I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge

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 .

In other words, no.  Seriously Anders, why do you keep asking for us to explain why you're wrong about stuff like reentry if you're just going to willfully ignore those explanations?

I quote from the rules:

The Anders Bjφrkman Challenge 2 is first to calculate using first principles the amount of fuel (or energy) required to complete a manned Moon and/or planet Mars return trip after being ejected into space from Earth towards the Moon and/or planet Mars by external rockets, second to describe the space ship incl. its masses before/after the various manoeuvers of the trip, any heat shield(s), if fitted, the engines and fuel tanks that can carry the amount of fuel using 1960 or 2015 technology, the accommodation and gear for the persons aboard and finally/third to show that it is actually feasible to do the trip. Please do not present dreams and fantasies.

If you intend to use a heat shield to land, suggest you demonstrate that a 25-50 mm fiberglass honeycomb filled with resin on a thin titanium plate really works (and doesn't burn up after a short time).

Good luck!

I have already explained this reentry stuff in the thread about Orion.  Here is what I put there:

Heiwa, to prove that reentry is possible and demonstrate the mechanics of it I would like you to preform and consider the following experiment:

Take a piece of metal (or just about anything really) and heat it up in a fire until it's glowing red.  Take it out of the fire and note how long it takes to cool off with only air surrounding it.  This is because air is a great insulator.  Now heat up the piece of metal again if necessary and submerge it in water.  The water will boil around the piece of metal and within seconds it will be cool enough to touch.  The metal conducted it's heat away so quickly because water is a great conductor and another thing worth noting is that when the water boiled the vapor carried the heat away with it simelarly to how pieces melt off heat shields to carry heat away.  That's a very effective way of cooling things.

Quote from: Mainframes on April 09, 2015, 04:41:29 AM

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.

If you study section 1.17 in the link above - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#EV17 - you will see, if you can read that:

The unit kinetic energy (J/kg) at 11 031 m/s is 60.84 MJ/kg! It is a lot! It - the energy of one kilogram moving at 11 031 m/s - is sufficient to raise temperature of 1 kg concrete (C = 880 J/kg°C) 69 138°C.

As concrete can absorb more heat than a resin , it seems resin is not a god cover of a heat shield.

The het capacity of the Orion ablative Heat shield is 1,380 J/kg•C. You are also assuming 100% efficient heat transfer for some idiotic reason.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 07, 2015, 10:02:23 PM

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.

I quote from the rules:

The Anders Bjφrkman Challenge 2 is first to calculate using first principles the amount of fuel (or energy) required to complete a manned Moon and/or planet Mars return trip after being ejected into space from Earth towards the Moon and/or planet Mars by external rockets, second to describe the space ship incl. its masses before/after the various manoeuvers of the trip, any heat shield(s), if fitted, the engines and fuel tanks that can carry the amount of fuel using 1960 or 2015 technology, the accommodation and gear for the persons aboard and finally/third to show that it is actually feasible to do the trip. Please do not present dreams and fantasies.

If you intend to use a heat shield to land, suggest you demonstrate that a 25-50 mm fiberglass honeycomb filled with resin on a thin titanium plate really works (and doesn't burn up after a short time).

Good luck!

You realize how vague that list is, right? We're asking for actual, clear, explicit details. For example, you keep adding more and more to " the accommodation and gear for the persons aboard."
Further, "to show that it is actually feasible to do the trip," is an impossible goal for the simple fact you don't accept any explanations, or admit when you're proven wrong. Is it possible to make you realize you have made several mistakes?
From what I've seen your entire history is just making an error, refusing to admit it, and deciding everyone else must be wrong or in on some paranoid conspiracy. If you're the person that needs to be convinced, it's impossible, because you've made up your mind and I suspect even if NASA offered you a ticket to the moon you'd still believe space travel's impossible.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 09, 2015, 04:49:07 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on April 09, 2015, 04:41:29 AM

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.

If you study section 1.17 in the link above - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#EV17 - you will see, if you can read that:

The unit kinetic energy (J/kg) at 11 031 m/s is 60.84 MJ/kg! It is a lot! It - the energy of one kilogram moving at 11 031 m/s - is sufficient to raise temperature of 1 kg concrete (C = 880 J/kg°C) 69 138°C.

As concrete can absorb more heat than a resin , it seems resin is not a god cover of a heat shield.

The het capacity of the Orion ablative Heat shield is 1,380 J/kg•C. You are also assuming 100% efficient heat transfer for some idiotic reason.

It doesn't make much difference, though. BTW where did you find the heat capacity C of this resin/fiber glass structure.

I use concrete as comparison as concrete hardly burns when heated. I have a feeling that the resin/fiber glass composition will start to melt and to burn at a certain temperature. The fiber glass will evaporate pretty soon and then the whole structure is unstable. Or the resin will simply blow away at 10 000 m/s velocity.

I have a feeling

That's obviously a firm basis on which to rest a number of grand, world-changing scientific claims.

It doesn't make much difference, though. BTW where did you find the heat capacity C of this resin/fiber glass structure.

I use concrete as comparison as concrete hardly burns when heated. I have a feeling that the resin/fiber glass composition will start to melt and to burn at a certain temperature. The fiber glass will evaporate pretty soon and then the whole structure is unstable. Or the resin will simply blow away at 10 000 m/s velocity.

Yeah, Ot's supposed to melt.  It's abrasive shielding.  Also, although the air is really hot it hardly transfers any heat to the heat shield because air is a good insulator.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 09, 2015, 08:20:23 AM

I have a feeling

That's obviously a firm basis on which to rest a number of grand, world-changing scientific claims.

Actually NASA, SpaceX and JPL had earlier told me (when I wrote my popular space travel web pages) that their PICA heat shields were top secret, copy right and patented material and I had to trust them that heat shields work and it was only last week I found out that all heat shields since 1960 are just a fiber glass honeycomb structure filled with some fluid, two component resin that then solidifies. The stuff you use to repair buckles on cars, etc.
I will evidently study the matter further. At the moment I just feel that a fiber glass honeycomb is not the right stuff to keep the resin in place on a heat shield of any space craft.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 09, 2015, 08:20:23 AM

I have a feeling

That's obviously a firm basis on which to rest a number of grand, world-changing scientific claims.

Jane, you're better than this. Why engage him?

Yeah, Ot's supposed to melt.  It's abrasive shielding.  Also, although the air is really hot it hardly transfers any heat to the heat shield because air is a good insulator.

Come on, NASA has told us that the heat shield really heats up at re-entry (3 300°C ?), the Apollo 11 astronuts have testified they saw melted material from the heat shield fly by their little window in the capsule at re-entry (say at 5000 m/s speed), etc, etc
That's how an ablative heat shields work. The thin, low density air rubs and grinds off the heat shield resin one way or another - friction? - and the space craft slows down. The air works as an abrasive substance to peel off layers of the resin of the heat shield. Magic. Only brainwashed twerps believe such nonsense.
I suggest we go back to topic - has anybody won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge?

The thin, low density air rubs and grinds off the heat shield resin one way or another - friction? - and the space craft slows down. The air works as an abrasive substance to peel off layers of the resin of the heat shield. Magic.

It's quite impressive how you explain how something works, and then dismss it as magic without giving any reason to reject it as impossible. From your bolding and question marks, it seems you're of the opinion air resistance does not exist.

I suggest we go back to topic - has anybody won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge?

No, because you refuse to accept being wrong on any count, even minor ones.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 09, 2015, 08:44:30 AM

The thin, low density air rubs and grinds off the heat shield resin one way or another - friction? - and the space craft slows down. The air works as an abrasive substance to peel off layers of the resin of the heat shield. Magic.

It's quite impressive how you explain how something works, and then dismss it as magic without giving any reason to reject it as impossible. From your bolding and question marks, it seems you're of the opinion air resistance does not exist.

Quote

I suggest we go back to topic - has anybody won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge?

No, because you refuse to accept being wrong on any count, even minor ones.

I move once again to change the name of this thread mods. Please?

Come on, NASA has told us that the heat shield really heats up at re-entry (3 300°C ?), the Apollo 11 astronuts have testified they saw melted material from the heat shield fly by their little window in the capsule at re-entry (say at 5000 m/s speed), etc, etc
That's how an ablative heat shields work. The thin, low density air rubs and grinds off the heat shield resin one way or another - friction? - and the space craft slows down. The air works as an abrasive substance to peel off layers of the resin of the heat shield. Magic. Only brainwashed twerps believe such nonsense.
I suggest we go back to topic - has anybody won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge?

Air has viscosity.  It's not abrasiveness like sand paper, it's more like it takes energy to push air out of the way and that energy comes from your velocity and turns into heat.  Viscosity is the difference between tuning your finger through wayer and running your finger through honey.  Are you seriously suggesting that air resistance doesn't exist?  Friction is actually not the main cause for heating during reentry, it's compression heating where air is compressed in front of the ship because it can't get out of the way fast enough and so it heats up.  A lot of the slowing down is caused because there is high pressure in front of the capsule and low pressure behind it, which is the same mechanic that makes airplanes fly.

Quote from: Rama Set on April 09, 2015, 08:02:50 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 09, 2015, 04:49:07 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on April 09, 2015, 04:41:29 AM

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.

If you study section 1.17 in the link above - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#EV17 - you will see, if you can read that:

The unit kinetic energy (J/kg) at 11 031 m/s is 60.84 MJ/kg! It is a lot! It - the energy of one kilogram moving at 11 031 m/s - is sufficient to raise temperature of 1 kg concrete (C = 880 J/kg°C) 69 138°C.

As concrete can absorb more heat than a resin , it seems resin is not a god cover of a heat shield.

The het capacity of the Orion ablative Heat shield is 1,380 J/kg•C. You are also assuming 100% efficient heat transfer for some idiotic reason.

It doesn't make much difference, though. BTW where did you find the heat capacity C of this resin/fiber glass structure.

I use concrete as comparison as concrete hardly burns when heated. I have a feeling that the resin/fiber glass composition will start to melt and to burn at a certain temperature. The fiber glass will evaporate pretty soon and then the whole structure is unstable. Or the resin will simply blow away at 10 000 m/s velocity.

I found a paper on the Orion Heat shield testing here. Apologies as it appears this was not for the Orion Heat shield but for some early research for Mars mission craft.

Just to point out Heiwa, different resins have different properties.  Since NASA did not divulge their proprietary information to you, how do you know that you have picked a correct/compatible resin to do your "math" on?

The thin, low density air rubs and grinds off the heat shield resin one way or another - friction? - and the space craft slows down. The air works as an abrasive substance to peel off layers of the resin of the heat shield. Magic.

One man's magic is another man's engineering. -- Robert Heinlein

It seems that you a rare breed, Anders.  An engineer who believes in magic.

Are you seriously suggesting that air resistance doesn't exist?

No, where have I suggested it. And why? Topic is however I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge. It is not about air resistance.
But I agree that when air is compressed and its volume is reduced, its temperature increases. they are just different forms of energy.
And objects in the vicinity of the hot air also get hot. 
When the temperature is reduced the volume increases again. Topic is however I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge.

No, where have I suggested it. And why? Topic is however I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge. It is not about air resistance.
...
When the temperature is reduced the volume increases again. Topic is however I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge.

You do know you can't just say that when you've made an indefensible claim?
Seriously, admit you're wrong on some points. There's no shame in honesty.

When the temperature is reduced the volume increases again.

Did you mean to say that when the volume increases the temperature drops again?

And objects in the vicinity of the hot air also get hot.

But the air only transfers a tiny bit of it's energy to the heat shield.  It has so much energy that even that tiny fraction heats up the heat shield a lot, but it's still only a tiny fraction.  The heat shield still gets very hot, and so pieces if it melt and take the heat away with them which is a very efficient way of cooling things.  How many times do I have to explain this before you understand?

But the air only transfers a tiny bit of it's energy to the heat shield.  It has so much energy that even that tiny fraction heats up the heat shield a lot, but it's still only a tiny fraction.  The heat shield still gets very hot, and so pieces if it melt and take the heat away with them which is a very efficient way of cooling things.  How many times do I have to explain this before you understand?

In order to brake a space craft using air friction and a heat shield, the kinetic energy of the space craft must be transformed into heat. It happens due to the friction that heats up the heat shield.

The friction force is applied to the moving space craft to slow it down. It is the only way to stop!

The friction force depends on the velocity of the space craft and the density of the air.

The friction force may also rotate the space craft and make mince meat of anything inside. You have to ensure that the force is applied at the CoG of the space craft (all the time).

The friction force may also buckle the space craft structure and rip it apart.

The friction force may be 10 000's of Newton, i.e. quite much.

The stop distance is quite long and if you intend to splash down in front of a ship ensure that you do not hit a mountain side before.

You don't know what you are talking about and have not won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge that you claim.

You listed a whole bunch of factors to consider and not one problem.

In order to brake a space craft using air friction and a heat shield, the kinetic energy of the space craft must be transformed into heat. It happens due to the friction that heats up the heat shield.

It's heated because the air compresses, not because of friction.  Also, the vast majority of that heat is just the air getting hot and then it transfers a bit from the heat shield.

The friction force is applied to the moving space craft to slow it down. It is the only way to stop!

It's heated because the air compresses, not because of friction.

The friction force depends on the velocity of the space craft and the density of the air.

It's heated because the air compresses, not because of friction.

The friction force may also rotate the space craft and make mince meat of anything inside. You have to ensure that the force is applied at the CoG of the space craft (all the time).

It's heated because the air compresses, not because of friction.  Also, heat shields are really heavy which means that the CoG of a capsule tends to naturally point down because the lower part of the space craft is denser then the upper bit.  The capsule also has thrusters to make sure it points the right way.  If you think that the tiny bit of turbulence up there wound make an aerodynamically stable capsule tumble around then you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

The friction force may also buckle the space craft structure and rip it apart.

It's heated because the air compresses, not because of friction.  Also, air has a very low viscosity so the effect you speak of isn't very big and it's definitely not enough to rip a heat shield apart.

The friction force may be 10 000's of Newton, i.e. quite much.

It's heated because the air compresses, not because of friction.  By the way, how did you get that number?

The stop distance is quite long and if you intend to splash down in front of a ship ensure that you do not hit a mountain side before.

By the time a capsule gets lower then the peak of mount Everest it's already floating down on parachutes, so that's not a problem.

You don't know what you are talking about and have not won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge that you claim.

No, you are the one who doesn't know anything about space travel.  Ask anyone on this thread, I think they will agree with me.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 09, 2015, 04:45:55 PM

The friction force may be 10 000's of Newton, i.e. quite much.

By the way, how did you get that number?

Thanks for asking.

The Apollo 11 CM with mass m = 5 557 kg arrived into the Earth atmosphere at 7/24/69 16.21.14 UT with 11 034 m/s entry speed due to strong Earth gravity. From then on only the drag force (resistance of atmosphere) slowed down the CM for 560 seconds, when the parachutes were deployed.

Let’s assume that parachutes were deployed when the speed was 134 m/s. It means total speed reduction was 10 900 m/s during 560 seconds. The CM thus decelerated at a = 18.93 m/s² or about 2g due to atmosphere resistance. The drag force acting on the CM was thus 105 106 Newton or about 10.7 tons (your question).

The average speed of the CM during braking was 5 450 m/s and the distance from starting braking and deploying parachutes was 3 052 000 meter. After travelling >3 000 kms through the atmosphere, the CM dropped down just in front of a US warship with Dick Nixon aboard. Hole in one!

The space ship of any winner of my Challenge must do something similar to land on Earth after a trip in space.

Imagine the Shuttle doing the above without parachutes. The Shuttle re-entry speed was smaller - say 7 500 m/s but it was heavier 78 000 kg. Do you own calculations how to land with a Shuttle.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 09, 2015, 05:32:57 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 09, 2015, 04:45:55 PM

The friction force may be 10 000's of Newton, i.e. quite much.

By the way, how did you get that number?

Thanks for asking.

The Apollo 11 CM with mass m = 5 557 kg arrived into the Earth atmosphere at 7/24/69 16.21.14 UT with 11 034 m/s entry speed due to strong Earth gravity. From then on only the drag force (resistance of atmosphere) slowed down the CM for 560 seconds, when the parachutes were deployed.

Let’s assume that parachutes were deployed when the speed was 134 m/s. It means total speed reduction was 10 900 m/s during 560 seconds. The CM thus decelerated at a = 18.93 m/s² or about 2g due to atmosphere resistance. The drag force acting on the CM was thus 105 106 Newton or about 10.7 tons (your question).

The average speed of the CM during braking was 5 450 m/s and the distance from starting braking and deploying parachutes was 3 052 000 meter. After travelling >3 000 kms through the atmosphere, the CM dropped down just in front of a US warship with Dick Nixon aboard. Hole in one!

The space ship of any winner of my Challenge must do something similar to land on Earth after a trip in space.

Imagine the Shuttle doing the above without parachutes. The Shuttle re-entry speed was smaller - say 7 500 m/s but it was heavier 78 000 kg. Do you own calculations how to land with a Shuttle.

Parachutes on capsules deploy in stages, the video on the Orion thread actually explains that.

I think Heiwa has run out of BS and he is taking a break to generate more.

Heiwa, it's been 19 hours sense you posted last.  What's up?  Are you doing the trademark move of flat earthers where you mysteriously disappear after being conclusively proven wrong?

It's now been 24 hours sense Heiwa has posted on this thread, or this forum for that matter.  Where is he?  Where is anybody?  I am responsable for the last 4 posts including this one.

It is not uncommon at all for forum users to go a day  or even a week with out posting.  Please, do not spam us with some kind of countdown.  This is considered low content and is against the rules. 

It is not uncommon at all for forum users to go a day  or even a week with out posting.  Please, do not spam us with some kind of countdown.  This is considered low content and is against the rules.

This is when you decided to step in?  Talk about low-hanging fruit.

It's now been 24 hours sense Heiwa has posted on this thread, or this forum for that matter.  Where is he?  Where is anybody?  I am responsable for the last 4 posts including this one.

I just up-dated my popular web site and started a new thread about seven people that tried to win Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge (topic) but failed. As expected.