the rocket following a curved trajectory. This isnít a mistakeÖ you will see the exact same thing in every other picture and video of a rocket launch.Do you notice the rather intriguing thing about the path that the rocket follows? Instead of moving in a straight line, the rocket following a curved trajectory. This isnít a mistakeÖ you will see the exact same thing in every other picture and video of a rocket launch.
Even so, it doesnít seem to make sense. Rockets are supposed to go into space, right? So wouldnít it make more sense if they went straight up in a line, rather than following a parabolic path? Theyíd reach space much faster that way, it would seem. There must be a reason, because rocket scientists tend to be pretty smart, so, why do they not go straight up?

Short answer: Because they want to get into the orbit around the Earth using as little fuel as possible.

Science of a Rocket Launch: How do Rockets Work?

<< The rest is worth reading. >>
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 02, 2019, 06:25:13 AM
Yep. I have no authority to state as a fact that they don't exist. I simply believe they don't from my side. This is why I change my stance to ensure I'm not putting anything out as fact which I cannot back up as fact, because I don't have any proof other than speculation/scepticism/my own logic and distrust of a lot of what is dished out to us based on many many years of us being taken for a ride.

If that's the case, prefacing your statements with "This is my opinion" would greatly enhance your position.  Even saying that it is your belief is unoffensive.  Dense (in my opinion), but unoffensive.  You do realize that nothing you've stated can be proven, right?
I think I've made it6 more than clear about it all being my opinion. I'm on a forum giving my opinions on what I deem as worthy of debate as to the reality of certain things in life, historically or presently that I believe may be based on a massive swerve from the overall truth truth.

You are counterarguing based on your belief that it is all, or virtually all of it, is a truth and are using what you believe is your knowledge to urge me to reconsider my stance. That's a debate and fair enough  but remember we are both on a forum and none of us know what each other is or does.

We can all reference anything and basically everything regarding any topic pushed forward if we wanted to argue from that mainstream ideal.
It also easy for any person to try to place themselves on a pedestal as some kind of physical proponent to a certain issue being argued against as if that alone kills a debate dead in the water.


Quote from: Gumwars
They could well be fictional.
TV actors or simply story book characters.
Again, this is your opinion and very far from reality.  Depending on where you hang your hat, you could easily find a community college and take an astronomy class or even a group of enthusiasts that engage in hobby rocketry to start down a path of really verifying what you suspect, or learning something new.
Of course. But what am I actually learning if I can't physically be a part of that apparent schooling of truth?
Here's an example:
A kid leaving school can go to university and study ancient history and get a degree.
What is the degree based on?
Physical evidence of the ancient past or is it based on text book schooling and pictures to memorise and relay back to the tutor via an exam sheet?

What about a degree in parapsychology?
How about a degree in Doctorate of Philosophy in Ufology?
How about a uni course on Philosophy?
There's courses on star trek.

The list is endless but all college/university standard degrees at the end.

It's easy to say " ahhh yeah but I mean proper stuff like nuclear and ICBM technology and stars, planets, moons and cosmos dust and black holes and stuff."
What are you actually studying that you can literally and physically verify any more than the silly stuff?

See what I mean?
I'm not talking about real courses that do give hands on experience and knowledge that can be literally verified to work.


Quote from: Gumwars
Duped would be the likely word. It only takes a select few to be in on any conspiring, in my opinion.
Examples sir.  Otherwise this is reckless conjecture.
Governments do it all the time but religious cults or religion in itself as an example.
Or if we are to believe recent history then the gulf of Tonkin incident.
There's likely so many examples out there but it's all about what people accept as being a potential for the truth.
We are all reliant on nothing other than trying to dissect pieces from any storyline fed to us, with nothing more in our own armoury than hypotheticals based on non- physical interaction of that story.

Quote from: Gumwars
If it's possible it's plausible.

Categorically incorrect.  Logically, nearly anything is possible and if we speaking philosophically, even those impossible things are possible.
The word "impossible" has to literally mean just that. Can not be done, no matter what.
In that context it does not make something possible.
Possible and plausible are doable, no matter what odds anyone puts on them. Just as probable is a supposed better odds system than possible.
A plausible salesman could be possibly duping you with selling you faulty goods. It's not impossible for that to be the case.
We could argue this till the end of our days and get nowhere with it.

Quote from: Gumwars
  However, we aren't speaking philosophically, are we?  You've made the claim (and have not clearly expressed it as an opinion) that ICBMs as a object in the real world, are fictional.
I personally believe they are fiction until I am shown to be wrong in my reasoning. If I can't be shown to be wrong then my own reasoning is still valid enough to me as to carry on that thought.
I don't believe in a god but I welcome proof to show me one exists. I generally and weakly class myself as agnostic to generally save argument on this topic but regardless there's a mass opinion of proof but no proof, except for theoretical proof from those that are schooled into the text book knowledge to memorise as that truth.



Quote from: Gumwars
  So, we are specifically discussing what is both possible (meaning it can happen) and plausible (meaning that it is both possible and likely happening).
All the same type of thing when boiled down to the nitty gritty.

Quote from: Gumwars
  Therefore, what is plausible is inclusive of what is possible, but just because something is possible does not automatically make it plausible.
It actually does.
It's possible that you could glide a playing card through an open letter box from 10 feet. In fact you can be very plausible in stating you can do it. It's not impossible.


Quote from: Gumwars
Why would any conspiracy need to involve a thousand people actively knowing and taking part?
How many people are complicit in writing the bible? How many people follow the bible and its meanings?
You don't need to answer this part I'm just giving you extreme examples of potential dupes.

Apples and oranges.  You're comparing a multi-thousand year old religion to technology researched and developed over the past century.
No. I'm comparing a religion with what could also be a sort of potential science dupe that would be like a religion.

Quote from: Gumwars
This is a bad example, and let me tell you why:

If a historic record existed that either refuted or verified every act in the bible, the world would be a very different place, a.k.a., very hard to be a conspiracy.
Verified and refuted are the  keys to everything in life that are true and false as a cert.
Dealing with both as regards the topics we are debating, is none of those things.


Quote from: Gumwars
Multiple nations, independently, developed systems like this.
Did they or were we simply told this was the case? How do you know?

Quote from: Gumwars
  The bible was forced on countless people over thousands of years while rocketry and atomic/nuclear development have been independent ventures often conducted by nations nearly at or in open war with each other.
Again, how do you know this?
All you can go on is what's fed to you by word of mouth and basic schooling in that matter.
You have every right to accept that as your fact but it doesn't necessarily make it so.

 
Quote from: Gumwars
You mean you're allowed into a silo that holds a so called ICBM?
You're allowed into the ones that have been retired.  In fact, if you're interested, you can even buy one as a very durable shelter. https://www.missilebases.com/ (https://www.missilebases.com/)
A retired so called ICBM soli does not show anything as a truth. You should accept this to be the case.


Quote from: Gumwars
As for being invited to Boeing's headquarters. What would we be shown?
What explanations would we get that we can't get from a text book or a picture book?
We would be placed in front of a man of woman who would be trained to reel off what they were taught to reel off and will have no physical clue in terms of being able to verify what they reel off.

I'm going to answer your question with a question.  Do you believe people with 4, 6, or 10 year plus degrees are duped?
It all depends on what their degrees are part of, as I said earlier.

 
Quote from: Gumwars
Again you are basing this on story book reading passed off as factual, of which you absolutely cannot verify as that.

I'm not passing it off at all.  I'm repeating known, corroborated, and verifiable events that happened.
You can visit San Luis Obispo or Santa Barbara and watch the damn things go flying into the black sky yourself.
I don't dispute ballistic missiles. A launch of a missile is not proof of what I'm arguing against.

Quote from: Gumwars
Are you saying that verifiable history isn't to be trusted?
Nope.
If it's verifiable then it can be trusted.
the issue is in us knowing it to be exactly that. And we simply don't.

Quote from: Gumwars
  Are you implying that we must all, and universally, abandon education, all history, all science, and then what?
Not at all. Most sciences and what not actually have an end product. I'm simply arguing the one's I don't believe have an end product in the physical manner.


 
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 02, 2019, 06:25:48 AM
Quote from: Gumwars
Which gives rise to the questioning of them. I happen to believe they're gimmicks but very clever one's for the public to fear or comfort over, depending on how people view this intercontinental missile nonsense. Again, in my opinion.

As this is your opinion, your position here is, well, your position.
Of course, just like everyone's position is their own.


Quote from: Gumwars
  My knowledge of geopolitics and logic lead me to a different conclusion.
That's fine in what you say. It proves nothing to me other than words on a screen from you saying you have your proof as to something. What that is, I don't know.

Quote from: Gumwars
  I don't believe China, Russia, or the US would be so keen as to lob a dummy nuclear weapon at one another to see if they could actually do it.
Neither do I.
What they could do is scare their own people into thinking they have. On the flip side to that it's all about the pretence of the M.A.D and the deterrent it apparently creates.
It's a clever control of the people and their wallets/purses.


Quote from: Gumwars
  As rocketry is a product of purely mathematical endeavors (which I admittedly are not an expert of), a missile's flight path is a product of the amount of energy put into it along with its trajectory.  Enough propellant with the missile pointed in the right direction yields a parabolic arc with known flight times and location where it will fall back to Earth.
It means that with a known amount of energy, they were able to deliver the payload to a desired target.  Since they now know how much energy is needed to hit a target at 4700 miles, then it becomes a matter of projecting what the maximum distance would be given how much propellant the missile can hold.  Therefore, they didn't need to test to the maximum distance once that variable was settled.
Rockets work. Rockets can arc to a specific area based on calculations. fair comment. I have no qualms with that.
ICBM's going so high into an arc to land thousands of miles into another country is my issue.
Fuel to mass ration scupper this nonsense, In my opinion.

Quote from: Gumwars
 
We all know what these missiles are supposed to perform. How many of us have witnessed them perform what we are told?

That's the issue.

Thankfully, we've never had to see them in action.  You do realize what these things are for, don't you?  I NEVER want to see these things flying.

Of course we've never had to see them in action. A world of supposed terrorism and nobody has went rogue. Not one in all these years.
Yeah I know. "hard to get"...."well guarded"....Makes a difference with " nukes lost" that we get sold and told.
It's a clever dupe but I can't prove it to be so. I have to look at my own circumstantial evidence no matter how flimsy people think it is.
I happen to think the excuses for them being real are corny.


Quote from: Gumwars
Like a big so called Apollo rocket effigy, right?
Just sat in silo's?

Yup.
Well, what can I say. It just gives rise to more disbelief.

 
Quote from: Gumwars
It can grow just like it is. On facts.
The rest of it is stories and that entails books growing on fact or FICTION.

Nothing you've stated here is born in fact.  Nearly everything you've discussed, on this thread, is born from ignorance.  I don't mean that as an insult.  It is a conclusion I've arrived based on observation after our many discussions on this forum.
It depends who are the real ignorant people.
It's not so simple as to say ignorant and tie it to someone that speculates against someone (people in general) who read stories as cast them off as true when they may be fictional.
Which one is ignorant.



Quote from: Gumwars
Exactly, you can't.
It's down to a belief mechanism in each person. An acceptance just because it fits a narrative.

The often misquoted Occam's Razor very much applies here.  The simplest solution (or more specifically, the solution with the fewest assumptions) is likely the correct one.  Should a solution demand more assumptions, then you are compelled to provide support for those assumptions.  My world does not require endless assertions and assumptions about how and why it is a globe.  Nor do I recklessly cast out ideas like nuclear fission, rocketry, or space flight.  The reason behind that is driven by both my understanding of those systems and rejecting the patchwork of half fact, pseudo-science nonsense furthered by places like TFES.
Understanding this stuff is based on studying what's being fed.
I can tell you all about nuclear power just form reading how it's portrayed. I could read more and become a theoretical expert of that reading.
What am I an expert of?
Memorising text and pictures. A story.


 
Quote from: Gumwars
That depends on the places visited.
If they're top secret then visiting them is left to someone narrating. A guide. A trained guide that follows protocol.

Because they're all shills in on the conspiracy, right?
Not at all. As above. It's a schooling that can create a guide to convey that schooling to the masses as that person's expertise on the theoretical understanding of something they likely can not or likely ever will physically see in action.

Quote from: Gumwars
  Dude, I'm not talking about any top secret places.  You can set up a tour at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, visit the beach near Vandenberg, join an astronomy club, get into RC aircraft, or any other countless hobby that puts you steps closer towards the industries that are closer to this supposed conspiracy.
What will I be seeing in action?

 
Quote from: Gumwars
The problem with your perspective, and the perspective of every "true believer" on this forum is that you are all, collectively, afraid of going out into the world and really seeing anything that challenges your worldview.
Absolutely not afraid of seeing anything.
It all about what I believe I'll be shown.
If I want to visit a so called massive rocket just laying on its side or whatever then I'll do that.
It shows me a rocket laying on its side. It means nothing to me. And so on.
 
Quote from: Gumwars
For all your bluster, name calling, division, and ignorance, the lot of you are cowards.
Easy to say but hard to prove from where you're sitting.

Quote from: Gumwars
  Not one of you will ever leave the mental comfort of the intellectual prison you've built here.
Again, you can believe that if you want. You could be sat in your very own relaying your world view. However, I don't waste too much time on those thoughts as they're not productive.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 02, 2019, 06:32:52 AM

And this just shows you haven't bothered doing the test.
Even model rockets accelerate upwards.

There is no magic springboard effect.
If the rocket had a throttle and enough thrust to launch and also add extra thrust due to a throttle then I'd agree it could accelerate.
The reality in my opinion is, a rocket uses full thrust to gain immediate constant vertical velocity and it will be held as long as the thrust remains constant. It will not accelerate in that state.

If the rocket was launched horizontally on wheels, at full thrust, then it would accelerate for a short while.
But we are talking about vertical rockets, missiles or ICBM's as we are told they are.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 02, 2019, 06:44:50 AM
He shouldve stuck with the gun analogy.
It wouldve made more sense...

And he wont try the that model rocket experiment or the vacuum chamber or any other experiement that risks him gettig his fedora dirty or requires him to go outside.
Keep eyes closed and fingers in ears and never have to accept reality.
Merely saying it is not proving anything to me.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 02, 2019, 06:48:32 AM


Also, You fail to understand that going from zero velocity to "constant" velocity requires ACCELERATION.
The world is analog.
Not digital.
You fail to read what I say.
I mention that once the rocket launches it hits constant velocity in short order, vertically.
In short order is not instant, so yes there would be a brief period from standing start to launch where acceleration has to occur.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 02, 2019, 06:49:35 AM
He shouldve stuck with the gun analogy.
It wouldve made more sense...

And he wont try the that model rocket experiment or the vacuum chamber or any other experiement that risks him gettig his fedora dirty or requires him to go outside.
Keep eyes closed and fingers in ears and never have to accept reality.
Stop mixing yourself up, it knocks you back.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 02, 2019, 06:54:47 AM
He shouldve stuck with the gun analogy.
It wouldve made more sense...

And he wont try the that model rocket experiment or the vacuum chamber or any other experiement that risks him gettig his fedora dirty or requires him to go outside.
Keep eyes closed and fingers in ears and never have to accept reality.
Maybe he can understand this kiddies version:
Quote from: Science ABC
Why Do Rockets Follow A Curved Trajectory While Going Into Space? (https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/universe/why-do-rockets-follow-a-curved-trajectory-while-going-into-space.html)
(https://www.scienceabc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Rocket-from-ground.webp)
Do you notice the rather intriguing thing about the path that the rocket follows? Instead of moving in a straight line, the rocket following a curved trajectory. This isnít a mistakeÖ you will see the exact same thing in every other picture and video of a rocket launch.Do you notice the rather intriguing thing about the path that the rocket follows? Instead of moving in a straight line, the rocket following a curved trajectory. This isnít a mistakeÖ you will see the exact same thing in every other picture and video of a rocket launch.
Even so, it doesnít seem to make sense. Rockets are supposed to go into space, right? So wouldnít it make more sense if they went straight up in a line, rather than following a parabolic path? Theyíd reach space much faster that way, it would seem. There must be a reason, because rocket scientists tend to be pretty smart, so, why do they not go straight up?

Short answer: Because they want to get into the orbit around the Earth using as little fuel as possible.

Science of a Rocket Launch: How do Rockets Work?

<< The rest is worth reading. >>
That actually makes no sense in terms of so called space rockets. It would certainly make sense for a missile to take that curved path, otherwise the missile would be pointless unless its design was to obliterate the very place it launched from.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Crutchwater on January 02, 2019, 07:03:18 AM
So, vehicles like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle, when launched, reached their maximum velocity immediately upon ignition?
Is that what you're saying?

Because literally hundreds of thousands of real people witnessed these launches live and in person over the years. They will all disagree.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 02, 2019, 07:10:03 AM
So, vehicles like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle, when launched, reached their maximum velocity immediately upon ignition?
Is that what you're saying?

Because literally hundreds of thousands of real people witnessed these launches live and in person over the years. They will all disagree.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying real rockets/missiles reach their maximum vertical velocity immediately after lift off.

Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 02, 2019, 07:32:10 AM
So, vehicles like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle, when launched, reached their maximum velocity immediately upon ignition?
Is that what you're saying?

Because literally hundreds of thousands of real people witnessed these launches live and in person over the years. They will all disagree.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying real rockets/missiles reach their maximum vertical velocity immediately after lift off.
Immediately? 
What is immediately?
How soon after liftoff does immediately come into play?

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 02, 2019, 08:02:24 AM
So, vehicles like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle, when launched, reached their maximum velocity immediately upon ignition?
Is that what you're saying?

Because literally hundreds of thousands of real people witnessed these launches live and in person over the years. They will all disagree.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying real rockets/missiles reach their maximum vertical velocity immediately after lift off.
Immediately? 
What is immediately?
How soon after liftoff does immediately come into play?

Mike
As soon as the rocket leaves the launchpad.

Look at it another way.
Picture holding a catapult and the stone being the rocket.
You pull back on that elastic and hold it and the stone.

This would be your rocket ready to leave the launch pad. All it needs is to release that stone.
The very instant that stone is released from the elastic it is at maximum velocity (assuming vertical).
 This would be the same with the immediate full thrust of the rocket.


Now then, if the stone could hold that maximum velocity by having constant elastic springboard then it would hold a constant velocity but we know the stone gets one maximum springboard launch and after that it is friction gripped and loses momentum from that point which slows it down to an eventual stop and then it accelerates downwards until it reaches terminal velocity or hits the ground before that.

With a rocket, it holds the thrust at maximum which keeps the rocket at constant velocity until it loses that maximum thrust.
If it loses it slowly, it loses maximum velocity on its way up, until it stops dead and then falls like the stone.

However, if that rocket is at maximum thrust and maximum velocity and then the thrust is cut dead, immediately, the rocket becomes a dead stick and moves no further upwards.
It then becomes like the stone as it falls.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on January 02, 2019, 08:43:18 AM
So, vehicles like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle, when launched, reached their maximum velocity immediately upon ignition?
Is that what you're saying?

Because literally hundreds of thousands of real people witnessed these launches live and in person over the years. They will all disagree.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying real rockets/missiles reach their maximum vertical velocity immediately after lift off.
Immediately? 
What is immediately?
How soon after liftoff does immediately come into play?

Mike
As soon as the rocket leaves the launchpad.

Look at it another way.
Picture holding a catapult and the stone being the rocket.
You pull back on that elastic and hold it and the stone.

This would be your rocket ready to leave the launch pad. All it needs is to release that stone.
The very instant that stone is released from the elastic it is at maximum velocity (assuming vertical).
 This would be the same with the immediate full thrust of the rocket.


Now then, if the stone could hold that maximum velocity by having constant elastic springboard then it would hold a constant velocity but we know the stone gets one maximum springboard launch and after that it is friction gripped and loses momentum from that point which slows it down to an eventual stop and then it accelerates downwards until it reaches terminal velocity or hits the ground before that.

With a rocket, it holds the thrust at maximum which keeps the rocket at constant velocity until it loses that maximum thrust.
If it loses it slowly, it loses maximum velocity on its way up, until it stops dead and then falls like the stone.

However, if that rocket is at maximum thrust and maximum velocity and then the thrust is cut dead, immediately, the rocket becomes a dead stick and moves no further upwards.
It then becomes like the stone as it falls.

Wrong.

When I stop pedaling on a bicycle, I have ceased to provide thrust thus the thrust is cut dead, immediately, the bicycle becomes a dead stick and moves no further in the direction it was heading.

But that isn't what happens.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 02, 2019, 09:06:18 AM


Also, You fail to understand that going from zero velocity to "constant" velocity requires ACCELERATION.
The world is analog.
Not digital.
You fail to read what I say.
I mention that once the rocket launches it hits constant velocity in short order, vertically.
In short order is not instant, so yes there would be a brief period from standing start to launch where acceleration has to occur.

You did say "immediate"...
But semantics.
We can move on
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Crutchwater on January 02, 2019, 09:19:52 AM
So, vehicles like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle, when launched, reached their maximum velocity immediately upon ignition?
Is that what you're saying?

Because literally hundreds of thousands of real people witnessed these launches live and in person over the years. They will all disagree.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying real rockets/missiles reach their maximum vertical velocity immediately after lift off.

So, what you're really saying is, all the thousands of rockets, witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people, eyewitnesses, are not REAL rockets?

Is that what you're saying?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 02, 2019, 09:51:42 AM
So, vehicles like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle, when launched, reached their maximum velocity immediately upon ignition?
Is that what you're saying?

Because literally hundreds of thousands of real people witnessed these launches live and in person over the years. They will all disagree.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying real rockets/missiles reach their maximum vertical velocity immediately after lift off.
Immediately? 
What is immediately?
How soon after liftoff does immediately come into play?

Mike
As soon as the rocket leaves the launchpad.

Look at it another way.
Picture holding a catapult and the stone being the rocket.
You pull back on that elastic and hold it and the stone.

This would be your rocket ready to leave the launch pad. All it needs is to release that stone.
The very instant that stone is released from the elastic it is at maximum velocity (assuming vertical).
 This would be the same with the immediate full thrust of the rocket.


Now then, if the stone could hold that maximum velocity by having constant elastic springboard then it would hold a constant velocity but we know the stone gets one maximum springboard launch and after that it is friction gripped and loses momentum from that point which slows it down to an eventual stop and then it accelerates downwards until it reaches terminal velocity or hits the ground before that.

With a rocket, it holds the thrust at maximum which keeps the rocket at constant velocity until it loses that maximum thrust.
If it loses it slowly, it loses maximum velocity on its way up, until it stops dead and then falls like the stone.

However, if that rocket is at maximum thrust and maximum velocity and then the thrust is cut dead, immediately, the rocket becomes a dead stick and moves no further upwards.
It then becomes like the stone as it falls.

Aaaaah, no.
Simply Try googling basic physics formulas on accell and velocity (unless those are conspiracy as well).
Again - accell vs velocity.
Different.

Basically gun-Bullet analogy would be more relevant to a rocket and "immediate" max speed.
Elastics have a very visible acell distance (the stretched length).

Simply There is velocity (m/s) before the dome pushes or decellerates (m/s/s) the rocket back down to the foundation.
A basic analogy
Lets say you have bank account with 0dollars (velocity, stand still).
Every month your work pays you 100dollars/m (thrust acceleration at launch).
After 5months they fire you (fuel spent).
Youve aquired 500dollars of income (full velocity)
Your bills are 10$/m (decelleration via gravity or denpressure).
Simply Your first 5month rate of net income is 90$/m (pay - bills = total net or basically thrust - denP = total accel).
After a few more months you will have depleted your account (velocity) and start aquiring debt (falling).
Basically and simply put - your last statment is incorrect and youre not broke when you lose your job, youre broke when bils overcomes paystubs.

Newton invented this thing called calculus.
Try it out.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 02, 2019, 09:54:02 AM
So, vehicles like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle, when launched, reached their maximum velocity immediately upon ignition?
Is that what you're saying?

Because literally hundreds of thousands of real people witnessed these launches live and in person over the years. They will all disagree.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying real rockets/missiles reach their maximum vertical velocity immediately after lift off.
Immediately? 
What is immediately?
How soon after liftoff does immediately come into play?

Mike
As soon as the rocket leaves the launchpad.

Look at it another way.
Picture holding a catapult and the stone being the rocket.
You pull back on that elastic and hold it and the stone.

This would be your rocket ready to leave the launch pad. All it needs is to release that stone.
The very instant that stone is released from the elastic it is at maximum velocity (assuming vertical).
 This would be the same with the immediate full thrust of the rocket.


Now then, if the stone could hold that maximum velocity by having constant elastic springboard then it would hold a constant velocity but we know the stone gets one maximum springboard launch and after that it is friction gripped and loses momentum from that point which slows it down to an eventual stop and then it accelerates downwards until it reaches terminal velocity or hits the ground before that.

With a rocket, it holds the thrust at maximum which keeps the rocket at constant velocity until it loses that maximum thrust.
If it loses it slowly, it loses maximum velocity on its way up, until it stops dead and then falls like the stone.

However, if that rocket is at maximum thrust and maximum velocity and then the thrust is cut dead, immediately, the rocket becomes a dead stick and moves no further upwards.
It then becomes like the stone as it falls.


Wrong.

When I stop pedaling on a bicycle, I have ceased to provide thrust thus the thrust is cut dead, immediately, the bicycle becomes a dead stick and moves no further in the direction it was heading.

But that isn't what happens.
Is your bicycle being pedalled vertically? No it isn't.

Go and try pedalling it up a wall.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 02, 2019, 09:56:08 AM
So, vehicles like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle, when launched, reached their maximum velocity immediately upon ignition?
Is that what you're saying?

Because literally hundreds of thousands of real people witnessed these launches live and in person over the years. They will all disagree.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying real rockets/missiles reach their maximum vertical velocity immediately after lift off.

So, what you're really saying is, all the thousands of rockets, witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people, eyewitnesses, are not REAL rockets?

Is that what you're saying?
Nope.
I'm saying that all the ICBM's and big so called space rockets, are gimmicks. They don't do what we are told. In my opinion.

Missiles are most likely launched regularly.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 02, 2019, 10:12:15 AM
So, vehicles like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle, when launched, reached their maximum velocity immediately upon ignition?
Is that what you're saying?

Because literally hundreds of thousands of real people witnessed these launches live and in person over the years. They will all disagree.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying real rockets/missiles reach their maximum vertical velocity immediately after lift off.
Immediately? 
What is immediately?
How soon after liftoff does immediately come into play?

Mike
As soon as the rocket leaves the launchpad.

Look at it another way.
Picture holding a catapult and the stone being the rocket.
You pull back on that elastic and hold it and the stone.

This would be your rocket ready to leave the launch pad. All it needs is to release that stone.
The very instant that stone is released from the elastic it is at maximum velocity (assuming vertical).
 This would be the same with the immediate full thrust of the rocket.


Now then, if the stone could hold that maximum velocity by having constant elastic springboard then it would hold a constant velocity but we know the stone gets one maximum springboard launch and after that it is friction gripped and loses momentum from that point which slows it down to an eventual stop and then it accelerates downwards until it reaches terminal velocity or hits the ground before that.

With a rocket, it holds the thrust at maximum which keeps the rocket at constant velocity until it loses that maximum thrust.
If it loses it slowly, it loses maximum velocity on its way up, until it stops dead and then falls like the stone.

However, if that rocket is at maximum thrust and maximum velocity and then the thrust is cut dead, immediately, the rocket becomes a dead stick and moves no further upwards.
It then becomes like the stone as it falls.

Aaaaah, no.
Simply Try googling basic physics formulas on accell and velocity (unless those are conspiracy as well).
Again - accell vs velocity.
Different.

Basically gun-Bullet analogy would be more relevant to a rocket and "immediate" max speed.
Elastics have a very visible acell distance (the stretched length).

Simply There is velocity (m/s) before the dome pushes or decellerates (m/s/s) the rocket back down to the foundation.
A basic analogy
Lets say you have bank account with 0dollars (velocity, stand still).
Every month your work pays you 100dollars/m (thrust acceleration at launch).
After 5months they fire you (fuel spent).
Youve aquired 500dollars of income (full velocity)
Your bills are 10$/m (decelleration via gravity or denpressure).
Simply Your first 5month rate of net income is 90$/m (pay - bills = total net or basically thrust - denP = total accel).
After a few more months you will have depleted your account (velocity) and start aquiring debt (falling).
Basically and simply put - your last statment is incorrect and youre not broke when you lose your job, youre broke when bils overcomes paystubs.

Newton invented this thing called calculus.
Try it out.
Try another analogy.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Crutchwater on January 02, 2019, 10:17:06 AM
So, vehicles like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle, when launched, reached their maximum velocity immediately upon ignition?
Is that what you're saying?

Because literally hundreds of thousands of real people witnessed these launches live and in person over the years. They will all disagree.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying real rockets/missiles reach their maximum vertical velocity immediately after lift off.

So, what you're really saying is, all the thousands of rockets, witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people, eyewitnesses, are not REAL rockets?

Is that what you're saying?
Nope.
I'm saying that all the ICBM's and big so called space rockets, are gimmicks. They don't do what we are told. In my opinion.

Missiles are most likely launched regularly.

And what are we being told they are doing? You can watch a launch in person, whether or not they go into space is irrelevant to your springboard theory. They are still rockets, and they certainly do NOT achieve maximum velocity immediately on ignition.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 02, 2019, 10:23:14 AM
So, vehicles like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle, when launched, reached their maximum velocity immediately upon ignition?
Is that what you're saying?

Because literally hundreds of thousands of real people witnessed these launches live and in person over the years. They will all disagree.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying real rockets/missiles reach their maximum vertical velocity immediately after lift off.

So, what you're really saying is, all the thousands of rockets, witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people, eyewitnesses, are not REAL rockets?

Is that what you're saying?
Nope.
I'm saying that all the ICBM's and big so called space rockets, are gimmicks. They don't do what we are told. In my opinion.

Missiles are most likely launched regularly.

And what are we being told they are doing? You can watch a launch in person, whether or not they go into space is irrelevant to your springboard theory. They are still rockets, and they certainly do NOT achieve maximum velocity immediately on ignition.
Tell me what you've been watching live and show me a video of what you've been watching.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 02, 2019, 10:25:34 AM
So, vehicles like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle, when launched, reached their maximum velocity immediately upon ignition?
Is that what you're saying?

Because literally hundreds of thousands of real people witnessed these launches live and in person over the years. They will all disagree.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying real rockets/missiles reach their maximum vertical velocity immediately after lift off.
Immediately? 
What is immediately?
How soon after liftoff does immediately come into play?

Mike
As soon as the rocket leaves the launchpad.

Look at it another way.
Picture holding a catapult and the stone being the rocket.
You pull back on that elastic and hold it and the stone.

This would be your rocket ready to leave the launch pad. All it needs is to release that stone.
The very instant that stone is released from the elastic it is at maximum velocity (assuming vertical).
 This would be the same with the immediate full thrust of the rocket.


Now then, if the stone could hold that maximum velocity by having constant elastic springboard then it would hold a constant velocity but we know the stone gets one maximum springboard launch and after that it is friction gripped and loses momentum from that point which slows it down to an eventual stop and then it accelerates downwards until it reaches terminal velocity or hits the ground before that.

With a rocket, it holds the thrust at maximum which keeps the rocket at constant velocity until it loses that maximum thrust.
If it loses it slowly, it loses maximum velocity on its way up, until it stops dead and then falls like the stone.

However, if that rocket is at maximum thrust and maximum velocity and then the thrust is cut dead, immediately, the rocket becomes a dead stick and moves no further upwards.
It then becomes like the stone as it falls.
How soon after leaving the launch pad does acceleration stop. Define immediately in relation too time.

What happens if there's no launch pad?  e.g. A horizontal launch.

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Crutchwater on January 02, 2019, 10:34:58 AM
So, vehicles like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle, when launched, reached their maximum velocity immediately upon ignition?
Is that what you're saying?

Because literally hundreds of thousands of real people witnessed these launches live and in person over the years. They will all disagree.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying real rockets/missiles reach their maximum vertical velocity immediately after lift off.

So, what you're really saying is, all the thousands of rockets, witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people, eyewitnesses, are not REAL rockets?

Is that what you're saying?
Nope.
I'm saying that all the ICBM's and big so called space rockets, are gimmicks. They don't do what we are told. In my opinion.

Missiles are most likely launched regularly.

And what are we being told they are doing? You can watch a launch in person, whether or not they go into space is irrelevant to your springboard theory. They are still rockets, and they certainly do NOT achieve maximum velocity immediately on ignition.
Tell me what you've been watching live and show me a video of what you've been watching.

Tell me what you've been smoking, and show me a live video of what you've been smoking.

There is mountains of amateur video of launches such as Space Shuttle.

Are you saying you are the only person who knows what really happens at ignition?

How many rockets have you personally witnessed, including your basic Estes models? My guess is zero, yet here you are advancing these wild theories.

I have built and launched dozens, Including multi-stage models. Does that count?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 02, 2019, 11:00:51 AM
So, vehicles like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle, when launched, reached their maximum velocity immediately upon ignition?
Is that what you're saying?

Because literally hundreds of thousands of real people witnessed these launches live and in person over the years. They will all disagree.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying real rockets/missiles reach their maximum vertical velocity immediately after lift off.
Immediately? 
What is immediately?
How soon after liftoff does immediately come into play?

Mike
As soon as the rocket leaves the launchpad.

Look at it another way.
Picture holding a catapult and the stone being the rocket.
You pull back on that elastic and hold it and the stone.

This would be your rocket ready to leave the launch pad. All it needs is to release that stone.
The very instant that stone is released from the elastic it is at maximum velocity (assuming vertical).
 This would be the same with the immediate full thrust of the rocket.


Now then, if the stone could hold that maximum velocity by having constant elastic springboard then it would hold a constant velocity but we know the stone gets one maximum springboard launch and after that it is friction gripped and loses momentum from that point which slows it down to an eventual stop and then it accelerates downwards until it reaches terminal velocity or hits the ground before that.

With a rocket, it holds the thrust at maximum which keeps the rocket at constant velocity until it loses that maximum thrust.
If it loses it slowly, it loses maximum velocity on its way up, until it stops dead and then falls like the stone.

However, if that rocket is at maximum thrust and maximum velocity and then the thrust is cut dead, immediately, the rocket becomes a dead stick and moves no further upwards.
It then becomes like the stone as it falls.

Aaaaah, no.
Simply Try googling basic physics formulas on accell and velocity (unless those are conspiracy as well).
Again - accell vs velocity.
Different.

Basically gun-Bullet analogy would be more relevant to a rocket and "immediate" max speed.
Elastics have a very visible acell distance (the stretched length).

Simply There is velocity (m/s) before the dome pushes or decellerates (m/s/s) the rocket back down to the foundation.
A basic analogy
Lets say you have bank account with 0dollars (velocity, stand still).
Every month your work pays you 100dollars/m (thrust acceleration at launch).
After 5months they fire you (fuel spent).
Youve aquired 500dollars of income (full velocity)
Your bills are 10$/m (decelleration via gravity or denpressure).
Simply Your first 5month rate of net income is 90$/m (pay - bills = total net or basically thrust - denP = total accel).
After a few more months you will have depleted your account (velocity) and start aquiring debt (falling).
Basically and simply put - your last statment is incorrect and youre not broke when you lose your job, youre broke when bils overcomes paystubs.

Newton invented this thing called calculus.
Try it out.
Try another analogy.

Fly by dismissal of everyone?

Either way.
Was mine dismissed due its involment of numbers?
Maybe sceotis not a numbers guy.
The anaolgy was solid.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on January 02, 2019, 11:10:00 AM
So, vehicles like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle, when launched, reached their maximum velocity immediately upon ignition?
Is that what you're saying?

Because literally hundreds of thousands of real people witnessed these launches live and in person over the years. They will all disagree.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying real rockets/missiles reach their maximum vertical velocity immediately after lift off.
Immediately? 
What is immediately?
How soon after liftoff does immediately come into play?

Mike
As soon as the rocket leaves the launchpad.

Look at it another way.
Picture holding a catapult and the stone being the rocket.
You pull back on that elastic and hold it and the stone.

This would be your rocket ready to leave the launch pad. All it needs is to release that stone.
The very instant that stone is released from the elastic it is at maximum velocity (assuming vertical).
 This would be the same with the immediate full thrust of the rocket.


Now then, if the stone could hold that maximum velocity by having constant elastic springboard then it would hold a constant velocity but we know the stone gets one maximum springboard launch and after that it is friction gripped and loses momentum from that point which slows it down to an eventual stop and then it accelerates downwards until it reaches terminal velocity or hits the ground before that.

With a rocket, it holds the thrust at maximum which keeps the rocket at constant velocity until it loses that maximum thrust.
If it loses it slowly, it loses maximum velocity on its way up, until it stops dead and then falls like the stone.

However, if that rocket is at maximum thrust and maximum velocity and then the thrust is cut dead, immediately, the rocket becomes a dead stick and moves no further upwards.
It then becomes like the stone as it falls.


Wrong.

When I stop pedaling on a bicycle, I have ceased to provide thrust thus the thrust is cut dead, immediately, the bicycle becomes a dead stick and moves no further in the direction it was heading.

But that isn't what happens.
Is your bicycle being pedalled vertically? No it isn't.

Go and try pedalling it up a wall.

I can if I have forward momental from being on say a half pipe.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Stash on January 02, 2019, 12:56:25 PM
So, vehicles like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle, when launched, reached their maximum velocity immediately upon ignition?
Is that what you're saying?

Because literally hundreds of thousands of real people witnessed these launches live and in person over the years. They will all disagree.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying real rockets/missiles reach their maximum vertical velocity immediately after lift off.

So, what you're really saying is, all the thousands of rockets, witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people, eyewitnesses, are not REAL rockets?

Is that what you're saying?
Nope.
I'm saying that all the ICBM's and big so called space rockets, are gimmicks. They don't do what we are told. In my opinion.

Missiles are most likely launched regularly.

And what are we being told they are doing? You can watch a launch in person, whether or not they go into space is irrelevant to your springboard theory. They are still rockets, and they certainly do NOT achieve maximum velocity immediately on ignition.
Tell me what you've been watching live and show me a video of what you've been watching.

Unfortunately, I saw this one live:

Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: JackBlack on January 02, 2019, 01:06:24 PM
I think I've made it6 more than clear about it all being my opinion.
No you haven't.
You repeatedly assert it as fact then when called out try and hide being it being your opinion.
You even claim that things are backed up by logic.

You are on a debate site. You opinion means basically nothing.
If you can't provide something rational you should stay quite.


You are counterarguing based on your belief that it is all
No, we are arguing based upon knowledge and understanding.
Several of us having personally performed experiments to test and obtain/confirm that knowledge.
Meanwhile you don't even want to go and test yourself.

What is the degree based on?
Proper science degrees will have you performing experiments, not just reading from textbooks.
Proper engineering degrees will be similar, but vary depending upon what type of engineering you are doing, and take a lot of the science as is in some places or be quite similar to science in others.

No, they wont cover everything, because there isn't enough time do to everything.
If you wanted to discard all of science and start from scratch, even with all the technology we have (which you would have to verify anyway) you wouldn't be able to finish before you die.


I personally believe they are fiction until I am shown to be wrong in my reasoning.
And this is why you aren't presenting it as an opinion. If it is just an opinion it isn't based upon reasoning. It would be based upon belief and feelings.
If it was based upon reasoning it would be a claim of a fact.

It actually does.
Again, completely wrong.
Possible and plausible are vastly different. Possible requires any non-0 probability. Plausible requires that the event is actually likely, which as a starting point would be a possibility >0.5.

Fuel to mass ration scupper this nonsense, In my opinion.
If all you have is your opinion, then shut up.
You have previously claimed that they couldn't go more than a few hundred miles. Yet you have absolutely nothing to based that off.
So again, can you provide any form of reasoning to back it up.
Otherwise what you are doing is no better than simply saying you don't think they are real.

A world of supposed terrorism and nobody has went rogue. Not one in all these years.
That is because the terrorists don't have their hands on them.
Instead people who want to live do.

It depends who are the real ignorant people.
I would say those rejecting reality because they think it is silly, with nothing more than their own baseless opinions, who are completely unwilling to do tests themselves to find out the truth and instead just repeatedly demand physical evidence that they aren't willing to obtain themselves and which those they ask have no way to actually provide.


What will I be seeing in action?
Well if you go into model rocketry you can see that your claims about them are pure nonsense.


Absolutely not afraid of seeing anything.
Then why refuse to do the experiments?
Is it because you know it will refute you and thus don't want to do it, or do you think you already know the answer from your baseless beliefs and thus have no "need"?

If the rocket had a throttle and enough thrust to launch and also add extra thrust due to a throttle then I'd agree it could accelerate.
There is no need for a "throttle". If it has more force than is required to counter its weight and air resistance it can continue to accelerate.

The reality in my opinion is
Stop spouting garbage like this.
This is just another pathetic attempt to be able to assert baseless garbage without any evidence.
Either it is reality, or it just your opinion. Pick one.
Is it in reality a rocket does this, or is it in your ignorant opinion it does this?
If the former, provide evidence or some form of justification. If the latter, shut up as I don't give a damn if you don't thinks rockets work like they do in reality.
Simple experiments will prove you wrong, but you are unwilling to do the experiments.

a rocket uses full thrust
Again, "full thrust" would simply be an explosion, where all the fuel is expended instantly.
Instead they use much lower than that for a longer period of time to continue accelerating.

That actually makes no sense in terms of so called space rockets.
Only if you just want your rocket to just go up and then back down.
If you want it to follow an elliptical path to hit a target (such as an ICBM) then you don't want to go straight up. That is a much longer path and much less efficient as you would need to go up and then turn.

If you wanted to put something in orbit it is also extremely inefficient as you would need to go up and then turn.
The more efficient path is to be in a roughly elliptical orbit where you are boosting your perigee.

I'm saying real rockets/missiles reach their maximum vertical velocity immediately after lift off.
And you are completely wrong.
An explosively fired projectile (like from a gun) pointing upwards would reach its maximum vertical velocity almost immediately.
A rocket, as long as it's thrust to weight ratio is greater than 1, will continue accelerating.
Again, plenty of people watch these real rockets launch and note that they don't magically accelerate instantly.

Picture holding a catapult and the stone being the rocket.
We are discussing rockets, with rocket engines, not something fired from a sling.

we know the stone gets one maximum springboard launch and after that it is friction gripped and loses momentum from that point which slows it down to an eventual stop and then it accelerates downwards until it reaches terminal velocity or hits the ground before that.
Yes, because it doesn't have an engine and instead only has the initial throw to make it move. After which air resistance and gravity accelerate it, with gravity accelerating it downwards and air resistance accelerating it to bring it to a stop relative to the air.
A rocket engine continues to provide thrust allowing it to continue to accelerate.

However, if that rocket is at maximum thrust and maximum velocity and then the thrust is cut dead, immediately, the rocket becomes a dead stick and moves no further upwards.
Why would it magically stop?
That would be akin to where the stone is released.

If you really want to work that comparison:
The rocket engine corresponds to the elastic band.
The rocket on the launch pad corresponds to the band pulled all the way back.
The engines igniting and pushing the rocket off the pad corresponds to releasing the stone.
The rocket off the pad, but still with its engines on corresponds to the stone still being in the elastic and being pushed forward by the elastic, but not at the maximum extension.
The engines cutting off corresponds to the stone now out of the elastic, coasting along as it is slowed by gravity and air resistance.

It isn't just the launchpad that corresponds to the stone in the elastic. It is the entire time the engine is on.
The launch pad only corresponds to the maximum extension where you are holding the stone back.

The main difference between that and a rocket (other than the obvious) is that the force acting on the stone is reduced as the elastic relaxes, while the force on the rocket remains roughly constant (it can have a little boost at the start due to the ground effect), and the mass of the stone remains constant while the mass of the rocket is reduces as it burns through its fuel. This means the maximum acceleration occurs right at the start for the stone while it can occur right at the end for a rocket (or some point during its burn due to the changing force from air resistance as it increases velocity).

Meanwhile, the nonsense you are claiming corresponds to releasing the stone, having it reach its maximum velocity instantly (i.e. a tiny amount of time compared to the time required to fully relax the elastic), continue going up at a constant velocity while the elastic relaxes, pushing the stone upwards; then once the elastic is relaxed, the stone stops dead and falls.

Is your bicycle being pedalled vertically? No it isn't.
Go and try pedalling it up a wall.
We have been over this before with your prior ignorance on inertia.
When I throw a ball up in the air it doesn't stop as soon as it leaves my hand, even though I stop providing "thrust" to it.
You not understanding inertia doesn't mean it isn't real.

Why should a rocket magically stop dead when its engines stop, but only if vertical?

Also, plenty of stunt people do it all the time. Riding up a vertical jump, yet continuing to go upwards.
People will do it on motor bikes, push bikes, skateboards, sometimes roller blades.
They all continue to go up.

I'm saying that all the ICBM's and big so called space rockets, are gimmicks. They don't do what we are told. In my opinion.
Yet they use a rocket engine, start off slow and continue to accelerate.
You are claiming they shouldn't.
So if not a rocket, just what do you think they are?

Now, like I said, if all you have is your opinion, then it is worthless and you should just stay quiet.

If you want to try convincing any rational person that inertia and other laws of physics are wrong, you will need more than just your opinion and/or baseless assertion.

All the experiments I have ever conducted show that inertia is real and that a rocket will continue to accelerate while its engines are on.
If you are unwilling to accept testimony and video evidence and instead demand real physical evidence then go buy a model rocket kit and test it yourself.
If you are unwilling to do that, and thus are completely unwilling to accept anything to show you are wrong, then just shut up as it is clear you are not interested in debate or truth.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 02, 2019, 01:28:27 PM
Bank analogy is sound.
Learn to math.
Jane is good at math.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Lonegranger on January 02, 2019, 02:44:30 PM
So, vehicles like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle, when launched, reached their maximum velocity immediately upon ignition?
Is that what you're saying?

Because literally hundreds of thousands of real people witnessed these launches live and in person over the years. They will all disagree.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying real rockets/missiles reach their maximum vertical velocity immediately after lift off.
Immediately? 
What is immediately?
How soon after liftoff does immediately come into play?

Mike
As soon as the rocket leaves the launchpad.

Look at it another way.
Picture holding a catapult and the stone being the rocket.
You pull back on that elastic and hold it and the stone.

This would be your rocket ready to leave the launch pad. All it needs is to release that stone.
The very instant that stone is released from the elastic it is at maximum velocity (assuming vertical).
 This would be the same with the immediate full thrust of the rocket.


Now then, if the stone could hold that maximum velocity by having constant elastic springboard then it would hold a constant velocity but we know the stone gets one maximum springboard launch and after that it is friction gripped and loses momentum from that point which slows it down to an eventual stop and then it accelerates downwards until it reaches terminal velocity or hits the ground before that.

With a rocket, it holds the thrust at maximum which keeps the rocket at constant velocity until it loses that maximum thrust.
If it loses it slowly, it loses maximum velocity on its way up, until it stops dead and then falls like the stone.

However, if that rocket is at maximum thrust and maximum velocity and then the thrust is cut dead, immediately, the rocket becomes a dead stick and moves no further upwards.
It then becomes like the stone as it falls.


Every thing you say on this subject is wrong. Go watch a video of any rocket launch and maximum velocity is not achieved instantaneously, that would be impossible. Even in the case of a simple projectile maximum velocity is not achieved instantaneously. Watch this.....the arrow is clearly seen accelerating. 
(http://)


Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 02, 2019, 02:50:15 PM
What is the degree based on?
Proper science degrees will have you performing experiments, not just reading from textbooks.
Proper engineering degrees will be similar, but vary depending upon what type of engineering you are doing, and take a lot of the science as is in some places or be quite similar to science in others.

No, they wont cover everything, because there isn't enough time do to everything.
If you wanted to discard all of science and start from scratch, even with all the technology we have (which you would have to verify anyway) you wouldn't be able to finish before you die.
He doesnít care about degrees or anything else for that matter.  I have the degree and 35 years of experience in what he says is impossible.  His only answer is Iím a liar and/or Iíve been duped and Iím too stupid to know. 

IMHO, he knows and at least suspects that heís outta gas.  Itís why he wonít test a model rocket with the TVC system.  It will disprove him and he isnít ready for that.  It is the only thing that makes sense.

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Lonegranger on January 02, 2019, 02:54:25 PM
Simple graph showing flight of a small model rocket. Note how the velocity changes over the first second as its fuel burns. It then decelarates till itís velocity reaches 0 at three seconds, then it falls.....




http://www.dynamicscience.com.au/tester/solutions1/space%20science/forces1.htm (http://www.dynamicscience.com.au/tester/solutions1/space%20science/forces1.htm)



Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 02, 2019, 03:10:03 PM
Simple graph showing flight of a small model rocket. Note how the velocity changes over the first second as its fuel burns. It then decelarates till itís velocity reaches 0 at three seconds, then it falls.....




http://www.dynamicscience.com.au/tester/solutions1/space%20science/forces1.htm (http://www.dynamicscience.com.au/tester/solutions1/space%20science/forces1.htm)
Not to mention, for a rocket, model or otherwise, to have a constant thrust to not accelerate is literally impossible.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 02, 2019, 03:22:08 PM
Simple graph showing flight of a small model rocket. Note how the velocity changes over the first second as its fuel burns. It then decelarates till itís velocity reaches 0 at three seconds, then it falls.....




http://www.dynamicscience.com.au/tester/solutions1/space%20science/forces1.htm (http://www.dynamicscience.com.au/tester/solutions1/space%20science/forces1.htm)
Not to mention, for a rocket, model or otherwise, to have a constant thrust to not accelerate is literally impossible.

If thrust = 9.81xmass + drag  then net zero.
But woul make for a shtty rocket
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 02, 2019, 04:09:18 PM
Simple graph showing flight of a small model rocket. Note how the velocity changes over the first second as its fuel burns. It then decelarates till itís velocity reaches 0 at three seconds, then it falls.....




http://www.dynamicscience.com.au/tester/solutions1/space%20science/forces1.htm (http://www.dynamicscience.com.au/tester/solutions1/space%20science/forces1.htm)
Not to mention, for a rocket, model or otherwise, to have a constant thrust to not accelerate is literally impossible.

If thrust = 9.81xmass + drag  then net zero.
But woul make for a shtty rocket
Except mass is constantly decreasing as fuel is used.  If mass decreases and thrust remains constant the 'a' of 'f=ma'....it must accelerate until all the fuel is used.

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 02, 2019, 04:47:25 PM
Aaah true.
Also drag reduces in upper atmosphere/ space.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: rabinoz on January 02, 2019, 05:59:42 PM
Simple graph showing flight of a small model rocket. Note how the velocity changes over the first second as its fuel burns. It then decelarates till itís velocity reaches 0 at three seconds, then it falls.....

http://www.dynamicscience.com.au/tester/solutions1/space%20science/forces1.htm (http://www.dynamicscience.com.au/tester/solutions1/space%20science/forces1.htm)
And have a look at: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, SPACE SHUTTLE LAUNCH MOTION ANALYSIS. (https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/522589main_AP_ST_Phys_ShuttleLaunch.pdf)
It's a .pdf file that has to be downloaded.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 12:11:26 AM

How soon after leaving the launch pad does acceleration stop. Define immediately in relation too time.
In terms of a real rocket/missile, something like 1 second or so, give or take. I can't give you a better answer than that so accept that for what it is whether you believe it or not.


Quote from: MicroBeta

What happens if there's no launch pad?  e.g. A horizontal launch.

Mike
A rocket propelled dragster type?
Something on wheels?
Or something fired from a fighter jet. A missile or whatever?

Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 12:15:10 AM
So, vehicles like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle, when launched, reached their maximum velocity immediately upon ignition?
Is that what you're saying?

Because literally hundreds of thousands of real people witnessed these launches live and in person over the years. They will all disagree.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying real rockets/missiles reach their maximum vertical velocity immediately after lift off.

So, what you're really saying is, all the thousands of rockets, witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people, eyewitnesses, are not REAL rockets?

Is that what you're saying?
Nope.
I'm saying that all the ICBM's and big so called space rockets, are gimmicks. They don't do what we are told. In my opinion.

Missiles are most likely launched regularly.

And what are we being told they are doing? You can watch a launch in person, whether or not they go into space is irrelevant to your springboard theory. They are still rockets, and they certainly do NOT achieve maximum velocity immediately on ignition.
Tell me what you've been watching live and show me a video of what you've been watching.

Tell me what you've been smoking, and show me a live video of what you've been smoking.

There is mountains of amateur video of launches such as Space Shuttle.

Are you saying you are the only person who knows what really happens at ignition?

How many rockets have you personally witnessed, including your basic Estes models? My guess is zero, yet here you are advancing these wild theories.

I have built and launched dozens, Including multi-stage models. Does that count?
Models rockets don't count.
I have no issues with genuine model rockets and when I say genuine, I mean any that can be physically verified.

However, we are dealing with the so called ICBM's and the big tax dollar supposed rockets.
You claim to have seen them in action. I'm asking you what you saw and to describe what you saw as in how it launched, etc.

All you've come back with is the above.
By all means do that but it doesn't help you or scupper me.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 12:16:38 AM
Fly by dismissal of everyone?

Either way.
Was mine dismissed due its involment of numbers?
Maybe sceotis not a numbers guy.
The anaolgy was solid.
Try another.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 12:22:28 AM
So, vehicles like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle, when launched, reached their maximum velocity immediately upon ignition?
Is that what you're saying?

Because literally hundreds of thousands of real people witnessed these launches live and in person over the years. They will all disagree.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying real rockets/missiles reach their maximum vertical velocity immediately after lift off.
Immediately? 
What is immediately?
How soon after liftoff does immediately come into play?

Mike
As soon as the rocket leaves the launchpad.

Look at it another way.
Picture holding a catapult and the stone being the rocket.
You pull back on that elastic and hold it and the stone.

This would be your rocket ready to leave the launch pad. All it needs is to release that stone.
The very instant that stone is released from the elastic it is at maximum velocity (assuming vertical).
 This would be the same with the immediate full thrust of the rocket.


Now then, if the stone could hold that maximum velocity by having constant elastic springboard then it would hold a constant velocity but we know the stone gets one maximum springboard launch and after that it is friction gripped and loses momentum from that point which slows it down to an eventual stop and then it accelerates downwards until it reaches terminal velocity or hits the ground before that.

With a rocket, it holds the thrust at maximum which keeps the rocket at constant velocity until it loses that maximum thrust.
If it loses it slowly, it loses maximum velocity on its way up, until it stops dead and then falls like the stone.

However, if that rocket is at maximum thrust and maximum velocity and then the thrust is cut dead, immediately, the rocket becomes a dead stick and moves no further upwards.
It then becomes like the stone as it falls.


Wrong.

When I stop pedaling on a bicycle, I have ceased to provide thrust thus the thrust is cut dead, immediately, the bicycle becomes a dead stick and moves no further in the direction it was heading.

But that isn't what happens.
Is your bicycle being pedalled vertically? No it isn't.

Go and try pedalling it up a wall.

I can if I have forward momental from being on say a half pipe.
Forward momentum is a springboard start. Of course you will move up it but only from the initial springboard launch by your energy at your max.
From the point of hitting that termination of max momentum you would have to pedal so hard to keep it at that velocity which you know is impossible up a vertical.

The best you could do is to pedal slower due to no higher energy or cease to pedal.
Either way you're stopping and coming back down.

If you cease to pedal after you max momentum is hit, you stop dead and fall.
Do you agree?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 12:27:02 AM


Unfortunately, I saw this one live:


If you want to use emotion to try and give you some kind of credence on this then stay out of it.

Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: JackBlack on January 03, 2019, 01:02:44 AM
In terms of a real rocket/missile, something like 1 second or so
Nope. It continues until the fuel is depleted.

so accept that for what it is whether you believe it or not.
Sorry, I'm far to sceptical to accept that nonsense.
I would require evidence, but all the evidence I have found or collected myself shows the opposite.

I have no issues with genuine model rockets and when I say genuine, I mean any that can be physically verified.
So why limit it to small model rockets.
Even large ones exist and can be verified to launch nothing like you claim.
You just seem to think they aren't rockets, yet don't provide any viable alternative.

you would have to pedal so hard to keep it at that velocity
Yes, otherwise you slow down. You don't just instantly stop dead.

If you cease to pedal after you max momentum is hit, you stop dead and fall.
Do you agree?
No. Almost anyone who has seen anything like that wont agree.
Instead they will likely accept reality, that after you stop pedalling, you slow down, reaching a peak when you reach a velocity of 0, instead of stopping dead.

Again, you can go and do the experiments yourself, you just choose not to.
If you aren't willing to do the experiment, keep your garbage opinions to yourself.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Stash on January 03, 2019, 01:29:05 AM


Unfortunately, I saw this one live:


If you want to use emotion to try and give you some kind of credence on this then stay out of it.

I'm not using emotion as credence. It's the only one I saw live which ended tragically, whatever conspiracy theory you have about that notwithstanding. Point being, you asked for live and footage. There it is. Just so happened to be a really bad day.

And the shuttle, like all other launches, didn't "springboard" or whatever you're on about. It rose like they all do/did. It's not that complicated. Rockets/missiles exist. And I'm dumbfounded as to why you're so resistant to reality. I think you can still maintain your dome belief, maybe just make it higher. I don't think denpressure is 'rocket/missile' prohibitive. I don't even think flat earth is 'rocket/missile' prohibitive.

Why can't something, in this case, ICBM's, exist (wish they didn't) with so much documentation, paper, video evidence or otherwise and still fit into your belief system as well. Is it kind of an NRA thing where if you give into any inch of gun control you know the opposition is going to ultimately take a mile?

Why is the notion of an ICBM anathema to your belief system (other than the obviousness of their intent)?


Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 03, 2019, 01:38:36 AM

How soon after leaving the launch pad does acceleration stop. Define immediately in relation too time.
In terms of a real rocket/missile, something like 1 second or so, give or take. I can't give you a better answer than that so accept that for what it is whether you believe it or not.


Quote from: MicroBeta

What happens if there's no launch pad?  e.g. A horizontal launch.

Mike
A rocket propelled dragster type?
Something on wheels?
Or something fired from a fighter jet. A missile or whatever?
Since you brought up a horizontal rocket on wheels before how about a rocket sled on the ground?

What about the second stage of a rocket firing after the first stage has shutdown and ejected from the the rocket.  Here's a decent example of a two stage rocket; which, BTW, clearly shows that when the first stage rockets shutdown and eject the rocket continues to climb for several seconds before the second stage rocket fires.  Go to about 1:30 to 1:45 in the video to see this.  Two stage kits are available from any model rocket source.



Explain if you can.

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 01:53:59 AM
There is no need for a "throttle". If it has more force than is required to counter its weight and air resistance it can continue to accelerate.
If a rocket can lift off at less than maximum thr4ust and throttle up that thrust then it will accelerate.
The problem with this is, it's a pointless rocket/missile. It serves no purpose and would be so unstable as to render it a danger to its initial surrounding area.

There's a reason why rockets WHOOSH  straight up at full thrust.



Quote from: JackBlack

a rocket uses full thrust
Again, "full thrust" would simply be an explosion, where all the fuel is expended instantly.
Instead they use much lower than that for a longer period of time to continue accelerating.
Nope.
Let's deal with solid fuel rockets like we are told so called ICBM's are.
Full thrust or bust.


Quote from: JackBlack

I'm saying real rockets/missiles reach their maximum vertical velocity immediately after lift off.
And you are completely wrong.
An explosively fired projectile (like from a gun) pointing upwards would reach its maximum vertical velocity almost immediately.
Yep and only for a split second before resistance arrests that max velocity. From there is simply decreases in upward momentum until friction gripped to a stop and then acceleration towards the ground begins, until terminal velocity is attained or it simply hits the ground under acceleration.


Quote from: JackBlack

A rocket, as long as it's thrust to weight ratio is greater than 1, will continue accelerating.
Nope.
The rocket at full thrust will reach maximum velocity just like the bullet and will keep that velocity as long as the full thrust is constant. It will not be accelerating.

Quote from: JackBlack

Again, plenty of people watch these real rockets launch and note that they don't magically accelerate instantly.
I don't dispute people watching rockets launching. It's about what they see in that launch which is the key.
Merely saying people see slow motion launches is not proof of anything.


Quote from: JackBlack

However, if that rocket is at maximum thrust and maximum velocity and then the thrust is cut dead, immediately, the rocket becomes a dead stick and moves no further upwards.
Why would it magically stop?
That would be akin to where the stone is released.
It wouldn't be akin to the stone being released. The stone is still under momentum from energy applied in the slingshot.
The stone is slowing down on the vertical. It loses its maximum velocity as immediate as it gained it.

A rocket would still be max thrusting and keeping a constant velocity due to change in atmosphere it is thrusting against, in terms of ever thinning atmosphere for want of better words.
That thrust remains constant against less atmosphere on the vertical but if able to do so by jettisoning fuel in the burn (thrust) which keeps a fuel to mass to atmospheric ration constant, enabling constant velocity....not acceleration.


Quote from: JackBlack

When I throw a ball up in the air it doesn't stop as soon as it leaves my hand, even though I stop providing "thrust" to it.
You provided a springboard for it and the energy of your springboard thrust is expended against the atmosphere you threw it into. That atmosphere will friction grip the ball and slow it down on the up motion.

It's a different scenario to a constant velocity rocket and constant max thrust.


Quote from: JackBlack

Why should a rocket magically stop dead when its engines stop, but only if vertical?
Because the max thrust to keep a constant velocity has nothing else to give so the rocket is entirely under an exact movement upwards for that initial thrust for each millimetre of vertical lift.
Shut that down, dead and you gain no push. Your rocket stops dead

I simple analogy.
If I was to push you up a pole and I used all my might with arms bent and muscles primed to spring push you up that pole you would move up that pole a little until my energy applied to your arse end was arrested by the friction of the pole and atmosphere you are in.
Basically you would hit maximum velocity (however tiny) before slowing down in short order but still moving up as you slow down.

If I was to simple get on my knees and steadily raise you up in a sort of steady fashion, sort of like a max strength to push you and to hold that max strength of push constantly, then you move up at a constant velocity by my constant energy but if I cease to push you by snatching my hands away from you, you immediately stop moving up. You stop dead.



Quote from: JackBlack

Also, plenty of stunt people do it all the time. Riding up a vertical jump, yet continuing to go upwards.
People will do it on motor bikes, push bikes, skateboards, sometimes roller blades.
They all continue to go up.
Built up momentum. Energy applied for a springboard push. It doesn't matter how it's dressed up, it's all the same thing.

Quote from: JackBlack

Yet they use a rocket engine, start off slow and continue to accelerate.
You are claiming they shouldn't.
So if not a rocket, just what do you think they are?
The slow launches are merely gimmicks.

Quote from: JackBlack

All the experiments I have ever conducted show that inertia is real and that a rocket will continue to accelerate while its engines are on.


I don't believe you but feel free to push that.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Stash on January 03, 2019, 02:36:59 AM
The rocket at full thrust will reach maximum velocity just like the bullet and will keep that velocity as long as the full thrust is constant. It will not be accelerating.

Beg to differ:

Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: JackBlack on January 03, 2019, 02:50:01 AM
If a rocket can lift off at less than maximum thr4ust
Again, maximum thrust would be an explosion where all fuel is spent at once and no rocket does that.

throttle up that thrust then it will accelerate.
Nope. No need for it to increase throttle to accelerate.

The problem with this is, it's a pointless rocket/missile.
You not understanding how rockets work doesn't make them pointless. It serves no purpose and would be so unstable as to render it a danger to its initial surrounding area.

Full thrust or bust.
No, full thrust would mean bust.

Yep and only for a split second before resistance arrests that max velocity. From there is simply decreases in upward momentum until friction gripped to a stop and then acceleration towards the ground begins, until terminal velocity is attained or it simply hits the ground under acceleration.
Yes, notice how it doesn't just stop dead after the initial bang stops? It keeps moving upwards, just like a rocket would.

The rocket at full thrust will reach maximum velocity
Again, stop just asserting garbage.
Everything shows you are wrong.
There is literally nothign to support your insane claims.
If you wish to continue asserting such garbage you will need vastly more than your baseless claim.

just like the bullet
No, nothing like a bullet.
A bullet is fired with an explosion where all the fuel is used at once. A rocket does not.

Merely saying people see slow motion launches is not proof of anything.
No, people see them in real time.
They observe the rockets start out slow and increase speed (i.e. accelerate).

It wouldn't be akin to the stone being released. The stone is still under momentum from energy applied in the slingshot.
Yes, just like the rocket is still under momentum from the energy applied while the rocket engine was on.

The stone is slowing down on the vertical. It loses its maximum velocity as immediate as it gained it.
No it doesn't.
It can gain it extremely quickly and lose it quite slowly.
If it lost its maximum velocity as immediately as it gained it it wouldn't go very high, just the height of the slingshot.

A rocket would still be max thrusting and keeping a constant velocity
Quit spouting the same BS. If you want anyone to take that garbage seriously you will need more than the same repeated, refuted, pathetic baseless assertion.

It's a different scenario to a constant velocity rocket and constant max thrust.
Good thing no one is talking about such a fantasy as that except you.
We are talking about real rockets.

Because the max thrust to keep a constant velocity
Has nothing to do with it.
Again, we are talking about real rockets.
But even then, still no reason for it to stop dead instantly.

I simple analogy.
No, here is a simple analogy, one you already used, a rock in a sling.
When it leaves the sling it doesn't stop dead, it continues moving up.

Basically you would hit maximum velocity (however tiny) before slowing down in short order but still moving up as you slow down.
Even with your pathetic analogy, you keep moving upwards, so why does the rocket magically stop dead?
Why is this magical event never observed by anyone?

The slow launches are merely gimmicks.
HOW? You seem to love just dismissing real factual rockets as gimmicks, but provide no alternative explanation.
Just what magic is being used for them?

I don't believe you but feel free to push that.
I don't give a damn what you believe as you have shown you don't value the truth, will reject reality and believe delusional nonsense which is contradicted by so many experiments you can easily do.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 03, 2019, 03:08:15 AM
Yet they use a rocket engine, start off slow and continue to accelerate.
You are claiming they shouldn't.
So if not a rocket, just what do you think they are?
The slow launches are merely gimmicks.

Oh come on.  Seriously?  I just showed you the videos and all the equipment for model rockets that actually do this and you're so biased and closed minded that you've dismissed this, you won't bother testing it yourself, and you continue with the claim that "slow launches are merely gimmicks."

Quote from: JackBlack

All the experiments I have ever conducted show that inertia is real and that a rocket will continue to accelerate while its engines are on.


I don't believe you but feel free to push that.
There's nothing to push.  It's fact.  To use the speti playbook, here's an analogy for you:

I apply a constant force to push a skateboard with my two cats sitting on it.  The skateboard will accelerate from a stop until it reaches some constant speed.

Now, my cats jump off and there is still a constant applied force.  However, since the skateboard weight about 30 lbs less it will accelerate to a new higher constant speed.

Simple right?  Well as that rocket is climbing upward it's losing mass.  A constant applied force, a decreasing mass, the rocket must accelerate for the same reason the skateboard goes faster when my cats jump off.

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Crutchwater on January 03, 2019, 03:49:08 AM
Yet they use a rocket engine, start off slow and continue to accelerate.
You are claiming they shouldn't.
So if not a rocket, just what do you think they are?
The slow launches are merely gimmicks.

Oh come on.  Seriously?  I just showed you the videos and all the equipment for model rockets that actually do this and you're so biased and closed minded that you've dismissed this, you won't bother testing it yourself, and you continue with the claim that "slow launches are merely gimmicks."

Quote from: JackBlack

All the experiments I have ever conducted show that inertia is real and that a rocket will continue to accelerate while its engines are on.


I don't believe you but feel free to push that.
There's nothing to push.  It's fact.  To use the speti playbook, here's an analogy for you:

I apply a constant force to push a skateboard with my two cats sitting on it.  The skateboard will accelerate from a stop until it reaches some constant speed.

Now, my cats jump off and there is still a constant applied force.  However, since the skateboard weight about 30 lbs less it will accelerate to a new higher constant speed.

Simple right?  Well as that rocket is climbing upward it's losing mass.  A constant applied force, a decreasing mass, the rocket must accelerate for the same reason the skateboard goes faster when my cats jump off.

Mike

Conclusion: You have big cats
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 03, 2019, 04:21:55 AM
Yet they use a rocket engine, start off slow and continue to accelerate.
You are claiming they shouldn't.
So if not a rocket, just what do you think they are?
The slow launches are merely gimmicks.

Oh come on.  Seriously?  I just showed you the videos and all the equipment for model rockets that actually do this and you're so biased and closed minded that you've dismissed this, you won't bother testing it yourself, and you continue with the claim that "slow launches are merely gimmicks."

Quote from: JackBlack

All the experiments I have ever conducted show that inertia is real and that a rocket will continue to accelerate while its engines are on.


I don't believe you but feel free to push that.
There's nothing to push.  It's fact.  To use the speti playbook, here's an analogy for you:

I apply a constant force to push a skateboard with my two cats sitting on it.  The skateboard will accelerate from a stop until it reaches some constant speed.

Now, my cats jump off and there is still a constant applied force.  However, since the skateboard weight about 30 lbs less it will accelerate to a new higher constant speed.

Simple right?  Well as that rocket is climbing upward it's losing mass.  A constant applied force, a decreasing mass, the rocket must accelerate for the same reason the skateboard goes faster when my cats jump off.

Mike

Conclusion: You have big cats
They were ragdolls and 14 & 16 lbs were about average...but yeah bigger than the average house cat. :D
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 04:40:46 AM

Every thing you say on this subject is wrong. Go watch a video of any rocket launch and maximum velocity is not achieved instantaneously, that would be impossible. Even in the case of a simple projectile maximum velocity is not achieved instantaneously. Watch this.....the arrow is clearly seen accelerating. 
(http://)
The arrow obviously accelerates from zero to maximum velocity, but it's is extreme short order. What you see from that point on is, friction slowing of that arrow.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 04:43:18 AM

He doesnít care about degrees or anything else for that matter.  I have the degree and 35 years of experience in what he says is impossible.  His only answer is Iím a liar and/or Iíve been duped and Iím too stupid to know.


Mike
I'm not calling you stupid. I'm questioning what you believe to be the truth without you actually knowing it to be the truth.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 04:49:08 AM
Simple graph showing flight of a small model rocket. Note how the velocity changes over the first second as its fuel burns. It then decelarates till itís velocity reaches 0 at three seconds, then it falls.....




http://www.dynamicscience.com.au/tester/solutions1/space%20science/forces1.htm (http://www.dynamicscience.com.au/tester/solutions1/space%20science/forces1.htm)
Not to mention, for a rocket, model or otherwise, to have a constant thrust to not accelerate is literally impossible.
To have max thrust on a vertical will not produce acceleration after initial standing start to acceleration to reach constant velocity.

A second or so acceleration and that's your lot, vertically on max thrust.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 05:07:04 AM
Since you brought up a horizontal rocket on wheels before how about a rocket sled on the ground?
What about it?

Quote from: MicroBeta
What about the second stage of a rocket firing after the first stage has shutdown and ejected from the the rocket.  Here's a decent example of a two stage rocket; which, BTW, clearly shows that when the first stage rockets shutdown and eject the rocket continues to climb for several seconds before the second stage rocket fires.  Go to about 1:30 to 1:45 in the video to see this.  Two stage kits are available from any model rocket source.



Explain if you can.

Mike
You're going to have to find something better than that. It shows nothing against what I've been saying.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 05:08:12 AM
The rocket at full thrust will reach maximum velocity just like the bullet and will keep that velocity as long as the full thrust is constant. It will not be accelerating.

Beg to differ:


Let me know when they launch vertically.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 03, 2019, 05:59:54 AM

He doesnít care about degrees or anything else for that matter.  I have the degree and 35 years of experience in what he says is impossible.  His only answer is Iím a liar and/or Iíve been duped and Iím too stupid to know.


Mike
I'm not calling you stupid. I'm questioning what you believe to be the truth without you actually knowing it to be the truth.

Seriously, somebody would have to be incompetent to do what I do for a living and not know the facts of the things we are discussing.  It is literally what I do for a living every.  Forces & moments, inertia & momentum...its knowledge, not blind belief of something I've read in a book.  That is something you cannot say about any of your claims. 

The inertia you claim doesnít exist is accounted for in everything I do.  A ship at sea moves in ways a land based facility would never see. 

With a new design sometimes the customer wants more than just a design and supporting analysis so Iíve done physical testing for proof of concept...actually tested the results of my calculations.  I know that the stresses we calculate in shipboard systems while underway match reality because my company has tested that too.  I've physically proved every concept I posted here.  I know you can't say the same.  Iíve even given you everything you need to test your claims.  You could build the rocket I described and the whole matter to bed but you refuse to do it.  Your lame excuses says a lot about your confidence in you so-called theories.

This is how I know your concepts are bullshit.  You, on the other hand, have never show a single thing Iíve posted to be wrong.  Not once. 

I know the truth and you are the one operating on belief...plain and simple.

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 03, 2019, 06:17:41 AM
Fly by dismissal of everyone?

Either way.
Was mine dismissed due its involment of numbers?
Maybe sceotis not a numbers guy.
The anaolgy was solid.
Try another.

Because you cant math?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 03, 2019, 06:24:51 AM

Every thing you say on this subject is wrong. Go watch a video of any rocket launch and maximum velocity is not achieved instantaneously, that would be impossible. Even in the case of a simple projectile maximum velocity is not achieved instantaneously. Watch this.....the arrow is clearly seen accelerating. 
(http://)
The arrow obviously accelerates from zero to maximum velocity, but it's is extreme short order. What you see from that point on is, friction slowing of that arrow.



You dont say!
So insightful...
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 03, 2019, 06:33:25 AM



I simple analogy.
If I was to push you up a pole and I used all my might with arms bent and muscles primed to spring push you up that pole you would move up that pole a little until my energy applied to your arse end was arrested by the friction of the pole and atmosphere you are in.
Basically you would hit maximum velocity (however tiny) before slowing down in short order but still moving up as you slow down.

If I was to simple get on my knees and steadily raise you up in a sort of steady fashion, sort of like a max strength to push you and to hold that max strength of push constantly, then you move up at a constant velocity by my constant energy but if I cease to push you by snatching my hands away from you, you immediately stop moving up. You stop dead.



Aaaaaah scepti...
So your simple analogy.
If we were to use numbers, would basically be akin to the bank account analogy.
Your weakass arms are not going to be able to thrust jackbs fatass to any great velocity to exceed the downward push of denp (approx 9.8m/s/s).
Basically Meaning -
Youd have to simply throw him up acheiving a spring board velocty at ~20m/s and you would see him stop dead at ~2seconds.

The exact same as the bank analogy.

Try math next time you run an experiment to pedict the outcome.

Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 03, 2019, 06:47:54 AM
Since you brought up a horizontal rocket on wheels before how about a rocket sled on the ground?
What about it?

Quote from: MicroBeta
What about the second stage of a rocket firing after the first stage has shutdown and ejected from the the rocket.  Here's a decent example of a two stage rocket; which, BTW, clearly shows that when the first stage rockets shutdown and eject the rocket continues to climb for several seconds before the second stage rocket fires.  Go to about 1:30 to 1:45 in the video to see this.  Two stage kits are available from any model rocket source.



Explain if you can.

Mike
You're going to have to find something better than that. It shows nothing against what I've been saying.
The video clearly shows that once the first stage engines cut off it continued to climb.  Its momentum kept the rocket climbing while the boosters dropped away.  Additionally, the video clearly shows that when the second stage engine cut off the rocket again continued to climb.  Explain how that isnít against your claim that when thrust stops all vertical progress stops.

The video clearly shows that the rocket continues climb and after the first stage boosters fall away the second stage fires.  The video clearly shows the rocket accelerating and quickly climbed until the second stage motor cuts out.  Explain how this is not against your claim that once it is flying vertically it CANNOT accelerate and will only fly at a constant velocity. 
 

The video is very, very clear as to what happens.  Everything this rocket does is contrary to your claims.   

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 03, 2019, 06:50:53 AM
I have a feeling scepti believes all the fuel is ignited and explodes all at once.
Like a cartoon barrel of tnt.

Scepti - please confirm.
Yes/ no is simple enough.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 08:22:24 AM

  To use the speti playbook, here's an analogy for you:

I apply a constant force to push a skateboard with my two cats sitting on it.  The skateboard will accelerate from a stop until it reaches some constant speed.
Fair enough.

Quote from: MicroBeta
Now, my cats jump off and there is still a constant applied force.
If your cats jump off they will impart a force to the skateboard with their mass and paw push/springboard in or against the direction of the skateboard.
Assuming it's against the direction then they would accelerate it from it's original decaying speed for a brief moment until a new speed was achieved which would also immediately decay.

Quote from: MicroBeta
  However, since the skateboard weight about 30 lbs less it will accelerate to a new higher constant speed.
It would never be a constant speed. Friction and the lack of constant energy applied would see to that.

Quote from: MicroBeta
Simple right?
Not as simple as you think.
Quote from: MicroBeta
Well as that rocket is climbing upward it's losing mass.
Yep it loses fuel mass and potential debris but we'll stick with fuel.
Quote from: MicroBeta
  A constant applied force, a decreasing mass, the rocket must accelerate for the same reason the skateboard goes faster when my cats jump off.

Mike
Nope.
The rocket movement is based on fuel to mass to atmospheric density ratio.
This keeps a rocket moving at full thrust on a constant velocity.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 08:29:41 AM
I've physically proved every concept I posted here.
No you haven't. You haven't physically proved anything I'm questioning.
Quote from: MicroBeta
  I know you can't say the same.  Iíve even given you everything you need to test your claims.  You could build the rocket I described and the whole matter to bed but you refuse to do it.  Your lame excuses says a lot about your confidence in you so-called theories.
I'm very confident in my theories. It doesn't mean they're all correct or anything. It just means that nobody is proving them to be wrong just as much as I can't literally prove them to be right.

Quote from: MicroBeta
This is how I know your concepts are bullshit.  You, on the other hand, have never show a single thing Iíve posted to be wrong.  Not once.
I know the truth and you are the one operating on belief...plain and simple.

Mike
I can't show you to be wrong. I can ask you for proof just as you can ask me and we can both give what we think is a diluted version of what we think is a proof or a potential reality.

You claim no higher ground on this.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 08:32:07 AM



I simple analogy.
If I was to push you up a pole and I used all my might with arms bent and muscles primed to spring push you up that pole you would move up that pole a little until my energy applied to your arse end was arrested by the friction of the pole and atmosphere you are in.
Basically you would hit maximum velocity (however tiny) before slowing down in short order but still moving up as you slow down.

If I was to simple get on my knees and steadily raise you up in a sort of steady fashion, sort of like a max strength to push you and to hold that max strength of push constantly, then you move up at a constant velocity by my constant energy but if I cease to push you by snatching my hands away from you, you immediately stop moving up. You stop dead.



Aaaaaah scepti...
So your simple analogy.
If we were to use numbers, would basically be akin to the bank account analogy.
Your weakass arms are not going to be able to thrust jackbs fatass to any great velocity to exceed the downward push of denp (approx 9.8m/s/s).
Basically Meaning -
Youd have to simply throw him up acheiving a spring board velocty at ~20m/s and you would see him stop dead at ~2seconds.

The exact same as the bank analogy.

Try math next time you run an experiment to pedict the outcome.
You try understanding what's being said and then I'll deal with you.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 08:37:51 AM


 The video is very, very clear as to what happens.  Everything this rocket does is contrary to your claims.   

Mike
The video is not very clear at all and does not go against what I've said, otherwise I wouldn't still bother to argue my side.
If you think that shows you to be correct and me wrong then you have no need to take any further part in trying to convince me....right?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 08:38:44 AM
I have a feeling scepti believes all the fuel is ignited and explodes all at once.
Like a cartoon barrel of tnt.

Scepti - please confirm.
Yes/ no is simple enough.
No.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 03, 2019, 08:50:05 AM

  To use the speti playbook, here's an analogy for you:

I apply a constant force to push a skateboard with my two cats sitting on it.  The skateboard will accelerate from a stop until it reaches some constant speed.
Fair enough.

Quote from: MicroBeta
Now, my cats jump off and there is still a constant applied force.
If your cats jump off they will impart a force to the skateboard with their mass and paw push/springboard in or against the direction of the skateboard.
Assuming it's against the direction then they would accelerate it from it's original decaying speed for a brief moment until a new speed was achieved which would also immediately decay.

Quote from: MicroBeta
  However, since the skateboard weight about 30 lbs less it will accelerate to a new higher constant speed.
It would never be a constant speed. Friction and the lack of constant energy applied would see to that.

Lack of constant energy applied???  What the hell are you talking about?  What about the part where I say there ďis still a constant applied forceĒ. 

And, the cats will impart a force when they ďpush/springboardĒ off.  Really?  You know what I meant.

What are you, ten years old?  I was trying to lighten the discussion with my cats but since you want to play those childish games Iíll spell it out for you.

You have two skateboards.  One with a thirty pound weight and the second with no additional weight.  Theyíre both on the same level and smooth surface.  They both have the same applied constant force.  Iím saying the lighter board will reach a higher constant speed than the heavier one.  Clear enough for you or do I need my niece to get her crayons and draw you some pictures?

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 03, 2019, 08:52:39 AM



I simple analogy.
If I was to push you up a pole and I used all my might with arms bent and muscles primed to spring push you up that pole you would move up that pole a little until my energy applied to your arse end was arrested by the friction of the pole and atmosphere you are in.
Basically you would hit maximum velocity (however tiny) before slowing down in short order but still moving up as you slow down.

If I was to simple get on my knees and steadily raise you up in a sort of steady fashion, sort of like a max strength to push you and to hold that max strength of push constantly, then you move up at a constant velocity by my constant energy but if I cease to push you by snatching my hands away from you, you immediately stop moving up. You stop dead.



Aaaaaah scepti...
So your simple analogy.
If we were to use numbers, would basically be akin to the bank account analogy.
Your weakass arms are not going to be able to thrust jackbs fatass to any great velocity to exceed the downward push of denp (approx 9.8m/s/s).
Basically Meaning -
Youd have to simply throw him up acheiving a spring board velocty at ~20m/s and you would see him stop dead at ~2seconds.

The exact same as the bank analogy.

Try math next time you run an experiment to pedict the outcome.
You try understanding what's being said and then I'll deal with you.

You realize we said the same thing...
I added in a few numbers.
Possibly you have issue with numbers.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 03, 2019, 09:22:35 AM
I've physically proved every concept I posted here.
No you haven't. You haven't physically proved anything I'm questioning.
Quote from: MicroBeta
  I know you can't say the same.  Iíve even given you everything you need to test your claims.  You could build the rocket I described and the whole matter to bed but you refuse to do it.  Your lame excuses says a lot about your confidence in you so-called theories.
I'm very confident in my theories. It doesn't mean they're all correct or anything. It just means that nobody is proving them to be wrong just as much as I can't literally prove them to be right.

Quote from: MicroBeta
This is how I know your concepts are bullshit.  You, on the other hand, have never show a single thing Iíve posted to be wrong.  Not once.
I know the truth and you are the one operating on belief...plain and simple.

Mike
I can't show you to be wrong. I can ask you for proof just as you can ask me and we can both give what we think is a diluted version of what we think is a proof or a potential reality.

You claim no higher ground on this.
I donít claim any ground.  However, I do claim to be right.  I have provided you with ample proof of my claims.  Iíve provided you with videos that show what I claim.  And, Iíve provided you with a source for the materials to test it yourself. 

I claimed this type of rocket will start off slower than conventional rockets, accelerate as it climbs, and will do it without fins.  Iíve even provided you with a source for the equipment you need.  If you really believed that you are only expressing your opinion, that you need to do physical experiments, and you are logical and open minded then you would test it out. 

However, you stated that you donít need to test it because you already know it will show you to be right.  IOW, claiming that your views are fact, they donít need to be tested, and everything else is wrong. 



 The video is very, very clear as to what happens.  Everything this rocket does is contrary to your claims.   

Mike
The video is not very clear at all and does not go against what I've said, otherwise I wouldn't still bother to argue my side.
If you think that shows you to be correct and me wrong then you have no need to take any further part in trying to convince me....right?
Iím trying to provide clear, testable examples of my statements on how rockets fly and large (ICBMs) in particular.  Short of going to your house and demonstrating this, the TVC system for model rockets and this video are the best I could do.  So, I made sure you had access to everything you need to test my claims.  But, you refused to do so and you refuse to take the video and my interpretation seriously.

Iím really trying here but you are so dismissive.  How about this?  Look at the video again and tell me what you believe the rocket is doing.  Use the on board camera segment from about the one minute mark through the end of its flight.  In particular tell me what you see when the first stage rockets shutdown/separate and when the second stage motor lights off.  I donít think this is an unreasonable request.

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 09:24:40 AM
Lack of constant energy applied???  What the hell are you talking about?  What about the part where I say there ďis still a constant applied forceĒ. 

And, the cats will impart a force when they ďpush/springboardĒ off.  Really?  You know what I meant.

What are you, ten years old?  I was trying to lighten the discussion with my cats but since you want to play those childish games Iíll spell it out for you.

You have two skateboards.  One with a thirty pound weight and the second with no additional weight.  Theyíre both on the same level and smooth surface.  They both have the same applied constant force.  Iím saying the lighter board will reach a higher constant speed than the heavier one.  Clear enough for you or do I need my niece to get her crayons and draw you some pictures?

Mike
Let me get this right.
Are you saying that you push both boards with the same force an d let them freely roll away until they both stop but in the meantime the heavier board will be much slower than the lighter board or are you applying constant force to both boards so they're always under your apllied energy and not freely rolling along on their own.
Maybe those crayons aren't a bad idea.
Summon your niece. ;)
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 03, 2019, 09:35:31 AM
Lack of constant energy applied???  What the hell are you talking about?  What about the part where I say there “is still a constant applied force”. 

And, the cats will impart a force when they “push/springboard” off.  Really?  You know what I meant.

What are you, ten years old?  I was trying to lighten the discussion with my cats but since you want to play those childish games I’ll spell it out for you.

You have two skateboards.  One with a thirty pound weight and the second with no additional weight.  They’re both on the same level and smooth surface.  They both have the same applied constant force.  I’m saying the lighter board will reach a higher constant speed than the heavier one.  Clear enough for you or do I need my niece to get her crayons and draw you some pictures?

Mike
Let me get this right.
Are you saying that you push both boards with the same force an d let them freely roll away until they both stop but in the meantime the heavier board will be much slower than the lighter board or are you applying constant force to both boards so they're always under your apllied energy and not freely rolling along on their own.
Maybe those crayons aren't a bad idea.
Summon your niece. ;)
Okay, that was funny. :)

It is a constant applied force.  The applied force remains after a constant speed is reached.  Assume each is driven by identical battery operated motors that you turn on with a wireless remote so there is no physical interactions with either board.

Mike

Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: JackBlack on January 03, 2019, 12:10:21 PM
The arrow obviously accelerates from zero to maximum velocity, but it's is extreme short order.
Yes, due to the short time the bow is stretched. But the entire time the bow is bushing the arrow forward, the arrow is being accelerated.
After that, it slows down, but quite slowly.
Again, for the comparison to rockets: The entire time the engine is running the rocket is being accelerated.

To have max thrust on a vertical will not produce acceleration after initial standing start to acceleration to reach constant velocity.
Again, stop repeating the same lie.
All the evidence shows you to be wrong and you have made it clear you have no interest in performing the experiment yourself.
A rocket will continue to accelerate while its engine is on.

You're going to have to find something better than that. It shows nothing against what I've been saying.
No, it quite clearly does.
Even without being able to tell what the acceleration is, we can easily tell that it doesn't' stop dead when the first stage finishes and instead continues moving upwards even before the second stage kicks in.

It just means that nobody is proving them to be wrong
No, it just means that you are ignoring all the proof that they are wrong.

otherwise I wouldn't still bother to argue my side.
Well you aren't really arguing your side.
You are repeating the same refuted nonsense again and again while ignoring things that show you to be wrong.
That isn't arguing a side, that is ignoring that you been refuted and pretending you are still correct.

You have provided absolutely nothing to justify your many false claims, meanwhile plenty has been provided that refutes them.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 03, 2019, 12:18:10 PM
Scepi was given an example usig numbers.
I dont think he does math.

Scepit -
You realise if you have enough starting velocity (money in the bank) any decelleration (rate of withdrawls) would not result in an instant 0velocity/ bankaccount unless the decell equalled 100% of what you had.

Can you math?
Yes/ no will suffice.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 02:02:31 PM
Lack of constant energy applied???  What the hell are you talking about?  What about the part where I say there ďis still a constant applied forceĒ. 

And, the cats will impart a force when they ďpush/springboardĒ off.  Really?  You know what I meant.

What are you, ten years old?  I was trying to lighten the discussion with my cats but since you want to play those childish games Iíll spell it out for you.

You have two skateboards.  One with a thirty pound weight and the second with no additional weight.  Theyíre both on the same level and smooth surface.  They both have the same applied constant force.  Iím saying the lighter board will reach a higher constant speed than the heavier one.  Clear enough for you or do I need my niece to get her crayons and draw you some pictures?

Mike
Let me get this right.
Are you saying that you push both boards with the same force an d let them freely roll away until they both stop but in the meantime the heavier board will be much slower than the lighter board or are you applying constant force to both boards so they're always under your apllied energy and not freely rolling along on their own.
Maybe those crayons aren't a bad idea.
Summon your niece. ;)
Okay, that was funny. :)

It is a constant applied force.  The applied force remains after a constant speed is reached.  Assume each is driven by identical battery operated motors that you turn on with a wireless remote so there is no physical interactions with either board.

Mike
One will have a slower speed than the other.
What does this have to do with what I'm saying?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 02:11:51 PM
The arrow obviously accelerates from zero to maximum velocity, but it's is extreme short order.
Yes, due to the short time the bow is stretched. But the entire time the bow is bushing the arrow forward, the arrow is being accelerated.
Yep, the springboard start.

Quote from: JackBlack
After that, it slows down, but quite slowly.
Yep, as I've been saying.

Quote from: JackBlack
Again, for the comparison to rockets: The entire time the engine is running the rocket is being accelerated.
Not vertically it isn't, at max thrust.



Quote from: JackBlack
You're going to have to find something better than that. It shows nothing against what I've been saying.
No, it quite clearly does.
Even without being able to tell what the acceleration is, we can easily tell that it doesn't' stop dead when the first stage finishes and instead continues moving upwards even before the second stage kicks in.

If it continued moving upwards the second stage would not be able to kick in.
The first stage stops dead and falls as the second stage immediately kicks in.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 03, 2019, 02:38:41 PM
Quite possibly hes redefined thrust...
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: JackBlack on January 03, 2019, 02:56:39 PM
Yep, the springboard start.
And for a rocket, the entire time the engine is on counts as a "springboard start"

Yep, as I've been saying.
No, it is literally the opposite.
You claim it stops dead instantly rather than continuing to go up.

Not vertically it isn't, at max thrust.
Again, all the evidence shows you are wrong.
You need more than your baseless assertions.

If it continued moving upwards the second stage would not be able to kick in.
Why wouldn't it?
What is there to magically prevent it?

The first stage stops dead and falls as the second stage immediately kicks in.
Go watch the video. THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN!
You just baselessly asserting crap has no effect on reality.
Reality will not bend to your demands.
It is quite clear:
The first stage stops, the rocket continues moving upwards while the first stage is jettisoned which moves outwards (and still upwards) and the second stage kicks in while the rocket is still moving upwards.

There is literally nothing supporting your nonsensical claim that it magically stops dead.
it is refuted by countless videos and simple experiments.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 03, 2019, 03:03:59 PM
Lack of constant energy applied???  What the hell are you talking about?  What about the part where I say there ďis still a constant applied forceĒ. 

And, the cats will impart a force when they ďpush/springboardĒ off.  Really?  You know what I meant.

What are you, ten years old?  I was trying to lighten the discussion with my cats but since you want to play those childish games Iíll spell it out for you.

You have two skateboards.  One with a thirty pound weight and the second with no additional weight.  Theyíre both on the same level and smooth surface.  They both have the same applied constant force.  Iím saying the lighter board will reach a higher constant speed than the heavier one.  Clear enough for you or do I need my niece to get her crayons and draw you some pictures?

Mike
Let me get this right.
Are you saying that you push both boards with the same force an d let them freely roll away until they both stop but in the meantime the heavier board will be much slower than the lighter board or are you applying constant force to both boards so they're always under your apllied energy and not freely rolling along on their own.
Maybe those crayons aren't a bad idea.
Summon your niece. ;)
Okay, that was funny. :)

It is a constant applied force.  The applied force remains after a constant speed is reached.  Assume each is driven by identical battery operated motors that you turn on with a wireless remote so there is no physical interactions with either board.

Mike
One will have a slower speed than the other.
What does this have to do with what I'm saying?
You asked what I was saying and I replied.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Stash on January 03, 2019, 03:05:05 PM
Here's a good video on How Rocket Engines Work - Part 1 - Thrust and Efficiency. Seems like there's a lot of rocket science involved...

Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Lonegranger on January 03, 2019, 03:07:01 PM

Every thing you say on this subject is wrong. Go watch a video of any rocket launch and maximum velocity is not achieved instantaneously, that would be impossible. Even in the case of a simple projectile maximum velocity is not achieved instantaneously. Watch this.....the arrow is clearly seen accelerating. 
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 03:12:21 PM
Yep, the springboard start.
And for a rocket, the entire time the engine is on counts as a "springboard start"
Nope, it does not.
Just a full thrust launch and then it's constant velocity under full thrust.

Quote from: JackBlack
Yep, as I've been saying.
No, it is literally the opposite.
You claim it stops dead instantly rather than continuing to go up.
At constant velocity it stops dead when the full thrust stops dead.
As long as there's thrust there will be upward movement.



Quote from: JackBlack
There is literally nothing supporting your nonsensical claim that it magically stops dead.
it is refuted by countless videos and simple experiments.
Nothing has refuted what I've said.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 03, 2019, 03:17:38 PM
Scepti is a living pricness bride meme.

Please define thrust!!!!


My car is running at constant 100km/s velocity.
I am using gas power to maintain my thrust against the wind drag and frictional forces that want me to slow down.
Lets say these negative forces add up to decell of 10km/s/s.
I suddenly throw my car into neutral = 0thrust.
Do I stop instantly?
Or do i stop 10seconds later?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 03:21:59 PM
Scepti is a living pricness bride meme.

Please define thrust!!!!


My car is running at constant 100km/s velocity.
I am using gas power to maintain my thrust against the wind drag and frictional forces that want me to slow down.
Lets say these negative forces add up to decell of 10km/s/s.
I suddenly throw my car into neutral = 0thrust.
Do I stop instantly?
Or do i stop 10seconds later?
When your car is doing all this vertically then we can discuss it.

Trying to use this against a rocket launch and vertical flight is pointless and going nowhere.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 03, 2019, 03:37:28 PM
Ok
My car is driving up a vertical ramp.
Direction dowsnt matter.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 03, 2019, 03:39:22 PM
Also
Please defien thrust for us
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: JackBlack on January 03, 2019, 04:42:08 PM
Just a full thrust launch and then it's constant velocity under full thrust.
Again, all available evidence, including that from model rockets, refutes you.
You refusing to accept that and you refusing to do the experiments yourself does not change that.

When your car is doing all this vertically then we can discuss it.
No need to wait for it to be vertical. The only difference is weight causing acceleration.
You have provided no justification as to why it should be magically different or why it should magically mean that things magically stop dead when they are no longer being pushed upwards instead of continuing upwards and slowing down as all experiments ever conducted have shown.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Stash on January 03, 2019, 05:35:10 PM
Just a full thrust launch and then it's constant velocity under full thrust.

So at full thrust, the rocket/missile rises up, let's say, at 1 foot above the ground, it has already reached it's maximum constant velocity and goes no faster? If I have that right, what is this based on?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 03, 2019, 05:56:21 PM
Just a full thrust launch and then it's constant velocity under full thrust.
Again, all available evidence, including that from model rockets, refutes you.
You refusing to accept that and you refusing to do the experiments yourself does not change that.

When your car is doing all this vertically then we can discuss it.
No need to wait for it to be vertical. The only difference is weight causing acceleration.
You have provided no justification as to why it should be magically different or why it should magically mean that things magically stop dead when they are no longer being pushed upwards instead of continuing upwards and slowing down as all experiments ever conducted have shown.
Did you have a chance to see the video I attached earlier?  IMHO, it's a clear example of how a two stage rocket works and a very clear example of what happens when it reaches engine cutoff. 

Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 10:59:04 PM
Ok
My car is driving up a vertical ramp.
Direction dowsnt matter.
Direction does matter.
We are dealing with vertical flight not horizontal movement and road/ground friction and also uniform atmosphere which we wouldn't be dealing with on a vertical flight.

There's a lot of difference.
If you want to use your car to somehow go up a vertical ramp then set it out as to how you think that would work.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 11:00:49 PM
 >:(
Also
Please defien thrust for us
Energetic push. Max thrust = maximum available energy and force to push.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 11:04:01 PM

Quote from: JackBlack

When your car is doing all this vertically then we can discuss it.
No need to wait for it to be vertical. The only difference is weight causing acceleration.
You have provided no justification as to why it should be magically different or why it should magically mean that things magically stop dead when they are no longer being pushed upwards instead of continuing upwards and slowing down as all experiments ever conducted have shown.
If you think driving a car up a wall is the same as driving it on a flat surface then I can't help you.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: JackBlack on January 03, 2019, 11:08:13 PM
Direction does matter.
WHY?
So far all you have done is assert that.

We are dealing with vertical flight not horizontal movement and road/ground friction and also uniform atmosphere which we wouldn't be dealing with on a vertical flight.
And none of that should magically make it stop dead instantly.
Not dealing with those means it should go even further.
I would say the big difference is that its weight is accelerating it downwards, but even then that just makes it slow down faster, not magically instantly.

If you think driving a car up a wall is the same as driving it on a flat surface then I can't help you.
Good thing I never said they were the same.
Yes, I should have clarified, the only significant difference.
If you have a car attached to a vertical wall such that the contact between the tires and the wall can hold and move the car, you have basically the same thing, with the main distinction being weight.
A car in horizontal motion only needs to combat air resistance to keep a constant speed, but a car going vertically (or up an incline) also needs to combat its weight.

There is no reason for it to magically stop dead.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 11:11:07 PM
Just a full thrust launch and then it's constant velocity under full thrust.

So at full thrust, the rocket/missile rises up, let's say, at 1 foot above the ground, it has already reached it's maximum constant velocity and goes no faster? If I have that right, what is this based on?
If full thrust gets you 1 foot off the ground then you will have a thrusting rocket, unbalanced at 1 foot before it topples over and turns into a fireball.

A rocket is designed to create max thrust to mass ration to propel that rocket from zero to constant velocity is super short order to give it stability in flight and also to arc to a target.

Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 11:12:21 PM
Just a full thrust launch and then it's constant velocity under full thrust.
Again, all available evidence, including that from model rockets, refutes you.
You refusing to accept that and you refusing to do the experiments yourself does not change that.

When your car is doing all this vertically then we can discuss it.
No need to wait for it to be vertical. The only difference is weight causing acceleration.
You have provided no justification as to why it should be magically different or why it should magically mean that things magically stop dead when they are no longer being pushed upwards instead of continuing upwards and slowing down as all experiments ever conducted have shown.
Did you have a chance to see the video I attached earlier?  IMHO, it's a clear example of how a two stage rocket works and a very clear example of what happens when it reaches engine cutoff. 


Point to the exact time it actually shows what you say it shows.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 11:28:15 PM
Quote from: JackBlack
If you think driving a car up a wall is the same as driving it on a flat surface then I can't help you.
Good thing I never said they were the same.
Yes, I should have clarified, the only significant difference.
If you have a car attached to a vertical wall such that the contact between the tires and the wall can hold and move the car, you have basically the same thing, with the main distinction being weight.
A car in horizontal motion only needs to combat air resistance to keep a constant speed, but a car going vertically (or up an incline) also needs to combat its weight.

There is no reason for it to magically stop dead.
It doesn't magically stop dead. If it cannot accelerate then it has to stop dead, because there is no added momentum for a car going up a vertical at a constant velocity.

Basically the car has to constantly push it's mass up that wall using it's maximum force to simply keep that exact same push every nano second (for the sake of it). The very nano second that push is at zero the car ceases to move one millimetre upward. It will stop dead and then simply accelerate downwards by it's own mass which would simply be stored energy to get it that far which can now become potential energy the nano second it stops before acceleration back down which becomes reactionary energy from the action of that initial push.



Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: rabinoz on January 03, 2019, 11:45:39 PM
Just a full thrust launch and then it's constant velocity under full thrust.

So at full thrust, the rocket/missile rises up, let's say, at 1 foot above the ground, it has already reached it's maximum constant velocity and goes no faster? If I have that right, what is this based on?
If full thrust gets you 1 foot off the ground then you will have a thrusting rocket, unbalanced at 1 foot before it topples over and turns into a fireball.
That is why large rockets usually have gimbaled engines an automatic stability control that uses their inbuilt gyroscopes for a direction reference.

Quote from: sceptimatic
A rocket is designed to create max thrust to mass ration to propel that rocket from zero to constant velocity is super short order to give it stability in flight and also to arc to a target.
Small rockets can accelerate very fast and are usually launched on a rail to provide stability until they have enough velocity for aerodynamic and/or spin stabilisation.

But a large rocket cannot accelerate "from zero to constant velocity is super short" time - it simply does not have enough thrust.
Solid fuel rockets like most ICBMs have a high initial thrust and accelerate rapidly but certainly not in a "super short time".

The LGM-30G Minuteman ICBM has a launch mass of 79,432 pounds and first stage thrust of 203,158 pounds force, so it accelerates at 2.56 x g.
But with a maximum velocity of approximately 15,000 mph (after 3 stages) it still takes a lot of seconds to reach that velocity.
The missile's stability is provided by a quick-reacting, inertially guided control system.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Stash on January 04, 2019, 12:07:15 AM
Just a full thrust launch and then it's constant velocity under full thrust.

So at full thrust, the rocket/missile rises up, let's say, at 1 foot above the ground, it has already reached it's maximum constant velocity and goes no faster? If I have that right, what is this based on?
If full thrust gets you 1 foot off the ground then you will have a thrusting rocket, unbalanced at 1 foot before it topples over and turns into a fireball.

A rocket is designed to create max thrust to mass ration to propel that rocket from zero to constant velocity is super short order to give it stability in flight and also to arc to a target.

You didn't answer the question, I'll phrase it another way. At full thrust at takeoff, when does the rocket stop accelerating?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 12:14:35 AM
Just a full thrust launch and then it's constant velocity under full thrust.

So at full thrust, the rocket/missile rises up, let's say, at 1 foot above the ground, it has already reached it's maximum constant velocity and goes no faster? If I have that right, what is this based on?
If full thrust gets you 1 foot off the ground then you will have a thrusting rocket, unbalanced at 1 foot before it topples over and turns into a fireball.
That is why large rockets usually have gimbaled engines an automatic stability control that uses their inbuilt gyroscopes for a direction reference.
Have a think about the so called size of the rockets we are arguing about. The massive so called ICBM's and what not.
Gimballed engines?
They are supposedly solid fuel rockets. No engines needed. They would be just a firework and would have to work like a firework.
No gimbal would stabilise something like that.
They're gimmicks.

Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: sceptimatic
A rocket is designed to create max thrust to mass ration to propel that rocket from zero to constant velocity is super short order to give it stability in flight and also to arc to a target.
Small rockets can accelerate very fast and are usually launched on a rail to provide stability until they have enough velocity for aerodynamic and/or spin stabilisation.
I have no issues with small rockets/missiles.

Quote from: rabinoz
But a large rocket cannot accelerate "from zero to constant velocity is super short" time - it simply does not have enough thrust.
Of course it can't, because they do not do what we are told and are not what we are told. In my opinion. Like I've said time and again.

Quote from: rabinoz
Solid fuel rockets like most ICBMs have a high initial thrust and accelerate rapidly but certainly not in a "super short time".
Again. Ballistic missiles on solid fuel will go zero to max velocity in short order and that's it. No more acceleration after that point.
I call this the springboard effect.
It's akin to any springboard zero to max thrust/applied energy.

Quote from: rabinoz
The LGM-30G Minuteman ICBM has a launch mass of 79,432 pounds and first stage thrust of 203,158 pounds force, so it accelerates at 2.56 x g.
But with a maximum velocity of approximately 15,000 mph (after 3 stages) it still takes a lot of seconds to reach that velocity.
Have a think about the silliness of it all.

Quote from: rabinoz
The missile's stability is provided by a quick-reacting, inertially guided control system.
Any diagrams on how this is supposed to work on a so called ICBM?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: rabinoz on January 04, 2019, 12:14:53 AM
Quote from: JackBlack
There is no reason for it to magically stop dead.
It doesn't magically stop dead. If it cannot accelerate then it has to stop dead, because there is no added momentum for a car going up a vertical at a constant velocity.
No, it does not stop dead, magically or otherwise.
When the acceleration stops the velocity would stay the same if there were no other forces.
But if a rocket or even a ball throw vertically stops accelerating it has gravity (or whatever you call the force pulling things down) slowing it down - a negative acceleration.

A ball vertically does not stop climbing immediately.
You could probably launch a base-ball vertically at 15 m/s. This ball would take over 1.5 seconds to stop and start falling.

If a rocket were travelling vertically at 1528 m/s (the maximum for one Go-Fast rocket flight ) it would take about 160 seconds to stop and start falling.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 12:22:29 AM
You didn't answer the question, I'll phrase it another way. At full thrust at takeoff, when does the rocket stop accelerating?
Almost immediately. Think of it like a springboard effect.
Any rocket at max thrust will springboard into the air and reach max velocity in extreme short order. After that it merely holds it's initial velocity to actually keep it gaining height.

It is not springboarding at any other time other than launch. All it's doing from that point on is max thrusting to attain upward movement of it's own fuel and structural mass against ever lessening atmosphere above and below.
It's what keeps the rocket constant but gives it no extra momentum if the thrust is cut dead. It simply cuts the rocket's upward push, dead.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 12:30:25 AM

But if a rocket or even a ball throw vertically stops accelerating it has gravity (or whatever you call the force pulling things down) slowing it down - a negative acceleration.

A ball vertically does not stop climbing immediately.
You could probably launch a base-ball vertically at 15 m/s. This ball would take over 1.5 seconds to stop and start falling.
Understand that a vertically thrown ball will not reach constant velocity after acceleration ceases. It simply loses momentum, meaning it still has upward momentum.
This is not what I'm arguing.



Quote from: rabinoz
If a rocket were travelling vertically at 1528 m/s (the maximum for one Go-Fast rocket flight ) it would take about 160 seconds to stop and start falling.
Under power, yes.
If you max thrusted that rocket and shut it down after acceleration then the rocket still goes vertical until that momentum is spent.

This is also not what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is after acceleration and up to constant velocity.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: rabinoz on January 04, 2019, 12:55:08 AM
Just a full thrust launch and then it's constant velocity under full thrust.

So at full thrust, the rocket/missile rises up, let's say, at 1 foot above the ground, it has already reached it's maximum constant velocity and goes no faster? If I have that right, what is this based on?
If full thrust gets you 1 foot off the ground then you will have a thrusting rocket, unbalanced at 1 foot before it topples over and turns into a fireball.
That is why large rockets usually have gimbaled engines an automatic stability control that uses their inbuilt gyroscopes for a direction reference.
Have a think about the so called size of the rockets we are arguing about. The massive so called ICBM's and what not.
Gimballed engines?
They are supposedly solid fuel rockets. No engines needed. They would be just a firework and would have to work like a firework.
No gimbal would stabilise something like that.
Not at all!
A large solid fuel rocket is far being "just a firework" and still have a "rocket engine" with combustion chamber (the solid fuel container),  throat and exhaust bell (or nozzle).
They are steered by one of a number of means with the one closest to a gimballed engine being the move able nozzle as in:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/5crcfb4tqjkoeee/Thrust%20Vector%20Control%2C%20a%20movable%20nozzle.jpg?dl=1)
One type of Thrust Vector Control, a movable nozzle.
The direction of the movable nozzle is controlled by a couple of actuators.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 01:15:05 AM
Just a full thrust launch and then it's constant velocity under full thrust.

So at full thrust, the rocket/missile rises up, let's say, at 1 foot above the ground, it has already reached it's maximum constant velocity and goes no faster? If I have that right, what is this based on?
If full thrust gets you 1 foot off the ground then you will have a thrusting rocket, unbalanced at 1 foot before it topples over and turns into a fireball.
That is why large rockets usually have gimbaled engines an automatic stability control that uses their inbuilt gyroscopes for a direction reference.
Have a think about the so called size of the rockets we are arguing about. The massive so called ICBM's and what not.
Gimballed engines?
They are supposedly solid fuel rockets. No engines needed. They would be just a firework and would have to work like a firework.
No gimbal would stabilise something like that.
Not at all!
A large solid fuel rocket is far being "just a firework" and still have a "rocket engine" with combustion chamber (the solid fuel container),  throat and exhaust bell (or nozzle).
They are steered by one of a number of means with the one closest to a gimballed engine being the move able nozzle as in:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/5crcfb4tqjkoeee/Thrust%20Vector%20Control%2C%20a%20movable%20nozzle.jpg?dl=1)
One type of Thrust Vector Control, a movable nozzle.
The direction of the movable nozzle is controlled by a couple of actuators.
Let me make this a bit more clear.

Place a moving nozzle under a vertical rocket under slow motion lift off will render that rocket as a launchpad fireball due to severe unbalancing.
One slight move of a so called gimballed nozzle/so called engine will tip the rocket over.

Those massive rockets we are shown are gimmicks and special effects.
Of course they're going to have explanations for how they manage to do what they tell us.
They may as well tell us how a star wars mothership works.

Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Stash on January 04, 2019, 01:22:36 AM
You didn't answer the question, I'll phrase it another way. At full thrust at takeoff, when does the rocket stop accelerating?
Almost immediately. Think of it like a springboard effect.
Any rocket at max thrust will springboard into the air and reach max velocity in extreme short order. After that it merely holds it's initial velocity to actually keep it gaining height.

It is not springboarding at any other time other than launch. All it's doing from that point on is max thrusting to attain upward movement of it's own fuel and structural mass against ever lessening atmosphere above and below.
It's what keeps the rocket constant but gives it no extra momentum if the thrust is cut dead. It simply cuts the rocket's upward push, dead.

Not being a rocket scientist, all I have is logic. (And there are equations for this, but they are above my pay grade and I'm sure above your's as well):

The rocket is at full thrust at takeoff
Burning propellant reduces the weight of the projectile, yet still at full thrust - the full thrust is constant
The lighter the object, yet still at full thrust, the faster it will go until all propellant is exhausted

Meaning, the rocket speeds up until it's propellant is gone, there's no 'springboard'.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 01:35:35 AM
Not being a rocket scientist, all I have is logic. (And there are equations for this, but they are above my pay grade and I'm sure above your's as well):

The rocket is at full thrust at takeoff
Burning propellant reduces the weight of the projectile, yet still at full thrust - the full thrust is constant
The lighter the object, yet still at full thrust, the faster it will go until all propellant is exhausted

Meaning, the rocket speeds up until it's propellant is gone, there's no 'springboard'.
Absolutely right, if that was the case. But it isn't the case.

Let me explain once again and see if you can agree or at least get what I'm saying.

The atmosphere we are under is stacked.
The densest part of the atmosphere is at sea /ground level.
The atmosphere becomes weaker and weaker in density of molecules the higher up we go.
I'm sure you can accept this, right?

Back to the rocket.
At launch, at max thrust the rocket springboards from zero to constant velocity after brief acceleration.
The reason it keeps a constant velocity is the very reason as to why it loses mass (fuel) as it advances vertically, because it's hitting ever lessening friction (less atmospheric pressure/less molecules) above it but also having to still thrust against ever lessening atmosphere, which it can do due to the very fact that it's losing its mass as it progresses.
It's a mutual action/reaction in equal terms.


In your scenario. If you were to place your rocket on wheels and place it horizontally on a nice flat and smooth road you would accelerate until your rocket spent it's ability to max thrust due to that fuel to mass ratio becoming less and less under the exact same dense atmosphere.

Get what I'm trying to tell you?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 04, 2019, 01:38:07 AM
Just a full thrust launch and then it's constant velocity under full thrust.

So at full thrust, the rocket/missile rises up, let's say, at 1 foot above the ground, it has already reached it's maximum constant velocity and goes no faster? If I have that right, what is this based on?
If full thrust gets you 1 foot off the ground then you will have a thrusting rocket, unbalanced at 1 foot before it topples over and turns into a fireball.
That is why large rockets usually have gimbaled engines an automatic stability control that uses their inbuilt gyroscopes for a direction reference.
Have a think about the so called size of the rockets we are arguing about. The massive so called ICBM's and what not.
Gimballed engines?
They are supposedly solid fuel rockets. No engines needed. They would be just a firework and would have to work like a firework.
No gimbal would stabilise something like that.
Not at all!
A large solid fuel rocket is far being "just a firework" and still have a "rocket engine" with combustion chamber (the solid fuel container),  throat and exhaust bell (or nozzle).
They are steered by one of a number of means with the one closest to a gimballed engine being the move able nozzle as in:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/5crcfb4tqjkoeee/Thrust%20Vector%20Control%2C%20a%20movable%20nozzle.jpg?dl=1)
One type of Thrust Vector Control, a movable nozzle.
The direction of the movable nozzle is controlled by a couple of actuators.
Let me make this a bit more clear.

Place a moving nozzle under a vertical rocket under slow motion lift off will render that rocket as a launchpad fireball due to severe unbalancing.
One slight move of a so called gimballed nozzle/so called engine will tip the rocket over.

Those massive rockets we are shown are gimmicks and special effects.
Of course they're going to have explanations for how they manage to do what they tell us.
They may as well tell us how a star wars mothership works.
Why on earth would you think that "gimballed" nozzles would tip the rocket?  That's the whole point of trust vector control systems and inertial guidance systems.  What's the basis for this claim?

Here's a video of the BPS TVC system in operation.  No fins, slow take off, gradual acceleration...



Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 01:42:04 AM

Why on earth would you think that "gimballed" nozzles would tip the rocket?  That's the whole point of trust vector control systems and inertial guidance systems.  What's the basis for this claim?

Here's a video of the BPS TVC system in operation.  No fins, slow take off, gradual acceleration...



Mike
Show me a diagram for that very rocket.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 04, 2019, 01:46:16 AM
Just a full thrust launch and then it's constant velocity under full thrust.
Again, all available evidence, including that from model rockets, refutes you.
You refusing to accept that and you refusing to do the experiments yourself does not change that.

When your car is doing all this vertically then we can discuss it.
No need to wait for it to be vertical. The only difference is weight causing acceleration.
You have provided no justification as to why it should be magically different or why it should magically mean that things magically stop dead when they are no longer being pushed upwards instead of continuing upwards and slowing down as all experiments ever conducted have shown.
Did you have a chance to see the video I attached earlier?  IMHO, it's a clear example of how a two stage rocket works and a very clear example of what happens when it reaches engine cutoff. 


Point to the exact time it actually shows what you say it shows.
At 1:29 it launches, 1:45 first stage separation, continues to climb and at 1:47 the second stage lights and the rocket accelerates to speed again.  At ≈1:51 is second stage cut off and it's momentum carries it's on to about 2:15 where the parachute opens.

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 04, 2019, 01:50:30 AM

Why on earth would you think that "gimballed" nozzles would tip the rocket?  That's the whole point of trust vector control systems and inertial guidance systems.  What's the basis for this claim?

Here's a video of the BPS TVC system in operation.  No fins, slow take off, gradual acceleration...



Mike
Show me a diagram for that very rocket.
This video explains everything used in that rocket.  How he came up with the design, how it works, and how it's installed.

You don't like to do your own research do you?

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 01:51:49 AM
Just a full thrust launch and then it's constant velocity under full thrust.
Again, all available evidence, including that from model rockets, refutes you.
You refusing to accept that and you refusing to do the experiments yourself does not change that.

When your car is doing all this vertically then we can discuss it.
No need to wait for it to be vertical. The only difference is weight causing acceleration.
You have provided no justification as to why it should be magically different or why it should magically mean that things magically stop dead when they are no longer being pushed upwards instead of continuing upwards and slowing down as all experiments ever conducted have shown.
Did you have a chance to see the video I attached earlier?  IMHO, it's a clear example of how a two stage rocket works and a very clear example of what happens when it reaches engine cutoff. 


Point to the exact time it actually shows what you say it shows.
At 1:29 it launches, 1:45 first stage separation, continues to climb and at 1:47 the second stage lights and the rocket accelerates to speed again.  At ≈1:51 is second stage cut off and it's momentum carries it's on to about 2:15 where the parachute opens.

Mike
It's still thrusting. I don't see a cut off.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: rabinoz on January 04, 2019, 01:52:09 AM
If a rocket were travelling vertically at 1528 m/s (the maximum for one Go-Fast rocket flight ) it would take about 160 seconds to stop and start falling.
Under power, yes.
If you max thrusted that rocket and shut it down after acceleration then the rocket still goes vertical until that momentum is spent.

This is also not what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is after acceleration and up to constant velocity.
But if the rocket is travelling vertically or even arcing over there never is any "constant velocity" period.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 04, 2019, 01:52:51 AM
Just a full thrust launch and then it's constant velocity under full thrust.
Again, all available evidence, including that from model rockets, refutes you.
You refusing to accept that and you refusing to do the experiments yourself does not change that.

When your car is doing all this vertically then we can discuss it.
No need to wait for it to be vertical. The only difference is weight causing acceleration.
You have provided no justification as to why it should be magically different or why it should magically mean that things magically stop dead when they are no longer being pushed upwards instead of continuing upwards and slowing down as all experiments ever conducted have shown.
Did you have a chance to see the video I attached earlier?  IMHO, it's a clear example of how a two stage rocket works and a very clear example of what happens when it reaches engine cutoff. 


Point to the exact time it actually shows what you say it shows.
At 1:29 it launches, 1:45 first stage separation, continues to climb and at 1:47 the second stage lights and the rocket accelerates to speed again.  At ≈1:51 is second stage cut off and it's momentum carries it's on to about 2:15 where the parachute opens.

Mike
It's still thrusting. I don't see a cut off.
Kinda vague.  You wanna tell me what you're talking about.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 01:59:32 AM
If a rocket were travelling vertically at 1528 m/s (the maximum for one Go-Fast rocket flight ) it would take about 160 seconds to stop and start falling.
Under power, yes.
If you max thrusted that rocket and shut it down after acceleration then the rocket still goes vertical until that momentum is spent.

This is also not what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is after acceleration and up to constant velocity.
But if the rocket is travelling vertically or even arcing over there never is any "constant velocity" period.
Of course, if you want to argue true vertical.
An arc scuppers any constant velocity because it obviously alters path. That's why I generally use max velocity.
If you want we can simply say max mph vertically.
The simple argument is, there is no acceleration vertically after initial springboard launch.

If you want to argue constant velocities we will also do that but it won't change the crux of the matter.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 02:02:17 AM
Quote from: MicroBeta

It's still thrusting. I don't see a cut off.
Kinda vague.  You wanna tell me what you're talking about.
You say the rocket is still advancing vertically after cut off. I  don't see a cut off. I see thrust and even so I can't make out whether the rocket is advancing or not and neither can you from that point, if you're honest.

However, we can argue it and you can do your best to get me to see what you're telling me you can see.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Stash on January 04, 2019, 02:10:29 AM
Not being a rocket scientist, all I have is logic. (And there are equations for this, but they are above my pay grade and I'm sure above your's as well):

The rocket is at full thrust at takeoff
Burning propellant reduces the weight of the projectile, yet still at full thrust - the full thrust is constant
The lighter the object, yet still at full thrust, the faster it will go until all propellant is exhausted

Meaning, the rocket speeds up until it's propellant is gone, there's no 'springboard'.
Absolutely right, if that was the case. But it isn't the case.

Let me explain once again and see if you can agree or at least get what I'm saying.

The atmosphere we are under is stacked.
The densest part of the atmosphere is at sea /ground level.
The atmosphere becomes weaker and weaker in density of molecules the higher up we go.
I'm sure you can accept this, right?

You had me until here:

Back to the rocket.
At launch, at max thrust the rocket springboards from zero to constant velocity after brief acceleration.
The reason it keeps a constant velocity is the very reason as to why it loses mass (fuel) as it advances vertically, because it's hitting ever lessening friction (less atmospheric pressure/less molecules) above it but also having to still thrust against ever lessening atmosphere, which it can do due to the very fact that it's losing its mass as it progresses.
It's a mutual action/reaction in equal terms.

"After a brief acceleration" Define that. Is the brief acceleration 1 foot, 50 feet, 1000 feet. How are you calculating 'brief'? It's not constant velocity as you couch it, it's acceleration. Logically, max thrust will increase velocity over time as weight to thrust ratios draw down. Factor in your (which I agree with) lesser atmospheric density (drag) as you move up in altitude, you're actually proving my point: Rocket, heavy - Max Thrust - Rocket rises - Rocket speeds up as it gets lighter at the same max thrust and the atmosphere gets thinner, meaning less resistance. Your whole argument is against your whole argument.

Do you get what I'm trying to tell you?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 02:22:05 AM
Not being a rocket scientist, all I have is logic. (And there are equations for this, but they are above my pay grade and I'm sure above your's as well):

The rocket is at full thrust at takeoff
Burning propellant reduces the weight of the projectile, yet still at full thrust - the full thrust is constant
The lighter the object, yet still at full thrust, the faster it will go until all propellant is exhausted

Meaning, the rocket speeds up until it's propellant is gone, there's no 'springboard'.
Absolutely right, if that was the case. But it isn't the case.

Let me explain once again and see if you can agree or at least get what I'm saying.

The atmosphere we are under is stacked.
The densest part of the atmosphere is at sea /ground level.
The atmosphere becomes weaker and weaker in density of molecules the higher up we go.
I'm sure you can accept this, right?

You had me until here:

Back to the rocket.
At launch, at max thrust the rocket springboards from zero to constant velocity after brief acceleration.
The reason it keeps a constant velocity is the very reason as to why it loses mass (fuel) as it advances vertically, because it's hitting ever lessening friction (less atmospheric pressure/less molecules) above it but also having to still thrust against ever lessening atmosphere, which it can do due to the very fact that it's losing its mass as it progresses.
It's a mutual action/reaction in equal terms.

"After a brief acceleration" Define that. Is the brief acceleration 1 foot, 50 feet, 1000 feet. How are you calculating 'brief'?
 
It depends on the rocket and it's initial mass and available thrust at launch.
It could be 10 feet or 50 feet or whatever the springboard allows for acceleration.
Either scenario it's brief. Seconds and I'm being generous.

Quote from: Stash
It's not constant velocity as you couch it, it's acceleration.
Only at the start on the springboard thrust from zero to max mph.
I'll use mph because Rab wants to argue constant velocity not being a thing as the rocket arcs, even though I use vertical as a plumb...but never mind I can go with the flow.


Quote from: Stash
Logically, max thrust will increase velocity over time as weight to thrust ratios draw down. Factor in your (which I agree with) lesser atmospheric density (drag) as you move up in altitude, you're actually proving my point: Rocket, heavy - Max Thrust - Rocket rises - Rocket speeds up as it gets lighter at the same max thrust and the atmosphere gets thinner, meaning less resistance. Your whole argument is against your whole argument.

Do you get what I'm trying to tell you?
You're not getting what I'm telling you.

Less resistance above means less resistance below, meaning the max thrust would make the rocket lose speed and not keep a steady mph/mps IF the rocket didn't shed some of its mass...but it does. It sheds its fuel which lessens it's mass and keeps the thrust to mass ratio steady as it moves into thinner atmosphere.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: JackBlack on January 04, 2019, 02:29:35 AM
A rocket is designed to create max thrust to mass ration to propel that rocket from zero to constant velocity is super short order to give it stability in flight and also to arc to a target.
Again, STOP ASSERTING THE SAME LIES!
No rocket is designed to do that. They continue to accelerate.

If it cannot accelerate then it has to stop dead, because there is no added momentum
You don't need added momentum, you just need momentum. That momentum will carry it, so it doesn't stop dead. Instead it slows down gradually.

using it's maximum force to simply keep that exact same push
Why?
There is literally no reason to think that.
Why would it be impossible for it to push any more and continue to accelerate?

The very nano second that push is at zero the car ceases to move one millimetre upward.
Again, every experiment ever conducted shows that to be BS. There is no reason at all for it to magically stop dead.
Try providing an explanation rather than continually asserting such pathetic lies.

They are supposedly solid fuel rockets. No engines needed.
This statment makes no sense.
That is literally saying "They are supposedly rockets with engines. No engines needed."
A solid fuel rocket still has a rocket engine, which is powered by solid fuel.

No gimbal would stabilise something like that.
Why not??
Stop just asserting gabarge.


I have no issues with small rockets/missiles.
You sure seem to. You are blatantly lying about how they work. They don't magically reach a constant velocity and continue at it.

because they do not do what we are told and are not what we are told.
Again, pure BS. They quite clearly do the things we are told.
They take off slow and gain velocity (i.e. accelerate) while in the air.

Again, if you just have an opinion, keep it to yourself.

Ballistic missiles on solid fuel will go zero to max velocity in short order and that's it.
Again, PURE BS.
Stop just asserting BS. Back it up.
There is absolutely no reason to think it would work like the magic you describe.

Have a think about the silliness of it all.
The only silliness here is your repeated pathetic dismissals and outright lies.

Understand that a vertically thrown ball will not reach constant velocity after acceleration ceases. It simply loses momentum, meaning it still has upward momentum.
And why should a rocket be magically different?
Once the engine is cut it is just like the ball, flying through the air, losing momentum, not magically stopping dead.
The big difference is while the engine is on, when the rocket is accelerating.

Place a moving nozzle under a vertical rocket under slow motion lift off will render that rocket as a launchpad fireball due to severe unbalancing.
Again, stop asserting pure bullshit.

Those massive rockets we are shown are gimmicks and special effects.
HOW? How do they magically work?
They sure seem to work just like real rockets, completely different to your fantasy.

Let me explain once again and see if you can agree or at least get what I'm saying.
We get what you are saying. We just realise it is BS.

The densest part of the atmosphere is at sea /ground level.
And that means as the rocket goes up, it needs less thrust to combat the movement through the atmosphere.
That is just another reason as to why it should continue to accelerate.

At launch, at max thrust the rocket springboards from zero to constant velocity after brief acceleration.
No it does not.

The reason it keeps a constant velocity is the very reason as to why it loses mass (fuel) as it advances vertically
No, there is literally no connection there.
It loses mass because it is burning its fuel and throwing it out behind it. That is what is providing the thrust.
It would need to lower the thrust to maintain a constant velocity.

It's still thrusting. I don't see a cut off.
Try watching it with your eyes open.
You ignoring reality wont change it.

An arc scuppers any constant velocity
Even vertical flight does that.
The only way for a rocket to have a constant velocity, with a constant thrust, is if the thrust is going purely into fighting air resistance.

You're not getting what I'm telling you.
No, we aren't accepting your baseless BS.
Literally all you have is a pathetic baseless assertion which is refuted by plenty of evidence.

Less resistance above means less resistance below, meaning the max thrust would make the rocket lose speed
The resistance below is primarily provided by the rocket fuel is which is being ejected after it is burnt, not by the atmosphere.
So no, it doesn't really have less resistance below unless you actually had something containing it.

So no, the thrust remains constant while the mass decreases and the air above gets thinner reducing air resistance so it must accelerate.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: rabinoz on January 04, 2019, 02:43:10 AM
The simple argument is, there is no acceleration vertically after initial springboard launch.
No large rocket even approximates an "initial springboard launch" and even the "model" rockets burn for a quite finite time.
This site has the data for their "black powder" model rocket engines: Apogee Home, ESTES MOTORS (https://www.apogeerockets.com/Rocket_Motors/Estes_Motorshttps://www.apogeerockets.com/Rocket_Motors/Estes_Motors). Their burn times range from only 0.3 s to 3.5 s.

But with any rocket launched near vertically there is no constant velocity period.

Quote from: sceptimatic
If you want to argue constant velocities we will also do that but it won't change the crux of the matter.
I don't know what you mean about "want to argue constant velocities".
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: rabinoz on January 04, 2019, 02:51:00 AM
Less resistance above means less resistance below, meaning the max thrust would make the rocket lose speed and not keep a steady mph/mps IF the rocket didn't shed some of its mass...but it does. It sheds its fuel which lessens it's mass and keeps the thrust to mass ratio steady as it moves into thinner atmosphere.
NO! The thrust of a rocket does not get smaller a high altitude! In fact it gets a little larger.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Stash on January 04, 2019, 02:58:32 AM
Less resistance above means less resistance below, meaning the max thrust would make the rocket lose speed and not keep a steady mph/mps IF the rocket didn't shed some of its mass...but it does. It sheds its fuel which lessens it's mass and keeps the thrust to mass ratio steady as it moves into thinner atmosphere.

Which, logically, would mean, less resistance above (good, easier to push through), it sheds it's fuel, lessening the mass of the object, it's thrust to mass ratio is actually greater. Not steady or equal. It's lighter, has less atmospheric resistance, yet still has its same full thrust as it did when it was heavier. Hence, acceleration. How is that logic flawed? The rocket accelerates until it's fuel is spent. That's logic and quite possibly rocket science.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 04, 2019, 03:04:00 AM
Quote from: MicroBeta

It's still thrusting. I don't see a cut off.
Kinda vague.  You wanna tell me what you're talking about.
You say the rocket is still advancing vertically after cut off. I  don't see a cut off. I see thrust and even so I can't make out whether the rocket is advancing or not and neither can you from that point, if you're honest.

However, we can argue it and you can do your best to get me to see what you're telling me you can see.
If I'm being honest?   Are you fucking kidding me?

Here's what I can honestly tell you.  When the first stage rockets, the boosters on either side, cut off and drop off it's about two seconds before the second stage ignites.  This is clearly visible and you would be lying to say other wise.

What is also clear is that the rocket DOES NOT stop dead an immediately start to fall when the first stage boosters cut off or when the separate from the rocket. 

If you're being honest you have to admit that when the second stage ignites the ground starts to rapidly move away.  Seriously, this is indisputable and I defy you to show otherwise. 

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 04, 2019, 03:21:20 AM
Ok
My car is driving up a vertical ramp.
Direction dowsnt matter.
Direction does matter.
We are dealing with vertical flight not horizontal movement and road/ground friction and also uniform atmosphere which we wouldn't be dealing with on a vertical flight.

There's a lot of difference.
If you want to use your car to somehow go up a vertical ramp then set it out as to how you think that would work.

You really arent very smart eh?
Theoretical magical car that can drive up that deals with a constant velocity, max thrust that cuts out after a certain period, degrading atmospheric drag resistance over X distance, and a constant downward push.

I simplified the math using a horizpntal car so you can see that with a large enough initial velocity before engine cutoff, the car does NOT stop dead as you keep claiming.

Either youre king troll or youre aeriously not good with numbers.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 04, 2019, 03:27:47 AM
>:(
Also
Please defien thrust for us
Energetic push. Max thrust = maximum available energy and force to push.

Remove energy and you got it...
But now we know what youre on about.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 04, 2019, 04:13:09 AM
Ok boyos
Scepi is using alternative physics.
Based on his definiton of thrust -
I believe He equates thrust as energy.
So in his mind whne fuel is spent = no more energy.
When his chemical potential energy converted to kinetic, then reaching a max vertical potential energy, yes, the rocket stops "dead".

Maybe thats what hes on about.

Of course this fool likes to redefine words then gets upset when no one understands him...

Scepti
Yes no?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 04:13:39 AM
A rocket is designed to create max thrust to mass ration to propel that rocket from zero to constant velocity is super short order to give it stability in flight and also to arc to a target.
Again, STOP ASSERTING THE SAME LIES!
No rocket is designed to do that. They continue to accelerate.
In films. We're talking about real life.

Quote from: JackBlack
If it cannot accelerate then it has to stop dead, because there is no added momentum
You don't need added momentum, you just need momentum. That momentum will carry it, so it doesn't stop dead. Instead it slows down gradually.
Only two ways it can slow down gradually from a vertical.

1. It loses max thrust.
2. It launches like a springboard and cuts off after initial acceleration which will slow it down from that point until it stops dead.

Normal constant velocity or steady mph/mps vertical flight will stop dead upon immediate shut down of thrust.

Quote from: JackBlack
using it's maximum force to simply keep that exact same push
Why?
There is literally no reason to think that.
Why would it be impossible for it to push any more and continue to accelerate?
Max thrust means what it says. Nothing more to give vertically against the push of the mass and the lessening density of atmosphere.


Quote from: JackBlack
because they do not do what we are told and are not what we are told.
Again, pure BS. They quite clearly do the things we are told.
They take off slow and gain velocity (i.e. accelerate) while in the air.
In  films and such they do. But then again the movie makers can make anything appear real.


Understand that a vertically thrown ball will not reach constant velocity after acceleration ceases. It simply loses momentum, meaning it still has upward momentum.
And why should a rocket be magically different?
Once the engine is cut it is just like the ball, flying through the air, losing momentum, not magically stopping dead.
[/quote]Nope, it's not, unless the max thrust is cut immediately after acceleration from a springboard launch.



The densest part of the atmosphere is at sea /ground level.
And that means as the rocket goes up, it needs less thrust to combat the movement through the atmosphere.
That is just another reason as to why it should continue to accelerate.
[/quote]Nope. It would actually  need to keep max thrust to keep it at a steady speed.


The reason it keeps a constant velocity is the very reason as to why it loses mass (fuel) as it advances vertically
No, there is literally no connection there.
It loses mass because it is burning its fuel and throwing it out behind it. That is what is providing the thrust.
It would need to lower the thrust to maintain a constant velocity.
[/quote]No it wouldn't. A lower thrust would slow it down and eventually stop it advancing.


An arc scuppers any constant velocity
Even vertical flight does that.
The only way for a rocket to have a constant velocity, with a constant thrust, is if the thrust is going purely into fighting air resistance.
[/quote]It is, both ways.


Less resistance above means less resistance below, meaning the max thrust would make the rocket lose speed
The resistance below is primarily provided by the rocket fuel is which is being ejected after it is burnt, not by the atmosphere.
[/quote]Wrong. It's both. It's the fuel ejected against the atmospheric friction that ensures the rocket stays in flight.


Quote from: JackBlack
So no, the thrust remains constant while the mass decreases and the air above gets thinner reducing air resistance so it must accelerate.
Nope.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 04:16:50 AM
Less resistance above means less resistance below, meaning the max thrust would make the rocket lose speed and not keep a steady mph/mps IF the rocket didn't shed some of its mass...but it does. It sheds its fuel which lessens it's mass and keeps the thrust to mass ratio steady as it moves into thinner atmosphere.
NO! The thrust of a rocket does not get smaller a high altitude! In fact it gets a little larger.
I never said the thrust did get smaller. Read what I said.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 04:21:36 AM
Less resistance above means less resistance below, meaning the max thrust would make the rocket lose speed and not keep a steady mph/mps IF the rocket didn't shed some of its mass...but it does. It sheds its fuel which lessens it's mass and keeps the thrust to mass ratio steady as it moves into thinner atmosphere.

Which, logically, would mean, less resistance above (good, easier to push through), it sheds it's fuel, lessening the mass of the object, it's thrust to mass ratio is actually greater. Not steady or equal. It's lighter, has less atmospheric resistance, yet still has its same full thrust as it did when it was heavier. Hence, acceleration. How is that logic flawed? The rocket accelerates until it's fuel is spent. That's logic and quite possibly rocket science.
As I explained earlier. It might have less atmosphere to push through but it also has less to push against. It counteracts and keeps a steady mph/mps. Or speed.

Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: rabinoz on January 04, 2019, 04:23:49 AM
Ok boyos
Scepi is using alternative physics.
Based on his definition of thrust -
I believe He equates thrust as energy.
So in his mind when fuel is spent = no more energy.
When his chemical potential energy converted to kinetic, then reaching a max vertical potential energy, yes, the rocket stops "dead".
Would a Sceptionary help?
"mass",.....The amount of material that makes up an object.
"weight",....The amount compactness of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure.
"volume",...The amount of porosity in any object.
"density"....The structure of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure to create a scale reading. (Denpressure)
"speed",....The ability to go a distance in a certain time in any direction.
"velocity",..... The speed of something in one direction, only.
"acceleration",.....The continuous build up of movement.
"force",..... Any energy push in any direction
"inertia",..... Something that cannot be explained as anything, to be fair.
"pressure",.....I think pressure can be lumped in with force. there's actually no difference to what they both mean in the grand scheme of things.
"pressure gradient",........ The difference in energy force that goes from low to high or high to low.
"power",....  Energy push.
"energy"......Vibration and friction, which basically are the same thing.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 04:26:34 AM
Quote from: MicroBeta

It's still thrusting. I don't see a cut off.
Kinda vague.  You wanna tell me what you're talking about.
You say the rocket is still advancing vertically after cut off. I  don't see a cut off. I see thrust and even so I can't make out whether the rocket is advancing or not and neither can you from that point, if you're honest.

However, we can argue it and you can do your best to get me to see what you're telling me you can see.
If I'm being honest?   Are you fucking kidding me?

Here's what I can honestly tell you.  When the first stage rockets, the boosters on either side, cut off and drop off it's about two seconds before the second stage ignites.  This is clearly visible and you would be lying to say other wise.

What is also clear is that the rocket DOES NOT stop dead an immediately start to fall when the first stage boosters cut off or when the separate from the rocket. 

If you're being honest you have to admit that when the second stage ignites the ground starts to rapidly move away.  Seriously, this is indisputable and I defy you to show otherwise. 

Mike
I don't see any proof of a rocket shut off and advanced vertical flight.
If what you're saying is the truth then you must be able to show me videos that clearly verify it rather than sticking to this.

And swearing will not get your point across any clearer, nor will it make a case for you other than making you an angry frustrated person.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 04:32:41 AM
Ok boyos
Scepi is using alternative physics.
Based on his definiton of thrust -
I believe He equates thrust as energy.
So in his mind whne fuel is spent = no more energy.
When his chemical potential energy converted to kinetic, then reaching a max vertical potential energy, yes, the rocket stops "dead".

Maybe thats what hes on about.

Of course this fool likes to redefine words then gets upset when no one understands him...

Scepti
Yes no?
If you can tell me how you can get thrust without using energy then I'm all ears.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 04, 2019, 04:33:27 AM
Ok boyos
Scepi is using alternative physics.
Based on his definition of thrust -
I believe He equates thrust as energy.
So in his mind when fuel is spent = no more energy.
When his chemical potential energy converted to kinetic, then reaching a max vertical potential energy, yes, the rocket stops "dead".
Would a Sceptionary help?
"mass",.....The amount of material that makes up an object.
"weight",....The amount compactness of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure.
"volume",...The amount of porosity in any object.
"density"....The structure of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure to create a scale reading. (Denpressure)
"speed",....The ability to go a distance in a certain time in any direction.
"velocity",..... The speed of something in one direction, only.
"acceleration",.....The continuous build up of movement.
"force",..... Any energy push in any direction
"inertia",..... Something that cannot be explained as anything, to be fair.
"pressure",.....I think pressure can be lumped in with force. there's actually no difference to what they both mean in the grand scheme of things.
"pressure gradient",........ The difference in energy force that goes from low to high or high to low.
"power and THRUST",....  Energy push.
"energy"......Vibration and friction, which basically are the same thing.

I added power and thrust as per scepti.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 04, 2019, 04:35:32 AM
Less resistance above means less resistance below, meaning the max thrust would make the rocket lose speed and not keep a steady mph/mps IF the rocket didn't shed some of its mass...but it does. It sheds its fuel which lessens it's mass and keeps the thrust to mass ratio steady as it moves into thinner atmosphere.

Which, logically, would mean, less resistance above (good, easier to push through), it sheds it's fuel, lessening the mass of the object, it's thrust to mass ratio is actually greater. Not steady or equal. It's lighter, has less atmospheric resistance, yet still has its same full thrust as it did when it was heavier. Hence, acceleration. How is that logic flawed? The rocket accelerates until it's fuel is spent. That's logic and quite possibly rocket science.
As I explained earlier. It might have less atmosphere to push through but it also has less to push against. It counteracts and keeps a steady mph/mps. Or speed.
The problem with all of this, and one of the many things you've never explained, is that you falsely assume that thrust from the rocket pushes against the atmosphere.  Something that is contrary to reality and that you can't support.  However, you can test it but we all know you never will so there's that.

AAMOF, the atmosphere actually acts against the motion of the rocket.  The exhausting gases exerts a force on the bottom of the rocket and that's the only thing that makes it move.  Since you acknowledge that momentum exists then you have to agree that this is how it works.

Using the septi-playbook here's an analogy for you.

I'm swinging on a rope and slam into you.  You are going to go move and it has nothing to do with the atmosphere.

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 04, 2019, 04:41:01 AM
Ok boyos
Scepi is using alternative physics.
Based on his definiton of thrust -
I believe He equates thrust as energy.
So in his mind whne fuel is spent = no more energy.
When his chemical potential energy converted to kinetic, then reaching a max vertical potential energy, yes, the rocket stops "dead".

Maybe thats what hes on about.

Of course this fool likes to redefine words then gets upset when no one understands him...

Scepti
Yes no?
If you can tell me how you can get thrust without using energy then I'm all ears.

Ah
But see we (indotrinated physics people) are basically using different terminology.
We are simply communicating in english.
Simply when max thrust is spent tue chemcial energy is converted to kinetic 1/2mv^2.
The velocity factor exists as m/s.
Decellerating at a rate of drag+9.81m/s^2.
This forward movement continues until velocity appraoches zero.
That is the dead stop.
If you paid attention to the bank and car analogy, the math is greatly overly simplified so this stands out.
Pay attention to the basics and youll get there.
Its simple math.

But regardless of us, As defiend above is this what you believe?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 04, 2019, 04:47:28 AM
Ok boyos
Scepi is using alternative physics.
Based on his definiton of thrust -
I believe He equates thrust as energy.
So in his mind whne fuel is spent = no more energy.
When his chemical potential energy converted to kinetic, then reaching a max vertical potential energy, yes, the rocket stops "dead".

Maybe thats what hes on about.

Of course this fool likes to redefine words then gets upset when no one understands him...

Scepti
Yes no?
If you can tell me how you can get thrust without using energy then I'm all ears.

In our world
Thrust = force                   
= mass x accell.

Enegy = force x distance
= mass x accell x distance.

Power = force x distance / second
= mass x accell x distance / second

Your world
Thrust = energy = power




Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 04:49:05 AM

The problem with all of this, and one of the many things you've never explained, is that you falsely assume that thrust from the rocket pushes against the atmosphere.  Something that is contrary to reality and that you can't support.  However, you can test it but we all know you never will so there's that.
The thrust from the rocket does push against the atmosphere which pushes back.


Quote from: MicroBeta
AAMOF, the atmosphere actually acts against the motion of the rocket.  The exhausting gases exerts a force on the bottom of the rocket and that's the only thing that makes it move.

Explain to me how the burning rocket fuel can exert a force on the bottom of the rocket and managed to push it up. It's ridiculous and it baffles me why people fall for this clear nonsense.

Quote from: MicroBeta
  Since you acknowledge that momentum exists then you have to agree that this is how it works.

Using the septi-playbook here's an analogy for you.

I'm swinging on a rope and slam into you.  You are going to go move and it has nothing to do with the atmosphere.

Mike
I am the atmosphere and you are the rocket fuel.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 04:52:36 AM
Ok boyos
Scepi is using alternative physics.
Based on his definiton of thrust -
I believe He equates thrust as energy.
So in his mind whne fuel is spent = no more energy.
When his chemical potential energy converted to kinetic, then reaching a max vertical potential energy, yes, the rocket stops "dead".

Maybe thats what hes on about.

Of course this fool likes to redefine words then gets upset when no one understands him...

Scepti
Yes no?
If you can tell me how you can get thrust without using energy then I'm all ears.

In our world
Thrust = force                   
= mass x accell.

Enegy = force x distance
= mass x accell x distance.

Power = force x distance / second
= mass x accell x distance / second

Your world
Thrust = energy = power
Look up my meanings and you'll see a lot more than you're making out.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sokarul on January 04, 2019, 05:21:04 AM
You are not qualified to change the definitions.

Look up what they posted and try to learn something.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on January 04, 2019, 05:51:37 AM
Scepti never seems to get bored of these games.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 04, 2019, 06:28:01 AM
You are not qualified to change the definitions.

Look up what they posted and try to learn something.

But Unfortunately if we want our discussion to go anywhere we have to start speaking scepinese.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 04, 2019, 06:29:22 AM
Ok boyos
Scepi is using alternative physics.
Based on his definiton of thrust -
I believe He equates thrust as energy.
So in his mind whne fuel is spent = no more energy.
When his chemical potential energy converted to kinetic, then reaching a max vertical potential energy, yes, the rocket stops "dead".

Maybe thats what hes on about.

Of course this fool likes to redefine words then gets upset when no one understands him...

Scepti
Yes no?
If you can tell me how you can get thrust without using energy then I'm all ears.

In our world
Thrust = force                   
= mass x accell.

Enegy = force x distance
= mass x accell x distance.

Power = force x distance / second
= mass x accell x distance / second

Your world
Thrust = energy = power
Look up my meanings and you'll see a lot more than you're making out.

Rabs reposted several times.
Youve made no updates.
And realize im the only one tryig to keep discussion within your relm.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 04, 2019, 06:30:28 AM
If you havent noticed, everyone else is soeaking english and Youre arguing about hugh's on first.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: JCM on January 04, 2019, 06:55:23 AM
Sceptimatic, do you think there is a difference in how a rocket engine works and a propeller on a plane works in providing thrust?  Please explain to us how each you of engine is providing thrust and how each would accelerate and maintain velocity in your own words if you can.   I think this is the source of much of the confusion here.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 04, 2019, 07:17:54 AM

The problem with all of this, and one of the many things you've never explained, is that you falsely assume that thrust from the rocket pushes against the atmosphere.  Something that is contrary to reality and that you can't support.  However, you can test it but we all know you never will so there's that.
The thrust from the rocket does push against the atmosphere which pushes back.


Quote from: MicroBeta
AAMOF, the atmosphere actually acts against the motion of the rocket.  The exhausting gases exerts a force on the bottom of the rocket and that's the only thing that makes it move.

Explain to me how the burning rocket fuel can exert a force on the bottom of the rocket and managed to push it up. It's ridiculous and it baffles me why people fall for this clear nonsense.
It boggles the mind that you believe the engine exhaust exerts zero force on the rocket...boggles the fuckiní mind.

Itís only ridiculous to you because you donít know what youíre talking about.  Itís not just burning rocket fuel.    If want you want to know why, look up venturies and nozzles for yourself because Iím tired of explaining shit to people who blindly dismiss what they donít understand and have never tested.

Quote from: MicroBeta
  Since you acknowledge that momentum exists then you have to agree that this is how it works.

Using the septi-playbook here's an analogy for you.

I'm swinging on a rope and slam into you.  You are going to go move and it has nothing to do with the atmosphere.

Mike
I am the atmosphere and you are the rocket fuel.
**sigh** you completely missed the point.  Iím the reaction force of the exhausting gases and youíre the rocket but weíll ignore that for now.

IIUC, here's a synopsis of your premise of how denpressure effects vertical acceleration of a rocket.

- The density of the atmosphere (molecule stacking or however you define it) decreases with altitude.
- The force required for a rocket to ascend through the less dense atmosphere decreases but there is also a corresponding decrease of the reaction force due to thrust on the same less dense atmosphere.
- Therefore, the constant thrust, decreasing mass, and change in density during vertical ascent are always balanced so acceleration is exactly zero.

There are a few major problems with this reasoning.  The claim that a rocket can't accelerate must be subject to the following:

1. The effects of density versus altitude must be quantified.   
2. Variables within the system must be accounted for:
    a. The magnitude of thrust can vary from rocket to rocket.
    b. e.g. Two identical model rockets can have engines with identical size and weight but different thrust values.
    c. The rate at which fuel, and thus the corresponding decrease in mass, varies from engine to engine.
    d. Atmospheric pressure and density versus altitude is not linear.
    e. In taller rockets the density the rocket is pushing into and against may not be equal.
    f. Thrust to weight ratio varies from rocket to rocket

In summary:

1. The effect of denpressure vs altitude is not quantified.
2. The change in density of the atmosphere vs altitude is non-linear.
3. The magnitude of thrust and thrust to weight ratio varies between rockets.
4. The rate of change of the mass varies between rockets.

Working entirely within the denpressure model and considering the variables outlined above, at a minimum the following outcomes are possible:

1. If the magnitude of thrust and fuel consumption are balanced by the change in atmospheric density, it is possible for a rocket to have zero acceleration during vertical ascent.
2. If the magnitude of thrust and fuel consumption are not balanced by the change in atmospheric density is possible for a rocket to have a constant or a decreasing acceleration during ascent.

If we take all the variables into account and working within denpressure, it is possible to have zero vertical acceleration or a constant/variable vertical acceleration throughout ascent.  And, if Iím honest about it, these variables also imply that at some point in its ascent it should be possible for density to overcome thrust/fuel consumption and the rocket will decelerate (negative or downward acceleration) to the point where the rocket reaches equilibrium and not climb or fall until thrust is cutoff or increased.

Tthe point is that without quantifying denpressure and accounting for the variables between rockets, you canít definitively say what the effect on the vertical acceleration will be.  A zero, a positive, or a negative acceleration should all be possible but thereís no way to know.

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 04, 2019, 07:24:47 AM
Guys
Note he never uses numbers or units.
He was given two very basic anaolgies and he dismissed them - why? -because he doesnt get numbers.
Game over.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 07:28:37 AM
Sceptimatic, do you think there is a difference in how a rocket engine works and a propeller on a plane works in providing thrust?  Please explain to us how each you of engine is providing thrust and how each would accelerate and maintain velocity in your own words if you can.   I think this is the source of much of the confusion here.
There's no confusion on my part.
Every rocket, whether it's a jet or a car use atmosphere to thrust against to gain momentum.
No external atmosphere and no movement. It's that simple.


However, I'd still love to know how a supposed ballistic missile of supposed 20 odd feet length can be pushed from deep water (100 feet or so) by compressed air to actually leap from it, clear by a few feet and then ignite and thrust to its target.

We seem to be drifting away from this.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 04, 2019, 07:29:45 AM
Guys
Note he never uses numbers or units.
He was given two very basic anaolgies and he dismissed them - why? -because he doesnt get numbers.
Game over.
That's my point.  If nothing is quantified then the accelerations possibilities become variable.  Realistically, even if denpressure was quantified, there are too many variables for rockets to be able to say they all have the same outcome.

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 07:39:06 AM

It boggles the mind that you believe the engine exhaust exerts zero force on the rocket...boggles the fuckiní mind.

Itís only ridiculous to you because you donít know what youíre talking about.  Itís not just burning rocket fuel.    If want you want to know why, look up venturies and nozzles for yourself because Iím tired of explaining shit to people who blindly dismiss what they donít understand and have never tested.



IIUC, here's a synopsis of your premise of how denpressure effects vertical acceleration of a rocket.

- The density of the atmosphere (molecule stacking or however you define it) decreases with altitude.
- The force required for a rocket to ascend through the less dense atmosphere decreases but there is also a corresponding decrease of the reaction force due to thrust on the same less dense atmosphere.
- Therefore, the constant thrust, decreasing mass, and change in density during vertical ascent are always balanced so acceleration is exactly zero.

There are a few major problems with this reasoning.  The claim that a rocket can't accelerate must be subject to the following:

1. The effects of density versus altitude must be quantified.   
2. Variables within the system must be accounted for:
    a. The magnitude of thrust can vary from rocket to rocket.
    b. e.g. Two identical model rockets can have engines with identical size and weight but different thrust values.
    c. The rate at which fuel, and thus the corresponding decrease in mass, varies from engine to engine.
    d. Atmospheric pressure and density versus altitude is not linear.
    e. In taller rockets the density the rocket is pushing into and against may not be equal.
    f. Thrust to weight ratio varies from rocket to rocket

In summary:

1. The effect of denpressure vs altitude is not quantified.
2. The change in density of the atmosphere vs altitude is non-linear.
3. The magnitude of thrust and thrust to weight ratio varies between rockets.
4. The rate of change of the mass varies between rockets.

Working entirely within the denpressure model and considering the variables outlined above, at a minimum the following outcomes are possible:

1. If the magnitude of thrust and fuel consumption are balanced by the change in atmospheric density, it is possible for a rocket to have zero acceleration during vertical ascent.


2. If the magnitude of thrust and fuel consumption are not balanced by the change in atmospheric density is possible for a rocket to have a constant or a decreasing acceleration during ascent.

If we take all the variables into account and working within denpressure, it is possible to have zero vertical acceleration or a constant/variable vertical acceleration throughout ascent.  And, if Iím honest about it, these variables also imply that at some point in its ascent it should be possible for density to overcome thrust/fuel consumption and the rocket will decelerate (negative or downward acceleration) to the point where the rocket reaches equilibrium and not climb or fall until thrust is cutoff or increased.

Tthe point is that without quantifying denpressure and accounting for the variables between rockets, you canít definitively say what the effect on the vertical acceleration will be.  A zero, a positive, or a negative acceleration should all be possible but thereís no way to know.

Mike
At least you're taking notice. I commend you for that.
Just one thing though and it is nit picking but I feel I must do it. It this piece what you said: 2. If the magnitude of thrust and fuel consumption are not balanced by the change in atmospheric density is possible for a rocket to have a constant or a decreasing acceleration during ascent.

You can't have a decreasing acceleration. You can have a decreasing speed.

Just nitpicking that's all and nothing more.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sokarul on January 04, 2019, 07:46:19 AM

It boggles the mind that you believe the engine exhaust exerts zero force on the rocket...boggles the fuckiní mind.

Itís only ridiculous to you because you donít know what youíre talking about.  Itís not just burning rocket fuel.    If want you want to know why, look up venturies and nozzles for yourself because Iím tired of explaining shit to people who blindly dismiss what they donít understand and have never tested.



IIUC, here's a synopsis of your premise of how denpressure effects vertical acceleration of a rocket.

- The density of the atmosphere (molecule stacking or however you define it) decreases with altitude.
- The force required for a rocket to ascend through the less dense atmosphere decreases but there is also a corresponding decrease of the reaction force due to thrust on the same less dense atmosphere.
- Therefore, the constant thrust, decreasing mass, and change in density during vertical ascent are always balanced so acceleration is exactly zero.

There are a few major problems with this reasoning.  The claim that a rocket can't accelerate must be subject to the following:

1. The effects of density versus altitude must be quantified.   
2. Variables within the system must be accounted for:
    a. The magnitude of thrust can vary from rocket to rocket.
    b. e.g. Two identical model rockets can have engines with identical size and weight but different thrust values.
    c. The rate at which fuel, and thus the corresponding decrease in mass, varies from engine to engine.
    d. Atmospheric pressure and density versus altitude is not linear.
    e. In taller rockets the density the rocket is pushing into and against may not be equal.
    f. Thrust to weight ratio varies from rocket to rocket

In summary:

1. The effect of denpressure vs altitude is not quantified.
2. The change in density of the atmosphere vs altitude is non-linear.
3. The magnitude of thrust and thrust to weight ratio varies between rockets.
4. The rate of change of the mass varies between rockets.

Working entirely within the denpressure model and considering the variables outlined above, at a minimum the following outcomes are possible:

1. If the magnitude of thrust and fuel consumption are balanced by the change in atmospheric density, it is possible for a rocket to have zero acceleration during vertical ascent.


2. If the magnitude of thrust and fuel consumption are not balanced by the change in atmospheric density is possible for a rocket to have a constant or a decreasing acceleration during ascent.

If we take all the variables into account and working within denpressure, it is possible to have zero vertical acceleration or a constant/variable vertical acceleration throughout ascent.  And, if Iím honest about it, these variables also imply that at some point in its ascent it should be possible for density to overcome thrust/fuel consumption and the rocket will decelerate (negative or downward acceleration) to the point where the rocket reaches equilibrium and not climb or fall until thrust is cutoff or increased.

Tthe point is that without quantifying denpressure and accounting for the variables between rockets, you canít definitively say what the effect on the vertical acceleration will be.  A zero, a positive, or a negative acceleration should all be possible but thereís no way to know.

Mike
At least you're taking notice. I commend you for that.
Just one thing thought and it is nit picking but I feel I must do it. It this piece what you said: 2. If the magnitude of thrust and fuel consumption are not balanced by the change in atmospheric density is possible for a rocket to have a constant or a decreasing acceleration during ascent.

You can't have a decreasing acceleration. You can have a decreasing speed.

Just nitpicking that's all and nothing more.

Quoted to preserve the stupidity.

A Bugatti Chiron does 0-60 in 2.5 seconds. Do you think it does 200 to 260 in 2.5 seconds?
No. Decreaseing acceleration.

Ho Lee Fuk




 
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 04, 2019, 07:51:38 AM
Sceptimatic, do you think there is a difference in how a rocket engine works and a propeller on a plane works in providing thrust?  Please explain to us how each you of engine is providing thrust and how each would accelerate and maintain velocity in your own words if you can.   I think this is the source of much of the confusion here.
There's no confusion on my part.



Youre right.
You are definitely NOT confused.

https://goo.gl/images/umceXS
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 07:58:23 AM
You can't have a decreasing acceleration. You can have a decreasing speed.

Just nitpicking that's all and nothing more.

Quoted to preserve the stupidity.

A Bugatti Chiron does 0-60 in 2.5 seconds. Do you think it does 200 to 260 in 2.5 seconds?
No. Decreaseing acceleration.

Ho Lee Fuk
0-60 in 2.5 seconds is acceleration.

200 to 260 in 2.5 seconds is acceleration.

What's your issue?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on January 04, 2019, 08:00:34 AM
You can't have a decreasing acceleration. You can have a decreasing speed.

Just nitpicking that's all and nothing more.

Quoted to preserve the stupidity.

A Bugatti Chiron does 0-60 in 2.5 seconds. Do you think it does 200 to 260 in 2.5 seconds?
No. Decreaseing acceleration.

Ho Lee Fuk
0-60 in 2.5 seconds is acceleration.

200 to 260 in 2.5 seconds is acceleration.

What's your issue?
He's pointing out that is decreasing acceleration.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 04, 2019, 08:04:02 AM
<snip>
However, I'd still love to know how a supposed ballistic missile of supposed 20 odd feet length can be pushed from deep water (100 feet or so) by compressed air to actually leap from it, clear by a few feet and then ignite and thrust to its target.

We seem to be drifting away from this.
It is a very simple process so I do not understand what your problem is.  Thereís nothing technically complicated about it.  AAMOF, getting the thing airborne was one of more trivial engineering aspects of launching a missile.  The tough part was figuring out how to get it to its target.

High pressure gas is rapidly applied to the stern of the missile and it is impulse out of the tube.  Just like a dart from a blowgun.  After it breaches the surface the missile senses the change in direction of acceleration and fires the engines and off it goes.  The ability to sense its change in direction works on the same principles as the accelerometers in your cell phone or the system that deploys the airbags in your car. 

Itís nothing but a vertically launched torpedo...except you can drain and reload the torpedo tube.  The torpedo is impulses out of the tube by compressed gas.  As it enters the water it decelerates rapidly which the torpedo senses and the motor starts.

The principles for both the missile and torpedo are the same.  Well, there are limitations on the depth you launch a missile but thereís certainly nothing difficult about it.

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: SpaceCadet on January 04, 2019, 08:11:52 AM

It boggles the mind that you believe the engine exhaust exerts zero force on the rocket...boggles the fuckiní mind.

Itís only ridiculous to you because you donít know what youíre talking about.  Itís not just burning rocket fuel.    If want you want to know why, look up venturies and nozzles for yourself because Iím tired of explaining shit to people who blindly dismiss what they donít understand and have never tested.



IIUC, here's a synopsis of your premise of how denpressure effects vertical acceleration of a rocket.

- The density of the atmosphere (molecule stacking or however you define it) decreases with altitude.
- The force required for a rocket to ascend through the less dense atmosphere decreases but there is also a corresponding decrease of the reaction force due to thrust on the same less dense atmosphere.
- Therefore, the constant thrust, decreasing mass, and change in density during vertical ascent are always balanced so acceleration is exactly zero.

There are a few major problems with this reasoning.  The claim that a rocket can't accelerate must be subject to the following:

1. The effects of density versus altitude must be quantified.   
2. Variables within the system must be accounted for:
    a. The magnitude of thrust can vary from rocket to rocket.
    b. e.g. Two identical model rockets can have engines with identical size and weight but different thrust values.
    c. The rate at which fuel, and thus the corresponding decrease in mass, varies from engine to engine.
    d. Atmospheric pressure and density versus altitude is not linear.
    e. In taller rockets the density the rocket is pushing into and against may not be equal.
    f. Thrust to weight ratio varies from rocket to rocket

In summary:

1. The effect of denpressure vs altitude is not quantified.
2. The change in density of the atmosphere vs altitude is non-linear.
3. The magnitude of thrust and thrust to weight ratio varies between rockets.
4. The rate of change of the mass varies between rockets.

Working entirely within the denpressure model and considering the variables outlined above, at a minimum the following outcomes are possible:

1. If the magnitude of thrust and fuel consumption are balanced by the change in atmospheric density, it is possible for a rocket to have zero acceleration during vertical ascent.


2. If the magnitude of thrust and fuel consumption are not balanced by the change in atmospheric density is possible for a rocket to have a constant or a decreasing acceleration during ascent.

If we take all the variables into account and working within denpressure, it is possible to have zero vertical acceleration or a constant/variable vertical acceleration throughout ascent.  And, if Iím honest about it, these variables also imply that at some point in its ascent it should be possible for density to overcome thrust/fuel consumption and the rocket will decelerate (negative or downward acceleration) to the point where the rocket reaches equilibrium and not climb or fall until thrust is cutoff or increased.

Tthe point is that without quantifying denpressure and accounting for the variables between rockets, you canít definitively say what the effect on the vertical acceleration will be.  A zero, a positive, or a negative acceleration should all be possible but thereís no way to know.

Mike
At least you're taking notice. I commend you for that.
Just one thing thought and it is nit picking but I feel I must do it. It this piece what you said: 2. If the magnitude of thrust and fuel consumption are not balanced by the change in atmospheric density is possible for a rocket to have a constant or a decreasing acceleration during ascent.

You can't have a decreasing acceleration. You can have a decreasing speed.

Just nitpicking that's all and nothing more.

Quoted to preserve the stupidity.

A Bugatti Chiron does 0-60 in 2.5 seconds. Do you think it does 200 to 260 in 2.5 seconds?
No. Decreaseing acceleration.

Ho Lee Fuk
That's Scepti for you.

Claims a rate of change cannot be constant.
Claims acceleration can not be reduced.
Now claims a propeller and rocket engine work on the same principles

And still claims to understand science?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 08:18:10 AM
You can't have a decreasing acceleration. You can have a decreasing speed.

Just nitpicking that's all and nothing more.

Quoted to preserve the stupidity.

A Bugatti Chiron does 0-60 in 2.5 seconds. Do you think it does 200 to 260 in 2.5 seconds?
No. Decreaseing acceleration.

Ho Lee Fuk
0-60 in 2.5 seconds is acceleration.

200 to 260 in 2.5 seconds is acceleration.

What's your issue?
He's pointing out that is decreasing acceleration.
There is no decreasing acceleration in what he points out.
In both cases it's acceleration.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sokarul on January 04, 2019, 08:25:26 AM
10m/s2 to 5m/s2 is decreasing acceleration.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 08:29:44 AM
<snip>
However, I'd still love to know how a supposed ballistic missile of supposed 20 odd feet length can be pushed from deep water (100 feet or so) by compressed air to actually leap from it, clear by a few feet and then ignite and thrust to its target.

We seem to be drifting away from this.
It is a very simple process so I do not understand what your problem is.  Thereís nothing technically complicated about it.  AAMOF, getting the thing airborne was one of more trivial engineering aspects of launching a missile.  The tough part was figuring out how to get it to its target.

High pressure gas is rapidly applied to the stern of the missile and it is impulse out of the tube.  Just like a dart from a blowgun.

Mike
Tell me something.
How do they manage to pressurise the arse end of the missile whilst leaving the rest of the tube and missile unpressurised, except for ambient atmospheric pressure and yet this is up against the might of the depth the sub is at under the ocean.

Can you explain how that works?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 04, 2019, 08:30:19 AM

It boggles the mind that you believe the engine exhaust exerts zero force on the rocket...boggles the fuckiní mind.

Itís only ridiculous to you because you donít know what youíre talking about.  Itís not just burning rocket fuel.    If want you want to know why, look up venturies and nozzles for yourself because Iím tired of explaining shit to people who blindly dismiss what they donít understand and have never tested.



IIUC, here's a synopsis of your premise of how denpressure effects vertical acceleration of a rocket.

- The density of the atmosphere (molecule stacking or however you define it) decreases with altitude.
- The force required for a rocket to ascend through the less dense atmosphere decreases but there is also a corresponding decrease of the reaction force due to thrust on the same less dense atmosphere.
- Therefore, the constant thrust, decreasing mass, and change in density during vertical ascent are always balanced so acceleration is exactly zero.

There are a few major problems with this reasoning.  The claim that a rocket can't accelerate must be subject to the following:

1. The effects of density versus altitude must be quantified.   
2. Variables within the system must be accounted for:
    a. The magnitude of thrust can vary from rocket to rocket.
    b. e.g. Two identical model rockets can have engines with identical size and weight but different thrust values.
    c. The rate at which fuel, and thus the corresponding decrease in mass, varies from engine to engine.
    d. Atmospheric pressure and density versus altitude is not linear.
    e. In taller rockets the density the rocket is pushing into and against may not be equal.
    f. Thrust to weight ratio varies from rocket to rocket

In summary:

1. The effect of denpressure vs altitude is not quantified.
2. The change in density of the atmosphere vs altitude is non-linear.
3. The magnitude of thrust and thrust to weight ratio varies between rockets.
4. The rate of change of the mass varies between rockets.

Working entirely within the denpressure model and considering the variables outlined above, at a minimum the following outcomes are possible:

1. If the magnitude of thrust and fuel consumption are balanced by the change in atmospheric density, it is possible for a rocket to have zero acceleration during vertical ascent.


2. If the magnitude of thrust and fuel consumption are not balanced by the change in atmospheric density is possible for a rocket to have a constant or a decreasing acceleration during ascent.

If we take all the variables into account and working within denpressure, it is possible to have zero vertical acceleration or a constant/variable vertical acceleration throughout ascent.  And, if Iím honest about it, these variables also imply that at some point in its ascent it should be possible for density to overcome thrust/fuel consumption and the rocket will decelerate (negative or downward acceleration) to the point where the rocket reaches equilibrium and not climb or fall until thrust is cutoff or increased.

Tthe point is that without quantifying denpressure and accounting for the variables between rockets, you canít definitively say what the effect on the vertical acceleration will be.  A zero, a positive, or a negative acceleration should all be possible but thereís no way to know.

Mike
At least you're taking notice. I commend you for that.
Just one thing though and it is nit picking but I feel I must do it. It this piece what you said: 2. If the magnitude of thrust and fuel consumption are not balanced by the change in atmospheric density is possible for a rocket to have a constant or a decreasing acceleration during ascent.

You can't have a decreasing acceleration. You can have a decreasing speed.

Just nitpicking that's all and nothing more.
Oh dear God.  SMH

From an engineering standpoint acceleration is always a vector quantity.  Whether itís a positive or negative number it is merely acceleration.  The sign of value tells me the vector direction in relation to the system.  So, since Iím an engineer, I donít use laymanís terms like decelerate because it has no meaning.  It is either a positive or negative value that can be increasing or decreasing.

I realize I mixed up my terms with all the cutting and pasting and editing.  I do that sometimes when trying to tailor a discussion for non-engineers.  I apologize if I confused you.  From now on Iíll stick to the standard engineering convention.

With that said, you didnít comment about the inconsistencies I pointed out in you assertions about the acceleration of rockets.

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 08:31:07 AM
10m/s2 to 5m/s2 is decreasing acceleration.
No it's not. It's simply altering acceleration at different speeds.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 08:32:42 AM

It boggles the mind that you believe the engine exhaust exerts zero force on the rocket...boggles the fuckiní mind.

Itís only ridiculous to you because you donít know what youíre talking about.  Itís not just burning rocket fuel.    If want you want to know why, look up venturies and nozzles for yourself because Iím tired of explaining shit to people who blindly dismiss what they donít understand and have never tested.



IIUC, here's a synopsis of your premise of how denpressure effects vertical acceleration of a rocket.

- The density of the atmosphere (molecule stacking or however you define it) decreases with altitude.
- The force required for a rocket to ascend through the less dense atmosphere decreases but there is also a corresponding decrease of the reaction force due to thrust on the same less dense atmosphere.
- Therefore, the constant thrust, decreasing mass, and change in density during vertical ascent are always balanced so acceleration is exactly zero.

There are a few major problems with this reasoning.  The claim that a rocket can't accelerate must be subject to the following:

1. The effects of density versus altitude must be quantified.   
2. Variables within the system must be accounted for:
    a. The magnitude of thrust can vary from rocket to rocket.
    b. e.g. Two identical model rockets can have engines with identical size and weight but different thrust values.
    c. The rate at which fuel, and thus the corresponding decrease in mass, varies from engine to engine.
    d. Atmospheric pressure and density versus altitude is not linear.
    e. In taller rockets the density the rocket is pushing into and against may not be equal.
    f. Thrust to weight ratio varies from rocket to rocket

In summary:

1. The effect of denpressure vs altitude is not quantified.
2. The change in density of the atmosphere vs altitude is non-linear.
3. The magnitude of thrust and thrust to weight ratio varies between rockets.
4. The rate of change of the mass varies between rockets.

Working entirely within the denpressure model and considering the variables outlined above, at a minimum the following outcomes are possible:

1. If the magnitude of thrust and fuel consumption are balanced by the change in atmospheric density, it is possible for a rocket to have zero acceleration during vertical ascent.


2. If the magnitude of thrust and fuel consumption are not balanced by the change in atmospheric density is possible for a rocket to have a constant or a decreasing acceleration during ascent.

If we take all the variables into account and working within denpressure, it is possible to have zero vertical acceleration or a constant/variable vertical acceleration throughout ascent.  And, if Iím honest about it, these variables also imply that at some point in its ascent it should be possible for density to overcome thrust/fuel consumption and the rocket will decelerate (negative or downward acceleration) to the point where the rocket reaches equilibrium and not climb or fall until thrust is cutoff or increased.

Tthe point is that without quantifying denpressure and accounting for the variables between rockets, you canít definitively say what the effect on the vertical acceleration will be.  A zero, a positive, or a negative acceleration should all be possible but thereís no way to know.

Mike
At least you're taking notice. I commend you for that.
Just one thing though and it is nit picking but I feel I must do it. It this piece what you said: 2. If the magnitude of thrust and fuel consumption are not balanced by the change in atmospheric density is possible for a rocket to have a constant or a decreasing acceleration during ascent.

You can't have a decreasing acceleration. You can have a decreasing speed.

Just nitpicking that's all and nothing more.
Oh dear God.  SMH

From an engineering standpoint acceleration is always a vector quantity.  Whether itís a positive or negative number it is merely acceleration.  The sign of value tells me the vector direction in relation to the system.  So, since Iím an engineer, I donít use laymanís terms like decelerate because it has no meaning.  It is either a positive or negative value that can be increasing or decreasing.

I realize I mixed up my terms with all the cutting and pasting and editing.  I do that sometimes when trying to tailor a discussion for non-engineers.  I apologize if I confused you.  From now on Iíll stick to the standard engineering convention.

With that said, you didnít comment about the inconsistencies I pointed out in you assertions about the acceleration of rockets.

Mike
I forgive you. Now what specific thing have I not answered?
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 04, 2019, 08:38:04 AM
10m/s2 to 5m/s2 is decreasing acceleration.
No it's not. It's simply altering acceleration at different speeds.

oh man this guy is definitely not good with numbers.



Skip to 1:40 for INCREASING velocity due to an INCREASING acell because the INCREASE in angle of coaster. whih is all still positive

Then at 1:45 uphill you have DECREASING velocity due to DECREASING accelleration due to leveling off of coaster but all still Postive forward motion as noted, theyre still.moving forward.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 04, 2019, 08:39:39 AM
<snip>
However, I'd still love to know how a supposed ballistic missile of supposed 20 odd feet length can be pushed from deep water (100 feet or so) by compressed air to actually leap from it, clear by a few feet and then ignite and thrust to its target.

We seem to be drifting away from this.
It is a very simple process so I do not understand what your problem is.  Thereís nothing technically complicated about it.  AAMOF, getting the thing airborne was one of more trivial engineering aspects of launching a missile.  The tough part was figuring out how to get it to its target.

High pressure gas is rapidly applied to the stern of the missile and it is impulse out of the tube.  Just like a dart from a blowgun.

Mike
Tell me something.
How do they manage to pressurise the arse end of the missile whilst leaving the rest of the tube and missile unpressurised, except for ambient atmospheric pressure and yet this is up against the might of the depth the sub is at under the ocean.

Can you explain how that works?
You donít.  I said ďHigh pressure gas is rapidly applied to the stern of the missile and it is impulse out of the tube.  Just like a dart from a blowgun.Ē

An air powered bb or pellet gun work the same way.  The bb doesnít have a pressure tight seal between it and the chamber of the gun so if you slowly increased pressure behind the bb it would never leave the barrel because the air would just leak around the bb to the lower pressure area.  However, if you rapidly apply pressure behind the bb it will build up much, much faster than it could leak past the bb and it will be impulsed out of the barrel.

A torpedo and missile work exactly the same way.  I donít know why youíre so hung up on what is actually the easiest part of launching a missile from a submarine.

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 04, 2019, 08:46:21 AM

It boggles the mind that you believe the engine exhaust exerts zero force on the rocket...boggles the fuckiní mind.

Itís only ridiculous to you because you donít know what youíre talking about.  Itís not just burning rocket fuel.    If want you want to know why, look up venturies and nozzles for yourself because Iím tired of explaining shit to people who blindly dismiss what they donít understand and have never tested.



IIUC, here's a synopsis of your premise of how denpressure effects vertical acceleration of a rocket.

- The density of the atmosphere (molecule stacking or however you define it) decreases with altitude.
- The force required for a rocket to ascend through the less dense atmosphere decreases but there is also a corresponding decrease of the reaction force due to thrust on the same less dense atmosphere.
- Therefore, the constant thrust, decreasing mass, and change in density during vertical ascent are always balanced so acceleration is exactly zero.

There are a few major problems with this reasoning.  The claim that a rocket can't accelerate must be subject to the following:

1. The effects of density versus altitude must be quantified.   
2. Variables within the system must be accounted for:
    a. The magnitude of thrust can vary from rocket to rocket.
    b. e.g. Two identical model rockets can have engines with identical size and weight but different thrust values.
    c. The rate at which fuel, and thus the corresponding decrease in mass, varies from engine to engine.
    d. Atmospheric pressure and density versus altitude is not linear.
    e. In taller rockets the density the rocket is pushing into and against may not be equal.
    f. Thrust to weight ratio varies from rocket to rocket

In summary:

1. The effect of denpressure vs altitude is not quantified.
2. The change in density of the atmosphere vs altitude is non-linear.
3. The magnitude of thrust and thrust to weight ratio varies between rockets.
4. The rate of change of the mass varies between rockets.

Working entirely within the denpressure model and considering the variables outlined above, at a minimum the following outcomes are possible:

1. If the magnitude of thrust and fuel consumption are balanced by the change in atmospheric density, it is possible for a rocket to have zero acceleration during vertical ascent.


2. If the magnitude of thrust and fuel consumption are not balanced by the change in atmospheric density is possible for a rocket to have a constant or a decreasing acceleration during ascent.

If we take all the variables into account and working within denpressure, it is possible to have zero vertical acceleration or a constant/variable vertical acceleration throughout ascent.  And, if Iím honest about it, these variables also imply that at some point in its ascent it should be possible for density to overcome thrust/fuel consumption and the rocket will decelerate (negative or downward acceleration) to the point where the rocket reaches equilibrium and not climb or fall until thrust is cutoff or increased.

Tthe point is that without quantifying denpressure and accounting for the variables between rockets, you canít definitively say what the effect on the vertical acceleration will be.  A zero, a positive, or a negative acceleration should all be possible but thereís no way to know.

Mike
At least you're taking notice. I commend you for that.
Just one thing though and it is nit picking but I feel I must do it. It this piece what you said: 2. If the magnitude of thrust and fuel consumption are not balanced by the change in atmospheric density is possible for a rocket to have a constant or a decreasing acceleration during ascent.

You can't have a decreasing acceleration. You can have a decreasing speed.

Just nitpicking that's all and nothing more.
Oh dear God.  SMH

From an engineering standpoint acceleration is always a vector quantity.  Whether itís a positive or negative number it is merely acceleration.  The sign of value tells me the vector direction in relation to the system.  So, since Iím an engineer, I donít use laymanís terms like decelerate because it has no meaning.  It is either a positive or negative value that can be increasing or decreasing.

I realize I mixed up my terms with all the cutting and pasting and editing.  I do that sometimes when trying to tailor a discussion for non-engineers.  I apologize if I confused you.  From now on Iíll stick to the standard engineering convention.

With that said, you didnít comment about the inconsistencies I pointed out in you assertions about the acceleration of rockets.

Mike
I forgive you. Now what specific thing have I not answered?
Are you seriously asking me that question?  Did you not read my post?

I listed the assumptions, variables, and possibilities.  I was very specific as to why you CANNOT know whether the rocket will have acceleration or not.  All of that and you have no comments about saying you are wrong?

Interesting.

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 04, 2019, 09:09:39 AM
10m/s2 to 5m/s2 is decreasing acceleration.
No it's not. It's simply altering acceleration at different speeds.
That's wrong.  Saying it is "simply altering acceleration at different speeds" makes absolutely no sense what so ever.  I don't even know what that statement means.

You are traveling at 10m/s2 and you decrease you acceleration to 5m/s2.  Acceleration lowers to some value but is still a positive number so no matter how your acceleration changed from 10 to 5m/s2 you speed is always increasing.

IOW, the value of acceleration over a given period of time determines what your speed is and as long as your acceleration is a positive value your speed will always be increasing.
Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 09:10:52 AM
10m/s2 to 5m/s2 is decreasing acceleration.
No it's not. It's simply altering acceleration at different speeds.

oh man this guy is definitely not good with numbers.



Skip to 1:40 for INCREASING velocity due to an INCREASING acell because the INCREASE in angle of coaster. whih is all still positive

Then at 1:45 uphill you have DECREASING velocity due to DECREASING accelleration due to leveling off of coaster but all still Postive forward motion as noted, theyre still.moving forward.

My issue is with deceleration. It's not a worthy word to describe anything to do with acceleration or slowing down or decreasing speed.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 09:14:24 AM
<snip>
However, I'd still love to know how a supposed ballistic missile of supposed 20 odd feet length can be pushed from deep water (100 feet or so) by compressed air to actually leap from it, clear by a few feet and then ignite and thrust to its target.

We seem to be drifting away from this.
It is a very simple process so I do not understand what your problem is.  Thereís nothing technically complicated about it.  AAMOF, getting the thing airborne was one of more trivial engineering aspects of launching a missile.  The tough part was figuring out how to get it to its target.

High pressure gas is rapidly applied to the stern of the missile and it is impulse out of the tube.  Just like a dart from a blowgun.

Mike
Tell me something.
How do they manage to pressurise the arse end of the missile whilst leaving the rest of the tube and missile unpressurised, except for ambient atmospheric pressure and yet this is up against the might of the depth the sub is at under the ocean.

Can you explain how that works?
You donít.  I said ďHigh pressure gas is rapidly applied to the stern of the missile and it is impulse out of the tube.  Just like a dart from a blowgun.Ē

An air powered bb or pellet gun work the same way.  The bb doesnít have a pressure tight seal between it and the chamber of the gun so if you slowly increased pressure behind the bb it would never leave the barrel because the air would just leak around the bb to the lower pressure area.  However, if you rapidly apply pressure behind the bb it will build up much, much faster than it could leak past the bb and it will be impulsed out of the barrel.

A torpedo and missile work exactly the same way.  I donít know why youíre so hung up on what is actually the easiest part of launching a missile from a submarine.

Mike
Let's get to the nitty gritty bits.

The missile is in the tube.
The missile is pressurised under it arse end but without leaking into the tube, which is simply under ambient pressure.
The outer tube hatch is opened ready for missile launch and now the only thing between the missile and the water pressure is a membrane ready to be broken open by the missile nose.

If I'm wrong on this put me right so we can get to the bottom of it before I go on.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 09:15:59 AM

Are you seriously asking me that question?  Did you not read my post?

I listed the assumptions, variables, and possibilities.  I was very specific as to why you CANNOT know whether the rocket will have acceleration or not.  All of that and you have no comments about saying you are wrong?

Interesting.

Mike
You haven't shown me where I'm wrong, you just believe you are showing I'm wrong just because you say so.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 09:20:50 AM

You are traveling at 10m/s2 and you decrease you acceleration to 5m/s2.  Acceleration lowers to some value but is still a positive number so no matter how your acceleration changed from 10 to 5m/s2 you speed is always increasing.
Yep your speed is always increasing, meaning you are always accelerating. You are never decelerating.

Quote from: MicroBeta
IOW, the value of acceleration over a given period of time determines what your speed is and as long as your acceleration is a positive value your speed will always be increasing.
Mike
Acceleration.
No such thing as deceleration.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on January 04, 2019, 09:28:36 AM

You are traveling at 10m/s2 and you decrease you acceleration to 5m/s2.  Acceleration lowers to some value but is still a positive number so no matter how your acceleration changed from 10 to 5m/s2 you speed is always increasing.
Yep your speed is always increasing, meaning you are always accelerating. You are never decelerating.

Quote from: MicroBeta
IOW, the value of acceleration over a given period of time determines what your speed is and as long as your acceleration is a positive value your speed will always be increasing.
Mike
Acceleration.
No such thing as deceleration.

You are a moron.  If I accelerate at X then slow my acceleration to Y.  That is deceleration.  Yes you are still accelerating, but you have decelerated to a slower rate of acceleration.  This isn't hard to grasp.  You are a moron.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 04, 2019, 09:38:30 AM
<snip>
However, I'd still love to know how a supposed ballistic missile of supposed 20 odd feet length can be pushed from deep water (100 feet or so) by compressed air to actually leap from it, clear by a few feet and then ignite and thrust to its target.

We seem to be drifting away from this.
It is a very simple process so I do not understand what your problem is.  There's nothing technically complicated about it.  AAMOF, getting the thing airborne was one of more trivial engineering aspects of launching a missile.  The tough part was figuring out how to get it to its target.

High pressure gas is rapidly applied to the stern of the missile and it is impulse out of the tube.  Just like a dart from a blowgun.

Mike
Tell me something.
How do they manage to pressurise the arse end of the missile whilst leaving the rest of the tube and missile unpressurised, except for ambient atmospheric pressure and yet this is up against the might of the depth the sub is at under the ocean.

Can you explain how that works?
You don't.  I said "High pressure gas is rapidly applied to the stern of the missile and it is impulse out of the tube.  Just like a dart from a blowgun."

An air powered bb or pellet gun work the same way.  The bb doesn't have a pressure tight seal between it and the chamber of the gun so if you slowly increased pressure behind the bb it would never leave the barrel because the air would just leak around the bb to the lower pressure area.  However, if you rapidly apply pressure behind the bb it will build up much, much faster than it could leak past the bb and it will be impulsed out of the barrel.

A torpedo and missile work exactly the same way.  I don't know why you're so hung up on what is actually the easiest part of launching a missile from a submarine.

Mike
Let's get to the nitty gritty bits.

The missile is in the tube.
Yes it is.

The missile is pressurised under it arse end but without leaking into the tube, which is simply under ambient pressure.
Wrong.  The missile tube is pressureize to what ever depth the boat is at.  The rapid increase in pressure comes when you are ready to impulse the missle out of the tube.

Have you ever seen the Pumkin Chuckin' Contest?  The current record for launching a pumkin out of an air cannon is over a mile.  Pressurezed air at 300 psi is in an air flask.  The operator opens a ball valve as fast as possible to put all of that pressure behind the pumpkin and if (s)he's lucky the pumpkin will launch out of the cannon without exploding.

That is how you launch a torpedo or a missile.  Seriously, this isn't that difficult.


The outer tube hatch is opened ready for missile launch and now the only thing between the missile and the water pressure is a membrane ready to be broken open by the missile nose.
Wrong...and correct at the same time.  The cover at the top of the missile tube is exposed to sea pressure.  However, it doesn't cave in because the tube is also perssurized to that same pressure.  No differential pressure across the cover-No load on the cover. 

You know when you open that can of soda and you can hear the pressure release from the carbonation?  Well that soda has a higher differential pressure across the wall of the can than the cover at the top of the missile tube.  Increase the pressure in the room to same as the pressure in the can and when you open it you will not get that fizz.

That cover is also scored to break into wedge shaped pieces when the missile is launched.

Quit beating around the bush here and get to your point.  Stop asking the same question over and over again.

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 04, 2019, 09:40:53 AM

You are traveling at 10m/s2 and you decrease you acceleration to 5m/s2.  Acceleration lowers to some value but is still a positive number so no matter how your acceleration changed from 10 to 5m/s2 you speed is always increasing.
Yep your speed is always increasing, meaning you are always accelerating. You are never decelerating.

Quote from: MicroBeta
IOW, the value of acceleration over a given period of time determines what your speed is and as long as your acceleration is a positive value your speed will always be increasing.
Mike
Acceleration.
No such thing as deceleration.
Maybe I just don't understand what you are saying.  Exactly how do you get from 10m/s2 to 5m/s2.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sokarul on January 04, 2019, 09:54:06 AM
Maybe itís a semantics thing.

One way to say it: A decelerating acceleration would be an acceleration where the magnitude is decreasing.

Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 04, 2019, 11:37:53 AM
Maybe itís a semantics thing.

One way to say it: A decelerating acceleration would be an acceleration where the magnitude is decreasing.
Well, that's how I explained already but it seems he's having none of it.

Mike
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: inquisitive on January 04, 2019, 12:05:03 PM
You can't have a decreasing acceleration. You can have a decreasing speed.

Just nitpicking that's all and nothing more.

Quoted to preserve the stupidity.

A Bugatti Chiron does 0-60 in 2.5 seconds. Do you think it does 200 to 260 in 2.5 seconds?
No. Decreaseing acceleration.

Ho Lee Fuk
0-60 in 2.5 seconds is acceleration.

200 to 260 in 2.5 seconds is acceleration.

What's your issue?
Please provide some values for the accelleration for each case.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on January 04, 2019, 12:10:11 PM
Scepti knows he is wrong about the different rates of acceleration.  He just won't admit it, as it's part of the game he plays.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 04, 2019, 01:00:51 PM
10m/s2 to 5m/s2 is decreasing acceleration.
No it's not. It's simply altering acceleration at different speeds.

oh man this guy is definitely not good with numbers.



Skip to 1:40 for INCREASING velocity due to an INCREASING acell because the INCREASE in angle of coaster. whih is all still positive

Then at 1:45 uphill you have DECREASING velocity due to DECREASING accelleration due to leveling off of coaster but all still Postive forward motion as noted, theyre still.moving forward.

My issue is with deceleration. It's not a worthy word to describe anything to do with acceleration or slowing down or decreasing speed.
Scepti
"2. If the magnitude of thrust and fuel consumption are not balanced by the change in atmospheric density is possible for a rocket to have a constant or a decreasing acceleration during ascent."

Tou asked the question.
I gave you plain english description.
Because you cant understand doesnt negate its rightness.
Thats why i used numbers earlier to show the direction of whats hapening.
You failed at that too.
Go back and figure it out.
Draw it out.
Or graph it.
Doesnt matter.
Bank withdrwal rates.
Car velocities vs accerations.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 04, 2019, 01:05:48 PM
10m/s2 to 5m/s2 is decreasing acceleration.
No it's not. It's simply altering acceleration at different speeds.

oh man this guy is definitely not good with numbers.



Skip to 1:40 for INCREASING velocity due to an INCREASING acell because the INCREASE in angle of coaster. whih is all still positive

Then at 1:45 uphill you have DECREASING velocity due to DECREASING accelleration due to leveling off of coaster but all still Postive forward motion as noted, theyre still.moving forward.

My issue is with deceleration. It's not a worthy word to describe anything to do with acceleration or slowing down or decreasing speed.

Decellerate.
Reduce veloctiy at a rate to be lower than previous.
"De" is a prefix that people in english world use as a down or reducing.
Like "un" is the for not.
Perfectly reasonable word.

Smart - mikeb.
Unsmart - you.

Or if that wasnt your issue.
The how cold is it outside?
Well sorry but theres no such thing as cold.
Just an absense of heat.
So really people should use "how unhot is it outside?"

Either you are king troll or fking ridiculous.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 01:07:02 PM

You are traveling at 10m/s2 and you decrease you acceleration to 5m/s2.  Acceleration lowers to some value but is still a positive number so no matter how your acceleration changed from 10 to 5m/s2 you speed is always increasing.
Yep your speed is always increasing, meaning you are always accelerating. You are never decelerating.

Quote from: MicroBeta
IOW, the value of acceleration over a given period of time determines what your speed is and as long as your acceleration is a positive value your speed will always be increasing.
Mike
Acceleration.
No such thing as deceleration.

You are a moron.  If I accelerate at X then slow my acceleration to Y.  That is deceleration.  Yes you are still accelerating, but you have decelerated to a slower rate of acceleration.  This isn't hard to grasp.  You are a moron.
Acceleration is acceleration whether it's slow or fast. You cannot decelerate when you accelerate.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: Themightykabool on January 04, 2019, 01:13:14 PM

You are traveling at 10m/s2 and you decrease you acceleration to 5m/s2.  Acceleration lowers to some value but is still a positive number so no matter how your acceleration changed from 10 to 5m/s2 you speed is always increasing.
Yep your speed is always increasing, meaning you are always accelerating. You are never decelerating.

Quote from: MicroBeta
IOW, the value of acceleration over a given period of time determines what your speed is and as long as your acceleration is a positive value your speed will always be increasing.
Mike
Acceleration.
No such thing as deceleration.

You are a moron.  If I accelerate at X then slow my acceleration to Y.  That is deceleration.  Yes you are still accelerating, but you have decelerated to a slower rate of acceleration.  This isn't hard to grasp.  You are a moron.

Guess this proves my earlier point.
Scepti cant math so he wont undertand numbers and he wont understand units of measure.
And ifnhe cant understand either than using words like thrust accell velocity etc are all meaningless because he cant differentiate.
Game over.

Side note
Everytime he says atmosphere we think drag but he means friction + "crush" (what we call gravity)
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 01:19:51 PM
Quote from: MicroBeta
Have you ever seen the Pumkin Chuckin' Contest?  The current record for launching a pumkin out of an air cannon is over a mile.  Pressurezed air at 300 psi is in an air flask.  The operator opens a ball valve as fast as possible to put all of that pressure behind the pumpkin and if (s)he's lucky the pumpkin will launch out of the cannon without exploding.

That is how you launch a torpedo or a missile.  Seriously, this isn't that difficult.

This is apparently a 20 odd foot missile apparently launched from deep underwater, not a pumpkin out of a cannon into the air.

Quote from: MicroBeta
The outer tube hatch is opened ready for missile launch and now the only thing between the missile and the water pressure is a membrane ready to be broken open by the missile nose.
Wrong...and correct at the same time.  The cover at the top of the missile tube is exposed to sea pressure.  However, it doesn't cave in because the tube is also perssurized to that same pressure.  No differential pressure across the cover-No load on the cover.
Ok so the tube is pressurised from top to bottom to counteract the water pressure.

So, on top of that it then gets super pressurised under its arse end, somehow?
It does seem counterproductive to do that and expect to compress a 20 odd foot supposed ballistic missile out of that tube to not only break the membrane but also push through the friction of the water at about 100 feet or so, then jump right out of that water a good few feet ready for ignition.
I think we're being played like fiddles.
 


Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: sceptimatic on January 04, 2019, 01:23:38 PM
 :(
Scepti knows he is wrong about the different rates of acceleration.  He just won't admit it, as it's part of the game he plays.
I have no issue with rates of acceleration.
My issue is not accepting deceleration in place of slower acceleration.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: MicroBeta on January 04, 2019, 01:39:31 PM
10m/s2 to 5m/s2 is decreasing acceleration.
No it's not. It's simply altering acceleration at different speeds.

oh man this guy is definitely not good with numbers.



Skip to 1:40 for INCREASING velocity due to an INCREASING acell because the INCREASE in angle of coaster. whih is all still positive

Then at 1:45 uphill you have DECREASING velocity due to DECREASING accelleration due to leveling off of coaster but all still Postive forward motion as noted, theyre still.moving forward.

My issue is with deceleration. It's not a worthy word to describe anything to do with acceleration or slowing down or decreasing speed.
It is the proper term for decreasing acceleration.  In some cases it is a more imporatant term than acceleration.  In these cases actual acceleration magnitude is unimportant.  Saftey equipment is often defined in terms of deceleration.  The HANS Device is designed to protect a race drive from deceleration forces during a crash.

It doesn't matter that you have issues with the term.  It is correct.
Title: Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on January 04, 2019, 01:41:59 PM
:(