I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge

Quote from: Heiwa on July 14, 2019, 02:42:04 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 13, 2019, 10:07:28 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 12, 2019, 10:28:49 PM

No, only one-way satellite launches into orbits around Earth are possible.

Then show me how you calculate how much fuel is required to send a satellite to geostationary orbit.

Hm, topic is to calculate fuel required to fly to the Moon, which was done 50+ years ago. See post #1.

Hmm.  If they/you can calculate the fuel needed to get an object of specific weight to a specific distance for geostationary orbit, then they/you can calculate the fuel needed to get an object of specific weight to the specific distance of the moon.

No! Getting into geostationary orbit in space above Earth equator is completely different from going to the Moon. I explain a little at http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm .

Lol, I can't believe this thread is still going.

Props to heiwa for having so many people with such a large erection for him.

Can you prove to these twerps that you are loaded heiwa?? It's easy, has it not been long enough of this game?

Heiwa is lord god king awesome.

So many marionettes held aloft simultaneously.
It's amazing.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on July 14, 2019, 05:06:29 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 14, 2019, 02:42:04 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 13, 2019, 10:07:28 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 12, 2019, 10:28:49 PM

No, only one-way satellite launches into orbits around Earth are possible.

Then show me how you calculate how much fuel is required to send a satellite to geostationary orbit.

Hm, topic is to calculate fuel required to fly to the Moon, which was done 50+ years ago. See post #1.

Hmm.  If they/you can calculate the fuel needed to get an object of specific weight to a specific distance for geostationary orbit, then they/you can calculate the fuel needed to get an object of specific weight to the specific distance of the moon.

No! Getting into geostationary orbit in space above Earth equator is completely different from going to the Moon.

What's different?  You need plenty of fuel to get to geostationary orbit.  You need to know where the rocket engine is pointed, how long to fire it, etc.  What's so different about going to the moon?

Quote from: Heiwa on July 15, 2019, 05:30:35 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on July 14, 2019, 05:06:29 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 14, 2019, 02:42:04 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 13, 2019, 10:07:28 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 12, 2019, 10:28:49 PM

No, only one-way satellite launches into orbits around Earth are possible.

Then show me how you calculate how much fuel is required to send a satellite to geostationary orbit.

Hm, topic is to calculate fuel required to fly to the Moon, which was done 50+ years ago. See post #1.

Hmm.  If they/you can calculate the fuel needed to get an object of specific weight to a specific distance for geostationary orbit, then they/you can calculate the fuel needed to get an object of specific weight to the specific distance of the moon.

No! Getting into geostationary orbit in space above Earth equator is completely different from going to the Moon.

What's different?  You need plenty of fuel to get to geostationary orbit.  You need to know where the rocket engine is pointed, how long to fire it, etc.  What's so different about going to the moon?

You have to study http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm .
To get into geostationary orbit in space above Earth equator you have to provide certain potential and kinetic energy to the satellite using a rocket and, if all works well, it will arrive into and remain in the geostationary orbit for ever.
Going to the Moon is completely different. The Moon is a moving target orbiting Earth and, if you miss it, you'll return to Earth again in your elliptical orbit. But it Moon gravity gets hold of the satellite, the satellite will crash on the Moon.
There is no way the satellite can slow down and land on the Moon. Of course NASA science fiction writers invented another story in the 1960's but it was Fake News then and today.
Markjo, you really have to wake up and face the real world.

Quote from: markjo on July 15, 2019, 06:16:49 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 15, 2019, 05:30:35 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on July 14, 2019, 05:06:29 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 14, 2019, 02:42:04 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 13, 2019, 10:07:28 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 12, 2019, 10:28:49 PM

No, only one-way satellite launches into orbits around Earth are possible.

Then show me how you calculate how much fuel is required to send a satellite to geostationary orbit.

Hm, topic is to calculate fuel required to fly to the Moon, which was done 50+ years ago. See post #1.

Hmm.  If they/you can calculate the fuel needed to get an object of specific weight to a specific distance for geostationary orbit, then they/you can calculate the fuel needed to get an object of specific weight to the specific distance of the moon.

No! Getting into geostationary orbit in space above Earth equator is completely different from going to the Moon.

What's different?  You need plenty of fuel to get to geostationary orbit.  You need to know where the rocket engine is pointed, how long to fire it, etc.  What's so different about going to the moon?

You have to study http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm .
To get into geostationary orbit in space above Earth equator you have to provide certain potential and kinetic energy to the satellite using a rocket and, if all works well, it will arrive into and remain in the geostationary orbit for ever.

Except that geostationary orbits are not forever and do require station keeping to compensate for things like the gravitational influences of the sun and moon, solar wind, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_station-keeping#Station-keeping_in_geostationary_orbit

 

Going to the Moon is completely different. The Moon is a moving target orbiting Earth and, if you miss it, you'll return to Earth again in your elliptical orbit. But it Moon gravity gets hold of the satellite, the satellite will crash on the Moon.
There is no way the satellite can slow down and land on the Moon. Of course NASA science fiction writers invented another story in the 1960's but it was Fake News then and today.

Carrying extra fuel to slow down and land is not fiction.  It's just one more thing to consider in your payload weight budget.

Carrying extra fuel to slow down and land is not fiction.  It's just one more thing to consider in your payload weight budget.

Exactly! To win my Challenge (topic - post #1) you must consider these extra difficulties going to the Moon.

Carrying extra fuel to slow down and land is not fiction.  It's just one more thing to consider in your payload weight budget.

Our current methods of thrust through chemical rocket fuel is not up to the job. Fact is, you could keep piling on more and more rocket fuel but you will get beyond diminishing returns very fast to the point you go backwards because the damn thing gets too heavy. The efficiency rating of the thrust produced by chemical rocket fuel is incredibly low

Can we get to the Moon? Sure! But not today and certainly not 50 years ago. Our current means of propulsion is simply too inefficient.

Perhaps in the future we can create and contain antimatter cheaply and safely. That would bring our rockets thrust efficiency to around 40%. Even using fusion is a tall order with an efficiency rating of 1%

Bottom line is, using todays tech, it is simply not feasible to go to the Moon, land, and come back again. If you want to beat Heiwas challenge, you will have to do it using technology that hasn't been invented yet. And that in itself proves the Moon landing was a hoax.

Quote from: markjo on July 15, 2019, 09:28:52 AM

Carrying extra fuel to slow down and land is not fiction.  It's just one more thing to consider in your payload weight budget.

Our current methods of thrust through chemical rocket fuel is not up to the job. Fact is, you could keep piling on more and more rocket fuel but you will get beyond diminishing returns very fast to the point you go backwards because the damn thing gets too heavy. The efficiency rating of the thrust produced by chemical rocket fuel is incredibly low

Can we get to the Moon? Sure! But not today and certainly not 50 years ago. Our current means of propulsion is simply too inefficient.

Perhaps in the future we can create and contain antimatter cheaply and safely. That would bring our rockets thrust efficiency to around 40%. Even using fusion is a tall order with an efficiency rating of 1%

Bottom line is, using todays tech, it is simply not feasible to go to the Moon, land, and come back again. If you want to beat Heiwas challenge, you will have to do it using technology that hasn't been invented yet. And that in itself proves the Moon landing was a hoax.

NASA just challenged spaces to land on the moon so we will see.

According https://aeroastro.mit.edu/ :

Jack L. Kerrebrock, professor emeritus of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT, died at home on July 19. He was 91. Kerrebrock founded and directed the MIT Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics’ Space Propulsion Laboratory from 1962 until 1976. He could never explain how to plan and execute a trip to the Moon, i.e. he all his PhDs never won my Challenge.
More at http://news.mit.edu/2019/jack-kerrebrock-professor-emeritus-aeronautics-and-astronautics-dies-0731

According https://aeroastro.mit.edu/ :

Jack L. Kerrebrock, professor emeritus of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT, died at home on July 19. He was 91. Kerrebrock founded and directed the MIT Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics’ Space Propulsion Laboratory from 1962 until 1976. He could never explain how to plan and execute a trip to the Moon, i.e. he all his PhDs never won my Challenge.
More at http://news.mit.edu/2019/jack-kerrebrock-professor-emeritus-aeronautics-and-astronautics-dies-0731

Why would he waste his time explaining something to someone who is self diluted?

Quote from: Heiwa on August 09, 2019, 09:03:23 AM

According https://aeroastro.mit.edu/ :

Jack L. Kerrebrock, professor emeritus of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT, died at home on July 19. He was 91. Kerrebrock founded and directed the MIT Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics’ Space Propulsion Laboratory from 1962 until 1976. He could never explain how to plan and execute a trip to the Moon, i.e. he all his PhDs never won my Challenge.
More at http://news.mit.edu/2019/jack-kerrebrock-professor-emeritus-aeronautics-and-astronautics-dies-0731

Why would he waste his time explaining something to someone who is self diluted?

To win my Euro 1 million Challenge! Topic!

Quote from: markjo on July 15, 2019, 09:28:52 AM

Carrying extra fuel to slow down and land is not fiction.  It's just one more thing to consider in your payload weight budget.

Our current methods of thrust through chemical rocket fuel is not up to the job. Fact is, you could keep piling on more and more rocket fuel but you will get beyond diminishing returns very fast to the point you go backwards because the damn thing gets too heavy. The efficiency rating of the thrust produced by chemical rocket fuel is incredibly low

That's why you wind up sacrificing useful payload so that save enough fuel for booster recovery and why SpaceX still occasionally flies expendable missions like the recent Amos-17 launch.  In that case, the satellite payload was too heavy to attempt booster recovery, but they were able to catch one of the payload fairing sections.

Can we get to the Moon? Sure! But not today and certainly not 50 years ago. Our current means of propulsion is simply too inefficient.

That depends on how much payload you want to take and how clever you are.

Perhaps in the future we can create and contain antimatter cheaply and safely. That would bring our rockets thrust efficiency to around 40%. Even using fusion is a tall order with an efficiency rating of 1%

What is your source for those efficiency ratings?

Bottom line is, using todays tech, it is simply not feasible to go to the Moon, land, and come back again. If you want to beat Heiwas challenge, you will have to do it using technology that hasn't been invented yet. And that in itself proves the Moon landing was a hoax.

No, it simply proves that neither of you understand the technologies involved.

Quote from: Shifter on August 08, 2019, 07:01:55 PM

Bottom line is, using todays tech, it is simply not feasible to go to the Moon, land, and come back again. If you want to beat Heiwas challenge, you will have to do it using technology that hasn't been invented yet. And that in itself proves the Moon landing was a hoax.

No, it simply proves that neither of you understand the technologies involved.

Well Markjo, you don't win my Challenge with such argument - lack of understanding. My Challenge is simple - calculate the amount of fuel is required to go to the Moon. Don't you understand?

Quote from: markjo on August 09, 2019, 07:38:47 PM

Quote from: Shifter on August 08, 2019, 07:01:55 PM

Bottom line is, using todays tech, it is simply not feasible to go to the Moon, land, and come back again. If you want to beat Heiwas challenge, you will have to do it using technology that hasn't been invented yet. And that in itself proves the Moon landing was a hoax.

No, it simply proves that neither of you understand the technologies involved.

Well Markjo, you don't win my Challenge with such argument - lack of understanding. My Challenge is simple - calculate the amount of fuel is required to go to the Moon. Don't you understand?

I understand that calculating the amount of fuel required to go to the moon isn't as simple a problem as you seem to think it should be.

Quote from: Heiwa on August 09, 2019, 10:56:30 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 09, 2019, 07:38:47 PM

Quote from: Shifter on August 08, 2019, 07:01:55 PM

Bottom line is, using todays tech, it is simply not feasible to go to the Moon, land, and come back again. If you want to beat Heiwas challenge, you will have to do it using technology that hasn't been invented yet. And that in itself proves the Moon landing was a hoax.

No, it simply proves that neither of you understand the technologies involved.

Well Markjo, you don't win my Challenge with such argument - lack of understanding. My Challenge is simple - calculate the amount of fuel is required to go to the Moon. Don't you understand?

I understand that calculating the amount of fuel required to go to the moon isn't as simple a problem as you seem to think it should be.

Yes. You are right. You need fuel to travel to the Moon. Topic is how much and how? I give you Euro 1M, when you tell me.

Quote from: markjo on August 11, 2019, 07:20:04 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 09, 2019, 10:56:30 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 09, 2019, 07:38:47 PM

Quote from: Shifter on August 08, 2019, 07:01:55 PM

Bottom line is, using todays tech, it is simply not feasible to go to the Moon, land, and come back again. If you want to beat Heiwas challenge, you will have to do it using technology that hasn't been invented yet. And that in itself proves the Moon landing was a hoax.

No, it simply proves that neither of you understand the technologies involved.

Well Markjo, you don't win my Challenge with such argument - lack of understanding. My Challenge is simple - calculate the amount of fuel is required to go to the Moon. Don't you understand?

I understand that calculating the amount of fuel required to go to the moon isn't as simple a problem as you seem to think it should be.

Yes. You are right. You need fuel to travel to the Moon. Topic is how much and how? I give you Euro 1M, when you tell me.

That's like asking how much fuel it takes to cross the Pacific ocean.  Your question makes no sense because you aren't specifying what you want to take to the moon and how quickly you want to get there.  You haven't given enough details in your "challenge" to get a meaningful answer.

That's like asking how much fuel it takes to cross the Pacific ocean.

Or how much effort it takes to poop.

Quote from: Heiwa on August 11, 2019, 10:12:20 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 11, 2019, 07:20:04 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 09, 2019, 10:56:30 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 09, 2019, 07:38:47 PM

Quote from: Shifter on August 08, 2019, 07:01:55 PM

Bottom line is, using todays tech, it is simply not feasible to go to the Moon, land, and come back again. If you want to beat Heiwas challenge, you will have to do it using technology that hasn't been invented yet. And that in itself proves the Moon landing was a hoax.

No, it simply proves that neither of you understand the technologies involved.

Well Markjo, you don't win my Challenge with such argument - lack of understanding. My Challenge is simple - calculate the amount of fuel is required to go to the Moon. Don't you understand?

I understand that calculating the amount of fuel required to go to the moon isn't as simple a problem as you seem to think it should be.

Yes. You are right. You need fuel to travel to the Moon. Topic is how much and how? I give you Euro 1M, when you tell me.

That's like asking how much fuel it takes to cross the Pacific ocean.  Your question makes no sense because you aren't specifying what you want to take to the moon and how quickly you want to get there.  You haven't given enough details in your "challenge" to get a meaningful answer.

Hm - Study http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm

"First describe the itineraries to complete a manned Moon return trip and a manned planet Mars return trip from being ejected into space from orbit around Earth towards the Moon and/or planet Mars, incl. departure dates Earth, arrival/departure dates Moon/Mars and arrival dates Earth with due regard to the fact that the Moon orbits Earth, while Earth and Mars orbit the Sun, i.e. two different trips must be described: One to the Moon. One to planet Mars. Some ideas about the difficulties of any spacecraft traveling between moving heavenly bodies are given here. Then to

Second calculate using basic astrophysical principles of space navigation and travel the amount of fuel (kg) (or energy (J)) required by external combustion chambers (also known as rocket engines), ,,, "

Thus, you yourself have to specify the plan of the trip and then calculate the fuel required.   
Good luck! So far nobody has managed it and collected my Euro 1M!

"First describe the itineraries to complete a manned Moon return trip and a manned planet Mars return trip from being ejected into space from orbit around Earth towards the Moon and/or planet Mars, incl. departure dates Earth, arrival/departure dates Moon/Mars and arrival dates Earth with due regard to the fact that the Moon orbits Earth, while Earth and Mars orbit the Sun, i.e. two different trips must be described: One to the Moon. One to planet Mars. Some ideas about the difficulties of any spacecraft traveling between moving heavenly bodies are given here. Then to

Second calculate using basic astrophysical principles of space navigation and travel the amount of fuel (kg) (or energy (J)) required by external combustion chambers (also known as rocket engines), ,,, "

Thus, you yourself have to specify the plan of the trip and then calculate the fuel required.   
Good luck! So far nobody has managed it and collected my Euro 1M!

If you don't believe that NASA already did all of that work for the Apollo missions, then why should anyone think that you would believe their entry? 

Quote from: Heiwa on August 11, 2019, 10:34:10 PM

"First describe the itineraries to complete a manned Moon return trip and a manned planet Mars return trip from being ejected into space from orbit around Earth towards the Moon and/or planet Mars, incl. departure dates Earth, arrival/departure dates Moon/Mars and arrival dates Earth with due regard to the fact that the Moon orbits Earth, while Earth and Mars orbit the Sun, i.e. two different trips must be described: One to the Moon. One to planet Mars. Some ideas about the difficulties of any spacecraft traveling between moving heavenly bodies are given here. Then to

Second calculate using basic astrophysical principles of space navigation and travel the amount of fuel (kg) (or energy (J)) required by external combustion chambers (also known as rocket engines), ,,, "

Thus, you yourself have to specify the plan of the trip and then calculate the fuel required.   
Good luck! So far nobody has managed it and collected my Euro 1M!

If you don't believe that NASA already did all of that work for the Apollo missions, then why should anyone think that you would believe their entry?

Intelligent people like me know that NASA is 100% Hollywood. Fun but after a while ... nothing. Shit! Boring!
Stupid people like you can go on to believe in Father Christmas, etc.
But you are not alone. In Japan last week millions memorized the US murders of 100 000's Japanese 1945. http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
It was another Hollywood show! Japan media reported it as NEWS! But it happened 74 years ago.  News?

Quote from: markjo on August 12, 2019, 07:16:57 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 11, 2019, 10:34:10 PM

"First describe the itineraries to complete a manned Moon return trip and a manned planet Mars return trip from being ejected into space from orbit around Earth towards the Moon and/or planet Mars, incl. departure dates Earth, arrival/departure dates Moon/Mars and arrival dates Earth with due regard to the fact that the Moon orbits Earth, while Earth and Mars orbit the Sun, i.e. two different trips must be described: One to the Moon. One to planet Mars. Some ideas about the difficulties of any spacecraft traveling between moving heavenly bodies are given here. Then to

Second calculate using basic astrophysical principles of space navigation and travel the amount of fuel (kg) (or energy (J)) required by external combustion chambers (also known as rocket engines), ,,, "

Thus, you yourself have to specify the plan of the trip and then calculate the fuel required.   
Good luck! So far nobody has managed it and collected my Euro 1M!

If you don't believe that NASA already did all of that work for the Apollo missions, then why should anyone think that you would believe their entry?

Intelligent people like me...

Intelligent people would answer the question that was asked rather than rambling on incoherently about off topic things.

Jesus effing Christ, is this shit STILL going on?

It's amazing what some people will do when they're bored.

Jesus effing Christ, is this shit STILL going on?

Shit? Click on post #1 and read the whole thing and you'll find it is interesting. Almost half a million views!

Quote from: The Real Celine Dion on August 12, 2019, 03:27:33 PM

Jesus effing Christ, is this shit STILL going on?

Shit? Click on post #1 and read the whole thing and you'll find it is interesting. Almost half a million views!

Popular shit is still shit and your "challenge" is shit .

Quote from: Heiwa on August 12, 2019, 10:10:35 PM

Quote from: The Real Celine Dion on August 12, 2019, 03:27:33 PM

Jesus effing Christ, is this shit STILL going on?

Shit? Click on post #1 and read the whole thing and you'll find it is interesting. Almost half a million views!

Popular shit is still shit and your "challenge" is shit .

? Almost half a million views of this thread about my Challenge mean it is interesting and popular.

Quote from: markjo on August 13, 2019, 06:58:02 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 12, 2019, 10:10:35 PM

Quote from: The Real Celine Dion on August 12, 2019, 03:27:33 PM

Jesus effing Christ, is this shit STILL going on?

Shit? Click on post #1 and read the whole thing and you'll find it is interesting. Almost half a million views!

Popular shit is still shit and your "challenge" is shit .

? Almost half a million views of this thread about my Challenge mean it is interesting and popular.

The monkey behind the glass doesn't realize he's the one on display.

Quote from: Heiwa on August 13, 2019, 09:03:53 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 13, 2019, 06:58:02 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 12, 2019, 10:10:35 PM

Quote from: The Real Celine Dion on August 12, 2019, 03:27:33 PM

Jesus effing Christ, is this shit STILL going on?

Shit? Click on post #1 and read the whole thing and you'll find it is interesting. Almost half a million views!

Popular shit is still shit and your "challenge" is shit .

? Almost half a million views of this thread about my Challenge mean it is interesting and popular.

The monkey behind the glass doesn't realize he's the one on display.

?

Quote from: Heiwa on August 13, 2019, 09:03:53 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 13, 2019, 06:58:02 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 12, 2019, 10:10:35 PM

Quote from: The Real Celine Dion on August 12, 2019, 03:27:33 PM

Jesus effing Christ, is this shit STILL going on?

Shit? Click on post #1 and read the whole thing and you'll find it is interesting. Almost half a million views!

Popular shit is still shit and your "challenge" is shit .

? Almost half a million views of this thread about my Challenge mean it is interesting and popular.

The monkey behind the glass doesn't realize he's the one on display.

Quote from: The Real Celine Dion on August 13, 2019, 10:29:37 AM

The monkey behind the glass doesn't realize he's the one on display.

?

This is absolutely amazing and his response perfect.

I think you might have finally weskered someone Celine...... I didn't think you had it in you.

Quote from: The Real Celine Dion on August 13, 2019, 10:29:37 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 13, 2019, 09:03:53 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 13, 2019, 06:58:02 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 12, 2019, 10:10:35 PM

Quote from: The Real Celine Dion on August 12, 2019, 03:27:33 PM

Jesus effing Christ, is this shit STILL going on?

Shit? Click on post #1 and read the whole thing and you'll find it is interesting. Almost half a million views!

Popular shit is still shit and your "challenge" is shit .

? Almost half a million views of this thread about my Challenge mean it is interesting and popular.

The monkey behind the glass doesn't realize he's the one on display.

Quote from: Heiwa on August 13, 2019, 12:01:19 PM

Quote from: The Real Celine Dion on August 13, 2019, 10:29:37 AM

The monkey behind the glass doesn't realize he's the one on display.

?

This is absolutely amazing and his response perfect.

I think you might have finally weskered someone Celine...... I didn't think you had it in you.

I Wesker my girlfriend at least twice daily .