I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 05, 2015, 02:08:28 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 05, 2015, 11:16:35 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 05, 2015, 10:17:53 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 05, 2015, 09:47:10 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 05, 2015, 07:17:56 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 05, 2015, 07:05:26 AM

Topic is Heiwa's Challenge about describing a human space trip. It seems quite complicated. Nobody has managed it.

It is not about sending up a satellite in orbit around Earth or Sun, which is simple. Try to quote me correctly.

Re the ISF I have seen it many times flying over my terrasse. It seems to be an unmanned satellite - say a 200 m diameter silver balloon - that NASA has sent up. Maybe it has camera attached that can send pictures? 

Problem is to get back alive from the ISF, i.e. to do a re-entry.

Elon Musk provides a Dragon X capsule but in my opinion it will burn up immediately when hitting the atmosphere at 130 000 m altitude. The Russians have some similar capsule. But it is just propaganda that it works. No Russian has ever been in space. Not even cute Ludmilla Tereskova. But we all love her anyway.

Then prove that it will burn up. Post some mathematical figures.

Of course, your own self-made web page with only your own opinions is not a valid source.

How a Shuttle re-enters according info from NASA I describe at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm#23 . You are really coming in fast (7 500 m/s) at 120 000 m altitude and with nose up 40° and after 1821 seconds you have landed - speed 0 at 0 altitude.

However, after about 900 seconds the speed is still high - say 6 000 m/s - at 70 000 m altitude and then you drop your nose to really slow down.

There is no evidence that above is possible. No model tests, no flow calculations, no structural loads given and analyzed are available.

Meteorites are vaporized up there trying to enter and I assume the same will happen to the Shuttle.

To win the Challenge you must provide model tests, flow calculations with loads on the space ship and then a simple structural analysis. It seems the temperatures around the space ship may be >13 000° K (plasma) but it does not affect the space ship according NASA. You must provide evidence for it to win the Challenge.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88290main_H-1894.pdf
http://www2.aero.psu.edu/RGD_2010/PaperSubmission_Full_Uploads/Titov,%20Evgeny_219_PDF_revised.pdf

Now give us your proof for once. I am tired of having to post the same evidence over and over again as you keep forgetting it.

Hm, your links do not provide any info about successful re-entries. Strange that there is no footage available for a 1821 seconds re-entry and radar trackings, etc.

It seems you travel almost 8 000 000 meters during those 1 821 seconds while landing (average landing speed 4 400 m/s)  and suddenly the landing strip at the Air Force Base appears just in front of you. I do not believe it is possible to slow down and land so quickly. To me it is a hoax.

I came back to Nice the other day from Düsseldorf  and the Luft Hansa plane also slowed down about 30 minutes before landing but then the speed was probably just 200 m/s.

So to win the Challenge the re-entry landing must also be described. I do not want you to overshoot the landing strip and crash.

Funny how you haven't posted any evidence yet.

It isn't funny. The funny NASA descriptions of re-entries are all the time at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm . It is very simple.
You just dip into the atmosphere at 120 000 m altitude at 8 000 m/s speed and push the pedal in the middle and 1 821 seconds later your speed is 0 at 0 m altitude.
Or, forget the brake pedal, you are on autopilot. All is done by the computer until last minute (60 seconds) when the landing strip occurs in front of you and you just land. Dirt simple.

See? Reentry is possible. And in case of the shuttle, no autopilot is used during at least during most of the flight. The pilots do the biggest job during reentry.

And yes, I have done space shuttle missions in Orbiter.  Landing a space shuttle is hard but certainly not impossible.

Game over.

..., I have done space shuttle missions in Orbiter.  Landing a space shuttle is hard but certainly not impossible.

Suggest you leave everything to the computer! If you depart too early or too late from the IFS you may miss the runway.

Remember that when you hit the very thin air at 120 000 m altitude and speed 8 000 m/s you only have 1821 seconds to do your thing. You must be there at the exact right time ... and then just dip into the atmosphere ... and hope it will slow you down ... etc. Do you think you can turn left and right at that speed? What does Orbiter say?

Anyway, you are going real fast and I am really concerned. How do you brake? Friction with air? You must be joking! Friction with air will not slow you down between 120 000 and 20 000 meters altitude. Only fools believe that.

I am sorry to inform with such unsafe practices you have not won my Challenge.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on August 06, 2015, 12:42:21 AM

..., I have done space shuttle missions in Orbiter.  Landing a space shuttle is hard but certainly not impossible.

Suggest you leave everything to the computer! If you depart too early or too late from the IFS you may miss the runway.

Remember that when you hit the very thin air at 120 000 m altitude and speed 8 000 m/s you only have 1821 seconds to do your thing. You must be there at the exact right time ... and then just dip into the atmosphere ... and hope it will slow you down ... etc. Do you think you can turn left and right at that speed? What does Orbiter say?

Anyway, you are going real fast and I am really concerned. How do you brake? Friction with air? You must be joking! Friction with air will not slow you down between 120 000 and 20 000 meters altitude. Only fools believe that.

I am sorry to inform with such unsafe practices you have not won my Challenge.

Try some basic mathematics:

Reduction of speed = 8,000 m/s
Time taken = 1821 seconds

Average change in speed = 4.39 m/s/s

That is only an average of 0.5g - not exactly much required.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on August 06, 2015, 12:42:21 AM

..., I have done space shuttle missions in Orbiter.  Landing a space shuttle is hard but certainly not impossible.

Suggest you leave everything to the computer! If you depart too early or too late from the IFS you may miss the runway.

Remember that when you hit the very thin air at 120 000 m altitude and speed 8 000 m/s you only have 1821 seconds to do your thing. You must be there at the exact right time ... and then just dip into the atmosphere ... and hope it will slow you down ... etc. Do you think you can turn left and right at that speed? What does Orbiter say?

Anyway, you are going real fast and I am really concerned. How do you brake? Friction with air? You must be joking! Friction with air will not slow you down between 120 000 and 20 000 meters altitude. Only fools believe that.

I am sorry to inform with such unsafe practices you have not won my Challenge.

1821 seconds is roughly 30 minutes. Thats a lot of time to do the things required. Remember that the shuttle is a glider and can change the airflow around it, controlling itself in the air. The shuttle slows down if necessary by turning left and then right repeatedly, aka banking. So the shuttle can land easily aim for the runway without the need of extreme precision. If it's too slow or too fast it can increase or decrease it's speed.

What is so funny with air friction? Air has mass and will therefore require energy to move out of your way. And behind the shuttle wil be a low pressure area that will increase the difference in pressure in front of the shuttle and behind, creating a large pushing force slowing the shuttle down. The principles of air resistance are directly connected to those of aerodynamic lifting forces. I.e .wings use the principles of air resistance to gain their lifting force. And wings can lift some pretty big stuff, which means that they have to generate some pretty large forces. The air resistance of the shuttle will be greater than that of any wings ever constructed, simply because it has a bigger surface and greater angle of attack than any wings constructed. Don't underestimate air. Wasn't it you who just said that reentry would be impossible because the heat generated by few lonely air moecules will destroy everything ever? And suddenly air is completely . Make up your mind.

Quote from: Heiwa on August 06, 2015, 03:32:25 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on August 06, 2015, 12:42:21 AM

..., I have done space shuttle missions in Orbiter.  Landing a space shuttle is hard but certainly not impossible.

Suggest you leave everything to the computer! If you depart too early or too late from the IFS you may miss the runway.

Remember that when you hit the very thin air at 120 000 m altitude and speed 8 000 m/s you only have 1821 seconds to do your thing. You must be there at the exact right time ... and then just dip into the atmosphere ... and hope it will slow you down ... etc. Do you think you can turn left and right at that speed? What does Orbiter say?

Anyway, you are going real fast and I am really concerned. How do you brake? Friction with air? You must be joking! Friction with air will not slow you down between 120 000 and 20 000 meters altitude. Only fools believe that.

I am sorry to inform with such unsafe practices you have not won my Challenge.

1821 seconds is roughly 30 minutes. Thats a lot of time to do the things required. Remember that the shuttle is a glider and can change the airflow around it, controlling itself in the air. The shuttle slows down if necessary by turning left and then right repeatedly, aka banking. So the shuttle can land easily aim for the runway without the need of extreme precision. If it's too slow or too fast it can increase or decrease it's speed.

What is so funny with air friction? Air has mass and will therefore require energy to move out of your way. And behind the shuttle wil be a low pressure area that will increase the difference in pressure in front of the shuttle and behind, creating a large pushing force slowing the shuttle down. The principles of air resistance are directly connected to those of aerodynamic lifting forces. I.e .wings use the principles of air resistance to gain their lifting force. And wings can lift some pretty big stuff, which means that they have to generate some pretty large forces. The air resistance of the shuttle will be greater than that of any wings ever constructed, simply because it has a bigger surface and greater angle of attack than any wings constructed. Don't underestimate air. Wasn't it you who just said that reentry would be impossible because the heat generated by few lonely air moecules will destroy everything ever? And suddenly air is completely . Make up your mind.

Sorry. There is no air resistance at 120 000 or 50 000 meters altitude to slow your shuttle down, even if you fly 40° nose up. You just go faster and faster.
And therefore you will not win my Challenge. My money is safe in the bank.

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 06, 2015, 04:45:26 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 06, 2015, 03:32:25 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on August 06, 2015, 12:42:21 AM

..., I have done space shuttle missions in Orbiter.  Landing a space shuttle is hard but certainly not impossible.

Suggest you leave everything to the computer! If you depart too early or too late from the IFS you may miss the runway.

Remember that when you hit the very thin air at 120 000 m altitude and speed 8 000 m/s you only have 1821 seconds to do your thing. You must be there at the exact right time ... and then just dip into the atmosphere ... and hope it will slow you down ... etc. Do you think you can turn left and right at that speed? What does Orbiter say?

Anyway, you are going real fast and I am really concerned. How do you brake? Friction with air? You must be joking! Friction with air will not slow you down between 120 000 and 20 000 meters altitude. Only fools believe that.

I am sorry to inform with such unsafe practices you have not won my Challenge.

1821 seconds is roughly 30 minutes. Thats a lot of time to do the things required. Remember that the shuttle is a glider and can change the airflow around it, controlling itself in the air. The shuttle slows down if necessary by turning left and then right repeatedly, aka banking. So the shuttle can land easily aim for the runway without the need of extreme precision. If it's too slow or too fast it can increase or decrease it's speed.

What is so funny with air friction? Air has mass and will therefore require energy to move out of your way. And behind the shuttle wil be a low pressure area that will increase the difference in pressure in front of the shuttle and behind, creating a large pushing force slowing the shuttle down. The principles of air resistance are directly connected to those of aerodynamic lifting forces. I.e .wings use the principles of air resistance to gain their lifting force. And wings can lift some pretty big stuff, which means that they have to generate some pretty large forces. The air resistance of the shuttle will be greater than that of any wings ever constructed, simply because it has a bigger surface and greater angle of attack than any wings constructed. Don't underestimate air. Wasn't it you who just said that reentry would be impossible because the heat generated by few lonely air moecules will destroy everything ever? And suddenly air is completely . Make up your mind.

Sorry. There is no air resistance at 120 000 or 50 000 meters altitude to slow your shuttle down, even if you fly 40° nose up. You just go faster and faster.
And therefore you will not win my Challenge. My money is safe in the bank.

Prove it then. Don't use your own web page as a source.

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 06, 2015, 04:45:26 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 06, 2015, 03:32:25 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on August 06, 2015, 12:42:21 AM

..., I have done space shuttle missions in Orbiter.  Landing a space shuttle is hard but certainly not impossible.

Suggest you leave everything to the computer! If you depart too early or too late from the IFS you may miss the runway.

Remember that when you hit the very thin air at 120 000 m altitude and speed 8 000 m/s you only have 1821 seconds to do your thing. You must be there at the exact right time ... and then just dip into the atmosphere ... and hope it will slow you down ... etc. Do you think you can turn left and right at that speed? What does Orbiter say?

Anyway, you are going real fast and I am really concerned. How do you brake? Friction with air? You must be joking! Friction with air will not slow you down between 120 000 and 20 000 meters altitude. Only fools believe that.

I am sorry to inform with such unsafe practices you have not won my Challenge.

1821 seconds is roughly 30 minutes. Thats a lot of time to do the things required. Remember that the shuttle is a glider and can change the airflow around it, controlling itself in the air. The shuttle slows down if necessary by turning left and then right repeatedly, aka banking. So the shuttle can land easily aim for the runway without the need of extreme precision. If it's too slow or too fast it can increase or decrease it's speed.

What is so funny with air friction? Air has mass and will therefore require energy to move out of your way. And behind the shuttle wil be a low pressure area that will increase the difference in pressure in front of the shuttle and behind, creating a large pushing force slowing the shuttle down. The principles of air resistance are directly connected to those of aerodynamic lifting forces. I.e .wings use the principles of air resistance to gain their lifting force. And wings can lift some pretty big stuff, which means that they have to generate some pretty large forces. The air resistance of the shuttle will be greater than that of any wings ever constructed, simply because it has a bigger surface and greater angle of attack than any wings constructed. Don't underestimate air. Wasn't it you who just said that reentry would be impossible because the heat generated by few lonely air moecules will destroy everything ever? And suddenly air is completely . Make up your mind.

Sorry. There is no air resistance at 120 000 or 50 000 meters altitude to slow your shuttle down, even if you fly 40° nose up. You just go faster and faster.
And therefore you will not win my Challenge. My money is safe in the bank.

If there is no air resistance why is a heat shield required?

Quote from: Heiwa on August 06, 2015, 05:39:09 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 06, 2015, 04:45:26 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 06, 2015, 03:32:25 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on August 06, 2015, 12:42:21 AM

..., I have done space shuttle missions in Orbiter.  Landing a space shuttle is hard but certainly not impossible.

Suggest you leave everything to the computer! If you depart too early or too late from the IFS you may miss the runway.

Remember that when you hit the very thin air at 120 000 m altitude and speed 8 000 m/s you only have 1821 seconds to do your thing. You must be there at the exact right time ... and then just dip into the atmosphere ... and hope it will slow you down ... etc. Do you think you can turn left and right at that speed? What does Orbiter say?

Anyway, you are going real fast and I am really concerned. How do you brake? Friction with air? You must be joking! Friction with air will not slow you down between 120 000 and 20 000 meters altitude. Only fools believe that.

I am sorry to inform with such unsafe practices you have not won my Challenge.

1821 seconds is roughly 30 minutes. Thats a lot of time to do the things required. Remember that the shuttle is a glider and can change the airflow around it, controlling itself in the air. The shuttle slows down if necessary by turning left and then right repeatedly, aka banking. So the shuttle can land easily aim for the runway without the need of extreme precision. If it's too slow or too fast it can increase or decrease it's speed.

What is so funny with air friction? Air has mass and will therefore require energy to move out of your way. And behind the shuttle wil be a low pressure area that will increase the difference in pressure in front of the shuttle and behind, creating a large pushing force slowing the shuttle down. The principles of air resistance are directly connected to those of aerodynamic lifting forces. I.e .wings use the principles of air resistance to gain their lifting force. And wings can lift some pretty big stuff, which means that they have to generate some pretty large forces. The air resistance of the shuttle will be greater than that of any wings ever constructed, simply because it has a bigger surface and greater angle of attack than any wings constructed. Don't underestimate air. Wasn't it you who just said that reentry would be impossible because the heat generated by few lonely air moecules will destroy everything ever? And suddenly air is completely . Make up your mind.

Sorry. There is no air resistance at 120 000 or 50 000 meters altitude to slow your shuttle down, even if you fly 40° nose up. You just go faster and faster.
And therefore you will not win my Challenge. My money is safe in the bank.

Prove it then. Don't use your own web page as a source.

There is no air friction at 120 000 - 50 000 meters altitude.
If you suggest otherwise, prove it.

It is not friction that slows down objects and heats them up on re-entry, it is then compression wave that forms as air cannot get out of the way of the object fast enough.

It is not friction that slows down objects and heats them up on re-entry, it is then compression wave that forms as air cannot get out of the way of the object fast enough.

Hm, if I drop anyting from any altitude it just goes faster and faster due to gravity until it crashes on the ground and any compression wave in front does not slow it down much.

Pls do not suggest that the space ship has wings and can fly like a plane, etc, etc.

Let's just face it - no Shuttles or Apollo capsules with their ceramic tiles and heat shields were ever in space. It was/is all produced in Hollywood. 

So nobody will ever win my popular Challenge.

Today is August 6 and USA celebrate that it vaporized Hiroshima and 60 000 women and children with an atomic bomb. It is not 100% correct. USA just napalm carpet bombed Hiroshima and burnt down the place. Just like Yokohama in May 1945, where I lived 1972/5. I always wondered why the place looked bombed out and it was explained. But it was a military secret then.

Remember that when you hit the very thin air at 120 000 m altitude and speed 8 000 m/s you only have 1821 seconds to do your thing. You must be there at the exact right time ... and then just dip into the atmosphere ... and hope it will slow you down ... etc. Do you think you can turn left and right at that speed? What does Orbiter say?

It's more precise then that.  Space shuttles are planes, which means that they can fly (*Shock*).  Ordinary reentry capsules are shaped in such a way that they can generate lift if they need to, and I did that in my orbiter simulation of the Apollo missions.  Reentering vehicles are not in free fall, and initially they have orbital velocity meaning that the Earth curves away as fast as they fall, this means that it takes longer to hit the ground.

Anyway, you are going real fast and I am really concerned. How do you brake? Friction with air? You must be joking! Friction with air will not slow you down between 120 000 and 20 000 meters altitude. Only fools believe that.

There are planes that can go higher then 20,000 meters and they still need the engines to be on whole cruising at a constant speed because they are fighting air resistance.  Air resistance exists wherever there is air.

Hm, if I drop anyting from any altitude it just goes faster and faster due to gravity until it crashes on the ground and any compression wave in front does not slow it down much.

It seems that you have never heard of terminal velocity.  Gravity is independent of speed but air resistance increases with speed, this means that a balance is eventually reached where an object falls at a constant rate.  Air gets thicker as you get further down, so terminal velocity get's slow enough that even a parachute is enough to safely slow you down.  In fact, the only reason parachutes work is because they increase resistance and therefore make terminal velocity much slower.

Let's just face it - no Shuttles or Apollo capsules with their ceramic tiles and heat shields were ever in space. It was/is all produced in Hollywood. 

Citation needed.

So nobody will ever win my popular Challenge.

So you admit that your challenge is a joke.  That's not really new information.

Today is August 6 and USA celebrate that it vaporized Hiroshima and 60 000 women and children with an atomic bomb. It is not 100% correct. USA just napalm carpet bombed Hiroshima and burnt down the place. Just like Yokohama in May 1945, where I lived 1972/5. I always wondered why the place looked bombed out and it was explained. But it was a military secret then.

So they dropped a napalm bomb the size of a sky scraper from a plane?  You might want to do the math yourself and see how much explosives you would need to do the damage of a nuclear explosion with non nuclear explosives.  If the government could do the damage of a nuclear explosion without nuclear bombs then who would they need to lie about having nuclear warheads?

Quote from: Heiwa on August 06, 2015, 05:39:09 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 06, 2015, 04:45:26 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 06, 2015, 03:32:25 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on August 06, 2015, 12:42:21 AM

..., I have done space shuttle missions in Orbiter.  Landing a space shuttle is hard but certainly not impossible.

Suggest you leave everything to the computer! If you depart too early or too late from the IFS you may miss the runway.

Remember that when you hit the very thin air at 120 000 m altitude and speed 8 000 m/s you only have 1821 seconds to do your thing. You must be there at the exact right time ... and then just dip into the atmosphere ... and hope it will slow you down ... etc. Do you think you can turn left and right at that speed? What does Orbiter say?

Anyway, you are going real fast and I am really concerned. How do you brake? Friction with air? You must be joking! Friction with air will not slow you down between 120 000 and 20 000 meters altitude. Only fools believe that.

I am sorry to inform with such unsafe practices you have not won my Challenge.

1821 seconds is roughly 30 minutes. Thats a lot of time to do the things required. Remember that the shuttle is a glider and can change the airflow around it, controlling itself in the air. The shuttle slows down if necessary by turning left and then right repeatedly, aka banking. So the shuttle can land easily aim for the runway without the need of extreme precision. If it's too slow or too fast it can increase or decrease it's speed.

What is so funny with air friction? Air has mass and will therefore require energy to move out of your way. And behind the shuttle wil be a low pressure area that will increase the difference in pressure in front of the shuttle and behind, creating a large pushing force slowing the shuttle down. The principles of air resistance are directly connected to those of aerodynamic lifting forces. I.e .wings use the principles of air resistance to gain their lifting force. And wings can lift some pretty big stuff, which means that they have to generate some pretty large forces. The air resistance of the shuttle will be greater than that of any wings ever constructed, simply because it has a bigger surface and greater angle of attack than any wings constructed. Don't underestimate air. Wasn't it you who just said that reentry would be impossible because the heat generated by few lonely air moecules will destroy everything ever? And suddenly air is completely . Make up your mind.

Sorry. There is no air resistance at 120 000 or 50 000 meters altitude to slow your shuttle down, even if you fly 40° nose up. You just go faster and faster.
And therefore you will not win my Challenge. My money is safe in the bank.

If there is no air resistance why is a heat shield required?

True there. If there is no air resistance then why is there air-resistance produced heat?

Heiwa, because of conservation of energy the heat from reentry comes from the velocity of the space craft and so the heating is always proportional to the force applied by air resistance in every scenario without exception.  If there is no resistance like you claim then there will be no heat, and if there is enough heat to melt the ship then there will be a lot of resistance.  You cannot have it both ways without violating conservation of energy.

Heiwa, because of conservation of energy the heat from reentry comes from the velocity of the space craft and so the heating is always proportional to the force applied by air resistance in every scenario without exception.  If there is no resistance like you claim then there will be no heat, and if there is enough heat to melt the ship then there will be a lot of resistance.  You cannot have it both ways without violating conservation of energy.

WOW no wonder your still around look how much attention your getting...

Heiwa, because of conservation of energy the heat from reentry comes from the velocity of the space craft and so the heating is always proportional to the force applied by air resistance in every scenario without exception.  If there is no resistance like you claim then there will be no heat, and if there is enough heat to melt the ship then there will be a lot of resistance.  You cannot have it both ways without violating conservation of energy.

As I just said - dropping something from altitude in the atmosphere means that gravity will accelerate the something down. The atmosphere doesn't stop it. It seems the gravity force is stronger than any air resistance force. Have you dropped anything lately, e.g. from 120 000 meters altitude, and it didn't crash against the ground?

If you believe that the alleged existence of a Apollo heat shield or shuttle ceramic tiles means that re-entry is possible, I suggest you think about it again.

Anyway, topic is my Challenge and it seems you have finally understood that it is made for twirps.

Have you dropped anything lately, e.g. from 120 000 meters altitude, and it didn't crash against the ground?

Yes, things with parachutes hit the ground much slower.

If you believe that the alleged existence of a Apollo heat shield or shuttle ceramic tiles means that re-entry is possible, I suggest you think about it again.

I have and I came up with the same conclusion that a heat shields which get rid of heat make reentry possible because that is literally the one thing they are designed to do.

Quote from: Heiwa on August 06, 2015, 04:03:07 PM

Have you dropped anything lately, e.g. from 120 000 meters altitude, and it didn't crash against the ground?

Yes, things with parachutes hit the ground much slower.

You missunderstand as usual. The Shuttle only uses a parachute after it has landed to prevent it from going off the end of the runway - horizontally. It is part of the Hollywood show. It looks good. The brakes in the landing gear of the heavy (?) Shuttle mock-up are not strong enough so you need back-up ... a parachute.

But Gagarin used two parachutes 1961 to complete his and the worlds first human re-entry!! One for himself after having ejected from the space ball, and one for the space ball itself.  Those communists were clever! But the public was not invited to watch. So you have to believe!

You missunderstand as usual. The Shuttle only uses a parachute after it has landed to prevent it from going off the end of the runway - horizontally. It is part of the Hollywood show. It looks good. The brakes in the landing gear of the heavy (?) Shuttle mock-up are not strong enough so you need back-up ... a parachute.

But Gagarin used two parachutes 1961 to complete his and the worlds first human re-entry!! One for himself after having ejected from the space ball, and one for the space ball itself.  Those communists were clever! But the public was not invited to watch. So you have to believe!

Apollo also used parachutes, and that's what your challenge is all about.  I was also using parachutes to prove my point about terminal velocity which applies to the space shuttle.  Also, there are other ways of proving things other then seeing them.  You can't see atoms but you know that they are real because they explain so much and you have no reason to believe anything else.  Same goes for space travel, the International Space Station is easily visible from Earth and with a basic telescope you can make out it's distinctive shape.

Quote from: Heiwa on August 06, 2015, 09:37:00 PM

You missunderstand as usual. The Shuttle only uses a parachute after it has landed to prevent it from going off the end of the runway - horizontally. It is part of the Hollywood show. It looks good. The brakes in the landing gear of the heavy (?) Shuttle mock-up are not strong enough so you need back-up ... a parachute.

But Gagarin used two parachutes 1961 to complete his and the worlds first human re-entry!! One for himself after having ejected from the space ball, and one for the space ball itself.  Those communists were clever! But the public was not invited to watch. So you have to believe!

Apollo also used parachutes, and that's what your challenge is all about.  I was also using parachutes to prove my point about terminal velocity which applies to the space shuttle.  Also, there are other ways of proving things other then seeing them.  You can't see atoms but you know that they are real because they explain so much and you have no reason to believe anything else.  Same goes for space travel, the International Space Station is easily visible from Earth and with a basic telescope you can make out it's distinctive shape.

No, the Challenge (topic) is not about Apollo but human space travel in general. If you intend to use parachutes à la Gagarin at the end, you are welcome.
BTW - I have seen the IFS many times - it is just a silver colored, balloon shaped satellite with no humans aboard. Part of the show, you know. It seems it fooled you? But let's face it! You have not won Heiwa's Challenge. You have rather made a fool of yourself.

No, the Challenge (topic) is not about Apollo but human space travel in general. If you intend to use parachutes à la Gagarin at the end, you are welcome.
BTW - I have seen the IFS many times - it is just a silver colored, balloon shaped satellite with no humans aboard. Part of the show, you know. It seems it fooled you? But let's face it! You have not won Heiwa's Challenge. You have rather made a fool of yourself.

This is a photo of the ISS from Earth:


That totally looks like a balloon.
[/sarcasm]

That looks just like the station we are used to seeing in the photos from space.

Speaking of the reality of space travel, reentry is still very possible with a finite amount of heat being absorbed and carried away with a finite amount of heat shielding.

I am curious about this: Heiwa, do you know what the word finite means?

There is no air friction at 120 000 - 50 000 meters altitude.
If you suggest otherwise, prove it.

If there is air at 120,000 - 50,000 meters altitude (and there is), then objects travelling through that region (the mesosphere) will experience air resistance (friction).  Depending on the speed of the object, it may not be a whole lot of friction, but it will still be there.

Do you understand that infinite energy does not and cannot exist?
Heat is energy, understand?
No such thing as infinite heat. So stop using that argument to handwave.

Quote from: Heiwa on August 06, 2015, 06:16:58 AM

There is no air friction at 120 000 - 50 000 meters altitude.
If you suggest otherwise, prove it.

If there is air at 120,000 - 50,000 meters altitude (and there is), then objects travelling through that region (the mesosphere) will experience air resistance (friction).  Depending on the speed of the object, it may not be a whole lot of friction, but it will still be there.

This is a very intelligent comment. But you should as the question - what will the mesosphere really experience or do, when an object is travelling through it (accelerated by Earth gravity, etc)?

If the object is a meteoride or meteorite, it seems the mesosphere destroys it. The mesosphere doesn't like to be penetrated by these objects (accelerated by Earth gravity, etc) .

But how does the mesosphere destroy these objects? By friction? No! The mesosphere applies a  force (of resistance) to the object that is simply destroyed by that force.

I assume any man made object trying to do the same will suffer the same fate.

To win my Challenge (topic) you really have to avoid being destroyed by the mesosphere at re-entry! If you think a heat shield or cermaic tile will prevent the evil mesosphere destroying you, you must prove it.

This is a very intelligent comment. But you should as the question - what will the mesosphere really experience or do, when an object is travelling through it (accelerated by Earth gravity, etc)?

If the object is a meteoride or meteorite, it seems the mesosphere destroys it. The mesosphere doesn't like to be penetrated by these objects (accelerated by Earth gravity, etc) .

But how does the mesosphere destroy these objects? By friction? No! The mesosphere applies a  force (of resistance) to the object that is simply destroyed by that force.

I assume any man made object trying to do the same will suffer the same fate.

To win my Challenge (topic) you really have to avoid being destroyed by the mesosphere at re-entry! If you think a heat shield or cermaic tile will prevent the evil mesosphere destroying you, you must prove it.

The thing that's destructive is the heat Heiwa, and HEAT shields are designed to protect the ship from it.  The air compresses in front of the ship causing a steady not very destructive force that a ship is designed to withstand and when gasses compress they heat up, and that heat comes from the energy used to compress it which is the space ship's velocity.  Most of the heat is not conducted into the ship and the little bit that does is absorbed by the heat shield and carried away by parts of the heat shield which melted.  The ship has just enough ablative shielding to make it through reentry, and it's trajectory is designed to slow the astronauts down steadily in a way that they can survive.

About a week ago, Heiwa informed me of his €1,000,000 challenge on his website, not the one about proving that the 9/11 incident was done by terrorists but the second one at the bottom of the page about the Apollo missions.  This is it:

Quote

The Anders Björkman 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 maneuvers 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 for the persons aboard and finally to show that it is actually feasable to do the trip. Please do not present dreams and fantasies.

How I won was I showed him a simulator that when paired with a mod can simulate the Apollo missions, and I even offered to check the config files for realism.  As for the reentry part, I drew a diagram that illustrates how reentry capsules control their orientation and trajectory.  I have been presenting all this to Heiwa via PM's and he has not responded in almost a day now after I said "If I'm not mistaken, you owe me some money", so I figured that I might as well mention this on the forum to get the word out and to force him to not make the trademark flat earther move of ignoring my victory.

I understand that this is a long thread and this may have already been discussed, but I just wanted to chime in. I'm a RE, and I think that it's absolutely possible to complete the challenge, (whether Heiwa pays or not), but I think it is absurd that you think that you can declare yourself a winner and force Heiwa to pay you. That's not how this sort of challenge works. Heiwa accepts submissions, and without any other specifying language, it is clear that it is up to him to determine the viability of the submission. Ideally, if it were more serious, an independent body would judge submissions and Heiwa would provide evidence of availability of funds, but without that, the most obvious person to judge submissions would be Heiwa himself, not you. I can't think of any context in the entire set of social constructs in the world where merely by your own declaration of victory in a contest you have a valid claim to that victory, except perhaps declaring "shotgun", or "calling it", etc. This obviously doesn't fall into that category.

And if you really did refer him to a set of softwares with supplemental explanations and and an offer to "check the source code", I don't think you even completed a submission in the spirit of the challenge. He was clearly asking for a thorough report. How would Heiwa be reasonably expected to validate that you checked the source code, for example? Are you a software expert? Do you have credentials? Is Heiwa expected to run these simulations for himself? You could certainly use a simulator to validate your own results but the report should be complete, self contained, valid without external dependencies or conditions. And then, even when you submit the report, it's not only premature but presumptuous to declare yourself a winner. That's obvious to me as an observer, and I feel like I should call you out for it.

This doesn't absolve Heiwa if he does actually move the goal posts, but my opinion is that you haven't met them anyway, based on the limited dialogue I've read here.

My two cents. Apologies if this is already covered.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on January 08, 2015, 09:26:40 AM

About a week ago, Heiwa informed me of his €1,000,000 challenge on his website, not the one about proving that the 9/11 incident was done by terrorists but the second one at the bottom of the page about the Apollo missions.  This is it:

Quote

The Anders Björkman 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 maneuvers 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 for the persons aboard and finally to show that it is actually feasable to do the trip. Please do not present dreams and fantasies.

How I won was I showed him a simulator that when paired with a mod can simulate the Apollo missions, and I even offered to check the config files for realism.  As for the reentry part, I drew a diagram that illustrates how reentry capsules control their orientation and trajectory.  I have been presenting all this to Heiwa via PM's and he has not responded in almost a day now after I said "If I'm not mistaken, you owe me some money", so I figured that I might as well mention this on the forum to get the word out and to force him to not make the trademark flat earther move of ignoring my victory.

I understand that this is a long thread and this may have already been discussed, but I just wanted to chime in. I'm a RE, and I think that it's absolutely possible to complete the challenge, (whether Heiwa pays or not), but I think it is absurd that you think that you can declare yourself a winner and force Heiwa to pay you. That's not how this sort of challenge works. Heiwa accepts submissions, and without any other specifying language, it is clear that it is up to him to determine the viability of the submission. Ideally, if it were more serious, an independent body would judge submissions and Heiwa would provide evidence of availability of funds, but without that, the most obvious person to judge submissions would be Heiwa himself, not you. I can't think of any context in the entire set of social constructs in the world where merely by your own declaration of victory in a contest you have a valid claim to that victory, except perhaps declaring "shotgun", or "calling it", etc. This obviously doesn't fall into that category.

And if you really did refer him to a set of softwares with supplemental explanations and and an offer to "check the source code", I don't think you even completed a submission in the spirit of the challenge. He was clearly asking for a thorough report. How would Heiwa be reasonably expected to validate that you checked the source code, for example? Are you a software expert? Do you have credentials? Is Heiwa expected to run these simulations for himself? You could certainly use a simulator to validate your own results but the report should be complete, self contained, valid without external dependencies or conditions. And then, even when you submit the report, it's not only premature but presumptuous to declare yourself a winner. That's obvious to me as an observer, and I feel like I should call you out for it.

This doesn't absolve Heiwa if he does actually move the goal posts, but my opinion is that you haven't met them anyway, based on the limited dialogue I've read here.

My two cents. Apologies if this is already covered.

I'd ordinarily agree with you, but this is more akin to a schoolyard argument.

"Bet you can't prove the colour of the sky!"
"Sure I can, it's blue. See?"
"Nuh uh"
"No really, look up. There."
"Define blue"

... and so on. Not to mention his rules are laid out on his website for all to see. He's mentioned submission methods (which he's recently doubled back on). Mikeman has pretty much bent over backwards to make sure his application is what Anders is looking for. Every time Anders finds or makes up something trivial and doesn't even look at the application.  It actually got to the point where I've whipped up a script that monitors Anders' webpage for sneaky edits. I've caught him before.

By all rights, Mikeman has fulfilled the challenge and done so according to the rules posted at the time. If this wasn't a schoolyard semantics game, Mikeman would have a few more bank notes to his name (That is of course assuming Anders has the money which is HIGHLY suspect)

I don't blame you for not reading all of it though. It's an infuriating read, but that's essentially what's happened.

Now back to our program..

But how does the mesosphere destroy these objects? By friction? No! The mesosphere applies a  force (of resistance) to the object that is simply destroyed by that force.

Wow, that was extremely vague and unhelpful.

I assume any man made object trying to do the same will suffer the same fate.

Why would you assume that?  Man made objects can be designed to resist forces and make controlled atmospheric reentries.

To win my Challenge (topic) you really have to avoid being destroyed by the mesosphere at re-entry! If you think a heat shield or cermaic tile will prevent the evil mesosphere destroying you, you must prove it.

NASA, the Russians and others have already proven it repeatedly with hundreds of practical demonstrations.

Quote from: Heiwa on August 10, 2015, 02:10:51 PM

But how does the mesosphere destroy these objects? By friction? No! The mesosphere applies a  force (of resistance) to the object that is simply destroyed by that force.

Wow, that was extremely vague and unhelpful.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 10, 2015, 05:22:38 PM

I assume any man made object trying to do the same will suffer the same fate.

Why would you assume that?  Man made objects can be designed to resist forces and make controlled atmospheric reentries.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 10, 2015, 05:22:38 PM

To win my Challenge (topic) you really have to avoid being destroyed by the mesosphere at re-entry! If you think a heat shield or ceramic tile will prevent the evil mesosphere destroying you, you must prove it.

NASA, the Russians and others have already proven it repeatedly with hundreds of practical demonstrations.

Yes, I particularly like the April 1961 Soviet demonstration of Juri Gagarin. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .

Then we have the Novalac/AVCOAT/PICAX heatshield versus the Shuttle LI-900 TPS ceramic tile controversy.  The surface of the 25-50 mm thick Novalac/AVCOAT/PICAX heatshield is subject to radiation, convection and mechanical erosion during re-entry, when it simply ablatively disappears, while the much thinner, say 10-15 mm thick  LI-900 TPS ceramic just absorbs the heat on one side at 1500°C, while the other side, attached to the Shuttle, is not hot at all, say 20°C, during re-entry. The only problem of the  LI-900 TPS ceramic tile is that it is not water proof but luckily it doesn't rain in space according NASA.

What the Russians are using today is not clear. Their Soyuz capsule just lands. Maybe the Siberian atmosphere is much colder so no protection is required?