I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge

  • 11017 Replies
  • 514164 Views
*

Shifter

  • 10913
  • ASI
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10890 on: September 08, 2019, 06:49:08 PM »
Like the speed of light being impossible for something with a mass to accelerate to, the amount of fuel (conventional chemical fuel) required to get to the moon and back is equally impossible.
The possibility of getting to the moon and back depends greatly on how much mass you want to return from the moon and which "conventional chemical" fuel(s) you choose. 

This is why no calculation has ever been published.
The equation to calculate fuel requirements was published in 1903.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

How to you reconcile publishing you need an impossibly large fuel requirement to get to the moon and back and then say you've been there and done it many times over
You're the one saying that the fuel load is impossibly large, not any of the space agencies.

We have some of the most power telescopes that have amazing resolution and can resolve galaxies from many billions of light years away. Yet we cant even point it at the moon and see all the junk we left behind? Well of course we cant - there isn't any junk to be found!
First of all, the only telescopes powerful enough to see the junk on the moon are currently orbiting the moon.  Secondly, there's plenty of junk from previous (and current) one way, unmanned lunar  missions.

Well if the required amount of fuel has been published why have they not gone to Heiwa to cash in 1 million euros? My guess is that their published results are wrong

In time we will be able to use and control anti matter and that is the fuel which will be the first to bring us to the moon and back because the weight of the fuel required would be less than the spare change in your pocket. The challenge would be controlling the rate of antimatter being used because 1 gram of matter and 1 gram of antimatter can release 1.8×1014 joules. if your not careful the rocket will explode in a gigantic explosion or you will smash into your target at millions of kilometers per hour.

« Last Edit: September 08, 2019, 06:51:17 PM by Shifter »

*

rabinoz

  • Ranters
  • 22365
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10891 on: September 08, 2019, 07:25:58 PM »
Well if the required amount of fuel has been published why have they not gone to Heiwa to cash in 1 million euros?
My considered opinion is that Anders Björkman is just a bag of hot air and changes the goalposts every time anyone gets near.
He might know all about rusty hulks but that's about all.

But the fine details of what Anders Björkman

Quote from: Shifter
My guess is that their published results are wrong
You're entitled to you guesses but have you read this report published after the event? SATURN V LAUNCH VEHICLE FLIGHT EVALUATION REPORT-AS-506 ::)?

Here's an interesting thread on our "friend":
Quote
ApolloHoax.net: Apollo Discussions, The Hoax Theory, "So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?"

All you need to do is to convince a certain engineer that a flight to the Moon is possible:

http://www.members.tripod.com/heiwaco/moontravel.htm
Quote from: Anders Björkman
     Reason why human Moon (or future Mars) travel is not possible as per the NASA Apollo fairy tale is that, with given heavy, great mass m of various modules and inefficient rocket engines, sufficient rocket fuel to enter/brake into Moon orbit (event #6), to get/accelerate out of Moon orbit (event #15) and to brake in Earth's atmosphere before splash down (event #19) on Earth cannot be carried along.

    Actually only way to go to Moon and back is using very light weight robots and modules and to chose a long, slow velocity path through space using Sun's gravity, so that arrival speeds and energy requirements are minimum to reduce fuel consumption for braking and accelerating. Prove me wrong and earn € 1 000 000:-. Only fools believe human space travel is possible at all ... and there are many such persons, incl. PhDs of all kind.

Just a quick warning, though: he also doubts a) the Space Shuttle , b) Soyuz, c) the Mars Science Laboratory, and d) nuclear weapons, among other things :D.

You might read what RationalWiki think of Anders Björkman, Charles K. Johnson etc think of the Space travel hoax.

*

Shifter

  • 10913
  • ASI
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10892 on: September 08, 2019, 07:34:42 PM »
Well if the required amount of fuel has been published why have they not gone to Heiwa to cash in 1 million euros?
My considered opinion is that Anders Björkman is just a bag of hot air and changes the goalposts every time anyone gets near.
He might know all about rusty hulks but that's about all.

But the fine details of what Anders Björkman

Quote from: Shifter
My guess is that their published results are wrong
You're entitled to you guesses but have you read this report published after the event? SATURN V LAUNCH VEHICLE FLIGHT EVALUATION REPORT-AS-506 ::)?

Here's an interesting thread on our "friend":
Quote
ApolloHoax.net: Apollo Discussions, The Hoax Theory, "So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?"

All you need to do is to convince a certain engineer that a flight to the Moon is possible:

http://www.members.tripod.com/heiwaco/moontravel.htm
Quote from: Anders Björkman
     Reason why human Moon (or future Mars) travel is not possible as per the NASA Apollo fairy tale is that, with given heavy, great mass m of various modules and inefficient rocket engines, sufficient rocket fuel to enter/brake into Moon orbit (event #6), to get/accelerate out of Moon orbit (event #15) and to brake in Earth's atmosphere before splash down (event #19) on Earth cannot be carried along.

    Actually only way to go to Moon and back is using very light weight robots and modules and to chose a long, slow velocity path through space using Sun's gravity, so that arrival speeds and energy requirements are minimum to reduce fuel consumption for braking and accelerating. Prove me wrong and earn € 1 000 000:-. Only fools believe human space travel is possible at all ... and there are many such persons, incl. PhDs of all kind.

Just a quick warning, though: he also doubts a) the Space Shuttle , b) Soyuz, c) the Mars Science Laboratory, and d) nuclear weapons, among other things :D.

You might read what RationalWiki think of Anders Björkman, Charles K. Johnson etc think of the Space travel hoax.

They call Heiwa a crank. Why should I take a website devoted to putting down others as credible?

Antimatter can get us to the Moon and back again. The tricky bit is not even in its production or storage. Those will be figured out long before its use in safely accelerating space craft.

Think of a motorbike accelerator. It's like twisting the handle a poofteenth of a mm and near instantly riding faster than a plane at full speed.

*

rabinoz

  • Ranters
  • 22365
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10893 on: September 08, 2019, 08:00:00 PM »
They call Heiwa a crank.
Just possible because he is?

Quote from: Shifter
Why should I take a website devoted to putting down others as credible?
Maybe you should read it and find out?

Quote from: Shifter
Antimatter can get us to the Moon and back again.

Sure but we don't have more than a trace of antimatter as yet, though I've used a tiny bit.
And we don't need anti-matter to get people to the moon nor spacecraft anywhere in the solar system.

Even nuclear-powered rockets might do better than chemical rockets but people seem fussy about all that radioactive stuff spread around on a launch failure.

Long missions sometimes use nuclear "batteries" and at least one has crashed causing a bit of panic: 1968 Satellite Launch Failure Dropped Nuclear Batteries into Californian Waters.

Imagine the result is an anti-matter spacecraft crashed!

Quote from: Shifter
The tricky bit is not even in its production or storage. Those will be figured out long before its use in safely accelerating space craft.

Think of a motorbike accelerator. It's like twisting the handle a poofteenth of a mm and near instantly riding faster than a plane at full speed.

These fragile bags of water, bones and a few other chemicals, are what limits the acceleration of some manned space flights now.

*

Heiwa

  • 7497
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10894 on: September 09, 2019, 08:08:47 AM »
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelw1.htm#18 describes the first human orbiting Earth in space back in 1961. Many people thought it was fantastic but it was just stupid Fake News and propaganda. Gagarin never flew in space! One problem is to return and land on Earth. Gagarin decided to jump out from his space craft and use a parachute even if the space craft landed intact not far away.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38268
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10895 on: September 09, 2019, 08:21:09 AM »
Well if the required amount of fuel has been published why have they not gone to Heiwa to cash in 1 million euros? My guess is that their published results are wrong
Those fuel calculations were made probably 40 years or so before Anders issued his silly "challenge", but even if they did go to Anders, he would have just said that they're wrong like he's been saying all along.

In time we will be able to use and control anti matter and that is the fuel which will be the first to bring us to the moon and back because the weight of the fuel required would be less than the spare change in your pocket. The challenge would be controlling the rate of antimatter being used because 1 gram of matter and 1 gram of antimatter can release 1.8×1014 joules. if your not careful the rocket will explode in a gigantic explosion or you will smash into your target at millions of kilometers per hour.
You keep saying that the amount of chemical fuel is required is too great to get to the moon and back, yet you don't explain why you think that's true.  By far the greatest fuel requirement is just to get into LEO.  There are several heavy lift boosters capable of putting 20 tons or more into LEO.  One of the early proposals was to launch and assemble several components of a moon lander in LEO.  Why is this not a viable option in your mind?
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.

*

Heiwa

  • 7497
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10896 on: September 09, 2019, 11:14:45 AM »
Well if the required amount of fuel has been published why have they not gone to Heiwa to cash in 1 million euros? My guess is that their published results are wrong
Those fuel calculations were made probably 40 years or so before Anders issued his silly "challenge", but even if they did go to Anders, he would have just said that they're wrong like he's been saying all along.

In time we will be able to use and control anti matter and that is the fuel which will be the first to bring us to the moon and back because the weight of the fuel required would be less than the spare change in your pocket. The challenge would be controlling the rate of antimatter being used because 1 gram of matter and 1 gram of antimatter can release 1.8×1014 joules. if your not careful the rocket will explode in a gigantic explosion or you will smash into your target at millions of kilometers per hour.
You keep saying that the amount of chemical fuel is required is too great to get to the moon and back, yet you don't explain why you think that's true.  By far the greatest fuel requirement is just to get into LEO.  There are several heavy lift boosters capable of putting 20 tons or more into LEO.  One of the early proposals was to launch and assemble several components of a moon lander in LEO.  Why is this not a viable option in your mind?
Sorry. I agree that it is correct that to get to the Moon/Mars (topic) you must first get into LEO. But then? Topic!

How do you get out of LEO to go to the Moon/Mars?

You start a new orbit?

How?

How?

And how much fuel?

Topic?

Please, do not suggest that some computer will do it.

To win my Challenge you must know before departing into LEO how much fuel is required.

And that fuel must be taken aboard at departure.

Lift off!!

IMHO you are too heavy to lift off.

*

Shifter

  • 10913
  • ASI
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10897 on: September 09, 2019, 02:45:22 PM »
You keep saying that the amount of chemical fuel is required is too great to get to the moon and back, yet you don't explain why you think that's true.  By far the greatest fuel requirement is just to get into LEO.  There are several heavy lift boosters capable of putting 20 tons or more into LEO.  One of the early proposals was to launch and assemble several components of a moon lander in LEO.  Why is this not a viable option in your mind?

The law of diminishing returns. The fuel weighs too much. Keeping enough fuel on board to slow down to land on the Moon. Enough fuel to take off from the Moon and then enough fuel to slow down to land back on Earth. We have launched things into outer space but the Moon and back is a feat not accomplished - yet.

Think about this. Weigh the lint that's in your pocket (pocket fluff). If you had that weight in matter/antimatter you could go to the Moon. The trip that went to the Moon supposedly used ~1.2 million litres of fuel. And we are led to believe they landed on the moon with mere 'seconds' of fuel left in the tank.  ::)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38268
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10898 on: September 10, 2019, 08:14:48 AM »
You keep saying that the amount of chemical fuel is required is too great to get to the moon and back, yet you don't explain why you think that's true.  By far the greatest fuel requirement is just to get into LEO.  There are several heavy lift boosters capable of putting 20 tons or more into LEO.  One of the early proposals was to launch and assemble several components of a moon lander in LEO.  Why is this not a viable option in your mind?

The law of diminishing returns. The fuel weighs too much. Keeping enough fuel on board to slow down to land on the Moon. Enough fuel to take off from the Moon and then enough fuel to slow down to land back on Earth. We have launched things into outer space but the Moon and back is a feat not accomplished - yet.

Think about this. Weigh the lint that's in your pocket (pocket fluff). If you had that weight in matter/antimatter you could go to the Moon. The trip that went to the Moon supposedly used ~1.2 million litres of fuel. And we are led to believe they landed on the moon with mere 'seconds' of fuel left in the tank.  ::)
I think that you might be making the mistake of assuming single stage to the moon and back.  There's a reason that the Saturn V was a 3 stage rocket.  There's a reason why the lunar module was a 2 stage rocket.  There's a reason why there was a lunar module in the first place.  It's because if you can break down the mission into smaller chunks, then you can use smaller components where it matters and bring the overall mass, and subsequent fuel requirements down to more manageable levels.
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.

*

rabinoz

  • Ranters
  • 22365
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10899 on: September 10, 2019, 04:01:28 PM »
You keep saying that the amount of chemical fuel is required is too great to get to the moon and back, yet you don't explain why you think that's true.  By far the greatest fuel requirement is just to get into LEO.  There are several heavy lift boosters capable of putting 20 tons or more into LEO.  One of the early proposals was to launch and assemble several components of a moon lander in LEO.  Why is this not a viable option in your mind?

The law of diminishing returns. The fuel weighs too much. Keeping enough fuel on board to slow down to land on the Moon. Enough fuel to take off from the Moon and then enough fuel to slow down to land back on Earth. We have launched things into outer space but the Moon and back is a feat not accomplished - yet.
Would you care to post actual values proving your claim?

*

Heiwa

  • 7497
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10900 on: September 10, 2019, 08:55:11 PM »
You keep saying that the amount of chemical fuel is required is too great to get to the moon and back, yet you don't explain why you think that's true.  By far the greatest fuel requirement is just to get into LEO.  There are several heavy lift boosters capable of putting 20 tons or more into LEO.  One of the early proposals was to launch and assemble several components of a moon lander in LEO.  Why is this not a viable option in your mind?

The law of diminishing returns. The fuel weighs too much. Keeping enough fuel on board to slow down to land on the Moon. Enough fuel to take off from the Moon and then enough fuel to slow down to land back on Earth. We have launched things into outer space but the Moon and back is a feat not accomplished - yet.

Think about this. Weigh the lint that's in your pocket (pocket fluff). If you had that weight in matter/antimatter you could go to the Moon. The trip that went to the Moon supposedly used ~1.2 million litres of fuel. And we are led to believe they landed on the moon with mere 'seconds' of fuel left in the tank.  ::)
I think that you might be making the mistake of assuming single stage to the moon and back.  There's a reason that the Saturn V was a 3 stage rocket.  There's a reason why the lunar module was a 2 stage rocket.  There's a reason why there was a lunar module in the first place.  It's because if you can break down the mission into smaller chunks, then you can use smaller components where it matters and bring the overall mass, and subsequent fuel requirements down to more manageable levels.
It was the Belgian reporter Tintin that visited the Moon 1953 with his single stage, atomic engine rocket. NASA did the same 1969 using a three stage, liquid fuel rocket, the third stage of which just arrived in LEO. The two first stages dropped down on Earth. In LEO the third stage rocket engine was fired to catapult the Apollo 11 space craft to the Moon, where it first entered a lunar orbit, then landed for a quick look/piss, then took off to enter lunar orbit again, then left lunar orbit and dropped all the way back to Earth, where it finally landed safely with empty fuel tanks. Topic is to calculate the fuel required by spacecraft Apollo 11 for the Moon trip - see post #1.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38268
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10901 on: September 11, 2019, 01:27:26 PM »
It was the Belgian reporter Tintin that visited the Moon 1953 with his single stage, atomic engine rocket.
Pfft.  The Baltimore Gun Club built a giant cannon and shot a capsule with 3 men to the moon sometime around 1865.
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.

*

Heiwa

  • 7497
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10902 on: September 12, 2019, 04:37:17 AM »
It was the Belgian reporter Tintin that visited the Moon 1953 with his single stage, atomic engine rocket.
Pfft.  The Baltimore Gun Club built a giant cannon and shot a capsule with 3 men to the moon sometime around 1865.
Yes, but the Americans forgot how to get back to Baltimore from the Moon. No, Tintin got to the Moon back in 1953, unloaded a heavy tank to drive around - Tintin expected an armored PANZER attack by the Moonies - but found little of interest and decided to return to Belgium. It was easy - just step on the accelerator and the atomic engine provides the right force. The NASA thermal nuclear rocket engine is around since 2006 - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw2.htm#126 .
« Last Edit: September 12, 2019, 04:45:08 AM by Heiwa »

*

Heiwa

  • 7497
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10903 on: September 26, 2019, 05:45:00 AM »
I note there are 500 244 views of this little thread and ... nobody has collected my €1M . What is wrong? Are you stupid? Do you believe in US Presidents?

*

rabinoz

  • Ranters
  • 22365
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10904 on: September 26, 2019, 05:08:42 PM »
Topic is to calculate the fuel required by spacecraft Apollo 11 for the Moon trip - see post #1.
That's already been done, first of all by NASA - ever heard of them?

Here is a detailed review of all that you didn't want to know about the Apollo missions, including details of actual fuel usage, some nice bedtime reading:
APOLLO BY THE NUMBERS - A Statistical Reference by Richard W. Orloff - SP-4029.pdf. It's a bit long at 344 pages.

If you disagree with the fuel usage please show your calculations for same.

*

Heiwa

  • 7497
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10905 on: September 26, 2019, 10:36:39 PM »
Topic is to calculate the fuel required by spacecraft Apollo 11 for the Moon trip - see post #1.
That's already been done, first of all by NASA - ever heard of them?

Here is a detailed review of all that you didn't want to know about the Apollo missions, including details of actual fuel usage, some nice bedtime reading:
APOLLO BY THE NUMBERS - A Statistical Reference by Richard W. Orloff - SP-4029.pdf. It's a bit long at 344 pages.

If you disagree with the fuel usage please show your calculations for same.
Yes, I disagree with the NASA reports as described at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm which is the reason for the topic.

Any space exploration is IMHO best done by light weight robotic space crafts on one way trips. No need to send heavy, stupid humans into space that require food and sanitary facilities, etc.

Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10906 on: September 26, 2019, 11:16:08 PM »
I note there are 500 244 views of this little thread and ... nobody has collected my €1M . What is wrong? Are you stupid? Do you believe in US Presidents?

Because you wont pay out.

*

rabinoz

  • Ranters
  • 22365
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10907 on: September 27, 2019, 12:15:50 AM »
Topic is to calculate the fuel required by spacecraft Apollo 11 for the Moon trip - see post #1.
That's already been done, first of all by NASA - ever heard of them?

Here is a detailed review of all that you didn't want to know about the Apollo missions, including details of actual fuel usage, some nice bedtime reading:
APOLLO BY THE NUMBERS - A Statistical Reference by Richard W. Orloff - SP-4029.pdf. It's a bit long at 344 pages.

If you disagree with the fuel usage please show your calculations for same.
Yes, I disagree with the NASA reports as described at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm which is the reason for the topic.
YOU ::) disagree with NASA! Is that meant to be a joke?
You can't even understand things like:
         "gravitational slingshot or unpowered gravity assist manoeuvre",
         "The Oberth effect or powered fly-by assist" or
         "atmospheric re-entry"!
And seem to have great trouble with Hohmann transfer orbit's.

Quote from: Heiwa
Any space exploration is IMHO best done by light weight robotic space crafts on one way trips. No need to send heavy, humans into space that require food and sanitary facilities, etc.
There are some things that humans on the spot can do that uncrewed missions cannot but in general I agree that "space exploration is best done by light weight robotic space crafts on one way trips".
 
That, however, is no reason to claim that crewed space flights are not possible nor that they never happened.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2019, 12:59:28 AM by rabinoz »

*

Bom Tishop

  • 10368
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10908 on: September 27, 2019, 08:20:55 PM »
I note there are 500 244 views of this little thread and ... nobody has collected my €1M . What is wrong? Are you stupid? Do you believe in US Presidents?

Heiwa, I get why you do the things you do now. You are legend.

Sorry I was so hard on you at one point.
Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II
but no, instead, here comes the amalgamation of Ned Flanders, Bono, Ross Geller, Tim Henman, John Snow and fucking Rick Grimes’s fucking one eyed son.

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 16947
  • "Umm, WTF ???"
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10909 on: September 27, 2019, 08:24:54 PM »
I note there are 500 244 views of this little thread and ... nobody has collected my €1M . What is wrong? Are you stupid? Do you believe in US Presidents?

Heiwa, I get why you do the things you do now. You are legend.

Sorry I was so hard on you at one point.

We are a small club, Bom.   ;)
RE can never win this argument.
FE can't be disproved.

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 4994
  • I abuse wise
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10910 on: September 28, 2019, 06:41:27 AM »
I note there are 500 244 views of this little thread and ... nobody has collected my €1M . What is wrong? Are you stupid? Do you believe in US Presidents?

Heiwa, I get why you do the things you do now. You are legend.

Sorry I was so hard on you at one point.

This isn't Angry Ranting.  Keep it clean nasty.

Heiwa is pure entertainment.  He is absolutely wrong and a trash conspiracy theorist, but entertaining as all hell.  Why would anyone want him to stop?  To keep the entertainment going, you engage him into ranting his trash. Do you not enjoy pointing and laughing at retarts?
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 16947
  • "Umm, WTF ???"
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10911 on: September 28, 2019, 06:49:11 AM »
Do you not enjoy pointing and laughing at retarts?

You should be careful calling for fingers to be pointed.
RE can never win this argument.
FE can't be disproved.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 10368
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10912 on: September 28, 2019, 06:53:43 PM »
I note there are 500 244 views of this little thread and ... nobody has collected my €1M . What is wrong? Are you stupid? Do you believe in US Presidents?

Heiwa, I get why you do the things you do now. You are legend.

Sorry I was so hard on you at one point.

This isn't Angry Ranting.  Keep it clean nasty.

Heiwa is pure entertainment.  He is absolutely wrong and a trash conspiracy theorist, but entertaining as all hell.  Why would anyone want him to stop?  To keep the entertainment going, you engage him into ranting his trash. Do you not enjoy pointing and laughing at retarts?

That was probably the cleanest post I have done all week.

One thing I have learned, heiwa is far from a retard.... He is a damn OG and a master at his craft.

Do you not enjoy pointing and laughing at retarts?

You should be careful calling for fingers to be pointed.
Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II
but no, instead, here comes the amalgamation of Ned Flanders, Bono, Ross Geller, Tim Henman, John Snow and fucking Rick Grimes’s fucking one eyed son.

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 16947
  • "Umm, WTF ???"
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10913 on: September 28, 2019, 07:58:19 PM »
Do you not enjoy pointing and laughing at retarts?

You should be careful calling for fingers to be pointed.

Is calling Toché apropos?
RE can never win this argument.
FE can't be disproved.

*

Heiwa

  • 7497
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10914 on: September 29, 2019, 03:52:23 AM »
Topic is to calculate the fuel required by spacecraft Apollo 11 for the Moon trip - see post #1.
That's already been done, first of all by NASA - ever heard of them?

Here is a detailed review of all that you didn't want to know about the Apollo missions, including details of actual fuel usage, some nice bedtime reading:
APOLLO BY THE NUMBERS - A Statistical Reference by Richard W. Orloff - SP-4029.pdf. It's a bit long at 344 pages.

If you disagree with the fuel usage please show your calculations for same.
Yes, I disagree with the NASA reports as described at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm which is the reason for the topic.
YOU ::) disagree with NASA! Is that meant to be a joke?
You can't even understand things like:
         "gravitational slingshot or unpowered gravity assist manoeuvre",
         "The Oberth effect or powered fly-by assist" or
         "atmospheric re-entry"!
And seem to have great trouble with Hohmann transfer orbit's.

Quote from: Heiwa
Any space exploration is IMHO best done by light weight robotic space crafts on one way trips. No need to send heavy, humans into space that require food and sanitary facilities, etc.
There are some things that humans on the spot can do that uncrewed missions cannot but in general I agree that "space exploration is best done by light weight robotic space crafts on one way trips".
 
That, however, is no reason to claim that crewed space flights are not possible nor that they never happened.
[/quote/

Hm, "gravitational slingshot or unpowered gravity assist manoeuvre", "the Oberth effect or powered fly-by assist" or          "atmospheric re-entry" are just typical NASA nonsense.

Hohmann transfer orbit's are maybe possible, but why would anyone do them?

Topics are how much fuel a human needs to fly to the Moon or Mars and why this idiot have to fly there. Much easier to use robots, etc.

And re-entry is always impossible. The Earth atmosphere is too shallow and thin to stop anything dropping down from space. 99.99% burns up within seconds and little debris touches gorund or water.

*

Heiwa

  • 7497
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10915 on: September 30, 2019, 02:22:14 AM »
Why cannot anyone win my €1M Challenge? See post #1. Are you all stupid?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38268
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10916 on: September 30, 2019, 06:27:17 AM »
Why cannot anyone win my €1M Challenge?
Why do you keep asking the same stupid question over and over again when it's already been answered over and over again?
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: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10917 on: September 30, 2019, 07:16:46 AM »
No one can collect if you wont pay up.

*

Heiwa

  • 7497
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10918 on: September 30, 2019, 08:08:43 AM »
No one can collect if you wont pay up.
I pay up when my Challenge (topic) is won. My full style is available and I visited my bank today to pay some other bills. I repeat - how much fuel to fly to the Moon? How to visit the toilet in space? And how to land on Earth again in front of this idiot POTUS Dick Nixon?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38268
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10919 on: September 30, 2019, 08:20:11 AM »
No one can collect if you wont pay up.
I pay up when my Challenge (topic) is won.
You've already said that your "challenge" can't be won, so why should anyone even bother?
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.