I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge

No, anything orbiting Earth is not orbiting the Sun.
The Moon does not orbit the Sun, it orbits Earth.
To win my Challenge, please learn basic astronautics!

The moon's orbit around the sun looks something like this:

Quote from: Heiwa on February 13, 2020, 04:42:10 AM

No, anything orbiting Earth is not orbiting the Sun.
The Moon does not orbit the Sun, it orbits Earth.
To win my Challenge, please learn basic astronautics!

The moon's orbit around the sun looks something like this:

Hm, so also I orbit the Sun as a real NASA asstronut?
But no. I orbit nothing, the Moon orbits planet Earth and planet Earth orbits the Sun. I just arrange Challenges (topic) to encourage people to think.

Hm, so also I orbit the Sun as a real NASA asstronut?
But no. I orbit nothing, the Moon orbits planet Earth and planet Earth orbits the Sun. I just arrange Challenges (topic) to encourage people to think.

Say something that shows the lack to apply thought.
Asks people to think.

Hm, so also I orbit the Sun as a real NASA asstronut?

It all depends on your frame of refence.

I just arrange Challenges (topic) to encourage people to think.

Yes, many have thought about you and your "challenges" and have come to the conclusion that you're a troll.

Quote from: Heiwa on February 13, 2020, 10:07:09 AM

Hm, so also I orbit the Sun as a real NASA asstronut?

It all depends on your frame of refence.

Quote from: Heiwa on February 13, 2020, 10:07:09 AM

I just arrange Challenges (topic) to encourage people to think.

Yes, many have thought about you and your "challenges" and have come to the conclusion that you're a troll.

Thanks. But they are all idiots ... like you. Losers of topic!

Hm, so also I orbit the Sun as a real NASA asstronut?

You can call yourself any sort of a "nut" you like, even an "asstronut" since you seem to have coined the word.

But at present, to qualify as a astronaut you must have:

• travelled beyond the Kármán line, definition of the boundary of "space" accepted by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) and
• landed back on Earth in a spacecraft - though some who "baled out" have been recognised.

So, Heiwa, you'll just have to be satisfied with being an "asstronut" .

Quote from: markjo on February 13, 2020, 11:12:34 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 13, 2020, 10:07:09 AM

Hm, so also I orbit the Sun as a real NASA asstronut?

It all depends on your frame of refence.

Quote from: Heiwa on February 13, 2020, 10:07:09 AM

I just arrange Challenges (topic) to encourage people to think.

Yes, many have thought about you and your "challenges" and have come to the conclusion that you're a troll.

Thanks. But they are all idiots ... like you. Losers of topic!

You claim that manned space travel is impossible despite hundreds of people having been to space and you call us idiots?

Quote from: Heiwa on February 13, 2020, 12:33:01 PM

Quote from: markjo on February 13, 2020, 11:12:34 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 13, 2020, 10:07:09 AM

Hm, so also I orbit the Sun as a real NASA asstronut?

It all depends on your frame of refence.

Quote from: Heiwa on February 13, 2020, 10:07:09 AM

I just arrange Challenges (topic) to encourage people to think.

Yes, many have thought about you and your "challenges" and have come to the conclusion that you're a troll.

Thanks. But they are all idiots ... like you. Losers of topic!

You claim that manned space travel is impossible despite hundreds of people having been to space and you call us idiots?

Yes, idiots believe some hundred liars saying they have been in space. Can't you see that they are lying?

Quote from: Heiwa on February 13, 2020, 10:07:09 AM

Hm, so also I orbit the Sun as a real NASA asstronut?

You can call yourself any sort of a "nut" you like, even an "asstronut" since you seem to have coined the word.

But at present, to qualify as a astronaut you must have:

• travelled beyond the Kármán line, definition of the boundary of "space" accepted by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) and
• landed back on Earth in a spacecraft - though some who "baled out" have been recognised.

So, Heiwa, you'll just have to be satisfied with being an "asstronut" .

Well, it is not possible to travel beyond the Kàrmàn line and return/land on Earth. Only 100's of asstronuts lye about it.

Yes, idiots believe some hundred liars saying they have been in space. Can't you see that they are lying?

You're the idiot if you think that so many people could such a big secret for so many years.

Quote from: markjo on February 13, 2020, 01:20:33 PM

You claim that manned space travel is impossible despite hundreds of people having been to space and you call us idiots?

Yes, idiots believe some hundred liars saying they have been in space. Can't you see that they are lying?

No, but I can easily see that you can't understand any of it so you just deny it's possible!

But where does your "some hundred" come from - dreamed up in that demented brain of yours?

Some 564 astronauts have reached orbit and Joseph A. Walker the pilot X-15 Flight 90 who reached 106.01 kilometres on July 19, 1963 followed by other X-15 flights over 100 km.

But where does your "some hundred" come from - dreamed up in that demented brain of yours?

He's just proving AGAIN the only thing he's been able to prove. That he is incapable of basic research.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 13, 2020, 03:16:55 PM

But where does your "some hundred" come from - dreamed up in that demented brain of yours?

He's just proving AGAIN the only thing he's been able to prove. That he is incapable of basic research.

Well, topic - the Challenge - is only to describe a short space trip in the Universe from Earth to the Moon or Mars and back, fuel required and purpose of it.
Evidently some basic research is needed, e.g. to find out what the Universe really is - http://heiwaco.com/NPD.htm

Quote from: frenat on February 13, 2020, 03:39:32 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 13, 2020, 03:16:55 PM

But where does your "some hundred" come from - dreamed up in that demented brain of yours?

He's just proving AGAIN the only thing he's been able to prove. That he is incapable of basic research.

Well, topic - the Challenge - is only to describe a short space trip in the Universe from Earth to the Moon and fuel required and purpose of it.

As you've been told dozens of times there is far more detail of that to be found on the various NASA websites if you bothered to look.

Not only that but they have not only the details of the plans and designs but the reports of how close the actual missions conformed to the designs.

You've already been shown details of the propellant used at each stage of every Apollo mission but you ignored that.

So stop your silly time-wasting trolling.

If you won't believe the experts, NASA, you won't believe anybody! So forget your fake challenges!

Evidently some basic research is needed, e.g. to find out what the Universe really is -
<< irrelevant! >>

And what relevance might things millions of parsecs from Earth have to do with a mission to the Moon or to Mars?

Topic is something about space.

So I listened to a podcast with Robert Zubrin yesterday, and what he said about SpaceX's Mars ambitions.
https://www.thespaceshow.com/show/11-feb-2020/broadcast-3459-dr.-robert-zubrin
Its quite long.

But what he says was quite interesting.

SpaceX plans to build a butt load of Starships in the coming years.
The pessimistic view could be as many as 1 a week, maybe 1 a month at the very low end.
Launch cost of a few $'s a kg. This could all happen within the next few years.
This could change everything in how we see space travel, not just for frequency of flights, but cost of flights.

Amazing things can start to happen.
We could literally crowdfund enough money together to launch all the Flat Earthers into the sun.

Quote from: Heiwa on February 13, 2020, 02:27:17 PM

Yes, idiots believe some hundred liars saying they have been in space. Can't you see that they are lying?

You're the idiot if you think that so many people could such a big secret for so many years.

Well, KIS, they just lye about it.

Quote from: Heiwa on February 13, 2020, 09:15:54 PM

Quote from: frenat on February 13, 2020, 03:39:32 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 13, 2020, 03:16:55 PM

But where does your "some hundred" come from - dreamed up in that demented brain of yours?

He's just proving AGAIN the only thing he's been able to prove. That he is incapable of basic research.

Well, topic - the Challenge - is only to describe a short space trip in the Universe from Earth to the Moon and fuel required and purpose of it.

As you've been told dozens of times there is far more detail of that to be found on the various NASA websites if you bothered to look.

Not only that but they have not only the details of the plans and designs but the reports of how close the actual missions conformed to the designs.

You've already been shown details of the propellant used at each stage of every Apollo mission but you ignored that.

So stop your silly time-wasting trolling.

If you won't believe the experts, NASA, you won't believe anybody! So forget your fake challenges!

Quote from: Heiwa

Evidently some basic research is needed, e.g. to find out what the Universe really is -
<< irrelevant! >>

And what relevance might things millions of parsecs from Earth have to do with a mission to the Moon or to Mars?

Please! Topic is my Challenge. Please, don't tell me to win it myself by checking NASA nonsense.

Topic is something about space.

So I listened to a podcast with Robert Zubrin yesterday, and what he said about SpaceX's Mars ambitions.
https://www.thespaceshow.com/show/11-feb-2020/broadcast-3459-dr.-robert-zubrin
Its quite long.

But what he says was quite interesting.

SpaceX plans to build a butt load of Starships in the coming years.
The pessimistic view could be as many as 1 a week, maybe 1 a month at the very low end.
Launch cost of a few $'s a kg. This could all happen within the next few years.
This could change everything in how we see space travel, not just for frequency of flights, but cost of flights.

Amazing things can start to happen.
We could literally crowdfund enough money together to launch all the Flat Earthers into the sun.

LOL Elon Musk cant even fulfill the orders of the Tesla cars to meet demand

Then there is the fact that the company is probably going to fail soon. The losses are not sustainable
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimcollins/2019/08/21/tesla-has-failed-massively-as-a-public-company/#7c402b01dc22

That 'Boring' company of his is a joke too. It's literally all talk. Then there is is hyperloop dream which is basically just a toy of his and will in no way revolutionize transportation to the masses

Elon is all talk and very little walk. If he says Space-X is doing great and is pumping out all sorts of cool ideas, you can bet it's doing shit and that 'ideas' is where they will forever stay at

That 'Boring' company of his is a joke too. It's literally all talk. Then there is is hyperloop dream which is basically just a toy of his and will in no way revolutionize transportation to the masses

MONORAIL . . . 

Oh my goodness, this thread is still going.

Please! Topic is my Challenge. Please, don't tell me to win it myself by checking NASA nonsense.

Someone could learn far more from NASA than from your load of crap.

Please give some solid evidence that what NASA describes is nonsense!

If you won't believe the experts, NASA, you won't believe anybody! So forget your fake challenges!

I was silly enough to read the crap you wrote on atmospheric reentry and found this bit:

To adjust reentry speed at around 8 000 m/s velocity only from EPO costs plenty fuel. Say that your Shuttle arrives at 8.050 m/s speed with kinetic energy 32.401.250 J/kg, but that it should arrive at 7 950 m/s speed and kinetic energy 31.601.250 J/kg to succeed the complete reentry. The difference in kinetic energy is then 800 000 J/kg.

I haven't a clue what you mean by "To adjust reentry speed at around 8 000 m/s velocity only from EPO costs plenty fuel".

But the secret of a successful reentry is to make sure that most of the kinetic energy of the spacecraft is transferred to the atmosphere and does not heat the craft more than necessary. Since the spacecraft are travelling at hypersonic speeds before reentry knowledge of the behaviour high-temperature hypersonic gas flow is essential.

The Wikipedia entry isn't bad as an introduction, have a look at Atmospheric entry.
From that, a craft with a blunt nose shaped like part of a sphere is seen to be effective and can provide some lift and controllability during reentry.
The blunt nose keeps the shock wave well away from the craft greatly reducing that heat transfer - this compares a few shapes:

"These four shadowgraph images represent early re-entry vehicle concepts. A shadowgraph is a process that makes visible the disturbances that occur in a fluid flow at high velocity, in which light passing through a flowing fluid is refracted by the density gradients in the fluid resulting in bright and dark areas on a screen placed behind the fluid.
H. Julian Allen pioneered and developed the Blunt Body Theory which made possible the heat shield designs that were embodied in the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo space capsules, enabling astronauts to survive the firey re-entry into Earth's atmosphere.
A blunt body produces a shockwave in front of the vehicle--visible in the photo--that actually shields the vehicle from excessive heating. As a result, blunt body vehicles can stay cooler than pointy, low drag vehicles."

Quote from: frenat on February 13, 2020, 03:39:32 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 13, 2020, 03:16:55 PM

But where does your "some hundred" come from - dreamed up in that demented brain of yours?

He's just proving AGAIN the only thing he's been able to prove. That he is incapable of basic research.

Well, topic - the Challenge - is only to describe a short space trip in the Universe from Earth to the Moon or Mars and back, fuel required and purpose of it.
Evidently some basic research is needed, e.g. to find out what the Universe really is - http://heiwaco.com/NPD.htm

Nobody cares what you think the topic is. The real topic is your inability to research anything and your Dunning Kruger.

Oh my goodness, this thread is still going.

Heiwa will disagree.

Quote from: Heiwa on February 14, 2020, 03:50:11 AM

Please! Topic is my Challenge. Please, don't tell me to win it myself by checking NASA nonsense.

Someone could learn far more from NASA than from your load of crap.

Please give some solid evidence that what NASA describes is nonsense!

If you won't believe the experts, NASA, you won't believe anybody! So forget your fake challenges!

I was silly enough to read the crap you wrote on atmospheric reentry and found this bit:

Quote

To adjust reentry speed at around 8 000 m/s velocity only from EPO costs plenty fuel. Say that your Shuttle arrives at 8.050 m/s speed with kinetic energy 32.401.250 J/kg, but that it should arrive at 7 950 m/s speed and kinetic energy 31.601.250 J/kg to succeed the complete reentry. The difference in kinetic energy is then 800 000 J/kg.

I haven't a clue what you mean by "To adjust reentry speed at around 8 000 m/s velocity only from EPO costs plenty fuel".

But the secret of a successful reentry is to make sure that most of the kinetic energy of the spacecraft is transferred to the atmosphere and does not heat the craft more than necessary. Since the spacecraft are travelling at hypersonic speeds before reentry knowledge of the behaviour high-temperature hypersonic gas flow is essential.

The Wikipedia entry isn't bad as an introduction, have a look at Atmospheric entry.
From that, a craft with a blunt nose shaped like part of a sphere is seen to be effective and can provide some lift and controllability during reentry.
The blunt nose keeps the shock wave well away from the craft greatly reducing that heat transfer - this compares a few shapes:

"These four shadowgraph images represent early re-entry vehicle concepts. A shadowgraph is a process that makes visible the disturbances that occur in a fluid flow at high velocity, in which light passing through a flowing fluid is refracted by the density gradients in the fluid resulting in bright and dark areas on a screen placed behind the fluid.
H. Julian Allen pioneered and developed the Blunt Body Theory which made possible the heat shield designs that were embodied in the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo space capsules, enabling astronauts to survive the firey re-entry into Earth's atmosphere.
A blunt body produces a shockwave in front of the vehicle--visible in the photo--that actually shields the vehicle from excessive heating. As a result, blunt body vehicles can stay cooler than pointy, low drag vehicles."

There is no evidence that a blunt body produces a shock wave in front of the vehicle, etc. All scientific tests in wind tunnels, etc, show that the blunt body is destroyed by excessive pressure and temperature. It is one reason why nobody wins my Challenge and why the intercontinental missiles of North Korea baby Kim dictator and POTUS Trump do not work at all = they are just pure propaganda.

There is no evidence that a blunt body produces a shock wave in front of the vehicle, etc.

Except for all scientific tests in wind tunnels, etc, that do show that the blunt body produces a shock wave in front of the vehicle.

The photos in my post show exactly that!

All scientific tests in wind tunnels, etc, show that the blunt body is destroyed by excessive pressure and temperature.

Your unsupported words are meaningless without evidence!
Please show evidence that ANY "scientific tests in wind tunnels, etc, show that the blunt body is destroyed by excessive pressure and temperature."
Then you need to show credible evidence that ALL "scientific tests in wind tunnels, etc, show that the blunt body is destroyed by excessive pressure and temperature."

Besides, hundreds of reentries using blunt body profiles have been carried out quite successfully.

Do a little introductory reading with: Returning from Space: Re-entry 4.1.7

Then read and debunk this if you can: BRIEF DISCUSSION ABOUT REENTRY VEHICLES

And this: SP-4209 The Partnership: A History of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, Reentry Vehicles: Spheres vs. Blunt Bodies

Then modelling for the Space Shuttle: Exploration of shock formation for a reentering space shuttle: Final Report

Should we keep count? So far you've proven that you nothing about:
The detonation of nuclear explosions.
Orbital Mechanics and transfer orbits.
Atmospheric reentry.
What's next.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 14, 2020, 04:51:17 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 14, 2020, 03:50:11 AM

Please! Topic is my Challenge. Please, don't tell me to win it myself by checking NASA nonsense.

Someone could learn far more from NASA than from your load of crap.

Please give some solid evidence that what NASA describes is nonsense!

If you won't believe the experts, NASA, you won't believe anybody! So forget your fake challenges!

I was silly enough to read the crap you wrote on atmospheric reentry and found this bit:

Quote

To adjust reentry speed at around 8 000 m/s velocity only from EPO costs plenty fuel. Say that your Shuttle arrives at 8.050 m/s speed with kinetic energy 32.401.250 J/kg, but that it should arrive at 7 950 m/s speed and kinetic energy 31.601.250 J/kg to succeed the complete reentry. The difference in kinetic energy is then 800 000 J/kg.

I haven't a clue what you mean by "To adjust reentry speed at around 8 000 m/s velocity only from EPO costs plenty fuel".

But the secret of a successful reentry is to make sure that most of the kinetic energy of the spacecraft is transferred to the atmosphere and does not heat the craft more than necessary. Since the spacecraft are travelling at hypersonic speeds before reentry knowledge of the behaviour high-temperature hypersonic gas flow is essential.

The Wikipedia entry isn't bad as an introduction, have a look at Atmospheric entry.
From that, a craft with a blunt nose shaped like part of a sphere is seen to be effective and can provide some lift and controllability during reentry.
The blunt nose keeps the shock wave well away from the craft greatly reducing that heat transfer - this compares a few shapes:

"These four shadowgraph images represent early re-entry vehicle concepts. A shadowgraph is a process that makes visible the disturbances that occur in a fluid flow at high velocity, in which light passing through a flowing fluid is refracted by the density gradients in the fluid resulting in bright and dark areas on a screen placed behind the fluid.
H. Julian Allen pioneered and developed the Blunt Body Theory which made possible the heat shield designs that were embodied in the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo space capsules, enabling astronauts to survive the firey re-entry into Earth's atmosphere.
A blunt body produces a shockwave in front of the vehicle--visible in the photo--that actually shields the vehicle from excessive heating. As a result, blunt body vehicles can stay cooler than pointy, low drag vehicles."

There is no evidence that a blunt body produces a shock wave in front of the vehicle, etc. All scientific tests in wind tunnels, etc, show that the blunt body is destroyed by excessive pressure and temperature. It is one reason why nobody wins my Challenge and why the intercontinental missiles of North Korea baby Kim dictator and POTUS Trump do not work at all = they are just pure propaganda.

Hilarious that in response you state there is no evidence to a post that provides evidence. Indicative of how you run your contest:

"There is no evidence for X even though there is evidence for X..." You're a silly man. 

Quote from: Heiwa on February 14, 2020, 08:41:42 PM

There is no evidence that a blunt body produces a shock wave in front of the vehicle, etc.

Except for all scientific tests in wind tunnels, etc, that do show that the blunt body produces a shock wave in front of the vehicle.

Yes, a blunt body changes the flow in front of it but increase the velocity and the density of the gas that contacts the blunt nose, the blunt nose is suddenly destroyed.
Any wind tunnel will confirm this basic experiment.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 14, 2020, 09:51:42 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 14, 2020, 08:41:42 PM

There is no evidence that a blunt body produces a shock wave in front of the vehicle, etc.

Except for all scientific tests in wind tunnels, etc, that do show that the blunt body produces a shock wave in front of the vehicle.

Yes, a blunt body changes the flow in front of it but increase the velocity and the density of the gas that contacts the blunt nose, the blunt nose is suddenly destroyed.

Rubbish! Go and learn above hypersonic gas flow.
The blunt nose does not "increase the velocity . . . of the gas that contacts the blunt nose"!
Where did you get that notion from?
The blunt nose result in the shock wave being well away from the surface with a stagnation region in between.

Here's some entertainment for you:

Heat Shields - Things Kerbal Space Program Doesn't Teach by Scott Manley

Any wind tunnel will confirm this basic experiment.

Nothing but useless empty words without evidence.
Don't bother posting any more crap till you have something to back up your claims!

Here read this again!
Atmospheric entry.
From that, a craft with a blunt nose shaped like part of a sphere is seen to be effective and can provide some lift and controllability during reentry.
The blunt nose keeps the shock wave well away from the craft greatly reducing that heat transfer - this compares a few shapes:

"These four shadowgraph images represent early re-entry vehicle concepts. A shadowgraph is a process that makes visible the disturbances that occur in a fluid flow at high velocity, in which light passing through a flowing fluid is refracted by the density gradients in the fluid resulting in bright and dark areas on a screen placed behind the fluid.
H. Julian Allen pioneered and developed the Blunt Body Theory which made possible the heat shield designs that were embodied in the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo space capsules, enabling astronauts to survive the firey re-entry into Earth's atmosphere.
A blunt body produces a shockwave in front of the vehicle--visible in the photo--that actually shields the vehicle from excessive heating. As a result, blunt body vehicles can stay cooler than pointy, low drag vehicles."

Quote from: Heiwa on February 15, 2020, 02:27:55 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 14, 2020, 09:51:42 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 14, 2020, 08:41:42 PM

There is no evidence that a blunt body produces a shock wave in front of the vehicle, etc.

Except for all scientific tests in wind tunnels, etc, that do show that the blunt body produces a shock wave in front of the vehicle.

Yes, a blunt body changes the flow in front of it but increase the velocity and the density of the gas that contacts the blunt nose, the blunt nose is suddenly destroyed.

Rubbish! Go and learn above hypersonic gas flow.
The blunt nose does not "increase the velocity . . . of the gas that contacts the blunt nose"!
Where did you get that notion from?
The blunt nose result in the shock wave being well away from the surface with a stagnation region in between.

You have to read what I say.
At low velocities say 100 m/s a blunt nose deflects the air it encounters and there is no shock wave. The relative velocity nose/air at the nose 0 but the pressure is quite high.
But increase the velocity to say 1 000 m/s, there is still no shock wave and the pressure on the nose increses a lot and ... the nose is deformed and destroyed.
Easy to verify in any wind tunnel, if you can find one producing that wind speed. There is none in the USA but Russia has a secret one somewhere built in the 1950's, if you believe old communist propaganda

At low velocities say 100 m/s a blunt nose deflects the air it encounters and there is no shock wave. The relative velocity nose/air at the nose 0 but the pressure is quite high.
But increase the velocity to say 1 000 m/s, there is still no shock wave and the pressure on the nose increses a lot and ... the nose is deformed and destroyed.
Easy to verify in any wind tunnel, if you can find one producing that wind speed. There is none in the USA but Russia has a secret one somewhere built in the 1950's, if you believe old communist propaganda

More lies from Heiwa. Or just more proof of his inability to research.

Multiple transonic, supersonic, and hypersonic wind tunnels in the US listed here. 
This one has been in operation for over 65 years.
Here is a US company that sells supersonic wind tunnels.

Why should ANYONE believe anything you say when it is clear you are incapable of researching even the most basic of concepts?