CubeSat

*sigh*  Which of the Saturn V's engines were based on the V2's LOX/ethanol-water engine?  Was it the LOX/kerosene fueled F-1 engine or the LOX/LH₂ fueled J-2 engine?  Perhaps you're thinking about the Redstone rocket that was directly based off the V2 because none of the other manned space vehicles ever used LOX/ethanol-water based rocket engines.

All of NASA's rockets are based off of the V2 to some extent. The V2 was the world's first ballistic rocket, and all later rockets were based off of it, even if the type of fuel was changed.

Also, what war crime(s) was von Braun ever convicted of?

His deal with the Americans was that he would escape prosecution in exchange for his cooperation, but his war crimes were numerous. He kept tens of thousands of slaves in squalid conditions to build Hitler's rockets. He is also responsible for an uncounted number of British deaths.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 11, 2011, 10:33:20 AM

And it's also demonstratively false. At least six other countries already have ICBMs. Reference: http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Eight_Nations_Now_Building_ICBM_Nuclear_Missiles_999.html

Actually it just says "Eight Nations Now Building ICBM Nuclear Missiles." Norkth Korea claims to be building ICBMs. Everyone doubts their claims.

North Korea claims to be able to hit any of the US mainland, while the US calls it a lie. We're assured by our government that North Korea is too inept to build a proper ICBM weapon.
 
There are 196 countries on earth. There are a lot of people to keep the technology from, hence why advanced rocket technology is classified and classified verily so.

So we're assured by our Government that you're correct about North Korea's ICBM capabilities. That's the same Government that assures you that the Apollo program landed men on the Moon, right? How do decide what to believe? Whim? Desire? Dice?

Remember your claim:

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on December 11, 2011, 10:24:30 AM

Quote

It was hugely oversized for an ICBM, and was never deployed in such a capacity.

Maybe you should read the next sentence.

Anything which claims to get into orbit is going to be classified. The US or Russian government isn't going to let other countries have access to ICBM-like technologies.

Then remember that the article says six other nations have ICBM technologies.

"According to a preliminary count, eight countries launched more than 26 ballistic missiles of 23 types in 24 different events,"

So you argue that one of the six is just a claim. So? I just need one (other than the US and Russia) to show you wrong, yet again.

Quote

Also, what war crime(s) was von Braun ever convicted of?

His deal with the Americans was that he would escape prosecution, but his war crimes were numerous. He kept tens of thousands of slaves, kept in squalid conditions, to build Hitler's rockets. He is also responsible for an uncounted number of British deaths.

So, by Robotham's criteria, Chapter 1, page 5. :
"In trials, for justice, society would not tolerate any other procedure. Assumption of guilt, and prohibition of all evidence to the contrary, is a practice not to be found among any of the civilised nations of the earth--scarcely indeed, among savages and barbarians; and yet assumption of premises, and selection of evidence to corroborate assumptions, is everywhere and upon all subjects the practice of theoretical philosophers!"

you're wrong again.

All that video seemed to reference was both the Saturn V and V2s had multi-stage engines. Would you also agree since all computers have the same basic parts (CPU, RAM, HDD, MoBo) that they all have the same performance?

So we're assured by our Government that you're correct about North Korea's ICBM capabilities. That's the same Government that assures you that the Apollo program landed men on the Moon, right? How do decide what to believe? Whim? Desire? Dice?

What I stated was a matter of fact. The US government claims that North Korea can't hit the majority of the US, while North Korea claims that it can.  What you decide to believe is up to you.

Knowing that the earth is flat and earth orbit is not possible, I would be skeptical of North Korea's claims, myself.

So you argue that one of the six is just a claim. So? I just need one (other than the US and Russia) to show you wrong, yet again.

A claim isn't evidence. Militaries have been making false claims since the dawn of time. Why would you trust a foreign military to truthfully disclose their capabilities? Do you think the US Military is truthful about the capabilities of its ships and planes? In a list of entities not to trust, military is at the top of the list!

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 01:01:42 PM

Quote

Also, what war crime(s) was von Braun ever convicted of?

His deal with the Americans was that he would escape prosecution, but his war crimes were numerous. He kept tens of thousands of slaves, kept in squalid conditions, to build Hitler's rockets. He is also responsible for an uncounted number of British deaths.

So, by Robotham's criteria, Chapter 1, page 5. :
"In trials, for justice, society would not tolerate any other procedure. Assumption of guilt, and prohibition of all evidence to the contrary, is a practice not to be found among any of the civilised nations of the earth--scarcely indeed, among savages and barbarians; and yet assumption of premises, and selection of evidence to corroborate assumptions, is everywhere and upon all subjects the practice of theoretical philosophers!"

you're wrong again.

In this case Wernher von Braun freely admitted that he was head of Hitler's rocket program. He didn't try to hide it.

That makes him directly responsible for countless British deaths.

All that video seemed to reference was both the Saturn V and V2s had multi-stage engines. Would you also agree since all computers have the same basic parts (CPU, RAM, HDD, MoBo) that they all have the same performance?

The V2 wasn't multi-stage.

Later on in the video after that scene it goes over how the Nazi's were captured and transported to the US for their knowledge on the V2. One of their first tasks was recreating the V2 from the ground up. There's even test-footage in that video of a V2 built on american soil launching into the sky. The US and NASA spent so much effort capturing Nazi scientists and recreating the V2 because that's what it based its rockets on.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 11, 2011, 01:03:56 PM

So we're assured by our Government that you're correct about North Korea's ICBM capabilities. That's the same Government that assures you that the Apollo program landed men on the Moon, right? How do decide what to believe? Whim? Desire? Dice?

What I stated was a matter of fact. The US government claims that North Korea can't hit the majority of the US, while North Korea claims that it can.  What you decide to believe is up to you.

Knowing that the earth is flat and earth orbit is not possible, I would be skeptical of North Koreas claims, myself.

Quote from: ClockTower

So you argue that one of the six is just a claim. So? I just need one (other than the US and Russia) to show you wrong, yet again.

A claim isn't evidence. Militaries have been making false claims since the dawn of time. Why would you trust a foreign military to truthfully disclose their capabilities? Do you think the US Military is truthful about the capabilities of its ships and planes? In a list of entities not to trust, military is at the top of the list!

So it is whim. Thanks for that.

No, but launch records are evidence. Did you need help with Google to find them? In 1998, more than a decade ago, NK shot a ballistic missile over Japan. The point is that NK has the technology you claim that US and Russia prevents any other country from having. The documented successful ICBM tests by China and Inida are public record.

Yes, I think that the US Military is truthful about the capabilities of its ships and planes. Why do you ask?

...
In this case Wernher von Braun freely admitted that he was head of Hitler's rocket program. He didn't try to hide it.

That makes him directly responsible for countless British deaths.

Non sequitur. Being responsible for "countless British deaths" is not a war crime. I assume that MacArthur would be a war criminal by your inane logic too. George Washington too!

Quote from: zarg on December 11, 2011, 10:27:46 AM

Quote

http://www.ilslaunch.com/mission-control/proton-launch-archives

Quote

Please explain the existence of the extensive list of Proton customers above.

Deployed via stratellite, as we've discussed.

What the hell does "deployed via stratellite" mean? Your "stratellite" is not a deployment method at all, it's the cargo that gets deployed by a rocket. There are no "fake NASA stratellites" involved here because the cargo is a civilian satellite built by the customer -- the person/group who hired ILS.

Stop avoiding the question: How do you explain the post-launch, in-space telemetry that third party / amateur satellite builders and operators receive from their own satellites?

Wait a minute... am I reading this right? Is Tom actually claiming that only two countries in the world have access to ICBMs? Good God...

No, but launch records are evidence. Did you need help with Google to find them? In 1998, more than a decade ago, NK shot a ballistic missile over Japan. The point is that NK has the technology you claim that US and Russia prevents any other country from having. The documented successful ICBM tests by China and Inida are public record.

NK to Japan is not an intercontinental distance. It's the same continent. NK isn't even that far from Japan. Look at a map.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 01:35:47 PM

...
In this case Wernher von Braun freely admitted that he was head of Hitler's rocket program. He didn't try to hide it.

That makes him directly responsible for countless British deaths.

Non sequitur. Being responsible for "countless British deaths" is not a war crime. I assume that MacArthur would be a war criminal by your inane logic too. George Washington too!

If they were killing civilians en masse they would be war criminals.

If they were using slave labor to build their weapons they would be war criminals.

The Nazis were doing both with the V2 program.

What the hell does "deployed via stratellite" mean? Your "stratellite" is not a deployment method at all, it's the cargo that gets deployed by a rocket. There are no "fake NASA stratellites" involved here because the cargo is a civilian satellite built by the customer -- the person/group who hired ILS.

Stop avoiding the question: How do you explain the post-launch, in-space telemetry that third party / amateur satellite builders and operators receive from their own satellites?

Again, the customer's "satellites" are deployed on dirigibles, probably multiple devices per dirigible. The telemetry data the customer receives comes from the edge of space.

Wait a minute... am I reading this right? Is Tom actually claiming that only two countries in the world have access to ICBMs? Good God...

Actually, I've been saying that no country in the world would have access to ICBM's. ICBM's don't exist. Achieving earth orbit is impossible.

NK to Japan is not an intercontinental distance. It's the same continent.

Wrong. The distance between continents is as small as zero. Take Asia and Europe, for example. Furthermore, just because a test didn't go between continents does not mean that the missile can't achieve ICBM distances. Oh, and the test went over Japan.

I'd ask you how far NK's missiles would have to cover to get to another continent, but I remember that you don't have an accurate map to estimate any such distances. How's the book coming, BTW? Will it have a decent FE map in it?

Quote from: ClockTower on December 11, 2011, 01:59:53 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 01:35:47 PM

...
In this case Wernher von Braun freely admitted that he was head of Hitler's rocket program. He didn't try to hide it.

That makes him directly responsible for countless British deaths.

Non sequitur. Being responsible for "countless British deaths" is not a war crime. I assume that MacArthur would be a war criminal by your inane logic too. George Washington too!

They were if they were killing civilians en masse they would be war criminals.

If they were using slave labor to build their weapons they would be war criminals.

The Nazis were doing both with the V2 program.

1) Provide the definition of war criminal you're using. 2) Provide evidence that WvB did those things.

just because a test didn't go between continents does not mean that the missile can't achieve ICBM distances.

What?

North Korea kind of has to demonstrate that they could send a missile ICBM distances in order to have an ICBM.

I occasionally shoot off model rockets. I can't claim that "just because my rocket didn't go ICBM distances, it doesn't mean the rocket can't achieve ICBM distances." It has to be demonstrated before it can be called an ICBM.

Please post more rationally.

1) Provide the definition of war criminal you're using. 2) Provide evidence that WvB did those things.

1) Geneva Convention

2) See the video I posted which goes over the Nazi atrocities with the V2 starting at 34:30.

Wernher von Braun was a despicable criminal who used jewish slave labor to build V-2 rockets. Braun was an SS officer for the Nazi regime who was a direct acquaintance of Hitler. During the war he supervised work on the V-2s, which were assembled in an abandoned gypsum mine by starving slave laborers from the nearby Dora concentration camp and then fired against civilians in London and Antwerp. Over thirty thousand prisoners were worked until they died—a fact he directly oversaw and kept silent about for as long as possible.

There are numerous references to his atrocities on Google.

The man should have been tried as a war criminal not made the Director of NASA.

The telemetry data the customer receives comes from the edge of space.

No it doesn't. The telemetry shows that it is in orbit beyond Earth's atmosphere, not sitting atop an atmospheric "dirigible". Stop making shit up. There is no dirigible, there are no strings hanging it from the sky, no self-propulsion system... just orbit in space. All your ridiculous hypothesizing about what's "really happening" up there gets tossed out the window when we can actually see what our own satellite's sensors are picking up first-hand. Likewise your claims about it being above a flat disc are bunk when we can see the whole globe from every angle (speaking of which, I still don't see an explanation for that photo of Antarctica).

No it doesn't. The telemetry shows that it is in orbit beyond Earth's atmosphere, not sitting atop an atmospheric "dirigible". Stop making shit up. There is no dirigible, there are no strings hanging it from the sky, no self-propulsion system... just orbit in space. All your ridiculous hypothesizing about what's "really happening" up there gets tossed out the window when we can actually see what our own satellite's sensors are picking up first-hand. Likewise your claims about it being above a flat disc are bunk when we can see the whole globe from every angle (speaking of which, I still don't see an explanation for that photo of Antarctica).

Who is this "we"? I'm not seeing the telemetry data. I'm sure if the customer complained the conspirators would have cited some technical babble about there still being traces of atmosphere at the altitude of the satellite.

At the edge of space it's kind of difficult to tell whether you are in space or not anyway. Without context one couldn't tell whether the image from this link was taken from space or not.

Who is this "we"? I'm not seeing the telemetry data.

Which is why I invite the FES to start their own CubeSat project, try it out, and publicly prove once and for all that there is a conspiracy. This is your chance to get your own hardware right up close and personal on one of those evil top secret FakeRockets, document the journey, bring back hard evidence of the Official Space-Fakery Dirigible... you could change the world. Don't you see the huge opportunity here??

Or, if all you're interested in is seeing the data, you could just buy one of these.

At the edge of space it's kind of difficult to tell whether you are in space or not anyway. Without context one couldn't tell whether the image from this link was taken from space or not.

You... DO understand that they have quite a bit more data to go on than just raw photography... right?

Quote from: Clock Tower

just because a test didn't go between continents does not mean that the missile can't achieve ICBM distances.

What?

North Korea kind of has to demonstrate that they could send a missile ICBM distances in order to have an ICBM.

I occasionally shoot off model rockets. I can't claim that "just because my rocket didn't go ICBM distances, it doesn't mean the rocket can't achieve ICBM distances." It has to be demonstrated before it can be called an ICBM.

Please post more rationally.

Nope.

Non Sequitur #1. I can have a water balloon. Just because you're not wet yet (well any more than usual), doesn't mean it's not a water balloon.

Attacking a Strawman #2. I did not say NK proved anything.

Do tell us how far a missile has to travel to be able to say it was an ICBM. Then tell us how far NK is from Japan. Please include the FE Map you used to determine that distance. Or if you like, we'll wait until you walk and swim from the launch site to the landing site and report the results back to us.

Nope.

Non Sequitur #1. I can have a water balloon. Just because you're not wet yet (well any more than usual), doesn't mean it's not a water balloon.

Is doesn't mean that it is a water balloon, either.

North Korea needs to prove that it has a water balloon before it can be said to have a water balloon.

Do tell us how far a missile has to travel to be able to say it was an ICBM. Then tell us how far NK is from Japan. Please include the FE Map you used to determine that distance. Or if you like, we'll wait until you walk and swim from the launch site to the landing site and report the results back to us.

North Korea is 1044 km from Japan

The range of an ICBM varies depending on who you ask, but it's generally agreed to be 5500 km+.

So did North Korea fire an intercontinental ballistic missile? No way. According to the London Range Association in the link above they fired a Medium Range missile.

All of NASA's rockets are based off of the V2 to some extent. The V2 was the world's first ballistic rocket, and all later rockets were based off of it, even if the type of fuel was changed.

You're joking, right?  The V2 was a lot of things, but it wasn't the first ballistic rocket.  You would be better off saying that all later liquid fueled rockets were based off of Robert Goddard's first liquid fueled rocket.  Unguided (ballistic) rockets have been used since the Chinese invented gunpowder.

North Korea is 1044 km from Japan

Really? Really?  You used Google Maps' API to determine a distance! Google Maps is based on the assumption that the Earth is "round". I guess that you'll use RET without any thought. Does that mean you've decided that RET is useful to you?

Oh, and again, please remember that the missile went over from a site well within NK, so your estimate of the distance travelled is low. And just because this missile was medium-ranged does not mean they don't have ICBM technology.

Oh, and again, you still need to deal with China's and India's successful tests. Why don't we move along to China now? I only need one example to disprove your paranoid claim that the US and Russia will keep ICBM technology for other countries, right?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 01:01:42 PM

All of NASA's rockets are based off of the V2 to some extent. The V2 was the world's first ballistic rocket, and all later rockets were based off of it, even if the type of fuel was changed.

You're joking, right?  The V2 was a lot of things, but it wasn't the first ballistic rocket.  You would be better off saying that all later liquid fueled rockets were based off of Robert Goddard's first liquid fueled rocket.  Unguided (ballistic) rockets have been used since the Chinese invented gunpowder.

What's your definition of ballistic missiles? Early Chinese rockets are not "ballistic missiles." A ballistic missile  is defined as one which is sub-orbital.

According to whyfiles the V2 was the first ballistic missile.

"The V2 was the first ballistic missile, first launched on Oct. 3, 1942."

According to the British Science Museum:

"The V2 was the first ballistic missile and is perceived as the precursor of all modern rockets"

According to the Space Flight Museum:

"The V2 was the first ballistic missile and was used by the Nazis during World War II to destroy many cities, principally London."

Really? Really?  You used Google Maps' API to determine a distance! Google Maps is based on the assumption that the Earth is "round". I guess that you'll use RET without any thought. Does that mean you've decided that RET is useful to you?

RET may be used because the Northern Hemisphere distances in RET and FET is similar.

Oh, and again, please remember that the missile went over from a site well within NK, so your estimate of the distance travelled is low. And just because this missile was medium-ranged does not mean they don't have ICBM technology.

If all North Korea can demonstrate is medium range missiles, it kind of does mean that all they can demonstrate having is medium range missiles.

Oh, and again, you still need to deal with China's and India's successful tests. Why don't we move along to China now? I only need one example to disprove your paranoid claim that the US and Russia will keep ICBM technology for other countries, right?

Assuming fancifully for a moment that ICBM's existed, why would the US share ICBM technology with China? It's classified so that countries like China can't get a hold of it.

That China claims to have ICBM's is a moot point and unverifiable. But the US certainly would not willingly share such technology with China.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 11, 2011, 06:00:07 PM

Really? Really?  You used Google Maps' API to determine a distance! Google Maps is based on the assumption that the Earth is "round". I guess that you'll use RET without any thought. Does that mean you've decided that RET is useful to you?

RET may be used because the Northern Hemisphere distances in RET and FET is are similar.

So how do you know that RET's Northern Hemisphere's distances are similar to those in FET? Do you have an accurate FE map? Does FET even have a Northern Hemisphere?

What's your definition of ballistic missiles? Early chinese shoulder rockets can hardly be considered "ballistic missiles." The V2 was the first true ballistic missile and space weapon.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ballistic+missile

Definition of BALLISTIC MISSILE
: a missile guided in the ascent of a high-arch trajectory and freely falling in the descent

Sounds like they fit the definition to me.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 06:09:33 PM

What's your definition of ballistic missiles? Early chinese shoulder rockets can hardly be considered "ballistic missiles." The V2 was the first true ballistic missile and space weapon.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ballistic+missile

Quote

Definition of BALLISTIC MISSILE
: a missile guided in the ascent of a high-arch trajectory and freely falling in the descent

Sounds like they fit the definition to me.

From the wiki page for Ballistic Missile -

"The first ballistic missile was the A-4, commonly known as the V-2 rocket, developed by Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s under direction of Wernher von Braun. The first successful launch of a V-2 was on October 3, 1942 and began operation on September 6, 1944 against Paris, followed by an attack on London two days later. By the end of World War II, May 1945, over 3,000 V-2s had been launched."

In that same wiki article a ballistic missile is defined as -

"A ballistic missile is a missile that follows a sub-orbital ballistic flightpath with the objective of delivering one or more warheads to a predetermined target."

Clicking on the link for "sub-orbital" we get -

"A sub-orbital space flight is a spaceflight in which the spacecraft reaches space, but its trajectory intersects the atmosphere or surface of the gravitating body from which it was launched, so that it does not complete one orbital revolution."

So yes, the V2 was the first Ballistic Missile.

Even so, the German V2 is based on American rocket technology.  Technology that is available to the public.
http://store.fastcommerce.com/SystemeSolaire/liquid-fuel-rocket-engine-plans-manuals-ff80818118fcdec101191843b7813e3c-c.html

My God, seriously? The FE'ers degenerated the discussion to a semantics argument again?

I just have two comments, before attempting to get back on topic again:

1. In defining "sub-orbital", Tom went with the definition of "sub-orbital space-flight", which makes about as much sense as defining "yellow" as "a yellow submarine".

2. A rope with a sling is a sub-orbital ballistic missile launcher. That is all.

Now, back on topic please. Please don't ignore my previous post, Tom.

Sub-orbital is just a word.  Like most, if not all, words, it doesn't really mean anything.  It's just a string of vocal sounds or characters, based on the Germanic language of English, which evolved from Latin, invented by a tribe called the Latins.  The Romans agreed to adopt the language and have a royal marriage to avoid conflict, then the Romans conquered much of the world, and Latin's influence has not been forgotten.  All the Romance and Germanic languages have been based off of them, including English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, etc.

"Sub" is a prefix that used to be a preposition in Latin meaning "under."  It would have been used like "under the bridge" or something like that, and it became a prefix later.  "Orbit" comes from Middle French "Orbite," with the same meaning, which came from the Latin "orbita," which originally referred to the track of the wheel.  Then it was used to mean celestial orbit, when this started to become important in religion, as the mediaeval people believed that everything was in orbit of the Earth.

The point is, these are all just words.  They don't mean anything.  What matters is the nature of reality.  Words are a human convention.

Remember, my friends:  Triviality in all things.

Even so, the German V2 is based on American rocket technology.  Technology that is available to the public.
http://store.fastcommerce.com/SystemeSolaire/liquid-fuel-rocket-engine-plans-manuals-ff80818118fcdec101191843b7813e3c-c.html

Model rockets can't get into space. They're children's toys which can't do very much.

Were model rockets even around in the early 40's when Germany built the V2's?

According to the wiki page on Model Rockets, the first model rocket motor didn't appear until the mid to late 50's.

"the first modern model rocket, and, more important, the model rocket motor, was designed in 1954 by Orville Carlisle, a licensed pyrotechnics expert, and his brother Robert, a model airplane enthusiast."

1. In defining "sub-orbital", Tom went with the definition of "sub-orbital space-flight", which makes about as much sense as defining "yellow" as "a yellow submarine".

There is only one definition for sub-orbital on Wikipedia. The page for sub-orbital redirects you to "sub-orbital space flight"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-orbital

2. A rope with a sling is a sub-orbital ballistic missile launcher. That is all.

Incorrect. No-one uses the term "sub-orbital" to describe a high trajectory launcher. There are only two definitions for sub-orbital on Google definitions and both of them agree with me.

Now, back on topic please. Please don't ignore my previous post, Tom.

Your previous post asked us to build a satellite. We don't have those kind of resources. But if you would like to donate, you may paypal your money to tom.bishop.enterprises@gmail.com

All donations appreciated!