I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge

Quote from: Heiwa on April 19, 2016, 05:29:01 AM

Quote from: DanneJeRusse on April 19, 2016, 05:12:47 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 18, 2016, 09:03:13 PM

Quote from: DanneJeRusse on April 18, 2016, 07:37:12 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on January 09, 2015, 10:03:16 AM

LOL! Please read the requirements of the Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Can you read? If not, learn to read or ask your mother/father/legal person to read for you.
In order to complete the Challenge you must submit your complete report to me. Not just refer to some Mickey Mouse Disney moon travel software. Good luck!

I have read your challenge and can submit my report to you, however before I start working on it, I'll need to see confirmation that the money exists, is held in escrow by a third party and a contract that will release the funds once the report has been submitted and found to satisfy the challenge. Thanks.

I am happy to hear that you can read and can submit a report. If the report meets the requirements of the Challenge the money will be sent by bank transfer. Don't worry.
But please check that your report is complete before sending it. What is the mass of your spacecraft at departure (kg) and what amount of fuel was used to get going away from Earth (kg) and what was the force (N) applied, etc, etc? And how did you stop, land and take off again on the Moon and when did they occur? How much fuel was used? And re-entry! How did you do it without using any fuel? And how did you solve the n-body question? Simulations?

I'm not worried about your challenge as it appears to be quite simple, what I am worried about is the money and would like to see confirmation, a contract and who holds in it escrow, please supply this information, thanks.

Just follow the Challenge rules. Do a serious application and it will be reviewed. But it is not simple. It is very difficult. The MONEY. It is there. Trust me.

Sorry, but what I described is how these challenges work, you MUST transfer the money to a third party to place in escrow and then provide a contract. This is very simple to do, not difficult at all. You can review the report, but then so does the third party to make sure the money gets released. Trust most certainly is the issue, that's why challenges such as these are made this way. If you can't do that, then your challenge is not valid.

Quote from: DanneJeRusse on April 19, 2016, 05:55:21 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 19, 2016, 05:29:01 AM

Quote from: DanneJeRusse on April 19, 2016, 05:12:47 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 18, 2016, 09:03:13 PM

Quote from: DanneJeRusse on April 18, 2016, 07:37:12 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on January 09, 2015, 10:03:16 AM

LOL! Please read the requirements of the Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Can you read? If not, learn to read or ask your mother/father/legal person to read for you.
In order to complete the Challenge you must submit your complete report to me. Not just refer to some Mickey Mouse Disney moon travel software. Good luck!

I have read your challenge and can submit my report to you, however before I start working on it, I'll need to see confirmation that the money exists, is held in escrow by a third party and a contract that will release the funds once the report has been submitted and found to satisfy the challenge. Thanks.

I am happy to hear that you can read and can submit a report. If the report meets the requirements of the Challenge the money will be sent by bank transfer. Don't worry.
But please check that your report is complete before sending it. What is the mass of your spacecraft at departure (kg) and what amount of fuel was used to get going away from Earth (kg) and what was the force (N) applied, etc, etc? And how did you stop, land and take off again on the Moon and when did they occur? How much fuel was used? And re-entry! How did you do it without using any fuel? And how did you solve the n-body question? Simulations?

I'm not worried about your challenge as it appears to be quite simple, what I am worried about is the money and would like to see confirmation, a contract and who holds in it escrow, please supply this information, thanks.

Just follow the Challenge rules. Do a serious application and it will be reviewed. But it is not simple. It is very difficult. The MONEY. It is there. Trust me.

Sorry, but what I described is how these challenges work, you MUST transfer the money to a third party to place in escrow and then provide a contract. This is very simple to do, not difficult at all. You can review the report, but then so does the third party to make sure the money gets released. Trust most certainly is the issue, that's why challenges such as these are made this way. If you can't do that, then your challenge is not valid.

My Challenge is legally valid since many years. I am not sorry that it is too difficult for you to grasp. Just make a proper application as per the Rules and we can discuss. Stupid conditions to make an application, blah, blah, do not impress me. You are just one in a long line of twirps.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 19, 2016, 06:38:37 AM

Quote from: DanneJeRusse on April 19, 2016, 05:55:21 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 19, 2016, 05:29:01 AM

Quote from: DanneJeRusse on April 19, 2016, 05:12:47 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 18, 2016, 09:03:13 PM

Quote from: DanneJeRusse on April 18, 2016, 07:37:12 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on January 09, 2015, 10:03:16 AM

LOL! Please read the requirements of the Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Can you read? If not, learn to read or ask your mother/father/legal person to read for you.
In order to complete the Challenge you must submit your complete report to me. Not just refer to some Mickey Mouse Disney moon travel software. Good luck!

I have read your challenge and can submit my report to you, however before I start working on it, I'll need to see confirmation that the money exists, is held in escrow by a third party and a contract that will release the funds once the report has been submitted and found to satisfy the challenge. Thanks.

I am happy to hear that you can read and can submit a report. If the report meets the requirements of the Challenge the money will be sent by bank transfer. Don't worry.
But please check that your report is complete before sending it. What is the mass of your spacecraft at departure (kg) and what amount of fuel was used to get going away from Earth (kg) and what was the force (N) applied, etc, etc? And how did you stop, land and take off again on the Moon and when did they occur? How much fuel was used? And re-entry! How did you do it without using any fuel? And how did you solve the n-body question? Simulations?

I'm not worried about your challenge as it appears to be quite simple, what I am worried about is the money and would like to see confirmation, a contract and who holds in it escrow, please supply this information, thanks.

Just follow the Challenge rules. Do a serious application and it will be reviewed. But it is not simple. It is very difficult. The MONEY. It is there. Trust me.

Sorry, but what I described is how these challenges work, you MUST transfer the money to a third party to place in escrow and then provide a contract. This is very simple to do, not difficult at all. You can review the report, but then so does the third party to make sure the money gets released. Trust most certainly is the issue, that's why challenges such as these are made this way. If you can't do that, then your challenge is not valid.

My Challenge is legally valid since many years. I am not sorry that it is too difficult for you to grasp. Just make a proper application as per the Rules and we can discuss. Stupid conditions to make an application, blah, blah, do not impress me. You are just one in a long line of twirps.

Translation: I am opposed to making it a legally binding challenge because then I would have to prove the money exists and I don't have it.

Quote from: frenat on April 19, 2016, 06:45:50 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 19, 2016, 06:38:37 AM

Quote from: DanneJeRusse on April 19, 2016, 05:55:21 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 19, 2016, 05:29:01 AM

Quote from: DanneJeRusse on April 19, 2016, 05:12:47 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 18, 2016, 09:03:13 PM

Quote from: DanneJeRusse on April 18, 2016, 07:37:12 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on January 09, 2015, 10:03:16 AM

LOL! Please read the requirements of the Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Can you read? If not, learn to read or ask your mother/father/legal person to read for you.
In order to complete the Challenge you must submit your complete report to me. Not just refer to some Mickey Mouse Disney moon travel software. Good luck!

I have read your challenge and can submit my report to you, however before I start working on it, I'll need to see confirmation that the money exists, is held in escrow by a third party and a contract that will release the funds once the report has been submitted and found to satisfy the challenge. Thanks.

I am happy to hear that you can read and can submit a report. If the report meets the requirements of the Challenge the money will be sent by bank transfer. Don't worry.
But please check that your report is complete before sending it. What is the mass of your spacecraft at departure (kg) and what amount of fuel was used to get going away from Earth (kg) and what was the force (N) applied, etc, etc? And how did you stop, land and take off again on the Moon and when did they occur? How much fuel was used? And re-entry! How did you do it without using any fuel? And how did you solve the n-body question? Simulations?

I'm not worried about your challenge as it appears to be quite simple, what I am worried about is the money and would like to see confirmation, a contract and who holds in it escrow, please supply this information, thanks.

Just follow the Challenge rules. Do a serious application and it will be reviewed. But it is not simple. It is very difficult. The MONEY. It is there. Trust me.

Sorry, but what I described is how these challenges work, you MUST transfer the money to a third party to place in escrow and then provide a contract. This is very simple to do, not difficult at all. You can review the report, but then so does the third party to make sure the money gets released. Trust most certainly is the issue, that's why challenges such as these are made this way. If you can't do that, then your challenge is not valid.

My Challenge is legally valid since many years. I am not sorry that it is too difficult for you to grasp. Just make a proper application as per the Rules and we can discuss. Stupid conditions to make an application, blah, blah, do not impress me. You are just one in a long line of twirps.

Translation: I am opposed to making it a legally binding challenge because then I would have to prove the money exists and I don't have it.

?? Just visit my office and show me your application. My style is at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm . Or send me your application. Or publish it here at FE forum.
The money? It is available. But you will never win it. You appear stupid and not very intelligent. I feel sorry for your mother having born you.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 19, 2016, 06:56:57 AM

Quote from: frenat on April 19, 2016, 06:45:50 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 19, 2016, 06:38:37 AM

Quote from: DanneJeRusse on April 19, 2016, 05:55:21 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 19, 2016, 05:29:01 AM

Quote from: DanneJeRusse on April 19, 2016, 05:12:47 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 18, 2016, 09:03:13 PM

Quote from: DanneJeRusse on April 18, 2016, 07:37:12 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on January 09, 2015, 10:03:16 AM

LOL! Please read the requirements of the Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Can you read? If not, learn to read or ask your mother/father/legal person to read for you.
In order to complete the Challenge you must submit your complete report to me. Not just refer to some Mickey Mouse Disney moon travel software. Good luck!

I have read your challenge and can submit my report to you, however before I start working on it, I'll need to see confirmation that the money exists, is held in escrow by a third party and a contract that will release the funds once the report has been submitted and found to satisfy the challenge. Thanks.

I am happy to hear that you can read and can submit a report. If the report meets the requirements of the Challenge the money will be sent by bank transfer. Don't worry.
But please check that your report is complete before sending it. What is the mass of your spacecraft at departure (kg) and what amount of fuel was used to get going away from Earth (kg) and what was the force (N) applied, etc, etc? And how did you stop, land and take off again on the Moon and when did they occur? How much fuel was used? And re-entry! How did you do it without using any fuel? And how did you solve the n-body question? Simulations?

I'm not worried about your challenge as it appears to be quite simple, what I am worried about is the money and would like to see confirmation, a contract and who holds in it escrow, please supply this information, thanks.

Just follow the Challenge rules. Do a serious application and it will be reviewed. But it is not simple. It is very difficult. The MONEY. It is there. Trust me.

Sorry, but what I described is how these challenges work, you MUST transfer the money to a third party to place in escrow and then provide a contract. This is very simple to do, not difficult at all. You can review the report, but then so does the third party to make sure the money gets released. Trust most certainly is the issue, that's why challenges such as these are made this way. If you can't do that, then your challenge is not valid.

My Challenge is legally valid since many years. I am not sorry that it is too difficult for you to grasp. Just make a proper application as per the Rules and we can discuss. Stupid conditions to make an application, blah, blah, do not impress me. You are just one in a long line of twirps.

Translation: I am opposed to making it a legally binding challenge because then I would have to prove the money exists and I don't have it.

?? Just visit my office and show me your application. My style is at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm . Or send me your application. Or publish it here at FE forum.
The money? It is available. But you will never win it. You appear stupid and not very intelligent. I feel sorry for your mother having born you.

you are so predictable.  NOBODY believes you have the money.  When cornered you start spewing insults.  It is readily apparent that you are doing all of this just to get attention.  Quite sad really.

Quote from: frenat on April 19, 2016, 06:58:35 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 19, 2016, 06:56:57 AM

Quote from: frenat on April 19, 2016, 06:45:50 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 19, 2016, 06:38:37 AM

Quote from: DanneJeRusse on April 19, 2016, 05:55:21 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 19, 2016, 05:29:01 AM

Quote from: DanneJeRusse on April 19, 2016, 05:12:47 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 18, 2016, 09:03:13 PM

Quote from: DanneJeRusse on April 18, 2016, 07:37:12 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on January 09, 2015, 10:03:16 AM

LOL! Please read the requirements of the Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Can you read? If not, learn to read or ask your mother/father/legal person to read for you.
In order to complete the Challenge you must submit your complete report to me. Not just refer to some Mickey Mouse Disney moon travel software. Good luck!

I have read your challenge and can submit my report to you, however before I start working on it, I'll need to see confirmation that the money exists, is held in escrow by a third party and a contract that will release the funds once the report has been submitted and found to satisfy the challenge. Thanks.

I am happy to hear that you can read and can submit a report. If the report meets the requirements of the Challenge the money will be sent by bank transfer. Don't worry.
But please check that your report is complete before sending it. What is the mass of your spacecraft at departure (kg) and what amount of fuel was used to get going away from Earth (kg) and what was the force (N) applied, etc, etc? And how did you stop, land and take off again on the Moon and when did they occur? How much fuel was used? And re-entry! How did you do it without using any fuel? And how did you solve the n-body question? Simulations?

I'm not worried about your challenge as it appears to be quite simple, what I am worried about is the money and would like to see confirmation, a contract and who holds in it escrow, please supply this information, thanks.

Just follow the Challenge rules. Do a serious application and it will be reviewed. But it is not simple. It is very difficult. The MONEY. It is there. Trust me.

Sorry, but what I described is how these challenges work, you MUST transfer the money to a third party to place in escrow and then provide a contract. This is very simple to do, not difficult at all. You can review the report, but then so does the third party to make sure the money gets released. Trust most certainly is the issue, that's why challenges such as these are made this way. If you can't do that, then your challenge is not valid.

My Challenge is legally valid since many years. I am not sorry that it is too difficult for you to grasp. Just make a proper application as per the Rules and we can discuss. Stupid conditions to make an application, blah, blah, do not impress me. You are just one in a long line of twirps.

Translation: I am opposed to making it a legally binding challenge because then I would have to prove the money exists and I don't have it.

?? Just visit my office and show me your application. My style is at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm . Or send me your application. Or publish it here at FE forum.
The money? It is available. But you will never win it. You appear stupid and not very intelligent. I feel sorry for your mother having born you.

you are so predictable.  NOBODY believes you have the money.  When cornered you start spewing insults.  It is readily apparent that you are doing all of this just to get attention.  Quite sad really.

No, you just confirm you are stupid. Here we discuss my Challenge and you talk about other things (money). Try to focus on the topic.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 19, 2016, 07:03:49 AM

No, you just confirm you are stupid. Here we discuss my Challenge and you talk about other things (money). Try to focus on the topic.

Again, you're so predictable.  Spewing insults when others get close to the truth that you're only doing this for attention.  the topic is your challenge and the money is part of that.  If you can't prove you have the money, then what is the point of anyone bothering?  YOU need to prove you have it.  YOU need to have that money managed by an impartial third party.  The fact that you haven't done that and that you have avoided any proof for years shows that you don't have it.  YOU are a fraud.

Quote from: frenat on April 19, 2016, 07:13:34 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 19, 2016, 07:03:49 AM

No, you just confirm you are stupid. Here we discuss my Challenge and you talk about other things (money). Try to focus on the topic.

Again, you're so predictable.  Spewing insults when others get close to the truth that you're only doing this for attention.  the topic is your challenge and the money is part of that.  If you can't prove you have the money, then what is the point of anyone bothering?  YOU need to prove you have it.  YOU need to have that money managed by an impartial third party.  The fact that you haven't done that and that you have avoided any proof for years shows that you don't have it.  YOU are a fraud.

Sorry - I am not a fraud. Just study my impressive CV - http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm . What a nice, good looking guy I am. But beware. I am military trained to kill. Part of my education. Very useful, I have to add.
So try to focus on the TOPIC. My Challenge.
Topic is not my money.

Quote from: markjo on April 19, 2016, 05:28:18 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 18, 2016, 09:54:31 PM

Due to being so popular I have just decided to change the Challenge a little - see http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Now you have to describe the fuel consumption of both (a) a manned Moon return trip and (b) a manned Mars return trip. Before you had the option of chosing one or the other but it is no longer possible.

That is known as moving the goal posts and is considered poor form, if not down right illegal for an official, legally binding challenge.

Well, you have to accept the latest requirements that do not change much. You just must describe both trips to win. Before it was just one and the other. FYI, if you need an official, legally binding, not illegal Challenge contract you have to visit my office and it will be signed. I never sign illegal documents and I wonder why you want me to sign one.
Are you real. Or just one of many sick clowns on this forum?

Quote from: Woody on April 18, 2016, 11:57:19 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 18, 2016, 08:53:01 PM

Quote from: Woody on April 18, 2016, 05:22:18 PM

My calculations you find at my popular website about space travel. It has >300 visitors/day!

Newton, Kepler and Einstein never investigated the problems of human space travel and, if alive today, would probably fail the Heiwa Challenge. Newton and Einstein had some ideas about gravity and Kepler and Einstein about orbits but none ever considered human space travel.

What happens if you send a spacecraft straight up forgetting the Moon? Take a US InterContinental Ballistic Missile! It is sent up in space to say 1 600 km altitude, where it stops to drop down again by gravity on Moscow to explode and wipe out Putin & Co. Very naughty.

To send up something like an ICBM to 1 600 km altitude requires a certain amount of energy/fuel/force/speed applied and it takes a certain time say 10 minutes. Say that the max speed going up is 9 000 m/s, it is then 0 at 1 600 km altitude and then it becomes 9 000 m/s again, when dropping down into the atmosphere again where ... it is vaporized after about 10 minutes. Any student of the Heiwa Challenge can do the calculations. They are basic

US Department of Nuclear War and Destruction says it is not true! A heat shield is fitted on the ICBM and the ICBM is not vaporized at re-entry. No, the atmosphere brakes the ICBM, when it drops almost vertically on Moscow and then BOOM - Moscow is vaporized.

Apollo re-entered almost horizontally, while ICBMs re-enter almost vertically but heat shields work anywhere ... in the sick minds of space re-entry experts. It is hilarious. Imagine all these US nuclear war generals doing ... nothing.

An orbit is the path of an object around another object in space. No fuel is required. If you apply a force to one object in orbit, it will leave the orbit and enter a trajectory going somewhere else.

So you are saying if propulsion is supplied to a satellite to adjust it's orbit it is now on a trajectory that will crash into the Earth?

Why can things like comets, meteors and everything else all be observed traveling in elliptical orbits through the solar system but something man made can not?  Lets compare a meteor the same size of the Apollo 11 capsule.  What changes with the physics?

Does the mass of a human require different consideration than the mass of piece of electronic equipment?

If we take two identical cargo ships and load one with people and the other with electronics weighing the same amount will one ship behave differently than the other?  Would one require more fuel?  Would one sit lower in the water?  Does the source of the mass only effect calculations for space flight?

Apollo did not reenter almost horizontally.  Where did you find your information?  Entering that way would result in entering the lower atmosphere at too high of speed in the majority of cases. 

You already are aware of this since the safe reentry window is something you claim you are unable to solve.









I can continue to post different sources that depict and explain the same reentry profiles.  Why not post your sources where it says something like the Apollo capsules entering almost horizontally?  That does not happen with a capsule until it has entered the lower atmosphere and moving slower and as a result the heat load is lower.

If you are disputing Newton, Kepler and Einstein and are right you really need to publish your work and have it peer reviewed.  You seem not to understand what your statement means.  You are saying the understanding of a large amount of physics is wrong and has been wrong for many generations.

Please explain why if a spacecraft is orbiting the Earth in an orbit then changes that orbit to be highly elliptical it will crash into the Earth.  Seems to me it will continue to orbit. What changes with the influence of gravity between an elliptical orbit and a highly elliptical orbit?

I am somewhat amazed you do not see the contradictions in your model of orbital mechanics.  You are disputing Newton's laws.  Some force would need to act on the spacecraft and apparently that force changes significantly depending on the type of orbit in your model.

Your site does not offer calculations for why something would crash into earth if put in an orbit to encounter the moon.  I may have missed it. Your site is not easy to reference and find specific information. Why not just copy and paste your calculations here?

Quote from: Heiwa on April 19, 2016, 03:41:12 AM

Quote from: Woody on April 18, 2016, 11:57:19 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 18, 2016, 08:53:01 PM

Quote from: Woody on April 18, 2016, 05:22:18 PM

My calculations you find at my popular website about space travel. It has >300 visitors/day!

Newton, Kepler and Einstein never investigated the problems of human space travel and, if alive today, would probably fail the Heiwa Challenge. Newton and Einstein had some ideas about gravity and Kepler and Einstein about orbits but none ever considered human space travel.

What happens if you send a spacecraft straight up forgetting the Moon? Take a US InterContinental Ballistic Missile! It is sent up in space to say 1 600 km altitude, where it stops to drop down again by gravity on Moscow to explode and wipe out Putin & Co. Very naughty.

To send up something like an ICBM to 1 600 km altitude requires a certain amount of energy/fuel/force/speed applied and it takes a certain time say 10 minutes. Say that the max speed going up is 9 000 m/s, it is then 0 at 1 600 km altitude and then it becomes 9 000 m/s again, when dropping down into the atmosphere again where ... it is vaporized after about 10 minutes. Any student of the Heiwa Challenge can do the calculations. They are basic

US Department of Nuclear War and Destruction says it is not true! A heat shield is fitted on the ICBM and the ICBM is not vaporized at re-entry. No, the atmosphere brakes the ICBM, when it drops almost vertically on Moscow and then BOOM - Moscow is vaporized.

Apollo re-entered almost horizontally, while ICBMs re-enter almost vertically but heat shields work anywhere ... in the sick minds of space re-entry experts. It is hilarious. Imagine all these US nuclear war generals doing ... nothing.

An orbit is the path of an object around another object in space. No fuel is required. If you apply a force to one object in orbit, it will leave the orbit and enter a trajectory going somewhere else.

So you are saying if propulsion is supplied to a satellite to adjust it's orbit it is now on a trajectory that will crash into the Earth?

Why can things like comets, meteors and everything else all be observed traveling in elliptical orbits through the solar system but something man made can not?  Lets compare a meteor the same size of the Apollo 11 capsule.  What changes with the physics?

Does the mass of a human require different consideration than the mass of piece of electronic equipment?

If we take two identical cargo ships and load one with people and the other with electronics weighing the same amount will one ship behave differently than the other?  Would one require more fuel?  Would one sit lower in the water?  Does the source of the mass only effect calculations for space flight?

Apollo did not reenter almost horizontally.  Where did you find your information?  Entering that way would result in entering the lower atmosphere at too high of speed in the majority of cases. 

You already are aware of this since the safe reentry window is something you claim you are unable to solve.









I can continue to post different sources that depict and explain the same reentry profiles.  Why not post your sources where it says something like the Apollo capsules entering almost horizontally?  That does not happen with a capsule until it has entered the lower atmosphere and moving slower and as a result the heat load is lower.

If you are disputing Newton, Kepler and Einstein and are right you really need to publish your work and have it peer reviewed.  You seem not to understand what your statement means.  You are saying the understanding of a large amount of physics is wrong and has been wrong for many generations.

Please explain why if a spacecraft is orbiting the Earth in an orbit then changes that orbit to be highly elliptical it will crash into the Earth.  Seems to me it will continue to orbit. What changes with the influence of gravity between an elliptical orbit and a highly elliptical orbit?

I am somewhat amazed you do not see the contradictions in your model of orbital mechanics.  You are disputing Newton's laws.  Some force would need to act on the spacecraft and apparently that force changes significantly depending on the type of orbit in your model.

Your site does not offer calculations for why something would crash into earth if put in an orbit to encounter the moon.  I may have missed it. Your site is not easy to reference and find specific information. Why not just copy and paste your calculations here?

Quote from: Heiwa on April 19, 2016, 05:40:09 AM

Quote from: markjo on April 19, 2016, 05:28:18 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 18, 2016, 09:54:31 PM

Due to being so popular I have just decided to change the Challenge a little - see http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Now you have to describe the fuel consumption of both (a) a manned Moon return trip and (b) a manned Mars return trip. Before you had the option of chosing one or the other but it is no longer possible.

That is known as moving the goal posts and is considered poor form, if not down right illegal for an official, legally binding challenge.

Well, you have to accept the latest requirements that do not change much. You just must describe both trips to win. Before it was just one and the other. FYI, if you need an official, legally binding, not illegal Challenge contract you have to visit my office and it will be signed. I never sign illegal documents and I wonder why you want me to sign one.
Are you real. Or just one of many sick clowns on this forum?

I would like a contract.  Can we please meet at this office of your company, maybe you can show me round, it would be interesting to meet the chief engineer:

Arianespace
Boulevard de l'Europe
BP 177 91006 Evry-Courcouronnes CEDEX
France

Quote from: Woody on April 19, 2016, 10:02:45 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 19, 2016, 03:41:12 AM

Quote from: Woody on April 18, 2016, 11:57:19 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 18, 2016, 08:53:01 PM

Quote from: Woody on April 18, 2016, 05:22:18 PM

My calculations you find at my popular website about space travel. It has >300 visitors/day!

Newton, Kepler and Einstein never investigated the problems of human space travel and, if alive today, would probably fail the Heiwa Challenge. Newton and Einstein had some ideas about gravity and Kepler and Einstein about orbits but none ever considered human space travel.

What happens if you send a spacecraft straight up forgetting the Moon? Take a US InterContinental Ballistic Missile! It is sent up in space to say 1 600 km altitude, where it stops to drop down again by gravity on Moscow to explode and wipe out Putin & Co. Very naughty.

To send up something like an ICBM to 1 600 km altitude requires a certain amount of energy/fuel/force/speed applied and it takes a certain time say 10 minutes. Say that the max speed going up is 9 000 m/s, it is then 0 at 1 600 km altitude and then it becomes 9 000 m/s again, when dropping down into the atmosphere again where ... it is vaporized after about 10 minutes. Any student of the Heiwa Challenge can do the calculations. They are basic

US Department of Nuclear War and Destruction says it is not true! A heat shield is fitted on the ICBM and the ICBM is not vaporized at re-entry. No, the atmosphere brakes the ICBM, when it drops almost vertically on Moscow and then BOOM - Moscow is vaporized.

Apollo re-entered almost horizontally, while ICBMs re-enter almost vertically but heat shields work anywhere ... in the sick minds of space re-entry experts. It is hilarious. Imagine all these US nuclear war generals doing ... nothing.

An orbit is the path of an object around another object in space. No fuel is required. If you apply a force to one object in orbit, it will leave the orbit and enter a trajectory going somewhere else.

So you are saying if propulsion is supplied to a satellite to adjust it's orbit it is now on a trajectory that will crash into the Earth?

Why can things like comets, meteors and everything else all be observed traveling in elliptical orbits through the solar system but something man made can not?  Lets compare a meteor the same size of the Apollo 11 capsule.  What changes with the physics?

Does the mass of a human require different consideration than the mass of piece of electronic equipment?

If we take two identical cargo ships and load one with people and the other with electronics weighing the same amount will one ship behave differently than the other?  Would one require more fuel?  Would one sit lower in the water?  Does the source of the mass only effect calculations for space flight?

Apollo did not reenter almost horizontally.  Where did you find your information?  Entering that way would result in entering the lower atmosphere at too high of speed in the majority of cases. 

You already are aware of this since the safe reentry window is something you claim you are unable to solve.









I can continue to post different sources that depict and explain the same reentry profiles.  Why not post your sources where it says something like the Apollo capsules entering almost horizontally?  That does not happen with a capsule until it has entered the lower atmosphere and moving slower and as a result the heat load is lower.

If you are disputing Newton, Kepler and Einstein and are right you really need to publish your work and have it peer reviewed.  You seem not to understand what your statement means.  You are saying the understanding of a large amount of physics is wrong and has been wrong for many generations.

Please explain why if a spacecraft is orbiting the Earth in an orbit then changes that orbit to be highly elliptical it will crash into the Earth.  Seems to me it will continue to orbit. What changes with the influence of gravity between an elliptical orbit and a highly elliptical orbit?

I am somewhat amazed you do not see the contradictions in your model of orbital mechanics.  You are disputing Newton's laws.  Some force would need to act on the spacecraft and apparently that force changes significantly depending on the type of orbit in your model.

Your site does not offer calculations for why something would crash into earth if put in an orbit to encounter the moon.  I may have missed it. Your site is not easy to reference and find specific information. Why not just copy and paste your calculations here?

Here, let me try.

Those pictures are funny. They want us to believe that a man-made capsule can survive the force and heat re-entry. As I have calculated on my popular site, any capsule will immediately burn up.

You are too dumb to win my challenge and the £1,000,000.

Quote from: nexzus on April 19, 2016, 11:09:05 AM

Quote from: Woody on April 19, 2016, 10:02:45 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 19, 2016, 03:41:12 AM

Quote from: Woody on April 18, 2016, 11:57:19 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 18, 2016, 08:53:01 PM

Quote from: Woody on April 18, 2016, 05:22:18 PM

My calculations you find at my popular website about space travel. It has >300 visitors/day!

Newton, Kepler and Einstein never investigated the problems of human space travel and, if alive today, would probably fail the Heiwa Challenge. Newton and Einstein had some ideas about gravity and Kepler and Einstein about orbits but none ever considered human space travel.

What happens if you send a spacecraft straight up forgetting the Moon? Take a US InterContinental Ballistic Missile! It is sent up in space to say 1 600 km altitude, where it stops to drop down again by gravity on Moscow to explode and wipe out Putin & Co. Very naughty.

To send up something like an ICBM to 1 600 km altitude requires a certain amount of energy/fuel/force/speed applied and it takes a certain time say 10 minutes. Say that the max speed going up is 9 000 m/s, it is then 0 at 1 600 km altitude and then it becomes 9 000 m/s again, when dropping down into the atmosphere again where ... it is vaporized after about 10 minutes. Any student of the Heiwa Challenge can do the calculations. They are basic

US Department of Nuclear War and Destruction says it is not true! A heat shield is fitted on the ICBM and the ICBM is not vaporized at re-entry. No, the atmosphere brakes the ICBM, when it drops almost vertically on Moscow and then BOOM - Moscow is vaporized.

Apollo re-entered almost horizontally, while ICBMs re-enter almost vertically but heat shields work anywhere ... in the sick minds of space re-entry experts. It is hilarious. Imagine all these US nuclear war generals doing ... nothing.

An orbit is the path of an object around another object in space. No fuel is required. If you apply a force to one object in orbit, it will leave the orbit and enter a trajectory going somewhere else.

So you are saying if propulsion is supplied to a satellite to adjust it's orbit it is now on a trajectory that will crash into the Earth?

Why can things like comets, meteors and everything else all be observed traveling in elliptical orbits through the solar system but something man made can not?  Lets compare a meteor the same size of the Apollo 11 capsule.  What changes with the physics?

Does the mass of a human require different consideration than the mass of piece of electronic equipment?

If we take two identical cargo ships and load one with people and the other with electronics weighing the same amount will one ship behave differently than the other?  Would one require more fuel?  Would one sit lower in the water?  Does the source of the mass only effect calculations for space flight?

Apollo did not reenter almost horizontally.  Where did you find your information?  Entering that way would result in entering the lower atmosphere at too high of speed in the majority of cases. 

You already are aware of this since the safe reentry window is something you claim you are unable to solve.









I can continue to post different sources that depict and explain the same reentry profiles.  Why not post your sources where it says something like the Apollo capsules entering almost horizontally?  That does not happen with a capsule until it has entered the lower atmosphere and moving slower and as a result the heat load is lower.

If you are disputing Newton, Kepler and Einstein and are right you really need to publish your work and have it peer reviewed.  You seem not to understand what your statement means.  You are saying the understanding of a large amount of physics is wrong and has been wrong for many generations.

Please explain why if a spacecraft is orbiting the Earth in an orbit then changes that orbit to be highly elliptical it will crash into the Earth.  Seems to me it will continue to orbit. What changes with the influence of gravity between an elliptical orbit and a highly elliptical orbit?

I am somewhat amazed you do not see the contradictions in your model of orbital mechanics.  You are disputing Newton's laws.  Some force would need to act on the spacecraft and apparently that force changes significantly depending on the type of orbit in your model.

Your site does not offer calculations for why something would crash into earth if put in an orbit to encounter the moon.  I may have missed it. Your site is not easy to reference and find specific information. Why not just copy and paste your calculations here?

Here, let me try.

Those pictures are funny. They want us to believe that a man-made capsule can survive the force and heat re-entry. As I have calculated on my popular site, any capsule will immediately burn up.

You are too dumb to win my challenge and the £1,000,000.

Sorry, a very stupid try, nexzus. You seem to be a new idiot at FEF publishing strange post with new pictures in this old thread.  I explain every day at my popular web site why human space travel re-entries are impossible and why therefore nobody will win my €1M Challenge. 

Actually no manned spacecraft leaving Earth and later trying a real, manned re-entry has ever existed.
Only empty, light weight, thin mock-ups and/or stage props of spacecrafts without any one aboard have been sent up to impress any onlookers and they could never return intact.

I assume you are a grandchild of one of the original inventors of the rubbish. Why don't you find a real job?

Quote from: DanneJeRusse on April 19, 2016, 05:55:21 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 19, 2016, 05:29:01 AM

Quote from: DanneJeRusse on April 19, 2016, 05:12:47 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 18, 2016, 09:03:13 PM

Quote from: DanneJeRusse on April 18, 2016, 07:37:12 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on January 09, 2015, 10:03:16 AM

LOL! Please read the requirements of the Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Can you read? If not, learn to read or ask your mother/father/legal person to read for you.
In order to complete the Challenge you must submit your complete report to me. Not just refer to some Mickey Mouse Disney moon travel software. Good luck!

I have read your challenge and can submit my report to you, however before I start working on it, I'll need to see confirmation that the money exists, is held in escrow by a third party and a contract that will release the funds once the report has been submitted and found to satisfy the challenge. Thanks.

I am happy to hear that you can read and can submit a report. If the report meets the requirements of the Challenge the money will be sent by bank transfer. Don't worry.
But please check that your report is complete before sending it. What is the mass of your spacecraft at departure (kg) and what amount of fuel was used to get going away from Earth (kg) and what was the force (N) applied, etc, etc? And how did you stop, land and take off again on the Moon and when did they occur? How much fuel was used? And re-entry! How did you do it without using any fuel? And how did you solve the n-body question? Simulations?

I'm not worried about your challenge as it appears to be quite simple, what I am worried about is the money and would like to see confirmation, a contract and who holds in it escrow, please supply this information, thanks.

Just follow the Challenge rules. Do a serious application and it will be reviewed. But it is not simple. It is very difficult. The MONEY. It is there. Trust me.

Sorry, but what I described is how these challenges work, you MUST transfer the money to a third party to place in escrow and then provide a contract. This is very simple to do, not difficult at all. You can review the report, but then so does the third party to make sure the money gets released. Trust most certainly is the issue, that's why challenges such as these are made this way. If you can't do that, then your challenge is not valid.

My Challenge is legally valid since many years. I am not sorry that it is too difficult for you to grasp. Just make a proper application as per the Rules and we can discuss. Stupid conditions to make an application, blah, blah, do not impress me. You are just one in a long line of twirps.

Quote from: markjo on April 18, 2016, 07:30:43 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 18, 2016, 02:57:53 PM

No, a manned space trip between Earth and Moon/Mars as per my Challenge (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm ) is not an orbit as per above definitions. The Challenge trip is a trajectory between two moving heavenly bodies.

Apparently you are unaware that orbit is a synonym of trajectory.

That depends on how you define "trajectory".

The NASA cum suis "definition" is that you define a trajectory on a computer.
The physical law definition is that orbit is the result of gravitational laws.

They highly deviate. Orbits are unescapable.

Quote from: Gaia_Redonda on April 18, 2016, 09:42:45 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 18, 2016, 07:30:43 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 18, 2016, 02:57:53 PM

No, a manned space trip between Earth and Moon/Mars as per my Challenge (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm ) is not an orbit as per above definitions. The Challenge trip is a trajectory between two moving heavenly bodies.

Apparently you are unaware that orbit is a synonym of trajectory.

That depends on how you define "trajectory".

The NASA cum suis "definition" is that you define a trajectory on a computer.
The physical law definition is that orbit is the result of gravitational laws.

They highly deviate. Orbits are unescapable.

Did you know that engines exist, and retrograde exists, and when your engine fires retrograde, it slows you down, and you will be able to go back from space today? I guess no.

Quote from: MrDebunk on April 19, 2016, 07:49:48 PM

Quote from: Gaia_Redonda on April 18, 2016, 09:42:45 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 18, 2016, 07:30:43 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 18, 2016, 02:57:53 PM

No, a manned space trip between Earth and Moon/Mars as per my Challenge (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm ) is not an orbit as per above definitions. The Challenge trip is a trajectory between two moving heavenly bodies.

Apparently you are unaware that orbit is a synonym of trajectory.

That depends on how you define "trajectory".

The NASA cum suis "definition" is that you define a trajectory on a computer.
The physical law definition is that orbit is the result of gravitational laws.

They highly deviate. Orbits are unescapable.

Did you know that engines exist, and retrograde exists, and when your engine fires retrograde, it slows you down, and you will be able to go back from space today? I guess no.

Yes, that's my Challenge (topic) - the fuel/energy used to do a manned space trip! Nobody seems to be able to calculate how much you need and to ensure that you can get it off the ground and do the trip.

Or where, when, in what direction you must fire the engine to produce a force to proceed.

It seems nobody can even calculate what force is required to get away from Earth to get started and fuel/energy required for it.

With such ignorance you do not win my Challenge.

I have been told that I can download a Mickey Mouse video game on the Internet that will do the calculations so I can win my own Challenge but why should I do that?

And then there is the trajectory of re-entry. It seems the spacecraft not only slows down but also bounces up when re-entering but nobody can explain where the force/energy comes from doing it. It seems they do not understand that gravity pulls you down ... not bounces you up.

Quote from: MrDebunk on April 19, 2016, 07:49:48 PM

Quote from: Gaia_Redonda on April 18, 2016, 09:42:45 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 18, 2016, 07:30:43 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 18, 2016, 02:57:53 PM

No, a manned space trip between Earth and Moon/Mars as per my Challenge (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm ) is not an orbit as per above definitions. The Challenge trip is a trajectory between two moving heavenly bodies.

Apparently you are unaware that orbit is a synonym of trajectory.

That depends on how you define "trajectory".

The NASA cum suis "definition" is that you define a trajectory on a computer.
The physical law definition is that orbit is the result of gravitational laws.

They highly deviate. Orbits are unescapable.

Did you know that engines exist, and retrograde exists, and when your engine fires retrograde, it slows you down, and you will be able to go back from space today? I guess no.

Yes, that's my Challenge (topic) - the fuel/energy used to do a manned space trip! Nobody seems to be able to calculate how much you need and to ensure that you can get it off the ground and do the trip.

Or where, when, in what direction you must fire the engine to produce a force to proceed.

It seems nobody can even calculate what force is required to get away from Earth to get started and fuel/energy required for it.

With such ignorance you do not win my Challenge.

I have been told that I can download a Mickey Mouse video game on the Internet that will do the calculations so I can win my own Challenge but why should I do that?

And then there is the trajectory of re-entry. It seems the spacecraft not only slows down but also bounces up when re-entering but nobody can explain where the force/energy comes from doing it. It seems they do not understand that gravity pulls you down ... not bounces you up.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 19, 2016, 08:09:10 PM

Quote from: MrDebunk on April 19, 2016, 07:49:48 PM

Quote from: Gaia_Redonda on April 18, 2016, 09:42:45 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 18, 2016, 07:30:43 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 18, 2016, 02:57:53 PM

No, a manned space trip between Earth and Moon/Mars as per my Challenge (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm ) is not an orbit as per above definitions. The Challenge trip is a trajectory between two moving heavenly bodies.

Apparently you are unaware that orbit is a synonym of trajectory.

That depends on how you define "trajectory".

The NASA cum suis "definition" is that you define a trajectory on a computer.
The physical law definition is that orbit is the result of gravitational laws.

They highly deviate. Orbits are unescapable.

Did you know that engines exist, and retrograde exists, and when your engine fires retrograde, it slows you down, and you will be able to go back from space today? I guess no.

Yes, that's my Challenge (topic) - the fuel/energy used to do a manned space trip! Nobody seems to be able to calculate how much you need and to ensure that you can get it off the ground and do the trip.

Or where, when, in what direction you must fire the engine to produce a force to proceed.

It seems nobody can even calculate what force is required to get away from Earth to get started and fuel/energy required for it.

With such ignorance you do not win my Challenge.

I have been told that I can download a Mickey Mouse video game on the Internet that will do the calculations so I can win my own Challenge but why should I do that?

And then there is the trajectory of re-entry. It seems the spacecraft not only slows down but also bounces up when re-entering but nobody can explain where the force/energy comes from doing it. It seems they do not understand that gravity pulls you down ... not bounces you up.

So along with drag we can now add lift as a mysterious force during reentry.

Still going to avoid posting your calculations here?

How about answering why the density and ISP of a propellant does not need to be considered when comparing the mass or fuel for different spacecraft?

Can you reveal your source that says Apollo capsules reentered almost horizontally? I provided sources saying the capsules did not reenter at that angle, why not provide yours?

Can you explain why if the center of mass of a capsule is offset from the center line would not cause sideways lift to be generated? How that could not be used for directional control?  Showing your calculations and where the current understanding of aerodynamics is wrong would be great.

You are not going to reveal what US government agency or contractor you worked for that allowed you access to classified nuclear information that resulted in your death sentence?

Not going to answer why if the moon orbits the Earth and satellites can be placed into orbits why something can not be put into an orbit that would result in a moon encounter?

Not going to answer this?:

A spacecraft is orbiting the Earth and it performs a maneuver to raise its apoapsis to about 370,000 km. 

What happens if it is timed so the spacecraft reaches the ap when the moon will be nearby?

What happens if it is timed so it will reach the ap when the moon is on the opposite side of the planet to the spacecraft when it reaches the ap?

Same maneuver just one results in an encounter with the moon and was does not.

If both crash back into the orbit why are satellites not constantly crashing into the Earth?

If fuel use and maneuvers can not be calculated how are satellites placed into orbits then those orbits maintained? 

What changes with the physics when a person is added to the payload?

Did you miss the post where I showed you someone took the time and effort to calculate what you say can not be calculated for you?  How about the links I provided showing you how to do these calculations?

Can you refute, show your calculations and evidence where at least one thing is wrong in the links below?

Orbital Mechanics:
http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm

Propulsion:
http://www.braeunig.us/space/index.htm

Still not going to show us your evidence that the work of Kepler and Newton is wrong? It has been validated by experiments and making reliable accurate predictions for generations. That places the burden of proof on you.

Can you answer any of the above by offering your calculations, observations we can make or experiments?  Can you do it without resorting to ad hominem and incredulity?

The list of questions you fail or avoid answering seems to continue to grow.

The Challenge is first about the fuel used. It seems human space travel relies on rocket engines fired now and then to proceed in space and the Challenge is to tell me how much fuel is used. Give me a number!

Rockets are momentum machines. They spew gas out of a nozzle at high velocity causing the nozzle and the rocket attached to it to move in the opposite direction. Isaac Newton correctly defined the mathematics for this exchange of momentum in 1687. Conservation of momentum applied to a rocket was first done by Russian visionary and scientist Konstantin Tsiolkovsky in 1903. All our rockets are governed by Tsiolkovsky’s rocket equation.

The rocket equation contains three variables. Given any two of these, the third becomes cast in stone. Hope, wishing, or tantrums cannot alter this result. Although a momentum balance, these variables can be cast as energies. They are the energy expenditure against gravity (often called delta V or the change in rocket velocity), the energy available in your rocket propellant (often called exhaust velocity or specific impulse), and the propellant mass fraction (how much propellant you need compared to the total rocket mass).

And then there is problem how to stop at the end - re-entry.  I don't believe that you just arrive in the upper atmosphere at >11 000+ m/s speed and increasing and 10 minutes later have managed to slow down so you can deploy a parachute.

You just drop into the upper atmosphere at >11 000 m/s speed  and ... 10 minutes later you have 200 m/s speed and deploy a parachute.

Sorry. It does not work!

Hm, I just organize my Heiwa €1M Challenge and answer questions about it.

I do not answer questions like above how to travel in space. I assume anyone going to win my Challenge  must have some basic knowledge how to travel there, etc.

The Challenge is first about the fuel used. It seems human space travel relies on rocket engines fired now and then to proceed in space and the Challenge is to tell me how much fuel is used. Give me a number!

And then there is problem how to stop at the end - re-entry.  I don't believe that you just arrive in the upper atmosphere at >11 000+ m/s speed and increasing and 10 minutes later have managed to slow down so you can deploy a parachute.

You just drop into the upper atmosphere at >11 000 m/s speed  and ... 10 minutes later you have 200 m/s speed and deploy a parachute.

Sorry. It does not work!

I really enjoy this thread with all these fools suffering from cognitive dissonace announcing that they know how to travel in and re-enter from space like angels. None of them will never win my Challange.

Isn't it fun? My money is safe by me.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 20, 2016, 06:53:00 AM

The Challenge is first about the fuel used. It seems human space travel relies on rocket engines fired now and then to proceed in space and the Challenge is to tell me how much fuel is used. Give me a number!

How much fuel required depends on where you intend on sending a given size payload.  Unless you give specific parameters to your questions, there is no way of getting a specific answer.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 20, 2016, 06:53:00 AM

And then there is problem how to stop at the end - re-entry.  I don't believe that you just arrive in the upper atmosphere at >11 000+ m/s speed and increasing and 10 minutes later have managed to slow down so you can deploy a parachute.

You just drop into the upper atmosphere at >11 000 m/s speed  and ... 10 minutes later you have 200 m/s speed and deploy a parachute.

Sorry. It does not work!

Actually, it does work quite nicely if you are able to carefully guide your reentry vehicle through a very narrow and specific corridor that assures that the heat and pressure stresses do not overwhelm the craft.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 20, 2016, 06:53:00 AM

Hm, I just organize my Heiwa €1M Challenge and answer questions about it.

I do not answer questions like above how to travel in space. I assume anyone going to win my Challenge  must have some basic knowledge how to travel there, etc.

The Challenge is first about the fuel used. It seems human space travel relies on rocket engines fired now and then to proceed in space and the Challenge is to tell me how much fuel is used. Give me a number!

And then there is problem how to stop at the end - re-entry.  I don't believe that you just arrive in the upper atmosphere at >11 000+ m/s speed and increasing and 10 minutes later have managed to slow down so you can deploy a parachute.

You just drop into the upper atmosphere at >11 000 m/s speed  and ... 10 minutes later you have 200 m/s speed and deploy a parachute.

Sorry. It does not work!

I really enjoy this thread with all these fools suffering from cognitive dissonace announcing that they know how to travel in and re-enter from space like angels. None of them will never win my Challange.

Isn't it fun? My money is safe by me.

Don't get too cocky.  Pride comes before a fall in your bank account, as I will soon demonstrate.  Finding or making a suitable atmospheric entry program that I can use is proving to be a bit harder than I'd like, and finals are keeping me very busy, but I have no doubt that the challenge will still be waiting when I get around to it.  Would you like pictures of the results?  You should, because they always prove to be quite fascinating and informative.

Quote from: Woody on April 19, 2016, 09:19:41 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 19, 2016, 08:09:10 PM

Quote from: MrDebunk on April 19, 2016, 07:49:48 PM

Quote from: Gaia_Redonda on April 18, 2016, 09:42:45 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 18, 2016, 07:30:43 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 18, 2016, 02:57:53 PM

No, a manned space trip between Earth and Moon/Mars as per my Challenge (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm ) is not an orbit as per above definitions. The Challenge trip is a trajectory between two moving heavenly bodies.

Apparently you are unaware that orbit is a synonym of trajectory.

That depends on how you define "trajectory".

The NASA cum suis "definition" is that you define a trajectory on a computer.
The physical law definition is that orbit is the result of gravitational laws.

They highly deviate. Orbits are unescapable.

Did you know that engines exist, and retrograde exists, and when your engine fires retrograde, it slows you down, and you will be able to go back from space today? I guess no.

Yes, that's my Challenge (topic) - the fuel/energy used to do a manned space trip! Nobody seems to be able to calculate how much you need and to ensure that you can get it off the ground and do the trip.

Or where, when, in what direction you must fire the engine to produce a force to proceed.

It seems nobody can even calculate what force is required to get away from Earth to get started and fuel/energy required for it.

With such ignorance you do not win my Challenge.

I have been told that I can download a Mickey Mouse video game on the Internet that will do the calculations so I can win my own Challenge but why should I do that?

And then there is the trajectory of re-entry. It seems the spacecraft not only slows down but also bounces up when re-entering but nobody can explain where the force/energy comes from doing it. It seems they do not understand that gravity pulls you down ... not bounces you up.

So along with drag we can now add lift as a mysterious force during reentry.

Still going to avoid posting your calculations here?

How about answering why the density and ISP of a propellant does not need to be considered when comparing the mass or fuel for different spacecraft?

Can you reveal your source that says Apollo capsules reentered almost horizontally? I provided sources saying the capsules did not reenter at that angle, why not provide yours?

Can you explain why if the center of mass of a capsule is offset from the center line would not cause sideways lift to be generated? How that could not be used for directional control?  Showing your calculations and where the current understanding of aerodynamics is wrong would be great.

You are not going to reveal what US government agency or contractor you worked for that allowed you access to classified nuclear information that resulted in your death sentence?

Not going to answer why if the moon orbits the Earth and satellites can be placed into orbits why something can not be put into an orbit that would result in a moon encounter?

Not going to answer this?:

A spacecraft is orbiting the Earth and it performs a maneuver to raise its apoapsis to about 370,000 km. 

What happens if it is timed so the spacecraft reaches the ap when the moon will be nearby?

What happens if it is timed so it will reach the ap when the moon is on the opposite side of the planet to the spacecraft when it reaches the ap?

Same maneuver just one results in an encounter with the moon and was does not.

If both crash back into the orbit why are satellites not constantly crashing into the Earth?

If fuel use and maneuvers can not be calculated how are satellites placed into orbits then those orbits maintained? 

What changes with the physics when a person is added to the payload?

Did you miss the post where I showed you someone took the time and effort to calculate what you say can not be calculated for you?  How about the links I provided showing you how to do these calculations?

Can you refute, show your calculations and evidence where at least one thing is wrong in the links below?

Orbital Mechanics:
http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm

Propulsion:
http://www.braeunig.us/space/index.htm

Still not going to show us your evidence that the work of Kepler and Newton is wrong? It has been validated by experiments and making reliable accurate predictions for generations. That places the burden of proof on you.

Can you answer any of the above by offering your calculations, observations we can make or experiments?  Can you do it without resorting to ad hominem and incredulity?

The list of questions you fail or avoid answering seems to continue to grow.

Hm, I just organize my Heiwa €1M Challenge and answer questions about it.

I do not answer questions like above how to travel in space. I assume anyone going to win my Challenge  must have some basic knowledge how to travel there, etc.

The Challenge is first about the fuel used. It seems human space travel relies on rocket engines fired now and then to proceed in space and the Challenge is to tell me how much fuel is used. Give me a number!

And then there is problem how to stop at the end - re-entry.  I don't believe that you just arrive in the upper atmosphere at >11 000+ m/s speed and increasing and 10 minutes later have managed to slow down so you can deploy a parachute.

You just drop into the upper atmosphere at >11 000 m/s speed  and ... 10 minutes later you have 200 m/s speed and deploy a parachute.

Sorry. It does not work!

I really enjoy this thread with all these fools suffering from cognitive dissonace announcing that they know how to travel in and re-enter from space like angels. None of them will never win my Challange.

Isn't it fun? My money is safe by me.

Quote from: markjo on April 20, 2016, 07:18:12 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 20, 2016, 06:53:00 AM

And then there is problem how to stop at the end - re-entry.  I don't believe that you just arrive in the upper atmosphere at >11 000+ m/s speed and increasing and 10 minutes later have managed to slow down so you can deploy a parachute.

You just drop into the upper atmosphere at >11 000 m/s speed  and ... 10 minutes later you have 200 m/s speed and deploy a parachute.

Sorry. It does not work!

Actually, it does work quite nicely if you are able to carefully guide your reentry vehicle through a very narrow and specific corridor that assures that the heat and pressure stresses do not overwhelm the craft.

It does? To win my Challenge (topic) you must explain how you guide your spacecraft where the mysterious forces will slow it down. According NASA 1969 Apollo did it with some autopilot using some computer but to win my Challenge you must do better than that.

Dynamics of Atmospheric Re-Entry (AIAA Education)
by Frank J. Regan (Author), Satya M. Anandakrishnan (Author), Naval Su F. Regan and S. Anandakrishnan (Author)

Presenting comprehensive coverage of the dynamics of atmospheric re-entry, this text details fundamental concepts and practical applications such as the atmospheric model and re-entry mechanics, and goes on to discuss specific topics such as re-entry decoys, flow fields and error analysis.

How are you going to judge someone's submission to your challenge? 

A. Does the submission include calculations using basic astrophysical principles of space navigation and travel the amount of fuel (kg) (or energy (J)) required to complete a manned Moon return trip and a manned planet Mars return trip from being ejected into space from orbit around Earth towards the Moon and  planet Mars by external combustion chambers (also known as rockets), i.e. are two different trips described (one to the Moon, one to planet Mars),

Quote from: Heiwa on April 20, 2016, 10:59:26 AM

A. Does the submission include calculations using basic astrophysical principles of space navigation and travel the amount of fuel (kg) (or energy (J)) required to complete a manned Moon return trip and a manned planet Mars return trip from being ejected into space from orbit around Earth towards the Moon and  planet Mars by external combustion chambers (also known as rockets), i.e. are two different trips described (one to the Moon, one to planet Mars),

Well that's new. Any reason you're always adding new requirements to your challenge?