Space Flight

  • 870 Replies
  • 87282 Views
Space Flight
« Reply #840 on: July 17, 2013, 10:44:33 AM »
Instead of debating theory, why not just put down what your own answer is?

1) What is considered space flight? At what altitude or layer of the atmosphere is it considered 'space'?

My answer: There's no definitive line between where 'atmosphere' ends and 'space' begins. For the sake of reason, 'space' begins at the altitude where a plane would have to be traveling so fast in order to generate enough lift to continue flying that it would have attained orbital velocity. This number was then rounded to 100 kilometers.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #841 on: July 17, 2013, 12:16:00 PM »
2) What is considered space flight? At what altitude or layer of the atmosphere is it considered 'space'?

My answer: I personally have not, but I also have no reason to doubt pictures of those who do. However, I might be able to get access to a telescope, and the ISS will, according to this site, be visible for me at 5:15 AM on the 20th. This should be a perfect time to perform this for myself.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #842 on: July 17, 2013, 02:31:35 PM »
...I just like the way it gets squirmed out of to explain rockets.

It's still better than your explanation scepti. At least conservation of momentum makes sense and is reproducible in a number of different experiments! My favourite (in this thread at least, because it completely contradicts your version of things) is the person stepping off the boat.

There's also the water bottle rocket, firearms (which do not recoil the way you say they do), anything which uses a spring or elastic to propel something, balloons, gas cylinders which get their end knocked off (a rather spectacular, although very dangerous demonstration!), and of course fuel-burning rockets! Plus others that I haven't thought of no doubt.

Note: conservation of momentum and Newton's 3rd law go hand in hand, so a demonstration of one is a demonstration of both.
It's not better than my explanation, at all. My explanation is correct. Your explanation is wrong when applied to rockets, but I don't hold that against you, or anyone to be honest, because that's the way you have been taught.

So, conservation of momentum works for everything except rockets? Gotcha.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #843 on: July 17, 2013, 08:31:24 PM »
Scepti, while you get back to me on OP 2, care to do a thought experiment? These are supposed to be slightly outrageous, so don't mind the impossible circumstances.

Andy, our test subject (and an even 50 kilograms), is floating in space (vacuum, no gravity, that kinda thing. Remember, thought experiment). Beside him is a ... school bus, not moving relative to Andy. Andy has in his possession 1 medicine ball of exactly 10 kilograms.

Andy throws the medicine ball away from himself at 5 m/s, perpendicular to the point of view of Garry, a kid in the school bus. What happens to Andy and his medicine ball?
« Last Edit: July 17, 2013, 10:02:23 PM by Alex Tomasovich »

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #844 on: July 18, 2013, 05:24:55 AM »
Scepti, while you get back to me on OP 2, care to do a thought experiment? These are supposed to be slightly outrageous, so don't mind the impossible circumstances.

Andy, our test subject (and an even 50 kilograms), is floating in space (vacuum, no gravity, that kinda thing. Remember, thought experiment). Beside him is a ... school bus, not moving relative to Andy. Andy has in his possession 1 medicine ball of exactly 10 kilograms.

Andy throws the medicine ball away from himself at 5 m/s, perpendicular to the point of view of Garry, a kid in the school bus. What happens to Andy and his medicine ball?
Nothing, because it cannot happen. I know it's a thought experiment but I can't answer it, because it's unanswerable, except to simply say, it cannot happen.

In a Universe that only differs from our own in a way such that it could happen, what would happen?
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #845 on: July 18, 2013, 05:30:49 AM »
Briefly explain conservation of momentum when describing how a rocket works and we will go from there.

Mass of exhaust gases multplied by speed of gases in one direction equals mass of rocket multiplied by speed of rocket in the opposite direction.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #846 on: July 18, 2013, 05:38:44 AM »
Scepti, while you get back to me on OP 2, care to do a thought experiment? These are supposed to be slightly outrageous, so don't mind the impossible circumstances.

Andy, our test subject (and an even 50 kilograms), is floating in space (vacuum, no gravity, that kinda thing. Remember, thought experiment). Beside him is a ... school bus, not moving relative to Andy. Andy has in his possession 1 medicine ball of exactly 10 kilograms.

Andy throws the medicine ball away from himself at 5 m/s, perpendicular to the point of view of Garry, a kid in the school bus. What happens to Andy and his medicine ball?
Nothing, because it cannot happen. I know it's a thought experiment but I can't answer it, because it's unanswerable, except to simply say, it cannot happen.

In a Universe that only differs from our own in a way such that it could happen, what would happen?
It cannot happen. It's a pointless question, seriously.
The entire way you come up with your "theories" is through thought experiments, you then expect people to understand your ideas even though they are impossible as far as most people are concerned. Is it such a stretch to expect you to do the same for someone elses thought experiment?
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #847 on: July 18, 2013, 05:58:44 AM »
Scepti, while you get back to me on OP 2, care to do a thought experiment? These are supposed to be slightly outrageous, so don't mind the impossible circumstances.

Andy, our test subject (and an even 50 kilograms), is floating in space (vacuum, no gravity, that kinda thing. Remember, thought experiment). Beside him is a ... school bus, not moving relative to Andy. Andy has in his possession 1 medicine ball of exactly 10 kilograms.

Andy throws the medicine ball away from himself at 5 m/s, perpendicular to the point of view of Garry, a kid in the school bus. What happens to Andy and his medicine ball?
Nothing, because it cannot happen. I know it's a thought experiment but I can't answer it, because it's unanswerable, except to simply say, it cannot happen.

In a Universe that only differs from our own in a way such that it could happen, what would happen?
It cannot happen. It's a pointless question, seriously.
The entire way you come up with your "theories" is through thought experiments, you then expect people to understand your ideas even though they are impossible as far as most people are concerned. Is it such a stretch to expect you to do the same for someone elses thought experiment?
I'd love to do the same but I cannot answer the question, except to say, it cannot happen. How can I say otherwise if I believe it cannot happen?

Sigh... Let's replace the vacuum with a partial vacuum then. Can it happen now? What would happen?
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #848 on: July 18, 2013, 05:58:54 AM »
Briefly explain conservation of momentum when describing how a rocket works and we will go from there.

Mass of exhaust gases multplied by speed of gases in one direction equals mass of rocket multiplied by speed of rocket in the opposite direction.
So, exactly what are these exhaust gases pushing against?

You asked for an explanation of the conservation of momentum as it pertains to rockets and that's what I gave you.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #849 on: July 18, 2013, 05:59:42 AM »
Scepti, while you get back to me on OP 2, care to do a thought experiment? These are supposed to be slightly outrageous, so don't mind the impossible circumstances.

Andy, our test subject (and an even 50 kilograms), is floating in space (vacuum, no gravity, that kinda thing. Remember, thought experiment). Beside him is a ... school bus, not moving relative to Andy. Andy has in his possession 1 medicine ball of exactly 10 kilograms.

Andy throws the medicine ball away from himself at 5 m/s, perpendicular to the point of view of Garry, a kid in the school bus. What happens to Andy and his medicine ball?
Nothing, because it cannot happen. I know it's a thought experiment but I can't answer it, because it's unanswerable, except to simply say, it cannot happen.

In a Universe that only differs from our own in a way such that it could happen, what would happen?
It cannot happen. It's a pointless question, seriously.
The entire way you come up with your "theories" is through thought experiments, you then expect people to understand your ideas even though they are impossible as far as most people are concerned. Is it such a stretch to expect you to do the same for someone elses thought experiment?
I'd love to do the same but I cannot answer the question, except to say, it cannot happen. How can I say otherwise if I believe it cannot happen?
You can obviously imagine it as you imagine that there is a void outside the icedome. So it's the future like Star Trek and we've developed teleporters. So they use the teleporters to transport the experiment outside the ice dome. Can you imaging it now?
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #850 on: July 18, 2013, 06:17:29 AM »
Briefly explain conservation of momentum when describing how a rocket works and we will go from there.

Mass of exhaust gases multplied by speed of gases in one direction equals mass of rocket multiplied by speed of rocket in the opposite direction.
So, exactly what are these exhaust gases pushing against?

You asked for an explanation of the conservation of momentum as it pertains to rockets and that's what I gave you.
But you aren't telling me how it works to move the rocket.


Mass of exhaust gases multplied by speed of gases in one direction equals mass of rocket multiplied by speed of rocket in the opposite direction. If the rocket has a speed then it has movement.

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #851 on: July 18, 2013, 06:27:42 AM »
The exhaust gases move in one direction the rocket moves in the opposite direction. What am I missing?

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #852 on: July 18, 2013, 06:56:55 AM »
The exhaust gases move in one direction the rocket moves in the opposite direction. What am I missing?
So where exactly is the rocket pushed from to make it take flight?

The momentum of the rocket in one direction and the momentum of the gases in the other direction 'cancel out' each other so the total momentum of the system remains unchanged.  That's what it means to conserve the momentum. As the rocket has momentum it has speed and therefore movement.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #853 on: July 18, 2013, 07:08:48 AM »
The exhaust gases move in one direction the rocket moves in the opposite direction. What am I missing?
So where exactly is the rocket pushed from to make it take flight?

The momentum of the rocket in one direction and the momentum of the gases in the other direction 'cancel out' each other so the total momentum of the system remains unchanged.  That's what it means to conserve the momentum. As the rocket has momentum it has speed and therefore movement.
And it does not push against the atmosphere right? Is this what you think?

I know, it sounds crazy! We also have crazy hoses that lash around when shooting water out of its nozzle and we also have firecrackers that somehow uses fire to push gases out its rear end.
It's a crazy world!
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #854 on: July 18, 2013, 07:17:26 AM »
The exhaust gases move in one direction the rocket moves in the opposite direction. What am I missing?
So where exactly is the rocket pushed from to make it take flight?

I know this is useless, but

From the fuel accelerated out the back. Vacuums don't have any force associated with them. If you took a bucket full of air and somehow teleported it to, say, 100,000 feet the air would move from the bucket to the lower pressure around it. But how? There's nothing in the low pressure 'pulling' the air out of the bucket. It is pushed.

If you divide the bucket's volume into smaller segments, than each segment would be putting 101 kPa of pressure out of its borders. This is fine, since most of these volumes are bordered by other volumes, pushing back with 101 kPa, equalizing the force. The exception is those volumes at the very edge, which push out and aren't met with equal force. This presents a force imbalance, which accelerates the air out of the bucket.

If we cut this down into two air molecules in a one-molecule-wide tube with one side opened and the other closed. The outer molecule, let's say, is currently traveling away from the open end. Since there are only two molecules, it's already in a vaccum, so everything's fine. But as there are two molecules in the tube, technically the air pressure is larger inside the tube than outside, so the air should, eventually leave it.

The outer molecule flies toward the inner one, and they collide, sending the outer one toward the open end and the inner one back to the closed end. The outer molecule collides with nothing else, and so leaves. It wasn't dragged out by the vacuum, it was pushed out by the inner molecule.

The inner molecule then hits the end of the tube and bounces back out. It, too, encounters nothing else, and so it leaves. But that bounce against the back of the tube put a very small amount of force on the tube itself, as the tube accelerated that air molecule about 1 km/s (from 500 mps one directly to 500 mps the other).

So, back to our bucket, the volumes just shy of the edge push the ones on the edge out, and are in turn pushed out by the volumes farther inside. For each molecule that is pushed out, another hits the back wall, so each molecule pushed out puts a small force on the bucket. By the time the bucket is emptied, it has been accelerated a small but measurable amount.

Thus, the rocket it pushed forward by the fuel itself. In fact, the presence of air around our bucket would hinder it, as the each tiny acceleration caused by a molecule bouncing off the back wall would be transferred from the bucket to the air in front of the bucket.

Get it? Feel free to tl;dr this post, ignore it, and say "Wrong." without providing a counter to this argument.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #855 on: July 18, 2013, 07:38:50 AM »
If you actually realised how a fire mans hose really worked then you "possibly" could change your stance, yet I doubt it.
There are two separate forces acting with a fire mans hose, yet you rocket masters rely on the wrong force and think that's what makes rockets work.
It's a classic con job mind you but that's all it is. A big con.

I know how a hose works, and you've done a good job of ignoring the firecracker too.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #856 on: July 18, 2013, 08:02:35 AM »
If you actually realised how a fire mans hose really worked then you "possibly" could change your stance, yet I doubt it.
There are two separate forces acting with a fire mans hose, yet you rocket masters rely on the wrong force and think that's what makes rockets work.
It's a classic con job mind you but that's all it is. A big con.

I know how a hose works, and you've done a good job of ignoring the firecracker too.
They all work with the same principle, as in, they act against the atmosphere, whether it's a fire cracker or a hose or a rocket or anything else for that matter.

Think of each molecule of gas being released from the fire cracker - When it's ejected, it's free to move on its own. How is its free movement helping the body accelerate? It isn't. We know this because the cracker will take off even if sitting on the ground (the gas doesn't keep moving away from the cracker even after release).

I'm sure you agree with this, right?
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #857 on: July 18, 2013, 08:22:09 AM »
If you actually realised how a fire mans hose really worked then you "possibly" could change your stance, yet I doubt it.
There are two separate forces acting with a fire mans hose, yet you rocket masters rely on the wrong force and think that's what makes rockets work.
It's a classic con job mind you but that's all it is. A big con.

I know how a hose works, and you've done a good job of ignoring the firecracker too.
They all work with the same principle, as in, they act against the atmosphere, whether it's a fire cracker or a hose or a rocket or anything else for that matter.

Think of each molecule of gas being released from the fire cracker - When it's ejected, it's free to move on its own. How is its free movement helping the body accelerate? It isn't. We know this because the cracker will take off even if sitting on the ground (the gas doesn't keep moving away from the cracker even after release).

I'm sure you agree with this, right?
I'm not being funny here but your post doesn't make sense, can you elaborate here?

After reading it back to myself, I agree with you. My brain knew what was going on, but it could be hard for others to follow my train of thought without context   :)

Imagine a single molecule of gas that is being ejected from the body of the fire cracker. The chemical reaction of the fire and powder which is lit by the fuse starts to produce a lot of gas very quickly. Since we have lots of molecules of gas in a small volume, this creates a higher pressure which as we all should know after discussing this topic for dozens of pages that the gases in a higher pressure move to a lower pressure. This is only in one direction of course, which is out the rear end of the cracker.
So once the gases start to move, they begin colliding with the atmosphere's air. But the gases are now independent of the rocket? If they collide with the air, they aren't in any way touching the cracker anymore. This is what I meant by free movement. The gases are free to move after being ejected from the cracker and have no physical connection any more. Are you claiming that the gases hitting the atmosphere still imparts a force on the cracker? Because the rest of us aren't. We know the cracker is only moving because of the conservation of momentum. The same way you push a ball one way and your body moves in the other way.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #858 on: July 18, 2013, 08:24:56 AM »
Okay, so molecules 'expand' out of the bucket. Does that mean they literally expand like inflating balloons, such that their radii get larger? If so, how does that make the molecules leave the bucket?

Let's take a molecule right on the edge, okay. It's expanding, but the edge inside the bucket hits other expanding air molecules first. So now one edge is expanding into another molecule, preventing it from expanding more in that direction. But the other side is still free, so obviously it must keep expanding. This would move the center of the molecule out, away from the bucket, in essence accelerating the molecule. But the only thing that can be accelerating the molecule is the only other thing with which it is interacting--the molecule deeper inside the bucket.

Which in turn is trying to expand, pushing on the molecules around it, which just translates the force back to the very bucket walls itself. The bucket, with nothing to keep it in place, is accelerated backwards.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #859 on: July 18, 2013, 08:27:22 AM »
Quote from: Alex Tomasovich
If we cut this down into two air molecules in a one-molecule-wide tube with one side opened and the other closed. The outer molecule, let's say, is currently traveling away from the open end. Since there are only two molecules, it's already in a vaccum, so everything's fine. But as there are two molecules in the tube, technically the air pressure is larger inside the tube than outside, so the air should, eventually leave it.
There wouldn't be two molecules and they would be frozen long before that.

How does a molecule freeze? When water freezes, the molecules are slowed down to the point that they start forming bonds with their neighbors. But a single N2 molecule ... how does that freeze?

And for it to freeze it must transfer its kinetic energy to something else. What, in a vacuum, is there to transfer that energy?

And if vacuums are just some kind of freezing-force, why are vacuum thermoses so good at keeping things hot?

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #860 on: July 18, 2013, 08:30:01 AM »
Quote from: Alex Tomasovich
If you divide the bucket's volume into smaller segments, than each segment would be putting 101 kPa of pressure out of its borders. This is fine, since most of these volumes are bordered by other volumes, pushing back with 101 kPa, equalizing the force. The exception is those volumes at the very edge, which push out and aren't met with equal force. This presents a force imbalance, which accelerates the air out of the bucket.
I haven't a clue what you are going on about here.

Okay, I'll explain even more clearly, but first I'd like to make sure we're on the same page with something, because otherwise you'll argue the completely wrong points of my upcoming 200-page explanation.

Can or cannot N2 molecules physically expand?

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #861 on: July 18, 2013, 08:55:23 AM »
Scepti...

Have you grabbed your telescope and looked up through it to check out the ISS?

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #862 on: July 18, 2013, 09:05:43 AM »
Scepti...

Have you grabbed your telescope and looked up through it to check out the ISS?
No.

Why not?

Note: arguments regarding rocketry are delayed indefinitely, as they do not pertain to the OP.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39101
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #863 on: July 18, 2013, 09:16:01 AM »
Quote from: Alex Tomasovich
From the fuel accelerated out the back. Vacuums don't have any force associated with them. If you took a bucket full of air and somehow teleported it to, say, 100,000 feet the air would move from the bucket to the lower pressure around it. But how? There's nothing in the low pressure 'pulling' the air out of the bucket. It is pushed.
I never mentioned "pulled"...
The air molecules "expand" inside the bucket and "push" or "spill" out, and what's left inside the bucket always marries up with the part of the atmosphere it is in.
If you want to talk about free expansion, then just say so.  However, if you do, then we will have to bring up things like mass flow, de Laval nozzles, sonic and supersonic gas flow at the throat and nozzle sections and I'm guessing that you really don't want that.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39101
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #864 on: July 18, 2013, 09:26:36 AM »
Quote from: Alex Tomasovich
From the fuel accelerated out the back. Vacuums don't have any force associated with them. If you took a bucket full of air and somehow teleported it to, say, 100,000 feet the air would move from the bucket to the lower pressure around it. But how? There's nothing in the low pressure 'pulling' the air out of the bucket. It is pushed.
I never mentioned "pulled"...
The air molecules "expand" inside the bucket and "push" or "spill" out, and what's left inside the bucket always marries up with the part of the atmosphere it is in.
If you want to talk about free expansion, then just say so.  However, if you do, then we will have to bring up things like mass flow, de Laval nozzles, sonic and supersonic gas flow at the throat and nozzle sections and I'm guessing that you really don't want that.
It doesn't matter what's brought up. The fact is, rockets needs atmosphere to work.
Then it's a good thing that there's a giant ice dome keeping sun and moon within the atmosphere, isn't it?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39101
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #865 on: July 18, 2013, 09:33:36 AM »
Quote from: Alex Tomasovich
From the fuel accelerated out the back. Vacuums don't have any force associated with them. If you took a bucket full of air and somehow teleported it to, say, 100,000 feet the air would move from the bucket to the lower pressure around it. But how? There's nothing in the low pressure 'pulling' the air out of the bucket. It is pushed.
I never mentioned "pulled"...
The air molecules "expand" inside the bucket and "push" or "spill" out, and what's left inside the bucket always marries up with the part of the atmosphere it is in.
If you want to talk about free expansion, then just say so.  However, if you do, then we will have to bring up things like mass flow, de Laval nozzles, sonic and supersonic gas flow at the throat and nozzle sections and I'm guessing that you really don't want that.
It doesn't matter what's brought up. The fact is, rockets needs atmosphere to work.
Then it's a good thing that there's a giant ice dome keeping sun and moon within the atmosphere, isn't it?
Yep, it's what is keeping us and everything else, alive.
To think, we are all a culmination of cells living within a cell, among other cells.
Yes, and all of that atmosphere should be plenty for rockets to push against.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39101
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #866 on: July 18, 2013, 09:42:29 AM »
Yes, and all of that atmosphere should be plenty for rockets to push against.
Of course..and we see them do just that.
You just agreed that rockets can make it to the moon, so what have we been arguing about for the past 80 or so pages? 
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #867 on: July 18, 2013, 10:00:37 AM »
Yes, and all of that atmosphere should be plenty for rockets to push against.
Of course..and we see them do just that.
You just agreed that rockets can make it to the moon, so what have we been arguing about for the past 80 or so pages?
Nah, I never agreed nothing Mr twisty pants.

Well, first you said rockets can't work in a vacuum:

a rocket cannot and will not and never will, work in a vacuum, which we are told space is.

Then you said that they work fine in an atmosphere:

Yes, and all of that atmosphere should be plenty for rockets to push against.
Of course..and we see them do just that.

And that this atmosphere goes all the way up to the sun and moon:

Then it's a good thing that there's a giant ice dome keeping sun and moon within the atmosphere, isn't it?
Yep

So, recap: Rockets work in an atmosphere. The Moon is within the atmosphere. Therefore rockets can get to the moon.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2013, 10:14:00 AM by Alex Tomasovich »

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #868 on: July 18, 2013, 10:13:35 AM »
Scepti...

Have you grabbed your telescope and looked up through it to check out the ISS?
No.

Why not?

Note: arguments regarding rocketry are delayed indefinitely, as they do not pertain to the OP.
Because there's no man made craft where they say there is and no rocket can get them there, so there is no point in looking for something like that, especially when you get told where to look and cannot randomly see it.

How do you know there's no man-made craft where they say there is if you haven't looked?

Personally, I don't believe the moon or the sun even exist. It's impossible for there to be massive objects--even spotlights--just hanging in the sky like that. Why should I bother looking for them if I know they can't be there?

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #869 on: July 18, 2013, 10:22:36 AM »
Yes, and all of that atmosphere should be plenty for rockets to push against.
Of course..and we see them do just that.
You just agreed that rockets can make it to the moon, so what have we been arguing about for the past 80 or so pages?

I've tried that three times before. Obviously he's arguing to hear his keyboard rattle. I'm done with this whole rocket debate. After 80 pages we might be able to salvage the OP, but it's hard when others bring it back up as Scepti seems to latch onto it like a ... er ... barnacle onto ... /simile