So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed

MARKJO'D

I miss Heiwa already. He was highly entertaining. Visiting his popular website is just not the same as interacting with him. 

Good news. I am back in my house, built 1972, on a slope with a view of the Med below, from my other house up in central Europe slowly sinking down inte Earth since 1520. I will review any intelligent posts here done in my absence and maybe reply.  But before that I will update my popular website with interesting info.

To clarify, Heiwa is the one claiming any space vehicle will burn up on reentry, but he's not a flat Earther, just a general conspiracy crank. Although most FE'ers maintain all space travel is a hoax, there's still a variety of opinions on what is faked and what is real. We're still waiting for Heiwa's response on whether he thinks rockets work or not.

Yes, any space vehicle will burn up on re-entry. Yes, I am not a a flat Earther as I enjoy alpine skiing. No, I am not a conspiracy crank. I just do not like Lyssenko and his friends.
If you study my web sites you will find out what rockets work and what rockets do not work.
Thanks for your attention.

Yes, any space vehicle will burn up on re-entry.

If meteors can survive entry into earth's atmosphere, they why can't space vehicles?

Good news. I am back in my house, built 1972, on a slope with a view of the Med below...

Quite frankly, nobody gives the slightest damn about your self-centred, boring life.  Tell someone who cares.

I will review any intelligent posts here done in my absence and maybe reply.  But before that I will update my popular website with interesting info.

If you're gonna "review" any "intelligent" posts here, I've got a tip:  Ignore ALL those made by flat earthers and read only stuff posted by round earthers.  It'll save a lot of stress on your grey matter LOL.

And you seem not to have yet understood why your silly site(s) get so many hits;  it's people following links from legitimate, science-based sites  checking out just how pretentious, delusional and irrational one individual can be.  Or, apparently, so ignorant of even basic scientific principles that any high-school kid can grasp.  People are reading through your endless drivel for a good laugh, and certainly not to learn anything.

And the sort of dross you publish on your website is not "interesting"—as you claim somewhat naively; it's the sort of fantastical stuff I was reading in Marvel comic books when I was 8 years of age.

 No, I am not a conspiracy crank.

This is not the opinion of most other genuine scientific critics.  For some really crazy stuff, check out The Unique World of Anders Bjorkman (Heiwa)

Its links provide endless hours of amusement if you enjoy reading science-fiction—from someone with a vivid imagination—but a poor command of credible science.

Quote from: Heiwa on September 13, 2014, 12:07:08 PM

Yes, any space vehicle will burn up on re-entry.

If meteors can survive entry into earth's atmosphere, then why can't space vehicles?

Thanks for asking. Pls study the link in post #57 on page 3 of this thread and you will understand better.
Meteorites are solid blocks of some material and they heat up at re-entry but some solid pieces may drop down on Earth.
Space vehicles are human built structures full of air. Some have a little heat shield at one end. Others, like the Space Shuttle, have  heat absorbing tiles on the wings, etc. Regardless, any space ship is simply structurally too weak to withstand the forces at re-entry and dispose the energy absorbed as friction. My seagoing ships are much stronger than any NASA built space ship.
This Buzz person - topic - just learnt from Trofym Lyssenko how to fool people with pseudo science ... backed up by media of course.

This Buzz person - topic - just learned from Trofym Lysenko how to fool people with pseudo science ... backed up by media of course.

Spoken as only another master propagator of pseudo-science would LOL.

Oh... except that you're NOT "backed up" by any credible media source in the world.

Regardless, any space ship is simply structurally too weak to withstand the forces at re-entry and dispose the energy absorbed as friction.

Have you ever calculated the forces of reentry or the heat generated by friction?  If so, then I'd be interested in seeing your calculations.  If not, then on what basis, other than personal opinion, are you basing your claims?

Have you ever calculated the forces of reentry or the heat generated by friction?  If so, then I'd be interested in seeing your calculations.  If not, then on what basis, other than personal opinion, are you basing your claims?

Calculations are in my paper. It would appear that any space ship would heat up to >70 000° C by the friction energy during re-entry. The friction and aerodynamical forces applied to the structure and its content during deceleration are also quite high. It seems Buzz & Co would simply be vaporized at re-entry.

Quote from: markjo on September 14, 2014, 01:33:05 PM

Have you ever calculated the forces of reentry or the heat generated by friction?  If so, then I'd be interested in seeing your calculations.  If not, then on what basis, other than personal opinion, are you basing your claims?

Calculations are in my paper. It would appear that any space ship would heat up to >70 000° C by the friction energy during re-entry. The friction and aerodynamical forces applied to the structure and its content during deceleration are also quite high. It seems Buzz & Co would simply be vaporized at re-entry.

Which paper, what page?

It would appear that any space ship would heat up to >70 000°C by the friction energy during re-entry. The friction and aerodynamical forces applied to the structure and its content during deceleration are also quite high.

LOL.  You've really got NO idea at all have you?  Maximum re-entry temperatures due to friction are around 1,700ºC.  Even the sun's photosphere is "only" 5,500ºC at its outer surface. 

Which paper, what page?

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer LOL.

Which paper, what page?

The mean deceleration of Apollo 11 (velocity change divided by time elapsed) during travel through Earth atmosphere was 10 931/540 = 20.25 m/s² or 2.06g and the mean drag force due friction acting on the 5 557 kg CM was 112.53 kN or about 11.5 ton.
...
The unit kinetic energy (J/kg) at 11 031 m/s is 60.84 MJ/kg! It is a lot! It - the energy of one kilogram moving at 11 031 m/s - is sufficient to raise temperature of 1 kg concrete (C = 880 J/kg°C) 69 138°C.

Source: my popular paper at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .

Quote from: markjo on September 14, 2014, 01:33:05 PM

Have you ever calculated the forces of reentry or the heat generated by friction?  If so, then I'd be interested in seeing your calculations.  If not, then on what basis, other than personal opinion, are you basing your claims?

Calculations are in my paper. It would appear that any space ship would heat up to >70 000° C by the friction energy during re-entry. The friction and aerodynamical forces applied to the structure and its content during deceleration are also quite high. It seems Buzz & Co would simply be vaporized at re-entry.

Seeing as spacecraft have been successfully reentering the atmosphere for over 50 years, it seems that your calculations are wrong.

Seeing as spacecraft have been successfully reentering the atmosphere for over 50 years, it seems that your calculations are wrong.

It seems the first UFOs were spotted in the sky and even landing 70 years ago by 10 000's of people, as reported by media, but nobody has ever been able to present any solid UFO + pilot (if any) to us normal people. All other space crafts - moon and ISF modules and US Shuttles - are just dropped off from airplanes at low altitude to impress the sheeple. 

My calculations wrong? Do you want to earn €1 000 000:-? Visit http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm ! Prove me wrong.

Quote from: Rama Set on September 14, 2014, 09:43:02 PM

Which paper, what page?

The mean deceleration of Apollo 11 (velocity change divided by time elapsed) during travel through Earth atmosphere was 10 931/540 = 20.25 m/s² or 2.06g and the mean drag force due friction acting on the 5 557 kg CM was 112.53 kN or about 11.5 ton.
...
The unit kinetic energy (J/kg) at 11 031 m/s is 60.84 MJ/kg! It is a lot! It - the energy of one kilogram moving at 11 031 m/s - is sufficient to raise temperature of 1 kg concrete (C = 880 J/kg°C) 69 138°C.

Source: my popular paper at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .

Gods your "popular paper" is a mess.  Other than you asserting the impossibility of space travel, there is only one piece of concrete evidence you submit, which is the thrust of the Apollo 11 rocket engine, but you do not even have a citation for that.  You have a clear agenda, to slam NASA, so I can not trust this factoid.

Your evidence for the "weight problem" in fuel payload is an article regarding travelling to Mars, and specifically talks about scaling up space journeys.  It never, not once, states that travelling to the Moon is impossible.  Again, it is just your assertion, which you are assuming supports your position.

Nowhere in your "calculations" do you show your assumptions, the sources for them, or any of the other factors along the way, i.e. trajectory, atmospheric density, etc...), just a final product.  If I am to actually consider your argument, there needs to be more substantiation.

Quote from: Heiwa on September 15, 2014, 12:05:22 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 14, 2014, 09:43:02 PM

Which paper, what page?

The mean deceleration of Apollo 11 (velocity change divided by time elapsed) during travel through Earth atmosphere was 10 931/540 = 20.25 m/s² or 2.06g and the mean drag force due friction acting on the 5 557 kg CM was 112.53 kN or about 11.5 ton.
...
The unit kinetic energy (J/kg) at 11 031 m/s is 60.84 MJ/kg! It is a lot! It - the energy of one kilogram moving at 11 031 m/s - is sufficient to raise temperature of 1 kg concrete (C = 880 J/kg°C) 69 138°C.

Source: my popular paper at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .

Gods your "popular paper" is a mess.  Other than you asserting the impossibility of space travel, there is only one piece of concrete evidence you submit, which is the thrust of the Apollo 11 rocket engine, but you do not even have a citation for that.  You have a clear agenda, to slam NASA, so I can not trust this factoid.

Your evidence for the "weight problem" in fuel payload is an article regarding travelling to Mars, and specifically talks about scaling up space journeys.  It never, not once, states that travelling to the Moon is impossible.  Again, it is just your assertion, which you are assuming supports your position.

Nowhere in your "calculations" do you show your assumptions, the sources for them, or any of the other factors along the way, i.e. trajectory, atmospheric density, etc...), just a final product.  If I am to actually consider your argument, there needs to be more substantiation.

Incorrect. If you would spend some time analyzing the documents he has provided. You surely would have noticed the contradicting evidence that NASA itself provides

Quote from: Rama Set on September 15, 2014, 06:57:31 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 15, 2014, 12:05:22 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 14, 2014, 09:43:02 PM

Which paper, what page?

The mean deceleration of Apollo 11 (velocity change divided by time elapsed) during travel through Earth atmosphere was 10 931/540 = 20.25 m/s² or 2.06g and the mean drag force due friction acting on the 5 557 kg CM was 112.53 kN or about 11.5 ton.
...
The unit kinetic energy (J/kg) at 11 031 m/s is 60.84 MJ/kg! It is a lot! It - the energy of one kilogram moving at 11 031 m/s - is sufficient to raise temperature of 1 kg concrete (C = 880 J/kg°C) 69 138°C.

Source: my popular paper at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .

Gods your "popular paper" is a mess.  Other than you asserting the impossibility of space travel, there is only one piece of concrete evidence you submit, which is the thrust of the Apollo 11 rocket engine, but you do not even have a citation for that.  You have a clear agenda, to slam NASA, so I can not trust this factoid.

Your evidence for the "weight problem" in fuel payload is an article regarding travelling to Mars, and specifically talks about scaling up space journeys.  It never, not once, states that travelling to the Moon is impossible.  Again, it is just your assertion, which you are assuming supports your position.

Nowhere in your "calculations" do you show your assumptions, the sources for them, or any of the other factors along the way, i.e. trajectory, atmospheric density, etc...), just a final product.  If I am to actually consider your argument, there needs to be more substantiation.

Incorrect. If you would spend some time analyzing the documents he has provided. You surely would have noticed the contradicting evidence that NASA itself provides

I would be interested in some highlights from you.  I sometimes find that people such as you find contradictions, where I see none, so a point in the right direction would be appreciated.

Quote from: Rama Set on September 14, 2014, 09:43:02 PM

Which paper, what page?

The mean deceleration of Apollo 11 (velocity change divided by time elapsed) during travel through Earth atmosphere was 10 931/540 = 20.25 m/s² or 2.06g and the mean drag force due friction acting on the 5 557 kg CM was 112.53 kN or about 11.5 ton.
...
The unit kinetic energy (J/kg) at 11 031 m/s is 60.84 MJ/kg! It is a lot! It - the energy of one kilogram moving at 11 031 m/s - is sufficient to raise temperature of 1 kg concrete (C = 880 J/kg°C) 69 138°C.

Source: my popular paper at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .

I see a couple of obvious errors in the applicability of the temperature calculation. Anyone else? This may be why NASA uses talented rocket scientists and materials engineers to design their re-entry systems instead of shipbuilders.

And, while 60.84 MJ/kg sounds impressively large, just how much energy is 60.84 MJ? 1 kilowatt-hour of energy is 3.6 MJ (Wow! That's a lot!), so the kinetic energy for each kg at re-entry is the equivalent of running a 100W light bulb for a week, or about US$1.69 worth of electricity at retail where I live (about 10 cents per 3.6 MJ) for each kg. Safely disposing of this much energy certainly requires careful design, but obviously is not an insurmountable problem if the right people are working on it; it's just another engineering problem among many others.

Quote from: Heiwa on September 13, 2014, 11:54:22 AM

Good news. I am back in my house, built 1972, on a slope with a view of the Med below...

Quite frankly, nobody gives the slightest damn about your self-centred, boring life.  Tell someone who cares.

Quote

I will review any intelligent posts here done in my absence and maybe reply.  But before that I will update my popular website with interesting info.

If you're gonna "review" any "intelligent" posts here, I've got a tip:  Ignore ALL those made by flat earthers and read only stuff posted by round earthers.  It'll save a lot of stress on your grey matter LOL.

And you seem not to have yet understood why your silly site(s) get so many hits;  it's people following links from legitimate, science-based sites  checking out just how pretentious, delusional and irrational one individual can be.  Or, apparently, so ignorant of even basic scientific principles that any high-school kid can grasp.  People are reading through your endless drivel for a good laugh, and certainly not to learn anything.

And the sort of dross you publish on your website is not "interesting"—as you claim somewhat naively; it's the sort of fantastical stuff I was reading in Marvel comic books when I was 8 years of age.

News flash assGeoff, I give a damn, so speak for yourself you arrogant tool.

Heiwa may be a crank and/or a nutcase, but he's a interesting one, unlike yourself. He's also a real person on the other end of the internet from you, just like everyone else here.

Quote from: markjo on September 15, 2014, 05:30:54 AM

Seeing as spacecraft have been successfully reentering the atmosphere for over 50 years, it seems that your calculations are wrong.

It seems the first UFOs were spotted in the sky and even landing 70 years ago by 10 000's of people, as reported by media, but nobody has ever been able to present any solid UFO + pilot (if any) to us normal people.

How are UFOs relevant? 

All other space crafts - moon and ISF modules and US Shuttles - are just dropped off from airplanes at low altitude to impress the sheeple.

So you still have no explanation as to why atmospheric reentry is an engineering problem that can't possibly be solved.  Good to know.

My calculations wrong? Do you want to earn €1 000 000:-? Visit http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm ! Prove me wrong.

How can I prove your calculations wrong if you didn't perform any calculations on any of the spacecraft in question?

Quote from: markjo on September 15, 2014, 05:30:54 AM

Seeing as spacecraft have been successfully reentering the atmosphere for over 50 years, it seems that your calculations are wrong.

All other space crafts - moon and ISF modules and US Shuttles - are just dropped off from airplanes at low altitude to impress the sheeple. 

Yea, no. This is why people don't believe this stuff. At the end of the day, it all depends on a conspiracy theory with no evidence.

Quote from: Heiwa on September 15, 2014, 06:21:19 AM

Quote from: markjo on September 15, 2014, 05:30:54 AM

Seeing as spacecraft have been successfully reentering the atmosphere for over 50 years, it seems that your calculations are wrong.

It seems the first UFOs were spotted in the sky and even landing 70 years ago by 10 000's of people, as reported by media, but nobody has ever been able to present any solid UFO + pilot (if any) to us normal people.

How are UFOs relevant? 

Quote from: Heiwa on September 15, 2014, 06:21:19 AM

All other space crafts - moon and ISF modules and US Shuttles - are just dropped off from airplanes at low altitude to impress the sheeple.

So you still have no explanation as to why atmospheric reentry is an engineering problem that can't possibly be solved.  Good to know.

Quote from: Heiwa on September 15, 2014, 06:21:19 AM

My calculations wrong? Do you want to earn €1 000 000:-? Visit http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm ! Prove me wrong.

How can I prove your calculations wrong if you didn't perform any calculations on any of the spacecraft in question?

You must realize by now that we all know there's no money and that your challenge is bogus.

Just repost your calculations here and prove us wrong, maybe some people will chip in and buy you a lovely FES Tshirt (which may or may not exist).

Quote from: ausGeoff on September 14, 2014, 08:19:21 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 13, 2014, 11:54:22 AM

Good news. I am back in my house, built 1972, on a slope with a view of the Med below...

Quite frankly, nobody gives the slightest damn about your self-centred, boring life.  Tell someone who cares.

Quote

I will review any intelligent posts here done in my absence and maybe reply.  But before that I will update my popular website with interesting info.

If you're gonna "review" any "intelligent" posts here, I've got a tip:  Ignore ALL those made by flat earthers and read only stuff posted by round earthers.  It'll save a lot of stress on your grey matter LOL.

And you seem not to have yet understood why your silly site(s) get so many hits;  it's people following links from legitimate, science-based sites  checking out just how pretentious, delusional and irrational one individual can be.  Or, apparently, so ignorant of even basic scientific principles that any high-school kid can grasp.  People are reading through your endless drivel for a good laugh, and certainly not to learn anything.

And the sort of dross you publish on your website is not "interesting"—as you claim somewhat naively; it's the sort of fantastical stuff I was reading in Marvel comic books when I was 8 years of age.

News flash assGeoff, I give a damn, so speak for yourself you arrogant tool.

Heiwa may be a crank and/or a nutcase, but he's a interesting one, unlike yourself. He's also a real person on the other end of the internet from you, just like everyone else here.

He may be interesting, but also mind-numbingly stubbornly stupid. He keeps spouting nonsense in the face of directly contradicting evidence and does not understand the physics of things like atomic bombs. It is understandably hard not to insult him

Source: my popular paper at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .

LOL... those pages of drivel in NO way constitute a "paper" in the scientific sense of the word.  Where are your links to the accredited scientific magazines it's been printed in?  Where is your list of scientists that have peer-reviewed your self-styled "paper"?

It's really quite amusing how you've managed to delude yourself for so long that you're actually some sort of accredited engineer, with legitimate academic qualifications.  I contacted the IMO (International Maritime Organization), [email protected] which you claim to have been a delegate of, and they told me that they had never heard of an "Anders Björkman".

I can only suggest that people take everything Anders Björkman posts here with a massive grain of salt—it's all total bullshit meant to impress the masses.  Unfortunately, the masses aren't quite as brain-dead as Björkman presumes they are.  And this is invariably his undoing on dozens of other forums wherein he's tried to broadcast his incredibly absurd pseudo-scientific meanderings.

It's not Buzz that's "brainwashed", but Heiwa—by his own delusional state of mind.   

I can only suggest that people take everything Anders Björkman posts here with a massive grain of salt—it's all total bullshit meant to impress the masses.

And I suggest that you stop pointing out the blindingly obvious as if it were some sort of profound revelation.  If some of us want to play along with the delusions of Anders, Sceptimatic, jroa, or anyone else on this site, then that's our prerogative.  You don't need to keep warning us away from everyone that is an obvious troll.

And I suggest that you stop pointing out the blindingly obvious as if it were some sort of profound revelation.  If some of us want to play along with the delusions of Anders, Sceptimatic, jroa, or anyone else on this site, then that's our prerogative.  You don't need to keep warning us away from everyone that is an obvious troll.

You've missed the point I was making—as you often do.

You should be aware that several flat earthers have already been taken in—hook, line and sinker—by the pseudo-scientific ramblings of Heiwa.  There's certainly no harm in occasionally reinforcing the fact that across the interwebs, he's an acknowledged fraud and liar.  Google 'Anders Björkman' to see what I'm talking about.

As many of the flat earthers are extremely gullible and scientifically ill-informed, my warnings are timely.

FE'ers are very experienced in outing the trolls.

Quote from: Shmeggley on September 15, 2014, 10:01:21 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on September 14, 2014, 08:19:21 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 13, 2014, 11:54:22 AM

Good news. I am back in my house, built 1972, on a slope with a view of the Med below...

Quite frankly, nobody gives the slightest damn about your self-centred, boring life.  Tell someone who cares.

Quote

I will review any intelligent posts here done in my absence and maybe reply.  But before that I will update my popular website with interesting info.

If you're gonna "review" any "intelligent" posts here, I've got a tip:  Ignore ALL those made by flat earthers and read only stuff posted by round earthers.  It'll save a lot of stress on your grey matter LOL.

And you seem not to have yet understood why your silly site(s) get so many hits;  it's people following links from legitimate, science-based sites  checking out just how pretentious, delusional and irrational one individual can be.  Or, apparently, so ignorant of even basic scientific principles that any high-school kid can grasp.  People are reading through your endless drivel for a good laugh, and certainly not to learn anything.

And the sort of dross you publish on your website is not "interesting"—as you claim somewhat naively; it's the sort of fantastical stuff I was reading in Marvel comic books when I was 8 years of age.

News flash assGeoff, I give a damn, so speak for yourself you arrogant tool.

Heiwa may be a crank and/or a nutcase, but he's a interesting one, unlike yourself. He's also a real person on the other end of the internet from you, just like everyone else here.

He may be interesting, but also mind-numbingly stubbornly stupid. He keeps spouting nonsense in the face of directly contradicting evidence and does not understand the physics of things like atomic bombs. It is understandably hard not to insult him

Exactly, it's like shooting fish in a barrel already. No need for anybody to come and suck the fun out of it.