I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge

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

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.

The Challenge rules - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm - are quite clear. Your manned spacecraft shall do a simple return trip to Moon or Mars. You shall descrie it and the fuel required.
Evidently a ***** spacecraft with swimmingpool, good restaurants, gyms, spas, jogging tracks, indoor gardens will be heavy and require more fuel than a more spartan tin box.

So now back to moon OR mars.

Quote from: Jane on April 20, 2016, 11:31:19 AM

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?

Well, before you had the option of doing a Moon or a Mars trip but now - according to latest Challenge rules - you have to plan and describe both ... so they can be compared. I assume a Mars trip requires a bigger, more comfortable spacecraft than a spacecraft just going off the the Moon for ... planting strawberries? Or maybe I am wrong.

You're wrong.  You need a bigger spacecraft because you will need to support a bigger crew for the 6 month or so trip to Mars as opposed to the 3-4 day trip to the moon.

Anyway, only reason is that I decide the rules so I decided to change the rules. ESA is planning to build a hotel on the Moon and NASA is doing the same on Mars, so they are convinced people will fly there, when the hotels are up and running. My Challenge assists in small way.

Pretty much all of the current plans for manned Mars missions are either one way trips or involve making fuel for the return trip from Martian resources.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 20, 2016, 11:44:37 AM

Quote from: Jane on April 20, 2016, 11:31:19 AM

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?

Well, before you had the option of doing a Moon or a Mars trip but now - according to latest Challenge rules - you have to plan and describe both ... so they can be compared. I assume a Mars trip requires a bigger, more comfortable spacecraft than a spacecraft just going off the the Moon for ... planting strawberries? Or maybe I am wrong.

You're wrong.  You need a bigger spacecraft because you will need to support a bigger crew for the 6 month or so trip to Mars as opposed to the 3-4 day trip to the moon.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 20, 2016, 11:44:37 AM

Anyway, only reason is that I decide the rules so I decided to change the rules. ESA is planning to build a hotel on the Moon and NASA is doing the same on Mars, so they are convinced people will fly there, when the hotels are up and running. My Challenge assists in small way.

Pretty much all of the current plans for manned Mars missions are either one way trips or involve making fuel for the return trip from Martian resources.

One little problem is to land on Mars and its rather strong gravity. The atmosphere (no oxygen) has much less density than Earth's so aerodynamic stunts incl. parachutes à la re-entry on Earth do not work. So you must use rockets/fuel/energy/force to land. Of course NASA has already done in by remote control from Hollywood/JPL years ago. It was fun. I describe it at my web site.
Anyway, my Challenge is about a return trip. If you fill up fuel on Mars you must ensure you can pay for the fuel there.

Quote from: Woody on April 20, 2016, 10:33:31 AM

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

It is easy. The following will be checked:

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),

B. Does the submission include a  description of the spacecraft incl. its masses before/after the various manoeuvers of the trips, any heat shield(s), if fitted, the engines and fuel tanks that can carry the amount of fuel using 1960 or 2016 technology, the accommodation and gear for the persons aboard and

C. Does the submission show that it is actually feasible to do the trips.

A submission shall also include, i.a.:-

1. Mass (kg)/speed (m/s)/altitude (m) of spacecraft/fuel in orbit of Earth (ready to go) and how it got there!

2. Mass (kg)/speed (m/s)/direction of spacecraft/fuel after departure orbit Earth heading for location X in space and on to Moon and Mars + calculations (location X is where Moon/Mars gravity equals Earth gravity in space).

3. Mass (kg)/speed (m/s)/direction of spacecraft/fuel prior arrival Moon/Mars + calculations.

4. Mass (kg)/speed (m/s)/altitude (m) of spacecraft/fuel in orbit around Moon/Mars - if applicable.

5. Mass (kg)/speed (m/s) of spacecraft/fuel in orbit Moon/Mars and prior landing - if applicable.

6. Mass (kg) of spacecraft/fuel after landing Moon/Mars.

7. Mass (kg) of spacecraft/fuel prior departure Moon/Mars.

8. Mass (kg)/speed (m/s)/altitude (m) of spacecraft/fuel in orbit Moon/Mars prior departure to return Earth - if applicable.

9. Mass (kg)/speed (m/s)/direction of spacecraft/fuel after departure orbit Moon/Mars heading for location X in space and on to Earth + calculations.

10. Trajectories - locations in space at regular intervals to confirm that you are heading in the right direction

11. Mass (kg)/speed (m/s)/direction of spacecraft just prior re-entry Earth.

12. Trajectory of re-entry, incl. start location (position/altitude), directions in 3D, altitudes, velocities in 3D every minute from start to end (parachutes deployed).

13. Landing (details).

Manoeuvres to leave/enter orbits and to land/depart must be explained in detail incl. locations/times, etc.

If all above information is provided, individual items will be checked for correctness.

As the spacecraft travels between planets orbiting the Sun, the gravity of the latter must evidently be considered, i.e. during the trip the Sun will always attract the spacecraft.

Seems odd you are willing to give someone a 1M Euro for something that is available in books and found with internet searches.  You have been shown where this information is available and yet you like to pretend it is not available.

So as you demonstrated here multiple times the basic principles you speak of or YOUR basic principles and what is not accepted as being true according to the modern understanding of physics.

Lets see where your claims and model do not align with proven and validated things:

1.  Drag does not slow things down if they been to space

2. Lift does not work for things that been to space

3. Only unmanned spacecraft can have fuel use calculated and be navigated unless those vehicles are going to the moon or beyond.

4.  The influence gravity is equal for everything at every distance.

5. Adding a person to the payload changes physics and any calculations that can be used to put satellites in orbit are no longer correct.

6.  Highly elliptical orbits result in the spacecraft crashing back on Earth only if that orbit would result flying too close to the moon.

7.  Satellites can be put into orbit around the Earth and the moon orbits the Earth.  Yet nothing can be put into an orbit that would result in an encounter with the moon.

8.  Anything that gets too far away from Earth will be pulled backed and crash into it.  No exceptions.  Which ignores observations of meteors, comets, other planets and their moons and pretty much everything else.

9.  Fuel density and ISP are not important factors in determining the mass of fuel and making comparisons with other fuels.

10.  Important factors can be acknowledged then left out of calculations and those calculations be correct. I guess just saying they are important is enough and there is no need to review your calculations and make the corrections.

11. The availability of information on the internet follows special rules.  Stuff that is pointed out to you as being available that you claim is not and people performing calculations you deny are possible somehow do not appear on your computer's monitor.  Things also appear to change meaning at times. Like hard and difficult changing to mean easy.

12. Determining orientation and location in space is impossible.  Measuring angles, radar, telemetry and similar are not possible. Is this a pressure thing?  It is only possible to a certain altitude?

13.  A reference can not be used in space to define directions.

14. Things some how go from traveling in an orbit to a trajectory if changing the orbit results in encounter something else.  Many people use trajectory and orbit interchangeably and terminology that is used is evidence something is a hoax.

15. Similar to the above, things are not always orbiting something.  Yet observations show they are.

16. Just thinking stuff means it is true and if evidence is offered saying you are wrong means that evidence is a lie.

17.  When asked questions an acceptable response is either to ignore them , insult people, or just call something funny and you have offered enough evidence you are right.

18. NASA and other space agencies invented these principles and most were not already proven by over 2,000 years of advancement.

The above is just off the top of my head about what I remember you posting.

Funny how when you bring something up myself and others offer counter arguments.  Yet you seem to ignore those arguments and do not elaborate and offer your evidence.

How about just explain how something can not be put into an orbit that would result in an encounter with the moon?  Then explain why if it results in a crash something can be put into the same orbit, but purposefully miss the moon and not crash?

I will put the other questions you avoid answering to rest for a little while.  We will just focus on this one.

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

Quote from: Woody on April 20, 2016, 10:33:31 AM

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

It is easy. The following will be checked:

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),

B. Does the submission include a  description of the spacecraft incl. its masses before/after the various manoeuvers of the trips, any heat shield(s), if fitted, the engines and fuel tanks that can carry the amount of fuel using 1960 or 2016 technology, the accommodation and gear for the persons aboard and

C. Does the submission show that it is actually feasible to do the trips.

A submission shall also include, i.a.:-

1. Mass (kg)/speed (m/s)/altitude (m) of spacecraft/fuel in orbit of Earth (ready to go) and how it got there!

2. Mass (kg)/speed (m/s)/direction of spacecraft/fuel after departure orbit Earth heading for location X in space and on to Moon and Mars + calculations (location X is where Moon/Mars gravity equals Earth gravity in space).

3. Mass (kg)/speed (m/s)/direction of spacecraft/fuel prior arrival Moon/Mars + calculations.

4. Mass (kg)/speed (m/s)/altitude (m) of spacecraft/fuel in orbit around Moon/Mars - if applicable.

5. Mass (kg)/speed (m/s) of spacecraft/fuel in orbit Moon/Mars and prior landing - if applicable.

6. Mass (kg) of spacecraft/fuel after landing Moon/Mars.

7. Mass (kg) of spacecraft/fuel prior departure Moon/Mars.

8. Mass (kg)/speed (m/s)/altitude (m) of spacecraft/fuel in orbit Moon/Mars prior departure to return Earth - if applicable.

9. Mass (kg)/speed (m/s)/direction of spacecraft/fuel after departure orbit Moon/Mars heading for location X in space and on to Earth + calculations.

10. Trajectories - locations in space at regular intervals to confirm that you are heading in the right direction

11. Mass (kg)/speed (m/s)/direction of spacecraft just prior re-entry Earth.

12. Trajectory of re-entry, incl. start location (position/altitude), directions in 3D, altitudes, velocities in 3D every minute from start to end (parachutes deployed).

13. Landing (details).

Manoeuvres to leave/enter orbits and to land/depart must be explained in detail incl. locations/times, etc.

If all above information is provided, individual items will be checked for correctness.

As the spacecraft travels between planets orbiting the Sun, the gravity of the latter must evidently be considered, i.e. during the trip the Sun will always attract the spacecraft.

Seems odd you are willing to give someone a 1M Euro for something that is available in books and found with internet searches.  You have been shown where this information is available and yet you like to pretend it is not available.

Hm, the Challenge is not to ask stupid questions and suggest that I don't know where I can find information but simply to find the information yourself and do the calculations, etc, etc. The money is to encourage the participants to do it.

It is not easy to travel in 3D space between heavenly bodies like planets and moons moving at high speed in orbits. You have to arrive when the planet/moon happens to be in the right location in the orbit. If you arrive too early or late, the planet/moon is not there but somewhere else. And if you really arrive, you have to avoid colliding with or crashing on the moon/planet.

To arrive anywhere in 3D space, you must plan your trajectory and apply a force to your spacecraft in the right direction, duration and location at the right time and fuel is consumed that you must carry with you. Gravity forces will affect your trajectory during the trip, which really complicates the navigation.

If you you don't do correct planning/executions, you will not arrive at the target. You will get lost in space. And never return.

Gravity assisted kicks or slingshots to do free speed and/or direction changes in space do not work as you cannot encounter a moving planet that will kick you as thought. Experts suggest that if you meet a planet or moon head on in space, you turn 180°  around it, while your speed increases. If the encounter is not head on but if you pass ahead of the object sideways, you may swing 90° or >360° around it, the experts suggest. All nonsense.

Landing on a planet coming from space is also impossible. You are arriving too fast and cannot brake. The experts suggest friction in the atmosphere stops you, or, if there is no atmosphere (Moon!) you simply fire your rocket and stop.

My Challenge proves it. Nobody has been able to tell me how much fuel is required for a little space trip and how to land on a moon or planet.

It is not easy to travel in 3D space between heavenly bodies like planets and moons moving at high speed in orbits. You have to arrive when the planet/moon happens to be in the right location in the orbit. If you arrive too early or late, the planet/moon is not there but somewhere else. And if you really arrive, you have to avoid colliding with or crashing on the moon/planet.

To arrive anywhere in 3D space, you must plan your trajectory and apply a force to your spacecraft in the right direction, duration and location at the right time and fuel is consumed that you must carry with you. Gravity forces will affect your trajectory during the trip, which really complicates the navigation.

Then it's a good thing that the motions and gravitational influences of the various relevant heavenly bodies are known and predictable.

If you you don't do correct planning/executions, you will not arrive at the target. You will get lost in space. And never return.

Well duh.

Gravity assisted kicks or slingshots to do free speed and/or direction changes in space do not work as you cannot encounter a moving planet that will kick you as thought. Experts suggest that if you meet a planet or moon head on in space, you turn 180°  around it, while your speed increases. If the encounter is not head on but if you pass ahead of the object sideways, you may swing 90° or >360° around it, the experts suggest. All nonsense.

First of all, you are not providing any actual reason as to why a gravitational assist is not possible.  Your say so doesn't really mean much.

Secondly, the changes in speed and direction can vary quite a lot depending on several factors including approach velocities and how close the bodies pass.  Again, it's a good thing that these factors can be predicted and calculated.

Landing on a planet coming from space is also impossible. You are arriving too fast and cannot brake. The experts suggest friction in the atmosphere stops you, or, if there is no atmosphere (Moon!) you simply fire your rocket and stop.

I already showed you a text book that explains how to calculate atmospheric reentry works.  Perhaps you should do some actual research in the field before you spout off as to what is impossible.

My Challenge proves it. Nobody has been able to tell me how much fuel is required for a little space trip and how to land on a moon or planet.

There is no such thing as "a little space trip".

Quote from: Heiwa on April 20, 2016, 08:37:20 PM

Gravity assisted kicks or slingshots to do free speed and/or direction changes in space do not work as you cannot encounter a moving planet that will kick you as thought. Experts suggest that if you meet a planet or moon head on in space, you turn 180°  around it, while your speed increases. If the encounter is not head on but if you pass ahead of the object sideways, you may swing 90° or >360° around it, the experts suggest. All nonsense.

First of all, you are not providing any actual reason as to why a gravitational assist is not possible.  Your say so doesn't really mean much.

Secondly, the changes in speed and direction can vary quite a lot depending on several factors including approach velocities and how close the bodies pass.  Again, it's a good thing that these factors can be predicted and calculated.

Hm, study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS where I provide plenty reasons so you will understand why gravity assisted kicks are hoaxes.

The famous ESA Rosetta spacecraft left Earth on day and a year later encountered Earth again. Earth had done one of its usual circular, yearly orbits  during that time and Rosetta had done one oval or elliptic orbit during the same time around the Sun. ESA told the world to watch and photograph the Rosetta spacecraft sneaking up from behind to be kicked away by Earth towards planet Mars in another orbit. And it happened. Rosetta was kicked away towards Mars. And a little later Rosetta approached Mars and ... was kicked back to Earth ... where she was kicked around the Sun to encounter Earth a final time ... to be kicked away towards a comet also orbiting the Sun.
All fantasy of course. Just look at the ESA chief of operations. Tattooed like a yakusa gangster.

I don't need more reasons to really feel sorry for the European Space Agency, ESA. They are not really funny. Rather comical. Sad to say the least. Grown ups playing child games.

Quote from: markjo on April 21, 2016, 05:35:52 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 20, 2016, 08:37:20 PM

Gravity assisted kicks or slingshots to do free speed and/or direction changes in space do not work as you cannot encounter a moving planet that will kick you as thought. Experts suggest that if you meet a planet or moon head on in space, you turn 180°  around it, while your speed increases. If the encounter is not head on but if you pass ahead of the object sideways, you may swing 90° or >360° around it, the experts suggest. All nonsense.

First of all, you are not providing any actual reason as to why a gravitational assist is not possible.  Your say so doesn't really mean much.

Secondly, the changes in speed and direction can vary quite a lot depending on several factors including approach velocities and how close the bodies pass.  Again, it's a good thing that these factors can be predicted and calculated.

Hm, study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS where I provide plenty reasons so you will understand why gravity assisted kicks are hoaxes.

I see a lot of hand waving, name calling and accusations of criminal activity, but I don't see any reasons as to why gravity assists can't work.

Quote from: markjo on April 21, 2016, 05:35:52 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 20, 2016, 08:37:20 PM

Gravity assisted kicks or slingshots to do free speed and/or direction changes in space do not work as you cannot encounter a moving planet that will kick you as thought. Experts suggest that if you meet a planet or moon head on in space, you turn 180°  around it, while your speed increases. If the encounter is not head on but if you pass ahead of the object sideways, you may swing 90° or >360° around it, the experts suggest. All nonsense.

First of all, you are not providing any actual reason as to why a gravitational assist is not possible.  Your say so doesn't really mean much.

Secondly, the changes in speed and direction can vary quite a lot depending on several factors including approach velocities and how close the bodies pass.  Again, it's a good thing that these factors can be predicted and calculated.

Hm, study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS where I provide plenty reasons so you will understand why gravity assisted kicks are hoaxes.

The famous ESA Rosetta spacecraft left Earth on day and a year later encountered Earth again. Earth had done one of its usual circular, yearly orbits  during that time and Rosetta had done one oval or elliptic orbit during the same time around the Sun. ESA told the world to watch and photograph the Rosetta spacecraft sneaking up from behind to be kicked away by Earth towards planet Mars in another orbit. And it happened. Rosetta was kicked away towards Mars. And a little later Rosetta approached Mars and ... was kicked back to Earth ... where she was kicked around the Sun to encounter Earth a final time ... to be kicked away towards a comet also orbiting the Sun.
All fantasy of course. Just look at the ESA chief of operations. Tattooed like a yakusa gangster.

I don't need more reasons to really feel sorry for the European Space Agency, ESA. They are not really funny. Rather comical. Sad to say the least. Grown ups playing child games.

You guys gotta calm down and let me do my simulation in peace.  The proof will come soon enough, and then all of these points will be answered.  I don't want Heiwa to change the rules again and cause more setbacks. 

Quote from: Heiwa on April 21, 2016, 06:29:02 AM

Quote from: markjo on April 21, 2016, 05:35:52 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 20, 2016, 08:37:20 PM

Gravity assisted kicks or slingshots to do free speed and/or direction changes in space do not work as you cannot encounter a moving planet that will kick you as thought. Experts suggest that if you meet a planet or moon head on in space, you turn 180°  around it, while your speed increases. If the encounter is not head on but if you pass ahead of the object sideways, you may swing 90° or >360° around it, the experts suggest. All nonsense.

First of all, you are not providing any actual reason as to why a gravitational assist is not possible.  Your say so doesn't really mean much.

Secondly, the changes in speed and direction can vary quite a lot depending on several factors including approach velocities and how close the bodies pass.  Again, it's a good thing that these factors can be predicted and calculated.

Hm, study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS where I provide plenty reasons so you will understand why gravity assisted kicks are hoaxes.

I see a lot of hand waving, name calling and accusations of criminal activity, but I don't see any reasons as to why gravity assists can't work.

Here is how it works according to the 'experts'. It is really funny:

"An extreme form of the manoeuvre would be to approach a planet head-on at a speed v while the planet is moving directly toward us at a speed U (both speeds defined relative to the "fixed" Solar frame). If we aim just right, we can loop around behind the planet in an extremely eccentric hyperbolic orbit, making a virtual 180-degree turn."

And the new speed after the 180° turn is 2U+v. Imagine that!

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath114/kmath114.htm

It is really nonsense.

Quote from: markjo on April 21, 2016, 06:49:54 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 21, 2016, 06:29:02 AM

Quote from: markjo on April 21, 2016, 05:35:52 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 20, 2016, 08:37:20 PM

Gravity assisted kicks or slingshots to do free speed and/or direction changes in space do not work as you cannot encounter a moving planet that will kick you as thought. Experts suggest that if you meet a planet or moon head on in space, you turn 180°  around it, while your speed increases. If the encounter is not head on but if you pass ahead of the object sideways, you may swing 90° or >360° around it, the experts suggest. All nonsense.

First of all, you are not providing any actual reason as to why a gravitational assist is not possible.  Your say so doesn't really mean much.

Secondly, the changes in speed and direction can vary quite a lot depending on several factors including approach velocities and how close the bodies pass.  Again, it's a good thing that these factors can be predicted and calculated.

Hm, study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS where I provide plenty reasons so you will understand why gravity assisted kicks are hoaxes.

I see a lot of hand waving, name calling and accusations of criminal activity, but I don't see any reasons as to why gravity assists can't work.

Here is how it works according to the 'experts'. It is really funny:

"An extreme form of the manoeuvre would be to approach a planet head-on at a speed v while the planet is moving directly toward us at a speed U (both speeds defined relative to the "fixed" Solar frame). If we aim just right, we can loop around behind the planet in an extremely eccentric hyperbolic orbit, making a virtual 180-degree turn."

And the new speed after the 180° turn is 2U+v. Imagine that!

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath114/kmath114.htm

It is really nonsense.

No, it makes total sense.  I'll show you what it means later, but it's basically using a gravitational encounter to our advantage.  In the case you described, think of it like bouncing a tennis ball off the windshield of a truck. 

Quote from: Heiwa on April 21, 2016, 06:29:02 AM

Quote from: markjo on April 21, 2016, 05:35:52 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 20, 2016, 08:37:20 PM

Gravity assisted kicks or slingshots to do free speed and/or direction changes in space do not work as you cannot encounter a moving planet that will kick you as thought. Experts suggest that if you meet a planet or moon head on in space, you turn 180°  around it, while your speed increases. If the encounter is not head on but if you pass ahead of the object sideways, you may swing 90° or >360° around it, the experts suggest. All nonsense.

First of all, you are not providing any actual reason as to why a gravitational assist is not possible.  Your say so doesn't really mean much.

Secondly, the changes in speed and direction can vary quite a lot depending on several factors including approach velocities and how close the bodies pass.  Again, it's a good thing that these factors can be predicted and calculated.

Hm, study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS where I provide plenty reasons so you will understand why gravity assisted kicks are hoaxes.

The famous ESA Rosetta spacecraft left Earth on day and a year later encountered Earth again. Earth had done one of its usual circular, yearly orbits  during that time and Rosetta had done one oval or elliptic orbit during the same time around the Sun. ESA told the world to watch and photograph the Rosetta spacecraft sneaking up from behind to be kicked away by Earth towards planet Mars in another orbit. And it happened. Rosetta was kicked away towards Mars. And a little later Rosetta approached Mars and ... was kicked back to Earth ... where she was kicked around the Sun to encounter Earth a final time ... to be kicked away towards a comet also orbiting the Sun.
All fantasy of course. Just look at the ESA chief of operations. Tattooed like a yakusa gangster.

I don't need more reasons to really feel sorry for the European Space Agency, ESA. They are not really funny. Rather comical. Sad to say the least. Grown ups playing child games.

You guys gotta calm down and let me do my simulation in peace.  The proof will come soon enough, and then all of these points will be answered.  I don't want Heiwa to change the rules again and cause more setbacks.

Don't worry about the rules.

Just simulate the trajectory of your space trip between the two orbiting objects to establish when to start (you are in orbit around Earth that orbits the Sun) and arrive (to orbit or start rentry/landing at Moon/Mars also orbiting Earth/Sun). And then calculate the force required to be applied to your spacecraft at the start to arrive at the target ... and the fuel required.
 
Or do you intend to do course corrections during the trajectory not trusting your simulations wasting fuel?

It seems the trajectory of minimum fuel consumption of the trip is just to fire the rocket engine once at the right location in orbit, time, direction, duration and thrust.

If you do that correctly, then you can just go asleep afterwards and awake at arrival location because then the gravity forces acting on your spacecraft in the Universe will ensure the rest.

The gravity forces will slow you down, pull you here and there, and finally pull you towards the target at increased speed.

What is your target? An orbit at a certain altitude/speed just require braking or you go straight in for landing at once?

Space travel is extremely boring. Nothing happens during the trip unless the AC stops working or the WC is blocked and the food is over-cooked.

Invisible gravity forces just direct you along changing your momentum all the time. You don't have to do anything.

Yes, don't worry about the rules.  He'll just change them to prevent anyone from winning anyway.  He's done it before and he will do it again.
But he doesn't have the money anyway so don't get your hopes up.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 21, 2016, 07:08:55 AM

Quote from: markjo on April 21, 2016, 06:49:54 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 21, 2016, 06:29:02 AM

Quote from: markjo on April 21, 2016, 05:35:52 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 20, 2016, 08:37:20 PM

Gravity assisted kicks or slingshots to do free speed and/or direction changes in space do not work as you cannot encounter a moving planet that will kick you as thought. Experts suggest that if you meet a planet or moon head on in space, you turn 180°  around it, while your speed increases. If the encounter is not head on but if you pass ahead of the object sideways, you may swing 90° or >360° around it, the experts suggest. All nonsense.

First of all, you are not providing any actual reason as to why a gravitational assist is not possible.  Your say so doesn't really mean much.

Secondly, the changes in speed and direction can vary quite a lot depending on several factors including approach velocities and how close the bodies pass.  Again, it's a good thing that these factors can be predicted and calculated.

Hm, study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS where I provide plenty reasons so you will understand why gravity assisted kicks are hoaxes.

I see a lot of hand waving, name calling and accusations of criminal activity, but I don't see any reasons as to why gravity assists can't work.

Here is how it works according to the 'experts'. It is really funny:

"An extreme form of the manoeuvre would be to approach a planet head-on at a speed v while the planet is moving directly toward us at a speed U (both speeds defined relative to the "fixed" Solar frame). If we aim just right, we can loop around behind the planet in an extremely eccentric hyperbolic orbit, making a virtual 180-degree turn."

And the new speed after the 180° turn is 2U+v. Imagine that!

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath114/kmath114.htm

It is really nonsense.

No, it makes total sense.  I'll show you what it means later.

Thanks - the trajectory a day before and after the kick and during the kick itself would be much appreciated. It seems an actual head-on 180° turn increasing speed several times is done in nano-seconds with an acceleration of millions of g (that will rip apart the spacecraft).
My calculations always end in a hard collision CRASH though.
I asked the ESA tattooed yakusa gangster once about it but he didn't reply.

Yes, don't worry about the rules.  He'll just change them to prevent anyone from winning anyway.  He's done it before and he will do it again.
But he doesn't have the money anyway so don't get your hopes up.

The rule changes are minimal and just clarifications of calculation requirements or similar. The prize money is invested in various technology and luxury shares since 2012 with a nice return and increase in value that I enyoy.

Does anyone know where mikeman7819 is? He started this thread over a year ago saying he had won it. I had never heard of him before that and then he became stranger and stranger. Is he locked up in a mental hospital or did he commit a crime and is now in prison?

Quote from: frenat on April 21, 2016, 07:36:04 AM

Yes, don't worry about the rules.  He'll just change them to prevent anyone from winning anyway.  He's done it before and he will do it again.
But he doesn't have the money anyway so don't get your hopes up.

The rule changes are minimal and just clarifications of calculation requirements or similar.

Liar.  You were caught multiple times on apollohoax.net making large changes when people fulfilled your requirements.

The prize money is invested in various technology and luxury shares since 2012 with a nice return and increase in value that I enyoy.

Prove it.  I dare you.  Stop avoiding the proof that has been asked of you for YEARS and put up or shut up.

Does anyone know where mikeman7819 is? He started this thread over a year ago saying he had won it. I had never heard of him before that and then he became stranger and stranger. Is he locked up in a mental hospital or did he commit a crime and is now in prison?

you just can't make a post without an ad hominem, can you?

Quote from: markjo on April 21, 2016, 06:49:54 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 21, 2016, 06:29:02 AM

Quote from: markjo on April 21, 2016, 05:35:52 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 20, 2016, 08:37:20 PM

Gravity assisted kicks or slingshots to do free speed and/or direction changes in space do not work as you cannot encounter a moving planet that will kick you as thought. Experts suggest that if you meet a planet or moon head on in space, you turn 180°  around it, while your speed increases. If the encounter is not head on but if you pass ahead of the object sideways, you may swing 90° or >360° around it, the experts suggest. All nonsense.

First of all, you are not providing any actual reason as to why a gravitational assist is not possible.  Your say so doesn't really mean much.

Secondly, the changes in speed and direction can vary quite a lot depending on several factors including approach velocities and how close the bodies pass.  Again, it's a good thing that these factors can be predicted and calculated.

Hm, study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS where I provide plenty reasons so you will understand why gravity assisted kicks are hoaxes.

I see a lot of hand waving, name calling and accusations of criminal activity, but I don't see any reasons as to why gravity assists can't work.

Here is how it works according to the 'experts'. It is really funny:

"An extreme form of the manoeuvre would be to approach a planet head-on at a speed v while the planet is moving directly toward us at a speed U (both speeds defined relative to the "fixed" Solar frame). If we aim just right, we can loop around behind the planet in an extremely eccentric hyperbolic orbit, making a virtual 180-degree turn."

And the new speed after the 180° turn is 2U+v. Imagine that!

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath114/kmath114.htm

It is really nonsense.

But why is it nonsense?  Is it because you don't understand the physics behind the maneuver?

Also, you noted, that is an extreme example.  Most actual gravitational assists used are much less extreme.

By the way, gravitational assists are generally not used for moon or Mars missions.

Wow.....I just discovered this thread, it is a year and a half long conversation of nuttiness. A plethora of subjects , that continually bounce aimlessly then returning back to the subject at hand with no resolve. And I only read through about 20 random pages till I said NO MORE ha ha.

The original post at hand is not a difficult one to achieve, especially since there was nothing said of human safety. Just requires creative math, this is stuff I used to doodle with while pretending to listen, then being pissed cause I should have listened ha ha.

However, it looks like at least a few people have kicked this field goal, though once kicked the ref closes their eyes, moves the post, and pretends like nothing ever happened. So basically, all signs point to this is a waste. A year and a half waste.

Also, the physics of the atomic bomb is actually quite simple, more so than nuclear reactors. It's just a simple game of enrichment and keeping the material together for as long as possible after contact before it is blown apart. This was the whole point of adding the original atomic reaction to the fission reaction, to keep the fission reaction possible for any lenght of time. A millisecond can mean the difference between 10 tons and 20 tons. The actual reaction is just a flash, the rest is just the atmospheric reaction to the intense heat, thus why useless in space.

This is all very simple descriptions, I can surely explain in-depth if anyone cares(doubt it). Yes I am not a nuclear engineer, though this was a subject of one of many thesis I did in the years between masters and doctorate. Though this was not the point of this post, just has bugged the hell out of me since reading it.


Anyways, this was tempting to jump on, it's actually not a monster challenge, especially since all that is wanted is math. Apparently simulations are rejected (don't know why if the programs structure is mathematically sound), which to me would take more time than actually playing with the numbers. Though as I said before, kick a 75 yard field goal, the post will just be moved further back and shrunk.

Oh...also, I think there should be some sort of proof that the money heiwa is promising even exist. I Don't have 1.4 million dollars cash sitting in my bank account for sure. However, if I were to offer such "prize", I would at least show I could leverage my business and other investments to obtain the money for the hard work of the winner. It's only fair and reasonable.

Also, I don't know about France, but in America, if a contest is rigged, or the prize money does not exist... This many times can be considered a felony dependent on situation. Just putting that out there

Quote from: Heiwa on April 21, 2016, 07:08:55 AM

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath114/kmath114.htm

It is really nonsense.

But why is it nonsense?  Is it because you don't understand the physics behind the maneuver?

Also, you noted, that is an extreme example.  Most actual gravitational assists used are much less extreme.

By the way, gravitational assists are generally not used for moon or Mars missions.

Correct, I do not understand the physics and the mathematics behind the maneuver. Two objects - a spacecraft and a planet - are on collision course attracted by gravity forces (how they ended up in that situation is not clear either) and according my understanding they should simply collide at the encounter.

The ESA expert Dr. Matt Taylor that looks like a yakusa gangster has excuted four such maneuvers for his spacecraft Rosetta but refuses to explain how he manages to steer the spacecraft towards the fast moving planet (it has no fuel for much maneuvering) in exact direction for the fast encounter, etc. It has just been kicked there!
The difference in speed between the two moving objects are of the order >10 000 m/s so the encounter must be very short. One object - the planet - is moving at say 30 000 m/s in one direction in orbit around the Sun and the other (a spacecraft) at 40 000 m/s in another direction at the encounter. The probability that they will encounter each other in space is zero. Taylor has no idea about calculating trajectories of spacecrafts.
So I ask the big bosses of Dr. Matt Taylor and ... no replies. Sad actually.
It cannot be fun to work at such a place where you have to lie and cheat all the time for salary and benefits and just produce shit. I really feel sorry for them - I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS .

Wow.....I just discovered this thread, it is a year and a half long conversation of nuttiness. A plethora of subjects , that continually bounce aimlessly then returning back to the subject at hand with no resolve. And I only read through about 20 random pages till I said NO MORE ha ha.

The original post at hand is not a difficult one to achieve, especially since there was nothing said of human safety. Just requires creative math, this is stuff I used to doodle with while pretending to listen, then being pissed cause I should have listened ha ha.

However, it looks like at least a few people have kicked this field goal, though once kicked the ref closes their eyes, moves the post, and pretends like nothing ever happened. So basically, all signs point to this is a waste. A year and a half waste.

Also, the physics of the atomic bomb is actually quite simple, more so than nuclear reactors. It's just a simple game of enrichment and keeping the material together for as long as possible after contact before it is blown apart. This was the whole point of adding the original atomic reaction to the fission reaction, to keep the fission reaction possible for any lenght of time. A millisecond can mean the difference between 10 tons and 20 tons. The actual reaction is just a flash, the rest is just the atmospheric reaction to the intense heat, thus why useless in space.

This is all very simple descriptions, I can surely explain in-depth if anyone cares(doubt it). Yes I am not a nuclear engineer, though this was a subject of one of many thesis I did in the years between masters and doctorate. Though this was not the point of this post, just has bugged the hell out of me since reading it.


Anyways, this was tempting to jump on, it's actually not a monster challenge, especially since all that is wanted is math. Apparently simulations are rejected (don't know why if the programs structure is mathematically sound), which to me would take more time than actually playing with the numbers. Though as I said before, kick a 75 yard field goal, the post will just be moved further back and shrunk.

Welcome to FEF and this popular thread. Suggest you study all the posts incl. the simple rules of the Challenge before commenting just after a week, etc.

In order to establish just the trajectory of the space trip you have to solve several high order differential equations and simulations/a PC is one way to do it. You must chose a good starting point/time/speed/directon at the start orbit and then apply a force to your space craft to get going towards the target and ... if you are clever ... you will arrive at the goal at another time/speed/direction, etc, etc.

There is nothing to do aboard the spacecraft between applying the force and arrival. The gravity forces take care of everything. If you have gone off in the wrong direction there is no way to turn, etc, etc. You are dead!

The goal posts have not been changed - it is always the same space trip between two moving objects in space that you must describe, incl. fuel used.

As a doctor of something you must be able to understand that.

Oh...also, I think there should be some sort of proof that the money heiwa is promising even exist. I Don't have 1.4 million dollars cash sitting in my bank account for sure. However, if I were to offer such "prize", I would at least show I could leverage my business and other investments to obtain the money for the hard work of the winner. It's only fair and reasonable.

Also, I don't know about France, but in America, if a contest is rigged, or the prize money does not exist... This many times can be considered a felony dependent on situation. Just putting that out there

I too haven't $1.4 M cash in a bank account. Today with negative interests that money will soon disappear. No the money is invested in real estate, technology, luxury companies, etc, etc. I feel sorry if you are poor. Why aren't your rich, like me?

Most persons say the Challenge is easy and can be won using a software you can download for $40 on the Internet. No much work required then. But I haven't seen it. IMO opinion my Challenge is impossible! Why? Human space travel is not possible. What you have been told about it are just fantasies. Inventions. No big deal, really. You have just been fooled. But not lost any money, etc. Your illusions have no value.

Another risk you have to take is that I may be fraud like NASA , ESA and Roscosmos, etc, etc, making up stories of all kind to get attention. But between you and me I am quite a nice, honest guy. I even put a photo of myself at every post. My mother is very proud of me. I even reply to most polite emails/posts I get. Just for fun.

Quote from: markjo on April 21, 2016, 07:50:14 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 21, 2016, 07:08:55 AM

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath114/kmath114.htm

It is really nonsense.

But why is it nonsense?  Is it because you don't understand the physics behind the maneuver?

Also, you noted, that is an extreme example.  Most actual gravitational assists used are much less extreme.

By the way, gravitational assists are generally not used for moon or Mars missions.

Correct, I do not understand the physics and the mathematics behind the maneuver. Two objects - a spacecraft and a planet - are on collision course attracted by gravity forces (how they ended up in that situation is not clear either) and according my understanding they should simply collide at the encounter.

If you don't understand the physics of a gravitational assist, then why do you feel qualified to pass judgement on its validity?

The ESA expert Dr. Matt Taylor that looks like a yakusa gangster has excuted four such maneuvers for his spacecraft Rosetta but refuses to explain how he manages to steer the spacecraft towards the fast moving planet (it has no fuel for much maneuvering) in exact direction for the fast encounter, etc. It has just been kicked there!

First of all, what Mr. Taylor looks like really isn't relevant to anything and just makes you look childish and petty.

Secondly, the Rosetta spacecraft did have fuel on board for maneuvering and course corrections.  In fact, of the 3000 kg total mass of the craft, about 1670 kg of that was fuel for the 24 thrusters.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/The_Rosetta_orbiter

The difference in speed between the two moving objects are of the order >10 000 m/s so the encounter must be very short. One object - the planet - is moving at say 30 000 m/s in one direction in orbit around the Sun and the other (a spacecraft) at 40 000 m/s in another direction at the encounter.

Rather than guessing at the velocities, why not just look them up to get some accurate numbers?

The probability that they will encounter each other in space is zero.

The probability depends greatly on how accurately the probe can implement some very complex navigational calculations.

Taylor has no idea about calculating trajectories of spacecrafts.

That's why he has a bunch of scientists and engineers to do the calculations for him.

So I ask the big bosses of Dr. Matt Taylor and ... no replies. Sad actually.

You call them clowns, liars and thieves and then you wonder why they don't want to answer your questions? 

Thanks - the trajectory a day before and after the kick and during the kick itself would be much appreciated. It seems an actual head-on 180° turn increasing speed several times is done in nano-seconds with an acceleration of millions of g (that will rip apart the spacecraft).
My calculations always end in a hard collision CRASH though.
I asked the ESA tattooed yakusa gangster once about it but he didn't reply.

So you think a half-orbit around a planetary body will be done in "nanoseconds"?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 21, 2016, 08:27:35 AM

Wow.....I just discovered this thread, it is a year and a half long conversation of nuttiness. A plethora of subjects , that continually bounce aimlessly then returning back to the subject at hand with no resolve. And I only read through about 20 random pages till I said NO MORE ha ha.

The original post at hand is not a difficult one to achieve, especially since there was nothing said of human safety. Just requires creative math, this is stuff I used to doodle with while pretending to listen, then being pissed cause I should have listened ha ha.

However, it looks like at least a few people have kicked this field goal, though once kicked the ref closes their eyes, moves the post, and pretends like nothing ever happened. So basically, all signs point to this is a waste. A year and a half waste.

Also, the physics of the atomic bomb is actually quite simple, more so than nuclear reactors. It's just a simple game of enrichment and keeping the material together for as long as possible after contact before it is blown apart. This was the whole point of adding the original atomic reaction to the fission reaction, to keep the fission reaction possible for any lenght of time. A millisecond can mean the difference between 10 tons and 20 tons. The actual reaction is just a flash, the rest is just the atmospheric reaction to the intense heat, thus why useless in space.

This is all very simple descriptions, I can surely explain in-depth if anyone cares(doubt it). Yes I am not a nuclear engineer, though this was a subject of one of many thesis I did in the years between masters and doctorate. Though this was not the point of this post, just has bugged the hell out of me since reading it.


Anyways, this was tempting to jump on, it's actually not a monster challenge, especially since all that is wanted is math. Apparently simulations are rejected (don't know why if the programs structure is mathematically sound), which to me would take more time than actually playing with the numbers. Though as I said before, kick a 75 yard field goal, the post will just be moved further back and shrunk.

Welcome to FEF and this popular thread. Suggest you study all the posts incl. the simple rules of the Challenge before commenting just after a week, etc.

In order to establish just the trajectory of the space trip you have to solve several high order differential equations and simulations/a PC is one way to do it. You must chose a good starting point/time/speed/directon at the start orbit and then apply a force to your space craft to get going towards the target and ... if you are clever ... you will arrive at the goal at another time/speed/direction, etc, etc.

There is nothing to do aboard the spacecraft between applying the force and arrival. The gravity forces take care of everything. If you have gone off in the wrong direction there is no way to turn, etc, etc. You are dead!

The goal posts have not been changed - it is always the same space trip between two moving objects in space that you must describe, incl. fuel used.

As a doctor of something you must be able to understand that.

Well I made it through 20 pages! Just got repetitive after that. If you would have read some of my posts as you ask of me you would know the doctorate is in mechanical engineering and masters in music theory. Though I have gained more knowledge through experimentation, design success and failures, and getting my ass kicked than schooling ever taught. Degrees are just formalities so people in the business will take you seriously.

Yes of course navigation is a tight rope, however mathematically it is nothing special. Implementation is a different story. I learned very quickly the use and abuse of psudeo math, telsa hit the nail on the head with that one.

Yet this is not the challenge. Creating equations that would equal the travel to the moon and back (I know Mars is an option as well but I choose the money because it's quicker to design) is the challenge. Not a hard one, so I am missing the difficulty in this "challenge".

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 21, 2016, 08:39:10 AM

Oh...also, I think there should be some sort of proof that the money heiwa is promising even exist. I Don't have 1.4 million dollars cash sitting in my bank account for sure. However, if I were to offer such "prize", I would at least show I could leverage my business and other investments to obtain the money for the hard work of the winner. It's only fair and reasonable.

Also, I don't know about France, but in America, if a contest is rigged, or the prize money does not exist... This many times can be considered a felony dependent on situation. Just putting that out there

I too haven't $1.4 M cash in a bank account. Today with negative interests that money will soon disappear. No the money is invested in real estate, technology, luxury companies, etc, etc. I feel sorry if you are poor. Why aren't your rich, like me?

Most persons say the Challenge is easy and can be won using a software you can download for $40 on the Internet. No much work required then. But I haven't seen it. IMO opinion my Challenge is impossible! Why? Human space travel is not possible. What you have been told about it are just fantasies. Inventions. No big deal, really. You have just been fooled. But not lost any money, etc. Your illusions have no value.

Another risk you have to take is that I may be fraud like NASA , ESA and Roscosmos, etc, etc, making up stories of all kind to get attention. But between you and me I am quite a nice, honest guy. I even put a photo of myself at every post. My mother is very proud of me. I even reply to most polite emails/posts I get. Just for fun.

"Real estate, technology, luxury companies, ect ect ect" that is pretty broad "investments". Anyways, yeah I am not a big baller like you. I keep a fair share saved, my business is worth a fair amount, and I have a few investments out nothing special. To be honest I could care less about money, literally care less. I made money originally for my family, but when I lost them I didn't care anymore. Plus Christ's words about wealth and money has always stuck with me. So I will never be past upper middle class because I care not to be. But maybe I am just jealous cause I am not rich like you *eye roll*....


I see now why no one has won your challenge... Because it's rigged. Even with the right math, or simulation you will just say " sorry can't prove it, space travel is impossible". The only figures we can use is the ones we know to be supposedly true. However none of use have been in space. Sure I made a fair share of aerospace products before the private sector takeover, however how could I know those parts are 100 percent not going in a hole in the desert somewhere? Or the CA rooms of clients I visited weren't just video games. Is it likely no, possible yes. Until I sit my ass in a craft and explore space with the presented equations , I could never say for 100 percent.

This will be the circular argument you use to prevent success in this carnival challenge. Quit playing with people, remove this challenge... And while you are at it take off that atom bomb non sense, its annoying.

Not a hard one, so I am missing the difficulty in this "challenge".

The difficulty is getting past the guy's argument from personal incredulity. [As you've probably seen], you can present all the correct formulae and math and evidence in the world, and the guy's only response is "I don't believe it. It's a joke passed on to stupid gullible people. As I show at my site blah blah blah."

He's been smacked around at ApolloHoax. He's been smacked around at Cosmoquest. The only reason he hasn't been banned here is because enforcement seems to be very lax in that regards, or he hasn't quite stepped on the wrong toes yet.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 21, 2016, 08:39:10 AM

Oh...also, I think there should be some sort of proof that the money heiwa is promising even exist. I Don't have 1.4 million dollars cash sitting in my bank account for sure. However, if I were to offer such "prize", I would at least show I could leverage my business and other investments to obtain the money for the hard work of the winner. It's only fair and reasonable.

Also, I don't know about France, but in America, if a contest is rigged, or the prize money does not exist... This many times can be considered a felony dependent on situation. Just putting that out there

I too haven't $1.4 M cash in a bank account. Today with negative interests that money will soon disappear. No the money is invested in real estate, technology, luxury companies, etc, etc. I feel sorry if you are poor. Why aren't your rich, like me?

Most persons say the Challenge is easy and can be won using a software you can download for $40 on the Internet. No much work required then. But I haven't seen it. IMO opinion my Challenge is impossible! Why? Human space travel is not possible. What you have been told about it are just fantasies. Inventions. No big deal, really. You have just been fooled. But not lost any money, etc. Your illusions have no value.

Another risk you have to take is that I may be fraud like NASA , ESA and Roscosmos, etc, etc, making up stories of all kind to get attention. But between you and me I am quite a nice, honest guy. I even put a photo of myself at every post. My mother is very proud of me. I even reply to most polite emails/posts I get. Just for fun.

If you're so rich, why do you live in France's equivalent of social/council housing?

6 Rue Victor Hugo 06240 - BEAUSOLEIL

IMO opinion my Challenge is impossible! Why? Human space travel is not possible.

Do you not see why this disqualifies you to be the judge of your Challenge? If you are confident your Challenge cannot be met, why not appoint an independent arbiter?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 21, 2016, 11:48:06 AM

Not a hard one, so I am missing the difficulty in this "challenge".

The difficulty is getting past the guy's argument from personal incredulity. [As you've probably seen], you can present all the correct formulae and math and evidence in the world, and the guy's only response is "I don't believe it. It's a joke passed on to stupid gullible people. As I show at my site blah blah blah."

He's been smacked around at ApolloHoax. He's been smacked around at Cosmoquest. The only reason he hasn't been banned here is because enforcement seems to be very lax in that regards, or he hasn't quite stepped on the wrong toes yet.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 21, 2016, 09:16:00 AM

IMO opinion my Challenge is impossible! Why? Human space travel is not possible.

Do you not see why this disqualifies you to be the judge of your Challenge? If you are confident your Challenge cannot be met, why not appoint an independent arbiter?

Exactly to the both of you. This is why I told him to remove the challenge. Its a circular rigged trap. He can do what he wants, but i don't like wasting peoples time, people whom genuinely have been trying to win it.