I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge

Quote from: Arith on April 02, 2015, 09:12:31 AM

If you took the time to look for yourself, you might actually find out - but you won't.
You'll blindly put up your challenge's synopsis for the 829384th time and throw some ad-hom in there and the cycle starts again.
You never listen. You nod with a blank stare then repeat what you've said over and over and over and over AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER like a broken record.

If you're too simple to be able to pull it apart and understand the simulator, just say so.

You unblocked him didn't you.

There is not a lot of activity on this thread right now, so let's start discussing why Heiwa thinks I didn't win his challenge even though I provided a simulator which fulfilled all challenge requirements.

How many times have you ignored the answers to the navigation questions you have posed?

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 03, 2015, 12:49:38 AM

There is not a lot of activity on this thread right now, so let's start discussing why Heiwa thinks I didn't win his challenge even though I provided a simulator which fulfilled all challenge requirements.

The simulator didn't produce the information required to win Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge. You could also just have copied/pasted the NASA info of its Apollo 11 trip available on the net but it does not produce the required information either. But no applications have been received as per rules, e.g. details!

Re the Apollo 11 trip I am still curious how the three persons on the space craft strapped themselves into their seats, when approaching the Moon straight from Earth at inceasing speed due to Moon gravity, and how they then decided what was up/down/right/left/forward/aft to know in what direction to fire the brake rocket engine except it was forward to slow down while they themselves were looking backwards. Had they then fired the rocket engine in any other direction, they would have missed the Moon and killed themselves. But no, they just slowed down while chatting with each other and suddenly they were orbiting the Moon. The course and speed had changed just like that. But how? You had to adjust the direction of brake force all the time while slowing down getting into orbit. What does your simulator say? Pls copy paste the details of your speed vector during braking. Also how much fuel was used?

The Trans lunar injection burn transfers the craft from Earth low orbit to an earth orbit with an apogee that allows the craft to pass in front of the leading edge of the moon. At the point the engine is fired again to slow the craft again. This reduces velocity and drops it into lunar orbit.

Quote from: Mainframes on April 03, 2015, 07:41:21 AM

The Trans lunar injection burn transfers the craft from Earth low orbit to an earth orbit with an apogee that allows the craft to pass in front of the leading edge of the moon. At the point the engine is fired again to slow the craft again. This reduces velocity and drops it into lunar orbit.

It is this last brake manoeuvre I am interested in - to drop into lunar orbit. The spacecraft has left Earth in direction, where the leading edge of the moon will be at the encounter a couple of days later. The Moon orbits Earth at a speed of abt 1 000 m/s. The speed of the space craft after leaving Earth and arriving Moon varies considerably from say 11 000 m/s to get away from Earth and say 600 m/s at the point where Earth's and Moon's gravity has equal effect and 2 400 m/s when arriving at the leading edge of the Moon and then increasing fast as the Moon pulls you towards its centre. To get into a stable orbit around the Moon you have to slow down to 1 500 m/s at exactly the right time and direction. If you brake too much you will continue to descend and must land at once. If you brake too little you will miss the Moon altogether and spin off into space and maybe return to Earth after an orbit around the Sun two years later. You also have to stay in the right plane - not veer off. NASA says you need 11 000 kg of fuel which you burn during six minutes to drop inte lunar orbit. It seems the brake force is constant so the deceleration will increase during the braking. Average deceleration may be 2.5 m/s² so you better be strapped in your seat. Everything loose inside the space craft will fly against the forward end of the space craft.

To win the Challenge you have to describe the space craft speed vector during the brake time, e.g. every second.
T
Reason why you do not land at once on the Moon Tin Tin Belgian 1953 style, i.e. you decrease the speed from 2 500 m/s to 0 at touch down is that this manoeuvre requires much too much fuel, which you cannot take with you from Earth, etc, etc. You get too heavy

According my calculations you will always run out of fuel regardless how you plan your manned space trip and as there is no way to fill up in space any manned trip is impossible. You cannot win my Challenge. This NASA 1969 Moon trip fantasy where you drop off parts of your space craft as you go along and only returns in a capsule with a heat shield dropping into the ocean is just a silly joke.

The velocity of the space craft would be described by an integral function with variables for initial velocity and mass and change in velocity and mass with time.

The window for lunar orbital burn has a reasonable margin of error as the orbit can be achieved with varying lengths of burn. However a good stable low orbit is what they are after and this is the aim.

How a space craft navigates is it has devices which keep track of 3 points which I'm the case of Apolli were probobaly the Earth, the Moon, and star and because the motion of these objects is so easy to predict it triangulates it's position and to figure out it's velocity it simply figures out it's position twice and divides it's change in position by the amount of time between the two position checks.

Windows of error are allowed because they were a part of how space travel an orbital insertions work. The orbit can then be corrected by further burns.

No windows of error are allowed in 3-D space navigation. If you, to brake, to slow down, want to change direction to drop into a Moon orbit, etc, fire your rocket engine at the wrong time and location, in the wrong direction with the wrong power and too short or long, you end up in the wrong location and do not drop into Moon orbit. You drop somewhere else = end of voyage.
To win my Challenge you really have to navigate 100%. It is difficult to say the least.

Quote from: Mainframes on April 03, 2015, 12:38:26 PM

Windows of error are allowed because they were a part of how space travel an orbital insertions work. The orbit can then be corrected by further burns.

No windows of error are allowed in 3-D space navigation. If you, to brake, to slow down, want to change direction to drop into a Moon orbit, etc, fire your rocket engine at the wrong time and location, in the wrong direction with the wrong power and too short or long, you end up in the wrong location and do not drop into Moon orbit. You drop somewhere else = end of voyage.
To win my Challenge you really have to navigate 100%. It is difficult to say the least.

I am amazed that nobody from NASA, ESA or the Russian and Japanese space agencies have caught on to win my Challenge. Any ideas?

Quote from: Heiwa on April 03, 2015, 11:42:10 AM

I am amazed that nobody from NASA, ESA or the Russian and Japanese space agencies have caught on to win my Challenge. Any ideas?

Partly because they don't know who you are.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 03, 2015, 10:58:52 PM

Quote from: Mainframes on April 03, 2015, 12:38:26 PM

Windows of error are allowed because they were a part of how space travel an orbital insertions work. The orbit can then be corrected by further burns.

No windows of error are allowed in 3-D space navigation. If you, to brake, to slow down, want to change direction to drop into a Moon orbit, etc, fire your rocket engine at the wrong time and location, in the wrong direction with the wrong power and too short or long, you end up in the wrong location and do not drop into Moon orbit. You drop somewhere else = end of voyage.
To win my Challenge you really have to navigate 100%. It is difficult to say the least.

I take it you don't know how the Apollo Trans lunar injections worked. The orbital mechanics of the Trans lunar injections were set so that even if no burn was used to enter lunar orbit, the Apollo spacecraft would swing behind the moon and return to Earth, this is called a free return trajectory.

The burn at the moon simply slows the craft down and enables lunar orbit.

Quote from: Mainframes on April 04, 2015, 11:17:02 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 03, 2015, 10:58:52 PM

Quote from: Mainframes on April 03, 2015, 12:38:26 PM

Windows of error are allowed because they were a part of how space travel an orbital insertions work. The orbit can then be corrected by further burns.

No windows of error are allowed in 3-D space navigation. If you, to brake, to slow down, want to change direction to drop into a Moon orbit, etc, fire your rocket engine at the wrong time and location, in the wrong direction with the wrong power and too short or long, you end up in the wrong location and do not drop into Moon orbit. You drop somewhere else = end of voyage.
To win my Challenge you really have to navigate 100%. It is difficult to say the least.

I take it you don't know how the Apollo Trans lunar injections worked. The orbital mechanics of the Trans lunar injections were set so that even if no burn was used to enter lunar orbit, the Apollo spacecraft would swing behind the moon and return to Earth, this is called a free return trajectory.

The burn at the moon simply slows the craft down and enables lunar orbit.

Exactly. In order to win Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge (topic) to, e.g. land on the Moon you have to explain how you do it (a trans lunar injection) ... and that it is feasible.

Try also to explain the free return trajectory, i.e. your space ship approaches a moving planet/moon and swings around it without landing, crashing or stopping in orbit and then leaves the moving planet/moon, if it is part of your space trip. I can assure you a free return trajectory is just another NASA fantasy so far.

Exactly. In order to win Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge (topic) to, e.g. land on the Moon you have to explain how you do it (a trans lunar injection) ... and that it is feasible.

Try also to explain the free return trajectory, i.e. your space ship approaches a moving planet/moon and swings around it without landing, crashing or stopping in orbit and then leaves the moving planet/moon, if it is part of your space trip. I can assure you a free return trajectory is just another NASA fantasy so far.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 05, 2015, 11:20:14 AM

Exactly. In order to win Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge (topic) to, e.g. land on the Moon you have to explain how you do it (a trans lunar injection) ... and that it is feasible.

It's definitely possible in Orbiter and Orbiter wasn't even created by NASA, it was created and is currently developed by Martin Schwager as a hobby and he doesn't even make any money off of it.  Is he in on the conspiracy too?

Quote from: Heiwa on April 05, 2015, 11:20:14 AM

Try also to explain the free return trajectory, i.e. your space ship approaches a moving planet/moon and swings around it without landing, crashing or stopping in orbit and then leaves the moving planet/moon, if it is part of your space trip. I can assure you a free return trajectory is just another NASA fantasy so far.

A free return trajectory is basically a gravity assist which would put you on a course back to Earth if you were to go through with it.

Heiwa, please drop the goal posts and keep them in one place.  Just come up with a list of things you want me to explain and don't add more things to it once I am done.  Once you have such a list I will hold you to it, so please get some integrity and play fair.

Anders,
And here are 2 videos showing the testing of ablative materials.
#noexternalembed" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Experimental Ablation Cooling
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">#ws

Quote from: markjo on April 08, 2015, 06:29:53 AM

Anders,
And here are 2 videos showing the testing of ablative materials.
#noexternalembed" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Experimental Ablation Cooling
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">#ws

LOL. Do you suggest NASA tested the Apollo 11 heat shield like that 1968? The shield is supposed to ablate at speed starting at say 8000 m/s, etc.

This shield or what ever did not ablate being heated by a torch and vented by a little fan. What a JOKE!

Did you learn anything about how atmospheric reentry is planned?

Quote from: markjo on April 08, 2015, 01:00:22 PM

Did you learn anything about how atmospheric reentry is planned?

I use since many years the NASA info to explain why re-entries are not possible. See section 1.11 in  http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#EV17 .

1.12 Braking using a heat shield

The only means to brake the Apollo CM, mass 5 486 kg (12 095 lb), to low speed before parachute deployment was now the the drag force of the heat shield friction and module turbulence in the atmosphere around it.

How it worked nobody really knows in spite of numerous scientific papers about the problem! According basic calculations the heat shield and surroundings would heat up >70.000° C due friction and burn up or break up - like the Service Module!

Where did you get > 70,000^oC from?

And again - the heating IS NOT CAUSED BY FRICTION. The compression of air in front of the heat shield causes the heat increase.