Space Flight

• 870 Replies
• 87283 Views
?

neimoka

• 738
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #630 on: July 01, 2013, 01:41:09 AM »
It would've been awesome if you learnt some basic physics first. The mass to weight ratio? What the fuck?

Also, if the thrust is insufficient for liftoff, adding fuel is supposed to help? :p

Apparently, but I don't know if in your example the mass to weight ratio goes up or down
Still can't get your air head around mass of fuel to rocket weight ratio I see, numb nuts.

What is essential for a rocket's liftoff capability is it's thrust to weight ratio, not "mass to weight ratio". Ratio of fuel to rocket weight directly effects the rocket's delta v value which in turn tells you how high you can get with it. You're the one who suggested that to make liftoff possible after adding load, you'd need to add more fuel. Adding fuel only further increases load, adding fuel does not increase thrust and thrust is what you need more of to allow liftoff with increased load. Exception to this would be a solid fuel rocket that can be made more powerful by adding fuel, depending on how fuel is added (practically if the rocket is made longer or thicker, in kiddified terms).

It has now become obvious that you don't care what is true and what is not, clinging to your own ideas is all you care about and so you will not answer any direct questions concerning the gaping holes in your theories to allow actual experimentation to prove them right or wrong so I won't bother to follow this thread any further.

?

Puttah

• 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #631 on: July 01, 2013, 01:53:25 AM »
It's simply burning it's fuel at a "constant' rate. It's at "maximum" thrust on take off and that's the way it is, if it wants to achieve altitude. If it was less than max thrust, it would lift off and hover, then crash back down due to imbalance. Believe it, because this is what would happen.
Why? And how do you know?

Why don't you look at some real rocket llaunches and see why they lift off at speed.
Then go and take a look at the so called space rocket launches and ask yourself why they slowly lift off.

lol you're an idiot scepti. I especially like how you think you have it all figured out, but you're missing one thing - a basic understanding of acceleration.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2013, 01:55:38 AM by Puttah »
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 #632 on: July 01, 2013, 03:27:47 AM »
It's simply burning it's fuel at a "constant' rate. It's at "maximum" thrust on take off and that's the way it is, if it wants to achieve altitude. If it was less than max thrust, it would lift off and hover, then crash back down due to imbalance. Believe it, because this is what would happen.
Why? And how do you know?

Why don't you look at some real rocket llaunches and see why they lift off at speed.
Then go and take a look at the so called space rocket launches and ask yourself why they slowly lift off.

lol you're an idiot scepti. I especially like how you think you have it all figured out, but you're missing one thing - a basic understanding of acceleration.
I know what I'm talking about and you don't.
The only way you people play your games is by throwing out equations and bull crap to fit your fictional rockets..all based on what you have been told space (cough) rockets are.

I know what you're talking about and you're wrong.

You said
Why don't you look at some real rocket llaunches and see why they lift off at speed.
Then go and take a look at the so called space rocket launches and ask yourself why they slowly lift off.

You're implying that "real rockets" start off with a high velocity, while those "fake rockets" start off slowly. You don't understand acceleration, because if you did, you wouldn't say this.

It's not that we don't understand what you're saying, it's that what you're saying is preposterous.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2013, 03:29:47 AM by Puttah »
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 #633 on: July 01, 2013, 03:39:00 AM »
Ok?

So scepti, if I drop a ball, how fast does it go?
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.

?

Antonio

• 379
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #634 on: July 01, 2013, 03:46:53 AM »
You have some personal views of how rocket work. Fine enough. Please give some estimate of the reached maximum speed, and the corresponding altitude. Or if you want, give somme idea of the speed increase, if any, when climbing.

Why are you avoding this simple question ?
You are a round earth nut, so I don't play by your rules.
My belief of the earth's shape is irrelevant here.
Is it possible to discard personal attacks ?
Lets try again.
You give some out of the box explanations about rocket science. Please give some factual elements other than "I'm 100% correct", or "believe me" to backup you claims. No indoctrinated science here, just simple and verifiable arguments

You may start with an approximation of the speed of a rocket, along his path.

?

Puttah

• 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #635 on: July 01, 2013, 03:54:01 AM »
Ok?

So scepti, if I drop a ball, how fast does it go?
What kind of a stupid question is that?

It's no less stupid than

Why don't you look at some real rocket llaunches and see why they lift off at speed.
Then go and take a look at the so called space rocket launches and ask yourself why they slowly lift off.

So, would you care to answer the stupid question?
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.

?

Antonio

• 379
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #636 on: July 01, 2013, 04:03:11 AM »
You have some personal views of how rocket work. Fine enough. Please give some estimate of the reached maximum speed, and the corresponding altitude. Or if you want, give somme idea of the speed increase, if any, when climbing.

Why are you avoding this simple question ?
You are a round earth nut, so I don't play by your rules.
My belief of the earth's shape is irrelevant here.
Is it possible to discard personal attacks ?
Lets try again.
You give some out of the box explanations about rocket science. Please give some factual elements other than "I'm 100% correct", or "believe me" to backup you claims. No indoctrinated science here, just simple and verifiable arguments

You may start with an approximation of the speed of a rocket, along his path.
I suggest you read this thread in its entirety before you go any further.
Already done, and I'm afraid, there are no such elements
Care to asnswer now (7th attempt) ?

?

Puttah

• 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #637 on: July 01, 2013, 04:06:06 AM »
Ok?

So scepti, if I drop a ball, how fast does it go?
What kind of a stupid question is that?

It's no less stupid than

Why don't you look at some real rocket llaunches and see why they lift off at speed.
Then go and take a look at the so called space rocket launches and ask yourself why they slowly lift off.

So, would you care to answer the stupid question?
No...because it's too stupid.

Is the answer just difficult or is it stupid as well?
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.

?

Fizzy Logic

• 93
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #638 on: July 01, 2013, 04:08:06 AM »
You have some personal views of how rocket work. Fine enough. Please give some estimate of the reached maximum speed, and the corresponding altitude. Or if you want, give somme idea of the speed increase, if any, when climbing.

Why are you avoding this simple question ?
You are a round earth nut, so I don't play by your rules.
My belief of the earth's shape is irrelevant here.
Is it possible to discard personal attacks ?
Lets try again.
You give some out of the box explanations about rocket science. Please give some factual elements other than "I'm 100% correct", or "believe me" to backup you claims. No indoctrinated science here, just simple and verifiable arguments

You may start with an approximation of the speed of a rocket, along his path.
I suggest you read this thread in its entirety before you go any further.
Already done, and I'm afraid, there are no such elements
Care to asnswer now (7th attempt) ?
When you understand how rockets work, I'll converse with you.

...says Stupid.

?

Antonio

• 379
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #639 on: July 01, 2013, 04:17:51 AM »
You have some personal views of how rocket work. Fine enough. Please give some estimate of the reached maximum speed, and the corresponding altitude. Or if you want, give somme idea of the speed increase, if any, when climbing.

Why are you avoding this simple question ?
You are a round earth nut, so I don't play by your rules.
My belief of the earth's shape is irrelevant here.
Is it possible to discard personal attacks ?
Lets try again.
You give some out of the box explanations about rocket science. Please give some factual elements other than "I'm 100% correct", or "believe me" to backup you claims. No indoctrinated science here, just simple and verifiable arguments

You may start with an approximation of the speed of a rocket, along his path.
I suggest you read this thread in its entirety before you go any further.
Already done, and I'm afraid, there are no such elements
Care to asnswer now (7th attempt) ?
When you understand how rockets work, I'll converse with you.
To understand how you say rockets work, I'm afraid, I need some real life elements, not just your words. Remember "don't accept anything without questioning it" ?
I'm questioning it.

?

Fizzy Logic

• 93
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #640 on: July 01, 2013, 04:20:31 AM »
You have some personal views of how rocket work. Fine enough. Please give some estimate of the reached maximum speed, and the corresponding altitude. Or if you want, give somme idea of the speed increase, if any, when climbing.

Why are you avoding this simple question ?
You are a round earth nut, so I don't play by your rules.
My belief of the earth's shape is irrelevant here.
Is it possible to discard personal attacks ?
Lets try again.
You give some out of the box explanations about rocket science. Please give some factual elements other than "I'm 100% correct", or "believe me" to backup you claims. No indoctrinated science here, just simple and verifiable arguments

You may start with an approximation of the speed of a rocket, along his path.
I suggest you read this thread in its entirety before you go any further.
Already done, and I'm afraid, there are no such elements
Care to asnswer now (7th attempt) ?
When you understand how rockets work, I'll converse with you.
To understand how you say rockets work, I'm afraid, I need some real life elements, not just your words. Remember "don't accept anything without questioning it" ?
I'm questioning it.
When you understand how rockets work , we can talk.

Wrong. YOU don't have a clue.

?

Antonio

• 379
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #641 on: July 01, 2013, 04:25:13 AM »
You have some personal views of how rocket work. Fine enough. Please give some estimate of the reached maximum speed, and the corresponding altitude. Or if you want, give somme idea of the speed increase, if any, when climbing.

Why are you avoding this simple question ?
You are a round earth nut, so I don't play by your rules.
My belief of the earth's shape is irrelevant here.
Is it possible to discard personal attacks ?
Lets try again.
You give some out of the box explanations about rocket science. Please give some factual elements other than "I'm 100% correct", or "believe me" to backup you claims. No indoctrinated science here, just simple and verifiable arguments

You may start with an approximation of the speed of a rocket, along his path.
I suggest you read this thread in its entirety before you go any further.
Already done, and I'm afraid, there are no such elements
Care to asnswer now (7th attempt) ?
When you understand how rockets work, I'll converse with you.
To understand how you say rockets work, I'm afraid, I need some real life elements, not just your words. Remember "don't accept anything without questioning it" ?
I'm questioning it.
When you understand how rockets work , we can talk.
To understand how you say rockets work, I'm afraid, I need some real life elements.

sokarul

• 16766
• Discount Chemist
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #642 on: July 01, 2013, 04:27:58 AM »
Quote from: sokarul
Liquid fuel rockets have there fuel pumped in, they could just pump less.
Solid fuel rockets could just make the chamber of fuel narrower.
You are not a rocket scientist.

All this will do, is shorten it's vertical air time, nothing else, oh and it will take off a bit faster due to less mass of fuel.
Still can throttle it's thrust, which you said was impossible.

Quote
Quote from: sokarul
Maximum thrust would be required. Once the rocket starts moving by default less thrust is needed.

It's a vertical lift off, you cannot throttle down lol.
Never said it would throttle down on take off.
Quote
Quote from: sokarul
The rocket already accelerated to move from zero velocity. At what point does it stop accelerating?

It's simply burning it's fuel at a "constant' rate. It's at "maximum" thrust on take off and that's the way it is, if it wants to achieve altitude. If it was less than max thrust, it would lift off and hover, then crash back down due to imbalance. Believe it, because this is what would happen.
But since rockets do take off they accelerate. You said rockets can't accelerate, which they clearly do.

Quote
Quote from: sokarul
Rockets usually make thrust in excess so they can accelerate. The space shuttle has to make it to escape velocity.

Escape velocity lol...Stop this fantasy.
Sorry math is too complex. Maybe take up basket weaving.

Quote
Quote from: sokarul
Going vertical is the same thing as going higher.
You don't say. lol
You thought it was different.
Quote
Quote from: sokarul
You are still not a rocket scientist.

You are clearly not.
[/quote]
My little toe knows more than you. This is what, thread 20, where noone agrees with you? Wounder why.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

?

Fizzy Logic

• 93
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #643 on: July 01, 2013, 04:31:18 AM »
You have some personal views of how rocket work. Fine enough. Please give some estimate of the reached maximum speed, and the corresponding altitude. Or if you want, give somme idea of the speed increase, if any, when climbing.

Why are you avoding this simple question ?
You are a round earth nut, so I don't play by your rules.
My belief of the earth's shape is irrelevant here.
Is it possible to discard personal attacks ?
Lets try again.
You give some out of the box explanations about rocket science. Please give some factual elements other than "I'm 100% correct", or "believe me" to backup you claims. No indoctrinated science here, just simple and verifiable arguments

You may start with an approximation of the speed of a rocket, along his path.
I suggest you read this thread in its entirety before you go any further.
Already done, and I'm afraid, there are no such elements
Care to asnswer now (7th attempt) ?
When you understand how rockets work, I'll converse with you.
To understand how you say rockets work, I'm afraid, I need some real life elements, not just your words. Remember "don't accept anything without questioning it" ?
I'm questioning it.
When you understand how rockets work , we can talk.

Wrong. YOU don't have a clue.
See you later pea brain.
I see that that you haven't got any science to bring to the debate.

?

Fizzy Logic

• 93
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #644 on: July 01, 2013, 04:36:24 AM »
Still nothing to back your claims?

markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 39101
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #645 on: July 01, 2013, 06:28:13 AM »
I know what I'm talking about ...
Sorry, but I have yet to see any evidence that supports this outlandish claim.
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.

?

neimoka

• 738
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #646 on: July 01, 2013, 11:44:16 AM »
I know what I'm talking about ...
Sorry, but I have yet to see any evidence that supports this outlandish claim.

Tausami

• Flat Earth Editor
• 6767
• Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #647 on: July 01, 2013, 12:31:58 PM »
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.

Tausami

• Flat Earth Editor
• 6767
• Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #648 on: July 01, 2013, 12:48:58 PM »
Lurk moar. Its a forum meme.

Anyway, rocketry is pretty simple. If you want to demonstrate its principles to yourself, I have an experiment for you. Stand on a rowboat and jump to the front. You'll see conservation of momentum for yourself. D ocketry is the same principle in a different axis.

?

neimoka

• 738
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #649 on: July 01, 2013, 01:33:53 PM »
I know what I'm talking about ...
Sorry, but I have yet to see any evidence that supports this outlandish claim.
I'm fine with my thinking and people like you won't change it, no matter how much you scream.
as said before your thinking just isn't concerned with reality. Like I said a dozen times I would have been equipped and willing to conduct experiments on your ideas which apparently didn't suit you. Anyone's being fine with anyone's thinking just isn't an issue when data comes to table and obviously you don't want that to happen... do you still need to wonder why you're left alone with your ideas? I sincerely hope that you indeed are just a troll.

sokarul

• 16766
• Discount Chemist
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #650 on: July 01, 2013, 01:35:03 PM »
Lurk moar. Its a forum meme.

Anyway, rocketry is pretty simple. If you want to demonstrate its principles to yourself, I have an experiment for you. Stand on a rowboat and jump to the front. You'll see conservation of momentum for yourself. D ocketry is the same principle in a different axis.
You are another one that has no clue how rockets work.
Everyone is against you.

Obtain a water rocket. Do not put any water in it and pump it up to as high as you can. Launch it and note how high it goes. Now put water in it. Pump it up to some pressure less than the pressure with no water. Launch it. Note how high it goes.
I haven't done this in over 20 years but I still know it goes higher with water in it. Why? Because the more mass it ejects the higher it goes. Simple physics. None of which agrees with what you say.
Give it up like he said.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

f.o.g.09

• 48
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #651 on: July 01, 2013, 01:37:20 PM »
Atleast scepi is making an effort.
All the rest of you so called Flat Earthers seem to think making an effort is repeating   " he is terrible" is some how contributing to the debate...

ok , back to lurking

atta boy scepi

?

robertotrevor

• 694
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #652 on: July 01, 2013, 02:25:22 PM »
Atleast scepi is making an effort.
All the rest of you so called Flat Earthers seem to think making an effort is repeating   " he is terrible" is some how contributing to the debate...

ok , back to lurking

atta boy scepi

Making no effort is better than making an effort in the wrong direction. Sceptis explanations to anything make no sense at all, he claims it makes no sense to us because of indoctrination, but it sounds stupid even to flat earthers. Keep in mind that this forum is a joke, its full of trolls yet not one of them dares to argue from sceptis "logic".
So it sounds stupid to RE "indoctrinated masses", it sounds stupid to FE believers ("outside the box" thinkers), and sounds stupid to trolls that like defending irrational stances just for the sake of debate. But some kind of disorder seems to be preventing him from seeing this truth.

Tausami

• Flat Earth Editor
• 6767
• Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #653 on: July 01, 2013, 04:17:48 PM »
Lurk moar. Its a forum meme.

Anyway, rocketry is pretty simple. If you want to demonstrate its principles to yourself, I have an experiment for you. Stand on a rowboat and jump to the front. You'll see conservation of momentum for yourself. D ocketry is the same principle in a different axis.
You are another one that has no clue how rockets work.

Please provide evidence for our outrageous claims.

?

Puttah

• 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #654 on: July 01, 2013, 10:01:46 PM »
I'm cracking up here

and sounds stupid to trolls that like defending irrational stances just for the sake of debate.

Actually, I've seen a few trolls that have tried to bring themselves down to scepti's level, but have failed miserably. It's tricky to troll and not look as though you're trying too hard when you're down in the dirt. Scepti has perfected the art.
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.

?

Scintific Method

• 1448
• Trust, but verify.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #655 on: July 05, 2013, 04:51:11 PM »
If anyone is interested, go and look up "real" rocket launches.
I don't mean space rocket launches YET, just concentrate on ballistic missile launches and stuff like that. Even amateur rocket launches and see the power they take off with.

Once you have done this. Go and take a look at all the supposed huge space rockets lifting off and watch how slowly they ascend into the air.
Of course, people will tell you that they do this because they are huge and have to lift off slowly...I'm telling you right now that every rocket would crash and burn if this happened, because rockets need speed, IMMEDIATELY to gain a flight, because it's the only way they can work, by air friction , high to low pressure, balancing them out.

They are huge, which is why they look like they're lifting off slowly, but in reality, they are accelerating quite rapidly. To verify what I'm saying, look at a real rocket launch and see how long it takes to rocket to cover it's own length from a standstill, then apply the equation:

a = 2d/t2

where d is the distance traveled, t is the time taken, and a is the calculated average acceleration. I know you don't like equations scepti, but as far as they go, this one is really simple, and I've even explained it for you! All you need to do is plug in the numbers.
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."

?

Antonio

• 379
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #656 on: July 06, 2013, 05:50:21 AM »
Can you explain how an object can start moving immediately at a given (high) velocity ?
Can you please give a rought estimate of what you consider to be the "good" velocity" for a rocket to be "real" ?

?

Scintific Method

• 1448
• Trust, but verify.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #657 on: July 06, 2013, 06:09:25 AM »
No. It's not "like" they are lifting off slowly. They are lifting off, slowly and this cannot happen or they would simply fall back to the ground and explode.
They either lift off with immediate velocity or they don't go into the sky, it's as simple as that.
All slow rocket launches are fake, which means all space rockets are fake which should be "blatantly" obvious to anyone who wants to study real against fake launches.

Please clarify what you mean by the bold part.

Also, are you familiar with inertia and acceleration?
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."

?

Antonio

• 379
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #658 on: July 06, 2013, 06:22:07 AM »
Can you explain how an object can start moving immediately at a given (high) velocity ?
Can you please give a rought estimate of what you consider to be the "good" velocity" for a rocket to be "real" ?
For a stable flight it has to immediately spring board with velocity to achieve a balanced vertical flight into the sky.
The only way you could throttle down would be if you wanted it to lift off and immediately tip over, because it's not using the equalised air friction around its body.
Believe that or not, I'm not really bothered. I know supposed space rockets do not and can not work by taking off like they do in videos.
I'm sorry but you are not answering to my questions

?

Antonio

• 379
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #659 on: July 06, 2013, 06:43:07 AM »
I'm not asking WHY it should spring with "immediate" velocity, but HOW it can do it, because as far as I know, anything here on earth has some inertia. The heavier the object, the more inertia it has.
My second question was how do you know when a launch is real or not, following you definition? . In other terms, how much is the "launch immediate velocity" that makes you believe that a rocket is real or fake?