Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - ItsRoundIPromise

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
1
If you believe you're in legal danger then you're an idiot...or a delusional liar.

Mike
Sorry Mike, but that is a false equivalence.  There is no evidence that he isn't an idiot AND a delusional liar.

2
Quote
It's a giant unsupported leap to decide that humans should be a focus even if you accept they were placed here intentionally.  A gardener may intentionally place some form of pesticide in the garden but that certainly isn't the focus.  Presumably, the flowers, vegetables, or whatever is being grown is the focus.  Do you have any reason to suppose that humans aren't more analogous to the pesticide than the flower in a model with a creator?
Because we do not interact with anything else, and under RET we are unique.
Humans interact with absolutely everything on Earth, and have started interacting with different parts of the Solar System.  Under every model we are unique.  So are bears, birds, bacteria, and hypothetical alien life forms if you postulate their existence. 

We also interact with the future in unknown ways.  Assuming that humans are some sort of "final product" is hubris.  Just because we are the only intelligent life of which we are aware, doesn't mean that will hold for billions of years into the future.  It's very temporally self-centered to believe that humanity is more important than anything else that exists, has existed, or will exist.  This is especially true if you maintain that anything that exists is intentional, which is a whole other issue.

3
Intent. Life is too major a thing to be something God was unaware of, either we were intended or we were not. If we were not intended we would not be here, if we were the intent we should be a focus.
I'm not going to get involved with a religious debate, but there is a major logical breakdown here.  You state that if we were not intended we would not be here.  That statement has the natural consequence that all things that exist are intended. 

You go on to say if we were intended then we should be a focus.  But if everything is intended than why should humans be anymore of a focus than bears, elephants, bacteria, rocks, or intelligent life in other parts of the universe?

It's a giant unsupported leap to decide that humans should be a focus even if you accept they were placed here intentionally.  A gardener may intentionally place some form of pesticide in the garden but that certainly isn't the focus.  Presumably, the flowers, vegetables, or whatever is being grown is the focus.  Do you have any reason to suppose that humans aren't more analogous to the pesticide than the flower in a model with a creator?

4
Flat Earth General / Re: Apollo Mission Preparation and Crew Training
« on: March 23, 2018, 10:13:12 AM »

Which is far afield from your original statements that the LEM was not tested on earth.
The LEM was never flight tested on Earth.

Period.
Which is as relevant as observing that submarines have never been tested in a forest...

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why does astronomical software work?
« on: March 20, 2018, 10:30:04 AM »
Sorry but that is totally incorrect as in the case of Mercury which is not predictable and was not fully understood until general relativity offered a precise explanation of its orbit. An orbit that could only happen if the sun was 93 million miles from earth and had a mass of 2x10^30 Kg. give or take. This is the problem of various flat earth ideas, they constantly forget the knock on implications.
The predictability comes from observing it. You don't need any equations whatsoever to predict when/where the planets will be when you have years worth of observation and tracking. The length of a year (for any planet), the length of a day is all basically fixed, irrespective of what shape the world is.
Mercury was still predictable, that was why they knew the formula was off; they knew it wasn't going to magically match up the next time they looked at it because they had the figures. It was predictable, just not understood at that point in time. Why, rather than what.

Astronomical models run on calculations not observations.
Models are made from observations.  The calculations are there to explain why the model works.

Jane's not 100% wrong.  Planetary motion was accurately observed and modeled long before we had any mathematical understanding of what was happening.  Ptolemy's geocentric model is functional to describe what is observed in the sky, if you allow a margin of error and don't mind planetary epicycles that exist for no explainable reason other than that's the apparent motion that was observed. 

The Copernican model is also based on observation, but it has much more consistent planetary movement and the engine of gravity to explain how it all works.  The better our mathematical descriptions of gravity have become the more accurate the Copernican model has become. 

Jane's mistake here is trying to allege that the same observations will be consistent if the Earth were flat.  That's absolutely false, but Jack explained it above more succinctly than I would, so I won't bother going through it again.

6

So, we agree on how it doesn't work.
Good.

My question was "How DOES it work?".


Good for you. Yes, I saw your question. I don't have an answer. That doesn't mean I can't comment on a flawed logical argument.

If you had a question, why didn't you just ask the question instead of prefacing it with a straw man you know to be incorrect?
Presumably to preempt the answer, "Same as it works on a round earth model".  His preface eliminates that answer and requires someone to provide an actual model of functionality. 

I understand your point about assumptions that aren't accurate in a flat earth model, but I think you're reaching to apply it here.  He's explaining the mechanics in a conventional model, demonstrating that they won't work with a flat model, and asking to be shown a model that will yield the same observable result.  That's not a straw man, it's just asking a question with excellent clarity.

7
Flat Earth General / Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« on: March 20, 2018, 06:17:22 AM »
All source material regarding the nature of space and radiation is clear and unambiguous.
Yes.

The statements I have written are quite clear and unambiguous.
Yes.

It all adds up to death by exposure to radiation.
No.  All the available source material says that 2 dozen guys went beyond Earth orbit for a week and a half and received acceptable doses of radiation.  All available source material says that people live and work in space for months at a time with acceptable doses of radiation.  All available source material says that radiation is a concern in space travel, even more so outside LEO, but has been and remains manageable for everything undertaken so far.  All available source material says that months outside of LEO, months not days, would probably be lethal, and people are working the problem to enable transits to Mars. 

Your confusion between months or years on a Mars mission and days to the Moon and back, or between passing through the edge of the VARBs or leaving sensitive electronics in them to see what happens, adds up to nothing except that you need to either read more or comprehend what you read better.

8
Flat Earth General / Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« on: March 20, 2018, 05:55:38 AM »
Take the 100% flawless moonlanding, ascend and rendez-vous manouvres of the LM and CM.
It's only 100% because you're cherry picking the successes and ignoring the failures.  Off the top of my head, Gemini 8 was almost a catastrophic docking and they had to abort the mission almost immediately.  There was at least one rendezvous issue during the Gemini program because the pilots hadn't acclimated to the counter intuitive nature of orbital movement (moving faster to catch something moves you to a higher orbit and slows you down).  I believe it was Gemini 7 and 6A.  You didn't mention spacewalks, but Gene Cernan had a major issue during Gemini 9 that led to new techniques and hardware to smooth out that process.  Apollo 9 rigorously tested all of the rendezvous and docking procedures with the LM and CM.  The only thing they didn't do was travel to the moon, but meeting up and docking in Earth orbit is not functionally different than in Earth orbit.  Apollo 10 practiced the same techniques, and even did a lunar approach with the LM, doing everything but the landing.  They also had an accident with a switch being pressed twice inadvertently that almost crashed them into the moon.  Even the Apollo 11 landing wasn't flawless.  There are two extremely well documented alarms that went off during the landing that could have aborted the mission if they hadn't practiced exactly that situation in simulation.  Apollo 16 nearly had an abort before landing, though I don't remember why. You're discounting Apollo 13 because it doesn't fit your narrative.  It was exactly the type of issue that comes up in new technology. 

The fact that 6 out of the 7 landing missions were successful, and that even in the worst situations they lost no lives, is a credit to the rigorous process of testing equipment, on Earth, in orbit, and at the moon; it is a credit to the rigorous process of testing the astronauts with classroom work, simulation, and practical experience in space; and it is a credit to the dedication and hard work of all of the support staff who tried to imagine every possible problem and its solution before it was ever experienced in real time. 

I simply want an answer to that question, not the manure that rabinoz posts that burries every possible open minded discussion !
It's not open minded discussion, though.  It's your willful ignorance of the subject, your deliberate attempts to omit information that doesn't fit your fantasy, and it's an insult to all of the people who worked so hard for what is undoubtedly the most impressive achievement in the history of humanity.  If you were truly open minded, you would do actual research and examine all of the facts instead of only the ones that support your ridiculous hypothesis.  The truth is out there...

9
Flat Earth General / Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« on: March 19, 2018, 12:05:03 PM »
It looks exactly like a floodlight blowout but I am sure the debunkers have a good explanation for it.
It looks exactly like a floodlight blowout?  Really?  The picture goes from fully illuminated to nearly pitch dark.  Almost immediately, it goes from almost completely dark to very dim light, with single shadows oriented in exactly the same direction as the full illumination somehow.  Then, after changing the floodlight bulb in 15-20 sec, we're back to full illumination, again with zero change to the single shadow orientations...

Is this what passes for "expert" photo/video analysis?

Or, without requiring any bizarre magic with shadows and the almost instantaneous replacement of the blown floodlight, it could be, as already pointed out, a change in the camera aperture.

The first explanation actually sounds more credible to a few of you?  Seriously?


10
Such GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations kill any asstronut exposed to it after 1 second.
Oops, there's some more of your misinformation.  5 Sv is a lethal dose, but death will come most likely within 2 weeks.  10 Sv is a lethal dose, with death in about 1 hour.  3-3.5 Sv is a 50% death rate in 60 days. 

9 days of Apollo 14 had a dosage of 11.4 mSv, or about 0.2% of the lethal dose for death within 2 weeks (0.1% of the lethal dose in 1 hour).

6 months on the ISS is a dosage of about 160 mSv, or about 3% of the lethal dose for death within 2 weeks (1.5% of the lethal dose in 1 hour.

As you can see, days to the moon, or months in orbit, neither exposes astronauts to anywhere near enough to a lethal dose in an hour, let alone a second.

More Heiwa misinformation corrected.  You can feel free to fix any of the inaccuracies on your website with my information without crediting me.  It's enough for me just to know that there is a little less ignorance in the world.

No, GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations in space heat you up in seconds regardless of protection suits. It is like being a live lobster put in pot of boiling water.
It's not like that at all, actually.  Wrong again.  I gave you the numbers above.  If you think they are in error (they're not) you're welcome to dispute them.  But mindlessly reasserting something that is demonstrably false is really dumb.  Are you dumb?  Don't answer that, let your actions speak for you...

11
Such GCR, ERBs and SPE radiations kill any asstronut exposed to it after 1 second.
Oops, there's some more of your misinformation.  5 Sv is a lethal dose, but death will come most likely within 2 weeks.  10 Sv is a lethal dose, with death in about 1 hour.  3-3.5 Sv is a 50% death rate in 60 days. 

9 days of Apollo 14 had a dosage of 11.4 mSv, or about 0.2% of the lethal dose for death within 2 weeks (0.1% of the lethal dose in 1 hour).

6 months on the ISS is a dosage of about 160 mSv, or about 3% of the lethal dose for death within 2 weeks (1.5% of the lethal dose in 1 hour.

As you can see, days to the moon, or months in orbit, neither exposes astronauts to anywhere near enough to a lethal dose in an hour, let alone a second.

More Heiwa misinformation corrected.  You can feel free to fix any of the inaccuracies on your website with my information without crediting me.  It's enough for me just to know that there is a little less ignorance in the world.

12
Effectively, what you want to state is this: A vacuum lifter exerts no force. It is the atmoplane of the Earth at 14.7 psi, pressing a 10 foot by 3 foot mechanism down hard enough in order for a 30000 lb pipe to be lifted against a force causing it to accelerate back toward the center of the Earth at 9.8 m/s
10 feet by 3 feet is 4320 square inches.  14.7 psi over 4320 square inches is over 60,000 lbs.  Where exactly do you see a problem?
So, I lay my naked body down on a pipe half the size with the atmoplane pushing me against it. At half the size of the vacuum lifter, I should be able to lift half the size of pipe at 15000 lbs.

GTFO!
Does your body create a vacuum between itself and the pipe?  That would be pretty amazing...

What really happens is the 10ft x 3ft lifter creates a seal with the pipe and then pumps all the air out.  The 14.7 psi of atmospheric pressure is now pushing on the pipe in every direction but down.  The lateral pressures cancel each other leaving 14.7 psi of upward pressure.  That atmospheric pressure holds the pipe to the lifter. 

The atmosphere doesn't do any lifting, by the way, it just holds the object to the lifter, which can then be manipulated mechanically to move up sideways and back down.  The vacuum seal is just taking the place of pincers, a bucket, or some other mechanical means of grabbing the object that is to be lifted.  The atmospheric pressure doesn't lift the pipe, it just keeps it from falling.


13
Rail cars subjected to vacuum collapse quite easily.
Do you need to have it explained why the weight of miles of atmosphere pushing on something with a vacuum inside is different than ounces of air pushing against the wall of a tire with a vacuum outside?

Or can you work that out on your own?
Can you define how 35 psi of air = "ounces?"

Or do you need help with that?

WTF is the matter with you?
Okay, you need help with this.  That's fine.

35 psi is 2.4 atm.  The volume of a typical car tire is 10 L.  The temperature of the air could be 290 K, although changing this isn't going to have a significant effect on the answer.  The Ideal Gas Constant is 0.082057 L atm mol-1K-1.

Number of moles = Pressure x Volume/ Ideal Gas Constant x Temperature or n=PV/RT.

Plug in the numbers and we get just over 1 mole in the tire.  A mole of dry air weighs approximately 29 grams, which is almost an ounce.

Even if you squeeze 2 moles in, that would be 2 ounces of air.

So again, why do you think a rail car with an internal vacuum getting crushed by miles of atmosphere above it is remotely comparable to a tire with an ounce or two of air holding it in with an external vacuum?  Do you see that they are different now?
And you need help understanding the following.

Please mount an empty tire on a rim.

The you fill the tire to the recommended pressure.

And then understand that it is still 35 psi that is important.

Without a countering 14.7 psi on the outside, that tire would explode.
The burst pressure of a typical tire is around 200 psi.  Do you really believe that the 14.7 psi pushing in is the only thing keeping the 35 psi pushing out from causing the tire to explode?   Here is a hint: the tire is more than capable of handling 35 psi without bursting, even in a vacuum.

14
Effectively, what you want to state is this: A vacuum lifter exerts no force. It is the atmoplane of the Earth at 14.7 psi, pressing a 10 foot by 3 foot mechanism down hard enough in order for a 30000 lb pipe to be lifted against a force causing it to accelerate back toward the center of the Earth at 9.8 m/s
10 feet by 3 feet is 4320 square inches.  14.7 psi over 4320 square inches is over 60,000 lbs.  Where exactly do you see a problem?

15
Rail cars subjected to vacuum collapse quite easily.
Do you need to have it explained why the weight of miles of atmosphere pushing on something with a vacuum inside is different than ounces of air pushing against the wall of a tire with a vacuum outside?

Or can you work that out on your own?
Can you define how 35 psi of air = "ounces?"

Or do you need help with that?

WTF is the matter with you?
Okay, you need help with this.  That's fine.

35 psi is 2.4 atm.  The volume of a typical car tire is 10 L.  The temperature of the air could be 290 K, although changing this isn't going to have a significant effect on the answer.  The Ideal Gas Constant is 0.082057 L atm mol-1K-1.

Number of moles = Pressure x Volume/ Ideal Gas Constant x Temperature or n=PV/RT.

Plug in the numbers and we get just over 1 mole in the tire.  A mole of dry air weighs approximately 29 grams, which is almost an ounce.

Even if you squeeze 2 moles in, that would be 2 ounces of air.

So again, why do you think a rail car with an internal vacuum getting crushed by miles of atmosphere above it is remotely comparable to a tire with an ounce or two of air holding it in with an external vacuum?  Do you see that they are different now?


16
Rail cars subjected to vacuum collapse quite easily.
Do you need to have it explained why the weight of miles of atmosphere pushing on something with a vacuum inside is different than ounces of air pushing against the wall of a tire with a vacuum outside?

Or can you work that out on your own?

17
it's usually accepted that Arabs had some understanding of it.
Accepted by whom and on what basis?  All I can find is that Ibn al-Haytham had a couple of elements.  I don't see anything that indicates that particular facet of his work being widespread through Arab cultures. 

18
No, I, Heiwa, never say that, what I do not understand must be faked. I explain why it is faked at http://heiwaco.com
In a single paragraph on this forum you presented five pieces of information as fact, when in truth, everything except your identification of the camera was false.  If a 20% rate of accuracy is representative of your general knowledge base, why would anyone bother with your website?  It's reasonable to assume that 80% of it is incorrect, and that doesn't even address places where you draw inappropriate conclusions from the 20% of the facts that you may have gotten correct.

Here is the paragraph in question from another thread, with my corrections included (which you never addressed).
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67626.msg2038301#msg2038301
Glenn was traveling backwards with a control stick between his legs. His capsule had a rocket engine facing forward for braking and maybe Glenn used the control stick to fire this engine. Glenn had also 25 buttons to push to land backwards but I don't know what they were for. He had a little window to look through and he used an upgraded Minolta Hi-Matic taking photos of the Earth below. The capsule was not full of pressurized air so there was need for an airtight space suit/helmet with gloves. How he could take photos with those gloves is a mystery.
What a stupid story. Only twerps believe it.
Amazing how in an age when information is so available you manage to get nothing right.  The only stick between his legs was the one he was born with.  The control stick off to his side was used to control the attitude of the capsule and had nothing to do with firing the engine.

The capsule had an escape tower for launch with a rocket on the forward part of the capsule and a retrorocket pack attached to the heat shield.  It was pushed into orbit by an Atlas rocket, also from behind the heat shield.   Three rocket engines and not one of them "faced forward".  The escape tower was jettisoned after launch, the Atlas rocket was jettisoned after giving the capsule orbital velocity.  The retropack was the only rocket engine on the capsule once he was in orbit and it was attached to the back, over the heat shield.

There were 120 controls, not 25, although only 55 were switches, if that was what you meant by buttons, but 55 still isn't 25.  At least you acknowledge you don't know what they were for. 

The Mercury capsules were pressurized to 5.5 psi of pure oxygen.  The pressure suits on a separate oxygen supply were there as a backup in case of a loss of pressure in the cabin or a fire, which would be extinguished by venting cabin oxygen.  Most of the time, the pilots actually flew with their helmets open and suits consequently not pressurized.

I didn't look up any of the camera information, but if the operation is a mystery to you it's only because you didn't do any research either.  It is likely he was able to operate the camera with gloves because of practice and training, or with modifications made to the camera to make it easier with gloves.  It is also possible he simply removed his gloves to take pictures, as his suit wasn't pressurized anyway and the cabin was perfectly safe without his suit.

The history of Mercury, and the rest of the space program, is well documented.  It's not a "story", stupid or otherwise.  Only ignorant jackasses question it, and only then on the ridiculous basis of "I don't understand it so it must be false."  I'm happy to educate you, but I can't learn for you.  At some point you have to open your own mind and actually process the information.

19
John Glenn 1962 orbited three times and then, over the Pacific he fired his rocket to slow down passing USA from California to Pennsylvania before dropping into the Atlantic Ocean below a parachute. Glenn was re-entering backwards!! Imagine that!
This is my favorite in the long list of things about which you're catastrophically ignorant.  Most orbits travel from west to east, including John Glenn's 1962 trip.  Why would you expect reentry to go east to west?  California to Pennsylvania then splashdown in the Atlantic is exactly what would be expected from someone who knows anything at all about the subject.

The fact that you think he reentered "backwards" is laughable.
You really have to read what I write. The Glenn 1962 fantasy orbital trip was eastwards all the time. But when he re-entered he flipped 180 and he faced east - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm#19 . He was flying backwards.
Maybe you should read what you write...
The Glenn 1962 fantasy orbital trip was eastwards all the time. But when he re-entered he flipped 180 and he faced east
That sentence makes zero sense.  If you actually understand the entire trip was eastward, including reentry, and your objection is that the capsule was entering heat shield first then that's maybe even dumber than what I thought you were saying.

Glenn's history as a pilot and what direction he flew aircraft has no bearing whatsoever on the engineering of the space capsule he orbited in during his 1962 trip.

Glenn was traveling backwards with a control stick between his legs. His capsule had a rocket engine facing forward for braking and maybe Glenn used the control stick to fire this engine. Glenn had also 25 buttons to push to land backwards but I don't know what they were for. He had a little window to look through and he used an upgraded Minolta Hi-Matic taking photos of the Earth below. The capsule was not full of pressurized air so there was need for an airtight space suit/helmet with gloves. How he could take photos with those gloves is a mystery.
What a stupid story. Only twerps believe it.
Amazing how in an age when information is so available you manage to get nothing right.  The only stick between his legs was the one he was born with.  The control stick off to his side was used to control the attitude of the capsule and had nothing to do with firing the engine.

The capsule had an escape tower for launch with a rocket on the forward part of the capsule and a retrorocket pack attached to the heat shield.  It was pushed into orbit by an Atlas rocket, also from behind the heat shield.   Three rocket engines and not one of them "faced forward".  The escape tower was jettisoned after launch, the Atlas rocket was jettisoned after giving the capsule orbital velocity.  The retropack was the only rocket engine on the capsule once he was in orbit and it was attached to the back, over the heat shield.

There were 120 controls, not 25, although only 55 were switches, if that was what you meant by buttons, but 55 still isn't 25.  At least you acknowledge you don't know what they were for. 

The Mercury capsules were pressurized to 5.5 psi of pure oxygen.  The pressure suits on a separate oxygen supply were there as a backup in case of a loss of pressure in the cabin or a fire, which would be extinguished by venting cabin oxygen.  Most of the time, the pilots actually flew with their helmets open and suits consequently not pressurized.

I didn't look up any of the camera information, but if the operation is a mystery to you it's only because you didn't do any research either.  It is likely he was able to operate the camera with gloves because of practice and training, or with modifications made to the camera to make it easier with gloves.  It is also possible he simply removed his gloves to take pictures, as his suit wasn't pressurized anyway and the cabin was perfectly safe without his suit.

The history of Mercury, and the rest of the space program, is well documented.  It's not a "story", stupid or otherwise.  Only ignorant jackasses question it, and only then on the ridiculous basis of "I don't understand it so it must be false."  I'm happy to educate you, but I can't learn for you.  At some point you have to open your own mind and actually process the information.
Hm, I prefer to improve my website that all human space travel is a hoax starting 1961. I know plenty intelligent people that got involved with space travel back then. Some are still around. They are a big sect of blind believers. They will never admit that human space travel is just one BIG stupid hoax. They hate me for it. I just laugh at them and tell them to win 1M  at my space travel Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .
Actually they have wasted their lives with 55+ years nonsense and falsified all sorts of things while doing it. What a miserable lot.
And of course, not even a hint of an apology for the many inaccuracies you trotted out as fact.  Why would anyone bother with your website when you demonstrate a complete disregard for whether or not the "information" you provide is true.  I had to correct an entire paragraph of things you alleged to be facts and all you do is pump your dumb website.  Amazing.

20
Nothing can be proven by a simulation.
I don't think that's true. I'd even say now you're flat out lying.

With a simulation you can maybe prove that it works. To prove that it happened you need real world data.
Are you talking about evolution or in general?

It also works in general.
So you think "Nothing can be proven by a simulation."?

A simulation can be evidence, but I agree that it can't be conclusive, stand-alone proof.  I admit that I haven't considered every possibility, so I may be wrong.  If you have an example of a simulation that is proof of something by itself, I would be interested in examining it.

21
John Glenn 1962 orbited three times and then, over the Pacific he fired his rocket to slow down passing USA from California to Pennsylvania before dropping into the Atlantic Ocean below a parachute. Glenn was re-entering backwards!! Imagine that!
This is my favorite in the long list of things about which you're catastrophically ignorant.  Most orbits travel from west to east, including John Glenn's 1962 trip.  Why would you expect reentry to go east to west?  California to Pennsylvania then splashdown in the Atlantic is exactly what would be expected from someone who knows anything at all about the subject.

The fact that you think he reentered "backwards" is laughable.
You really have to read what I write. The Glenn 1962 fantasy orbital trip was eastwards all the time. But when he re-entered he flipped 180 and he faced east - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm#19 . He was flying backwards.
Maybe you should read what you write...
The Glenn 1962 fantasy orbital trip was eastwards all the time. But when he re-entered he flipped 180 and he faced east
That sentence makes zero sense.  If you actually understand the entire trip was eastward, including reentry, and your objection is that the capsule was entering heat shield first then that's maybe even dumber than what I thought you were saying.

Glenn's history as a pilot and what direction he flew aircraft has no bearing whatsoever on the engineering of the space capsule he orbited in during his 1962 trip.

Glenn was traveling backwards with a control stick between his legs. His capsule had a rocket engine facing forward for braking and maybe Glenn used the control stick to fire this engine. Glenn had also 25 buttons to push to land backwards but I don't know what they were for. He had a little window to look through and he used an upgraded Minolta Hi-Matic taking photos of the Earth below. The capsule was not full of pressurized air so there was need for an airtight space suit/helmet with gloves. How he could take photos with those gloves is a mystery.
What a stupid story. Only twerps believe it.
Amazing how in an age when information is so available you manage to get nothing right.  The only stick between his legs was the one he was born with.  The control stick off to his side was used to control the attitude of the capsule and had nothing to do with firing the engine.

The capsule had an escape tower for launch with a rocket on the forward part of the capsule and a retrorocket pack attached to the heat shield.  It was pushed into orbit by an Atlas rocket, also from behind the heat shield.   Three rocket engines and not one of them "faced forward".  The escape tower was jettisoned after launch, the Atlas rocket was jettisoned after giving the capsule orbital velocity.  The retropack was the only rocket engine on the capsule once he was in orbit and it was attached to the back, over the heat shield.

There were 120 controls, not 25, although only 55 were switches, if that was what you meant by buttons, but 55 still isn't 25.  At least you acknowledge you don't know what they were for. 

The Mercury capsules were pressurized to 5.5 psi of pure oxygen.  The pressure suits on a separate oxygen supply were there as a backup in case of a loss of pressure in the cabin or a fire, which would be extinguished by venting cabin oxygen.  Most of the time, the pilots actually flew with their helmets open and suits consequently not pressurized.

I didn't look up any of the camera information, but if the operation is a mystery to you it's only because you didn't do any research either.  It is likely he was able to operate the camera with gloves because of practice and training, or with modifications made to the camera to make it easier with gloves.  It is also possible he simply removed his gloves to take pictures, as his suit wasn't pressurized anyway and the cabin was perfectly safe without his suit.

The history of Mercury, and the rest of the space program, is well documented.  It's not a "story", stupid or otherwise.  Only ignorant jackasses question it, and only then on the ridiculous basis of "I don't understand it so it must be false."  I'm happy to educate you, but I can't learn for you.  At some point you have to open your own mind and actually process the information.

22
John Glenn 1962 orbited three times and then, over the Pacific he fired his rocket to slow down passing USA from California to Pennsylvania before dropping into the Atlantic Ocean below a parachute. Glenn was re-entering backwards!! Imagine that!
This is my favorite in the long list of things about which you're catastrophically ignorant.  Most orbits travel from west to east, including John Glenn's 1962 trip.  Why would you expect reentry to go east to west?  California to Pennsylvania then splashdown in the Atlantic is exactly what would be expected from someone who knows anything at all about the subject.

The fact that you think he reentered "backwards" is laughable.
You really have to read what I write. The Glenn 1962 fantasy orbital trip was eastwards all the time. But when he re-entered he flipped 180 and he faced east - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm#19 . He was flying backwards.
Maybe you should read what you write...
The Glenn 1962 fantasy orbital trip was eastwards all the time. But when he re-entered he flipped 180 and he faced east
That sentence makes zero sense.  If you actually understand the entire trip was eastward, including reentry, and your objection is that the capsule was entering heat shield first then that's maybe even dumber than what I thought you were saying.

Glenn's history as a pilot and what direction he flew aircraft has no bearing whatsoever on the engineering of the space capsule he orbited in during his 1962 trip. 

23
John Glenn 1962 orbited three times and then, over the Pacific he fired his rocket to slow down passing USA from California to Pennsylvania before dropping into the Atlantic Ocean below a parachute. Glenn was re-entering backwards!! Imagine that!
This is my favorite in the long list of things about which you're catastrophically ignorant.  Most orbits travel from west to east, including John Glenn's 1962 trip.  Why would you expect reentry to go east to west?  California to Pennsylvania then splashdown in the Atlantic is exactly what would be expected from someone who knows anything at all about the subject.

The fact that you think he reentered "backwards" is laughable. 

24
Flat Earth General / Re: What are Globe Earthers scared of?
« on: March 13, 2018, 12:01:34 PM »
Sorry, but Coke is NOT Pepsi.
What you say bro......
Can't argue with your idea of this world.....

It's sad that this is the most accurate map any flat earther has posted since I've been here.  It's a start, I guess...

25
There is already a section that is available as a FE echo chamber if that's what you want.  Anyone who doesn't want to be confronted with reality can simply not engage with the realists in the sections that are bi-partisan.  This isn't difficult...

26
But I find it strange...
What you find strange is irrelevant.  Starting your sentences like this is just an attempt to turn your ignorance into an argument for your misguided conclusions. 

But I find it strange that ESA/NASA don't reply when you ask for clarification about
1. Gravity assisted sling shot assists, and
2. Re-entries from space at high speed through the atmosphere and landing,
to enable space travel of all sorts.
It's already been explained to you why this isn't strange.  Neither of them are educational institutions and they aren't going to correspond with you about specific details in their work that you aren't qualified to discuss. 

There is no real information about these two important maneuvers available anywhere, only strange simplifications,
Why do you find it so strange that specific details about maneuvers that a tiny fraction of the world's population need to know aren't readily available with 2 minutes of google searching?  Despite common hyperbole, not everything can be found on the internet...

I have to admit that after four years at university and almost fifty years professional work in marine transportation I have never encountered such nonsense.
Are you genuinely surprised that you never encountered gravity assist or atmospheric reentry during your work in marine transportation?  If so, you're a lot dumber than you sound...

So what advice do you provide to find out about these problems.
How many times and in how many ways do I need to tell you to enroll in a degree program that will teach you orbital mechanics?  If that's too much of a time investment, go to a university that offers such a program and see if you can hire a professor to answer your specific questions individually.  If you're very ambitious, you could attempt to do some unguided research, but please note that it may actually involve trips away from your computer to libraries to read actual books.  Your ignorance is your own problem.  Whatever you do, please stop believing it is ESA/NASA's job to educate you.

27

Did it occur to you at all that the ESA rocket scientists have more important things to do with their time than teach you 6-8 years of science education over the phone? (or mail, email, or SMS)  They are the European Space Agency, not the European Space University. 

Furthermore, do you believe the people answering the phones or in the PR departments have the knowledge you're looking for anyway? 

If you want to know how they did it in more detail than I explained above, you'll need to study some basic physics first (your grasp of reference frames is severely lacking), and then you'll need to learn about actual orbital mechanics.  I don't know what your math background is, but there's going to be some pretty high end stuff along the way, so you may need to take some math courses just to be able to handle the science. 

Why you expect a busy rocket scientist to hand you this over the phone is completely beyond me...

Yes, ESA is very busy so you better not disturb them. I describe them at http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw2.htm#ROS and their Rosetta spacecraft. It passed planet Earth on 4 March 2005 and was kicked away to planet Mars, etc, etc, while 1000's of people watched it. Actually, Rosetta arrived from behind Earth and made a 90 turn in front of planet Earth and then went straight for planet Mars. But they cannot explain how it happened. Too busy! ROTFL

They also send plenty people up in space that then lands in Kazakhstan. What a bunch of criminals. I wonder how long they will carry on. What do you think?
I think you ignored 2 paragraphs of a decent summary of the orbital mechanics with which you were struggling to understand. 

I think you posted a nonsense rebuttal to a perfectly coherent analysis of the unreasonable expectation you hold that the ESA owes you a personal explanation for the trajectories and procedures without demonstrating why they should waste their time teaching you the science you're lacking in order to understand the explanation even if they were to give it to you.

I think you don't know enough physics to recognize that you are woefully incompetent to the challenge of correctly analyzing the parameters of a space mission.  Until you can swallow your pride, ditch your arrogance, and acknowledge that there is a great deal that you don't understand, you will never be able to actually learn and fill in the gaps in your knowledge base.  Good luck.
I think I know enough physics...
And that is the problem.  You don't.  You're having trouble with things I was managing just fine in high school, and I'm not a professional scientist in any field.  And by the way, people who learn NEVER "think they know enough".  Even in my professional field, with 6 years of formal education and 18 years experience, I am constantly seeking more information to better understand something that I already understand better than an overwhelming majority of people.  I will never "know enough" because the only "enough" that is acceptable is "everything" and I don't have the arrogance required to ever make that claim.

Take such simple things like getting away from Earth one way or other and then, after a trip around the Sun taking a year, you return to Earth for a gravity assisted swing-by to fly off to planet Mars for another gravity assisted swing-by to return the Earth again.

The ESA show - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw2.htm#ROS - is pure fantasy.

Imagine you take off March 2004, return to Earth March 2005, arrive Mars February 2007, return Earth November 2007 and November 2009, etc, etc, to finally arrive at target comet 67P 2014. Ten years for a little space trip! Reason is, according ESA, that target is moving around all the time, like Earth and Mars, and that the only way is to use gravity assisted swing-byes, bla, bla.
Do you have a point?  You listed a couple examples of things that are perfectly reasonable without any indication of what you think is wrong.  Do you not understand gravity assist, and wrongfully conclude then that it's not real?  Is it the time involved?  No interplanetary space trip is "little", so again, you're having problems with scale.  Without looking at the details of the comet rendezvous, I suspect the issues involved were about fuel and efficiency.  The comet was likely travelling at a much higher velocity than was practical to accelerate the craft to directly, so they used gravity assists to reach the higher speed.  This would save a great deal of fuel, which means a great deal of money in mass that isn't carried away from Earth.  The cost is time.  It takes time for the craft to go through a trajectory with multiple gravity assists.  So what exactly is your objection again?

And when you ask in writing for more details of these gravity assisted swing-byes - no reply. And when you call wondering why they don't reply - no reply.
Get this through your head.  No matter how important you may think you are, they have no responsibility to provide you details of their missions.  Even if they had time to waste on individuals who wanted those details, they would likely conclude, correctly, that you don't have the background to understand them.  If you want to know how those things work, go to school to learn them.  Call a surgeon sometime and ask him or her to explain the intricate details of his or her last heart surgery.  When you don't get a response, will you conclude that surgery is a hoax?

If you want to learn about something, don't bother the people doing it, they are busy working.  Sign up for classes and you'll discover someone whose job is to actually explain things to you.  It's a profession.  Expecting people to do it for you for free is ridiculous.

28

Did it occur to you at all that the ESA rocket scientists have more important things to do with their time than teach you 6-8 years of science education over the phone? (or mail, email, or SMS)  They are the European Space Agency, not the European Space University. 

Furthermore, do you believe the people answering the phones or in the PR departments have the knowledge you're looking for anyway? 

If you want to know how they did it in more detail than I explained above, you'll need to study some basic physics first (your grasp of reference frames is severely lacking), and then you'll need to learn about actual orbital mechanics.  I don't know what your math background is, but there's going to be some pretty high end stuff along the way, so you may need to take some math courses just to be able to handle the science. 

Why you expect a busy rocket scientist to hand you this over the phone is completely beyond me...

Yes, ESA is very busy so you better not disturb them. I describe them at http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw2.htm#ROS and their Rosetta spacecraft. It passed planet Earth on 4 March 2005 and was kicked away to planet Mars, etc, etc, while 1000's of people watched it. Actually, Rosetta arrived from behind Earth and made a 90 turn in front of planet Earth and then went straight for planet Mars. But they cannot explain how it happened. Too busy! ROTFL

They also send plenty people up in space that then lands in Kazakhstan. What a bunch of criminals. I wonder how long they will carry on. What do you think?
I think you ignored 2 paragraphs of a decent summary of the orbital mechanics with which you were struggling to understand. 

I think you posted a nonsense rebuttal to a perfectly coherent analysis of the unreasonable expectation you hold that the ESA owes you a personal explanation for the trajectories and procedures without demonstrating why they should waste their time teaching you the science you're lacking in order to understand the explanation even if they were to give it to you.

I think you don't know enough physics to recognize that you are woefully incompetent to the challenge of correctly analyzing the parameters of a space mission.  Until you can swallow your pride, ditch your arrogance, and acknowledge that there is a great deal that you don't understand, you will never be able to actually learn and fill in the gaps in your knowledge base.  Good luck.

29

Problem remains how to leave Earth orbit to arrive at this loophole L1 point in Sun orbit.
Do you leave at 12 o'clock and go vertically straight up out of Earth orbit to the Sun or at 6 o'clock in the morning and go tangentially to the Sun? And what force do you apply and what is your departure velocity out of Earth orbit? Another problem is how to find and stop at L1? It seems nobody know how to stop in space.
Earth gravity will of course slow you down during the trip to L1 as soon as the rocket force is no longer applied. If the force is too small, the space craft will come dropping back on Earth. And if it is too strong you will burn up in the Sun. So the rocket force must be in between for a certain arrival speed before L1 and then braking to 0 speed at L1. Any ideas how it is done?
Why would they brake to 0 speed?  You don't actually think a Lagrange point is stationary do you? 

And you wouldn't travel vertically or tangentially.  Travel through space is done with orbits.  The simple answer is you would put the object in question into a solar orbit that intersects the Lagrange point and then make whatever speed adjustments are necessary to match the velocity of the Lagrange point in order to park it.

If you want specific details you can research orbital mechanics to get them.  The final velocity for L1 won't be too far off from Earth's approximate 30 km/s, though, because it is only a bit more than a million miles away.

The L1 point is orbiting the Sun in one year at a certain velocity. Any satellite at point L1 is thus orbiting the Sun at the same velocity. If the satellite was previously orbiting Earth (orbiting the Sun in one year), it has moved from orbit Earth to orbit Sun.
If the satellite's trajectory between orbit Earth and orbit Sun is another orbit, what was the satellite orbiting around then during the transfer?
Everything within 7-8 billion km (at least) is orbiting the Sun, so even if the satellite was also orbiting the Earth, it was always orbiting the Sun.  The transfer orbit is a solar orbit, as I indicated above, meaning the satellite would be orbiting the Sun. It's just a more elliptical orbit that will intersect with the more circular L1 orbit.  There are many kinds of transfer orbits, and I don't know which they use for an L1 transfer, but the simplest and often most fuel efficient is called a Hohmann Transfer.  You could look that up to at least get a general understanding of how a transfer orbit functions.

When the satellite is orbiting Sun at point L1 its speed relative Earth is zero. But when the satellite was orbiting Earth the relative speed relative Earth was say 7000 m/s. And to get out of orbit Earth the satellite had to speed up considerably relative Earth say to 11 000 m/s.

And then, due to Earth gravity force, the speed relative Earth became 0 upon arrival at point L1.

Have I understood the trip correctly?
No, you're having some major problems understanding and mixing reference frames.  The speed relative to Earth is completely irrelevant when calculating a solar orbit.  While it is orbiting Earth, it's speed relative to the Sun is approximately 30 km/s, and when it reaches its L1 orbit will be just slightly below that.  Without doing all the calculations, I can't give you the exact trajectories and velocities, but I can tell you that a certain amount of delta V will be required to move the satellite far enough from Earth so that it can be braked to fall into a lower solar orbit.  There may be another adjustment required to achieve the transfer ellipse and a final adjustment to park it at L1.  Because L1 is not a stable point, there will need to be regular maintenance burns to hold the position.

LISA Pathfinder belongs to ESA. Arianespace just put LISA into Earth orbit December 2015. After that the alleged rocket scientists at ESA took over and steered LISA to point L1 in Sun orbit. But ESA cannot explain how they did it. Try to call ESA yourself. The telephone number is at my website.
No, they never reply. Try snail mail, e-mail and SMS. Silence. They have PR departments issuing press releases but nobody can answer any questions.
Did it occur to you at all that the ESA rocket scientists have more important things to do with their time than teach you 6-8 years of science education over the phone? (or mail, email, or SMS)  They are the European Space Agency, not the European Space University. 

Furthermore, do you believe the people answering the phones or in the PR departments have the knowledge you're looking for anyway? 

If you want to know how they did it in more detail than I explained above, you'll need to study some basic physics first (your grasp of reference frames is severely lacking), and then you'll need to learn about actual orbital mechanics.  I don't know what your math background is, but there's going to be some pretty high end stuff along the way, so you may need to take some math courses just to be able to handle the science. 

Why you expect a busy rocket scientist to hand you this over the phone is completely beyond me...

30

Problem remains how to leave Earth orbit to arrive at this loophole L1 point in Sun orbit.
Do you leave at 12 o'clock and go vertically straight up out of Earth orbit to the Sun or at 6 o'clock in the morning and go tangentially to the Sun? And what force do you apply and what is your departure velocity out of Earth orbit? Another problem is how to find and stop at L1? It seems nobody know how to stop in space.
Earth gravity will of course slow you down during the trip to L1 as soon as the rocket force is no longer applied. If the force is too small, the space craft will come dropping back on Earth. And if it is too strong you will burn up in the Sun. So the rocket force must be in between for a certain arrival speed before L1 and then braking to 0 speed at L1. Any ideas how it is done?
Why would they brake to 0 speed?  You don't actually think a Lagrange point is stationary do you? 

And you wouldn't travel vertically or tangentially.  Travel through space is done with orbits.  The simple answer is you would put the object in question into a solar orbit that intersects the Lagrange point and then make whatever speed adjustments are necessary to match the velocity of the Lagrange point in order to park it.

If you want specific details you can research orbital mechanics to get them.  The final velocity for L1 won't be too far off from Earth's approximate 30 km/s, though, because it is only a bit more than a million miles away. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18