I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge

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

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

 

I typically frown on two wrongs make a right...and I am in the wrong..but I did chuckle. If someone does win the prize money, I wouldn't accept a check. Now I am going to go slap my wrist..I apologize

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?

Fact remains I am the organizer of the two popular Challenges since 2010 and 2012 - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .

The first Challenge 1 is about structural top down collapses 911 style. Being an expert of structural analysis (shipbuilding contains much structural design under static/dynamic loads before production and I have done many) - see my CV at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm - I am evidently qualified to judge it. I have even produced scientific papers showing that a little top of a structure cannot crush the structure below keeping it up.
The reaction in USA is interesting. CIA/FBI consider me wrong but cannot prove it. Of course all 911 structural analysises are faked.
The second Challenge 2 (topic) is about human space travel. NASA & Co say it is possible and easy and has been done but when checking their info - trajectories, fuel consumed, hard- and software used 1969, etc, etc, it is quite easy to find and conclude they are also faked. All false. So I am also qualified to judge it.

I really feel sorry for the people working at the European Space Agency, ESA, inventing all these hoaxes about spacecrafts flying around being kicked by planets, etc, etc. But media play along and report all the ESA lies as truths. Their excuse is that they just report what ESA says (without checking if it is realistic, possible, true).

Anyway, you have to face it. Human space travel is not possible. You cannot reach any target for whatever reason and you cannot return. The re-entry is physically impossible like any 911 top-down structural collapse.

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

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

Well, it is a private, valuable building owned by us living there and it is close to everything: jobs, shops, schools, hospitals, railway station, beaches, sport facilities, fishing, skiing in the mountains, opera house, theaters, cinemas, airport, sailing, restaurants, etc. Why do you suggest it is a council housing? There are some nearby but today you cannot build anything in the vicinity as there is little space available = prices are HIGH and it costs a lot to live here! Luckily Monaco/Monte Carlo is just 200 m away with plenty jobs/activities, etc. You sound as if you are just jealous and stupid. Off topic as usual, too. I always wonder why so many sick people write nonsense at Internet forums. Evidently I must publish my address so that Challengers can contact me and see that the Challenge is real. And sick people think it is some equivalent of social/council housing. I just feel sorry for them.

The second Challenge 2 (topic) is about human space travel. NASA & Co say it is possible and easy and has been done but when checking their info - trajectories, fuel consumed, hard- and software used 1969, etc, etc, it is quite easy to find and conclude they are also faked. All false. So I am also qualified to judge it.

Nothing in this paragraph or anything else you have written leads to the conclusion that you are qualified to judge. That you have already made up your mind and refuse to listen to counter arguments explicitly disqualifies you.

I repeat, why not appoint an independent, qualified, arbiter?

Quote from: Copper Knickers on April 21, 2016, 02:06:40 PM

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?

Fact remains I am the organizer of the two popular Challenges since 2010 and 2012 - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .

The first Challenge 1 is about structural top down collapses 911 style. Being an expert of structural analysis (shipbuilding contains much structural design under static/dynamic loads before production and I have done many) - see my CV at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm - I am evidently qualified to judge it. I have even produced scientific papers showing that a little top of a structure cannot crush the structure below keeping it up.
The reaction in USA is interesting. CIA/FBI consider me wrong but cannot prove it. Of course all 911 structural analysises are faked.
The second Challenge 2 (topic) is about human space travel. NASA & Co say it is possible and easy and has been done but when checking their info - trajectories, fuel consumed, hard- and software used 1969, etc, etc, it is quite easy to find and conclude they are also faked. All false. So I am also qualified to judge it.

I really feel sorry for the people working at the European Space Agency, ESA, inventing all these hoaxes about spacecrafts flying around being kicked by planets, etc, etc. But media play along and report all the ESA lies as truths. Their excuse is that they just report what ESA says (without checking if it is realistic, possible, true).

Anyway, you have to face it. Human space travel is not possible. You cannot reach any target for whatever reason and you cannot return. The re-entry is physically impossible like any 911 top-down structural collapse.

Yet when you are asked to answer questions you resort to calling people names and using incredulity.  The few times you do your answers conflict with what is known and proven to be correct and even conflict with your model.  Like satellites being able to be put into orbit, yet no one knows how to calculate the propellant needed or get them to the orbits they need to be in.

Your challenge is fraudulent simply because the judge has already ruled any applications failures before receiving them.  That is the problem with having a biased judge who ignores the conflicts in their reasoning, have very limited understanding of the subject matter, is prone to lying about things like the availability of information or refusing to acknowledge when people point out where to find the information.

To reiterate I am not interested in your challenge, just interested in debating you and showing where your understanding of things involving space travel are wrong.  If you show proof of funds and allow a third party judge I may change my mind. 

You have shown you are not honest.

1. You claim to been sentenced to death in the US yet have not held a position in the US Government or with a contractor that gave you access to classified information.

2. You misquote NASA officials to support your position.

3. You claim NASA does not make certain information available that is.

4. You claim no one has been able to show certain calculations involving space travel.  You have been shown where to find those calculations and even had some calculations done for you.

5. You challenge is not winnable simply because the judge has already stated what the ruling will be.  Not an honest challenge as a result.

6. It is suspect you refuse to show you have the funds available. 

7. Your address while not proof of your income suggest you may not have the funds available you claim.

8. You made the claim of being in the satellite launch business.  Then you are a shareholder of a company that launches satellites.  Then you are a shareholder of a company that owns shares of another company that launches satellites.  Not really something that many people would considered as being in the business and would consider an attempt to mislead people.

9.  You resort to name calling, ignoring questions, cherry picking and incredulity which many consider less than honest debate tactics.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 21, 2016, 08:40:48 PM

Quote from: Copper Knickers on April 21, 2016, 02:06:40 PM

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?

Fact remains I am the organizer of the two popular Challenges since 2010 and 2012 - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .

The first Challenge 1 is about structural top down collapses 911 style. Being an expert of structural analysis (shipbuilding contains much structural design under static/dynamic loads before production and I have done many) - see my CV at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm - I am evidently qualified to judge it. I have even produced scientific papers showing that a little top of a structure cannot crush the structure below keeping it up.
The reaction in USA is interesting. CIA/FBI consider me wrong but cannot prove it. Of course all 911 structural analysises are faked.
The second Challenge 2 (topic) is about human space travel. NASA & Co say it is possible and easy and has been done but when checking their info - trajectories, fuel consumed, hard- and software used 1969, etc, etc, it is quite easy to find and conclude they are also faked. All false. So I am also qualified to judge it.

I really feel sorry for the people working at the European Space Agency, ESA, inventing all these hoaxes about spacecrafts flying around being kicked by planets, etc, etc. But media play along and report all the ESA lies as truths. Their excuse is that they just report what ESA says (without checking if it is realistic, possible, true).

Anyway, you have to face it. Human space travel is not possible. You cannot reach any target for whatever reason and you cannot return. The re-entry is physically impossible like any 911 top-down structural collapse.

...

Your challenge is fraudulent simply because the judge has already ruled any applications failures before receiving them.  ...

5. You challenge is not winnable simply because the judge has already stated what the ruling will be.  Not an honest challenge as a result.

Hm, applications are always welcome and not judged beforehand.
If you don't like my Challenge you do not have to participate.
It is volontary.
The judge (me) has only informed that the Challenge is very difficult and (probably) impossible.
You really have to study the rules and the text around it.

If NASA or ESA does an application using info typical of them, they fail. Examples: they cannot produce details of the trajectories taken from one (moving) departure point to another (moving) arrival point in space.  They assume space is 2D and do not consider that space is 3D and that any force (to be defined beforehand) applied to a spacecraft to proceed must be applied at the right location, time, duration and direction and you must know the fuel consumed.
You cannot say some humans aboard or on the ground just did it, particularly if one of them looks like a tattooed yakusa in a shirt with nude girls on.
BTW - what about a head-on gravity assisted kick where both objects move in the same plane? Why does a small object with smaller velocity v turn 180° around a big object with bigger velocity U in the opposite direction and obtain a new velocity ~2U+v, while the big object just continues un-affected?

How can such an encounter between two moving objects take place in 3D space?

And if it takes place, why don't the two objects simply collide?

But if they miss - what is the (variable) gravity force between the two objects during the kick!

It's not a challenge if it is rigged and not able to be won. Is the carnival basket ball game a challenge?? No it's bull crap, the hoop is too small.

You need to delete all your challenges, I am sure the 9/11 one is just as bogus. Even though I absolutely agree the story behind 9/11 is bogus. Any freshman engineering student( or really anyone with a functioning critical thinking mind) can tell something is wrong, ignore the towers just look at the little spoke about building 7. Just a slap in the face. I will end that there as the internet does not need another thread about 9/11 lol. My whole point is even though I don't believe in the official report, and yes you do make a proper statement about the implausibility. Not to mention 3 times in a row, the same day?? I guess the world does laugh at America's growing ignorance.

But even if I could prove it mathematically possible with the rarest of events happening. You would reject it. So delete the challenges, they were over before they begun. Also delete the damn atomic crap...just bugs me..still.


Or at least prove financial position you could pay the ransom... I just hate people getting screwed with

Quote from: Woody on April 22, 2016, 12:04:43 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 21, 2016, 08:40:48 PM

Quote from: Copper Knickers on April 21, 2016, 02:06:40 PM

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?

Fact remains I am the organizer of the two popular Challenges since 2010 and 2012 - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .

The first Challenge 1 is about structural top down collapses 911 style. Being an expert of structural analysis (shipbuilding contains much structural design under static/dynamic loads before production and I have done many) - see my CV at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm - I am evidently qualified to judge it. I have even produced scientific papers showing that a little top of a structure cannot crush the structure below keeping it up.
The reaction in USA is interesting. CIA/FBI consider me wrong but cannot prove it. Of course all 911 structural analysises are faked.
The second Challenge 2 (topic) is about human space travel. NASA & Co say it is possible and easy and has been done but when checking their info - trajectories, fuel consumed, hard- and software used 1969, etc, etc, it is quite easy to find and conclude they are also faked. All false. So I am also qualified to judge it.

I really feel sorry for the people working at the European Space Agency, ESA, inventing all these hoaxes about spacecrafts flying around being kicked by planets, etc, etc. But media play along and report all the ESA lies as truths. Their excuse is that they just report what ESA says (without checking if it is realistic, possible, true).

Anyway, you have to face it. Human space travel is not possible. You cannot reach any target for whatever reason and you cannot return. The re-entry is physically impossible like any 911 top-down structural collapse.

...

Your challenge is fraudulent simply because the judge has already ruled any applications failures before receiving them.  ...

5. You challenge is not winnable simply because the judge has already stated what the ruling will be.  Not an honest challenge as a result.

Hm, applications are always welcome and not judged beforehand.
If you don't like my Challenge you do not have to participate.
It is volontary.
The judge (me) has only informed that the Challenge is very difficult and (probably) impossible.
You really have to study the rules and the text around it.

If NASA or ESA does an application using info typical of them, they fail. Examples: they cannot produce details of the trajectories taken from one (moving) departure point to another (moving) arrival point in space.  They assume space is 2D and do not consider that space is 3D and that any force (to be defined beforehand) applied to a spacecraft to proceed must be applied at the right location, time, duration and direction and you must know the fuel consumed.
You cannot say some humans aboard or on the ground just did it, particularly if one of them looks like a tattooed yakusa in a shirt with nude girls on.
BTW - what about a head-on gravity assisted kick where both objects move in the same plane? Why does a small object with smaller velocity v turn 180° around a big object with bigger velocity U in the opposite direction and obtain a new velocity ~2U+v, while the big object just continues un-affected?

How can such an encounter between two moving objects take place in 3D space?

And if it takes place, why don't the two objects simply collide?

But if they miss - what is the (variable) gravity force between the two objects during the kick!

If it is impossible to navigate in space how do satellites get put to where they need to be?  Do you not see the problem with your view?  Satellites are up there, put there by using the methods you say are impossible and wrong.

Is this more stuff you ignore about your model since it makes no sense and then you would have to say you are wrong?

Again your challenge is not legitimate.  You have stated it is unwinnable, the judge has a very limited understanding of the subject matter, you refuse to prove you have the funds and have demonstrated you are dishonest.

If your challenge is legitimate why are you reluctant to prove you have the money?  It is perfectly reasonable for people to ask for proof and expect you to provide it.


As for the information NASA provides it depends where you look.  If you look at press releases they tend to lack detail.  If you look at the more technical documents like in the link I provided you they go into detail.  Weird how either your computer monitor does not display the information correctly or somehow you do not have access the information that others like myself can find with an internet search.

Here is 869 technical documents related to the Apollo program that is available online:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?Nm=4294964374|Document+Type|Technical+Report&Ntx=mode%20matchall|mode%20matchall&Ntk=All|Title&N=0&Ntt=Apollo%2011|Apollo

Guess what you can find in some of those technical documents?  That stuff you say is needed to win your challenge.  Which is why I suggest you save yourself the money and just review the information in the link I provided you in this post and previously.

Weird how an organization trying to hide stuff releases a whole lot of information to be reviewed.

What do you expect to get from someone submitting something for your challenge?  If it is not at least similar to what NASA or ESA make available then it violates conditions of your challenge.  The first being using "basic astrophysical principles" and the other it not be fantasy. 


Edit: Forgot to add I suspect your reasoning for changing the challenge is you realized that for going to the moon the conditions of your challenge was already met.  NASA did it in the 60's and made the information available. 

That is why the first post I made in this thread I asked about Newton, Tsiolkovsky and third parties.  Still can not understand why you say you accepted that Newton and the rocket equation are right yet claim they are wrong at the same time.

It's not a challenge if it is rigged and not able to be won.

It is a Challenge, it is not rigged and theoretically able to be won ... but not by any NASA or ESA clowns.

Able to be won? Well, you have to develop new technology to navigate in space to be able to calculate the trajectory, etc, but even then ... there is absolutely nothing in space for humans to explore.

Only silly fools believe in human space travel; they do not understand life on Earth and believe it is same in space, if you follow me, which I doubt.

Say it takes 180 days to travel to Mars - all is automatic since departure - and there is only vacuum outside illuminated by the Sun far, far away. Arrival is also automatic. So what are you doing during 180 days travelling through vacuum? Play tennis in the spacecraft inside court? Go swimming in the pool? Send emails to your mother, wife or children?
And on arrival. What are you going to do on Mars. No atmosphere! No air. Nothing. Nothing to do!

I hoped that not winning the Challenge would cure people from sick science fiction dreams. So the Challenge will go on and on. For ever. 

Quote from: Heiwa on April 22, 2016, 01:28:37 AM

Quote from: Woody on April 22, 2016, 12:04:43 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 21, 2016, 08:40:48 PM

Quote from: Copper Knickers on April 21, 2016, 02:06:40 PM

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?

Fact remains I am the organizer of the two popular Challenges since 2010 and 2012 - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .

The first Challenge 1 is about structural top down collapses 911 style. Being an expert of structural analysis (shipbuilding contains much structural design under static/dynamic loads before production and I have done many) - see my CV at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm - I am evidently qualified to judge it. I have even produced scientific papers showing that a little top of a structure cannot crush the structure below keeping it up.
The reaction in USA is interesting. CIA/FBI consider me wrong but cannot prove it. Of course all 911 structural analysises are faked.
The second Challenge 2 (topic) is about human space travel. NASA & Co say it is possible and easy and has been done but when checking their info - trajectories, fuel consumed, hard- and software used 1969, etc, etc, it is quite easy to find and conclude they are also faked. All false. So I am also qualified to judge it.

I really feel sorry for the people working at the European Space Agency, ESA, inventing all these hoaxes about spacecrafts flying around being kicked by planets, etc, etc. But media play along and report all the ESA lies as truths. Their excuse is that they just report what ESA says (without checking if it is realistic, possible, true).

Anyway, you have to face it. Human space travel is not possible. You cannot reach any target for whatever reason and you cannot return. The re-entry is physically impossible like any 911 top-down structural collapse.

...

Your challenge is fraudulent simply because the judge has already ruled any applications failures before receiving them.  ...

5. You challenge is not winnable simply because the judge has already stated what the ruling will be.  Not an honest challenge as a result.

Hm, applications are always welcome and not judged beforehand.
If you don't like my Challenge you do not have to participate.
It is volontary.
The judge (me) has only informed that the Challenge is very difficult and (probably) impossible.
You really have to study the rules and the text around it.

If NASA or ESA does an application using info typical of them, they fail. Examples: they cannot produce details of the trajectories taken from one (moving) departure point to another (moving) arrival point in space.  They assume space is 2D and do not consider that space is 3D and that any force (to be defined beforehand) applied to a spacecraft to proceed must be applied at the right location, time, duration and direction and you must know the fuel consumed.
You cannot say some humans aboard or on the ground just did it, particularly if one of them looks like a tattooed yakusa in a shirt with nude girls on.
BTW - what about a head-on gravity assisted kick where both objects move in the same plane? Why does a small object with smaller velocity v turn 180° around a big object with bigger velocity U in the opposite direction and obtain a new velocity ~2U+v, while the big object just continues un-affected?

How can such an encounter between two moving objects take place in 3D space?

And if it takes place, why don't the two objects simply collide?

But if they miss - what is the (variable) gravity force between the two objects during the kick!

If it is impossible to navigate in space how do satellites get put to where they need to be?  Do you not see the problem with your view?  Satellites are up there, put there by using the methods you say are impossible and wrong.

I am sorry that you still do not grasp what I say since 16 months here.

It is impossible for humans to navigate in space between moving planets/moon and return to base using known technology as explained earlier. Therefore my Challenge cannot be won today.

Satellites are something else. They are just sent up to orbit Earth and can never land again. The satellites just go around and around! Arianespace, a company I am associated with due remote ownership, does it all the time.  But it is not really a human space trip.

Of course we are told by NASA, ESA and Roscosmos that their International Space Station, ISS, is orbiting Earth every 90 minutes full of humans like a satellite but it is just a joke. The humans there cannot do a re-entry and return to Earth. Just watch those >500 clowns that say they have been up in the ISS. Cheap actors. Prostitutes. Selling themselves for ... what? Being an astronut?

Still can not understand why you say you accepted that Newton and the rocket equation are right yet claim they are wrong at the same time.

?? I have always accepted Newton and the rocket equation, etc, etc. But they do not calculate the fuel required to win my Challenge. For that you need to be able to calculate the trajectory of the trip/leg and the force required to do the trip/leg. If you then know the force and the rocket producing the force, you can calculate the fuel required for the leg.

Quote from: Woody on April 22, 2016, 03:24:40 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 22, 2016, 01:28:37 AM

Quote from: Woody on April 22, 2016, 12:04:43 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 21, 2016, 08:40:48 PM

Quote from: Copper Knickers on April 21, 2016, 02:06:40 PM

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?

Fact remains I am the organizer of the two popular Challenges since 2010 and 2012 - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .

The first Challenge 1 is about structural top down collapses 911 style. Being an expert of structural analysis (shipbuilding contains much structural design under static/dynamic loads before production and I have done many) - see my CV at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm - I am evidently qualified to judge it. I have even produced scientific papers showing that a little top of a structure cannot crush the structure below keeping it up.
The reaction in USA is interesting. CIA/FBI consider me wrong but cannot prove it. Of course all 911 structural analysises are faked.
The second Challenge 2 (topic) is about human space travel. NASA & Co say it is possible and easy and has been done but when checking their info - trajectories, fuel consumed, hard- and software used 1969, etc, etc, it is quite easy to find and conclude they are also faked. All false. So I am also qualified to judge it.

I really feel sorry for the people working at the European Space Agency, ESA, inventing all these hoaxes about spacecrafts flying around being kicked by planets, etc, etc. But media play along and report all the ESA lies as truths. Their excuse is that they just report what ESA says (without checking if it is realistic, possible, true).

Anyway, you have to face it. Human space travel is not possible. You cannot reach any target for whatever reason and you cannot return. The re-entry is physically impossible like any 911 top-down structural collapse.

...

Your challenge is fraudulent simply because the judge has already ruled any applications failures before receiving them.  ...

5. You challenge is not winnable simply because the judge has already stated what the ruling will be.  Not an honest challenge as a result.

Hm, applications are always welcome and not judged beforehand.
If you don't like my Challenge you do not have to participate.
It is volontary.
The judge (me) has only informed that the Challenge is very difficult and (probably) impossible.
You really have to study the rules and the text around it.

If NASA or ESA does an application using info typical of them, they fail. Examples: they cannot produce details of the trajectories taken from one (moving) departure point to another (moving) arrival point in space.  They assume space is 2D and do not consider that space is 3D and that any force (to be defined beforehand) applied to a spacecraft to proceed must be applied at the right location, time, duration and direction and you must know the fuel consumed.
You cannot say some humans aboard or on the ground just did it, particularly if one of them looks like a tattooed yakusa in a shirt with nude girls on.
BTW - what about a head-on gravity assisted kick where both objects move in the same plane? Why does a small object with smaller velocity v turn 180° around a big object with bigger velocity U in the opposite direction and obtain a new velocity ~2U+v, while the big object just continues un-affected?

How can such an encounter between two moving objects take place in 3D space?

And if it takes place, why don't the two objects simply collide?

But if they miss - what is the (variable) gravity force between the two objects during the kick!

If it is impossible to navigate in space how do satellites get put to where they need to be?  Do you not see the problem with your view?  Satellites are up there, put there by using the methods you say are impossible and wrong.

I am sorry that you still do not grasp what I say since 16 months here.

It is impossible for humans to navigate in space between moving planets/moon and return to base using known technology as explained earlier. Therefore my Challenge cannot be won today.

Satellites are something else. They are just sent up to orbit Earth and can never land again. The satellites just go around and around! Arianespace, a company I am associated with due remote ownership, does it all the time.  But it is not really a human space trip.

Of course we are told by NASA, ESA and Roscosmos that their International Space Station, ISS, is orbiting Earth every 90 minutes full of humans like a satellite but it is just a joke. The humans there cannot do a re-entry and return to Earth. Just watch those >500 clowns that say they have been up in the ISS. Cheap actors. Prostitutes. Selling themselves for ... what? Being an astronut?

I totally grasp what you're saying, you're admitting to being a fraud and that you have no intention of honoring your so-called "Challenge" and never did.

Able to be won? Well, you have to develop new technology to navigate in space to be able to calculate the trajectory...

Why can't current technology be used for navigating in space?

I totally grasp what you're saying, you're admitting to being a fraud and that you have no intention of honoring your so-called "Challenge" and never did.

Yes sir that is exactly what he has said. Can't believe he has been allowed to troll here with non sense for so long.

At least prove you could have paid it if it wasn't a ruse. Here is what I would use....either my business including the building, content, and investments worth, my house, or my cars. Also could show statement of financial position I have to file every quarter for tax purposes. However, you being Mr. Rich, may have other options. I know you couldn't use your house you live in, we have seen that. However since one of your investments is "real estate" I am sure you have some properties somewhere. Being worth millions and millions as you say, it should not be hard to prove you could find a million euro to liquidate.

At least this way you would only prove a half troll and not a full troll. I don't care what people do with their time, they can pretend to be whoever they want. However, it pisses me off when other people are effected...and you have been wasting peoples time and effecting them.

Either that or apologize, tell the truth, and all will be forgiven. We all make mistakes for one reason or another. <----this is sincere and not sarcastic.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 22, 2016, 04:20:06 AM

Able to be won? Well, you have to develop new technology to navigate in space to be able to calculate the trajectory...

Why can't current technology be used for navigating in space?

Thanks for asking.

You have to know the time and location of your departure and arrival way points (both at altitudes above moving/rotating planets/moon)  and then calculate the trajectory in between to ensure that a force applied at the departure way point and its momentum will bring you to the arrival point.
That force must be applied at the right location/time/direction/duration. If you apply the force in the wrong direction you will never arrive at your goal. Fuel is burnt to create the force and your mass is reduced.

During the trip the gravity force of the departure planet is reduced and after a while the gravity force of the arrival moon/planet is increased, while during the complete trip the gravity force of the Sun acts on it. The effect is that the momentum (speed/direction) changes all the time and to establish the trajectory becomes very complicated, incl. solving high degrees differential equations (the n-body problem).

Some people suggest that the trajectory is part of a simple orbit around the Sun that starts, where the departure way point is in orbit around the Sun and at altitude from the rotating Earth, and ends, where the arrival way point is at altitude in its orbit around the Sun of the Moon also orbiting Earth or the rotating Mars orbiting the Sun at arrival - so you really have to be certain that the moving arrival way point really pops up before you at arrival. It is part of the Challenge.

NASA says you can always detemine your position in 3D space during the trip using stars as some sort of GPS locations to ensure that you are at right course. It does not solve the problem because if you are going in the wrong direction you cannot correct it. 

NASA therefore recommends that you aim for some passing object and do a gravity assisted kick to get back on course  ... but cannot explain how it works.

If I manage to get close to the arrival way point, I always arrive at the wrong speed and direction and crashes below the way point due to lack of fuel to apply a correct brake force. To win the Challenge you must avoid that.

My basic knowledge is however limited to navigation at sea between way points in the interface water/air on Earth and influenced by currents and wind (and islands and underwater rocks) where you have to apply a force all the time to get going and stop when the force is removed.. It is much easier than 3D space navigation.

Quote from: markjo on April 22, 2016, 05:30:28 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 22, 2016, 04:20:06 AM

Able to be won? Well, you have to develop new technology to navigate in space to be able to calculate the trajectory...

Why can't current technology be used for navigating in space?

Thanks for asking.

You have to know the time and location of your departure and arrival way points (both at altitudes above moving/rotating planets/moon)  and then calculate the trajectory in between to ensure that a force applied at the departure way point and its momentum will bring you to the arrival point.
That force must be applied at the right location/time/direction/duration. If you apply the force in the wrong direction you will never arrive at your goal. Fuel is burnt to create the force and you will mass is reduced.

During the trip the gravity force of the departure planet is reduced and after a while the gravity force of the arrival moon/planet is increased, while during the complete trip the gravity force of the Sun acts on it. The effect is that the momentum (speed/direction) changes all the time and to establish the trajectory becomes very complicated, incl. solving high degrees differential equations (the n-body problem).

Some people suggest that the trajectory is part of a simple orbit around the Sun that starts, where the departure way point is in orbit around the Sun and at altitude from the rotating Earth, and ends, where the arrival way point is at altitude in its orbit around the Sun of the Moon also orbiting Earth or the rotating Mars orbiting the Sun at arrival - so you really have to be certain that the moving arrival way point really pops up before you at arrival. It is part of the Challenge.

NASA says you can always detemine your position in 3D space during the trip using stars as some sort of GPS locations to ensure that you are at right course. It does not solve the problem because if you are going in the wrong direction you cannot correct it. 

NASA therefore recommends that you aim for some passing object and do a gravity assisted kick to get back on course  ... but cannot explain how it works.

If I manage to get close to the arrival way point, I always arrive at the wrong speed and direction and crashes below the way point due to lack of fuel to apply a correct brake force. To win the Challenge you must avoid that.

My basic knowledge is however limited to navigation at sea between way points in the interface water/air on Earth and influenced by currents and wind (and islands and underwater rocks) where you have to apply a force all the time to get going and stop when the force is removed.. It is much easier than 3D space navigation.

Once again stop talking about your challenge. It's bogus and cannot be won, the prize money does not exist,  you are trolling, wasting peoples time and effort.

Either prove something as asked by myself and many others. Stop posting..or extend an apology. I say apologize, we let bygones be bygones and maybe talk about something productive

Once again stop talking about your challenge. It's bogus and cannot be won, the prize money does not exist,  you are trolling, wasting peoples time and effort.

Either prove something as asked by myself and many others. Stop posting..or extend an apology. I say apologize, we let bygones be bygones and maybe talk about something productive

But topic of the thread is my Challenge to calculate the fuel required for two human space trips - one to the Moon, one to planet Mars. To avoid wasting your time, do not post here. I didn't start the thread.

I don't have to prove anything.

If you want to win the Challenge and collect the prize money, you have to prove that your are capable to do the calculations and present the numbers.

It is idiotic to propose that it can be done using info avaiable and that I can do it myself. It is not productive. Why should I win my own Challenge? I don't need the money.

So far nobody has been able to come up with any numbers of fuel used to get to the Moon or Mars and how it is used apart from some funny attempts.

It has been suggested that the mass of one spacecraft orbiting Earth was 338 692 or 163 702 kg prior firing the single rocket engine to get off for the Moon?

So how did it get it off the ground?

And what was the speed and altitude of this great mass?

And is the mass of the spacecraft after firing the rocket 53 802 kg as suggested? And what is the speed and altitude then?

So were 284 890 or 109 900 kg fuel burnt to leave orbit around Earth to start a trip to the Moon and how long did it take? What rocket engine was used?

Imagine that your spacecraft going to the Moon has mass 53 802 kg of which 240 kg is three humans ... just for a little trip to the Moon.

So what are the speeds and directions 12, 24 and 36 hrs later?

Are you on the right track or are you going in the wrong direction.

The mass is then only 43 802 kg because you dropped of the rocket engine/empty tank (10 000 kg) one way or other.

Questions like this must be clarified to win the Challenge.

Your challenge isn't anything but a ruse to gather attention and troll.

I attempted to give you an out to be a decent person and apologize for screwing with everyone  ( that offer will always stand, would rather productive conversation than this).

There is no money to win (maybe one million pesos and that could be a stretch) because you can not prove anything. If I put up a challenge I would show the pot, or put up the collateral I could borrow against to pay it. It would take me literally five minutes to prove whatever I needed to. I am sure a "super rich" guy like you could easily prove a million euro in assets. Yet you won't, because you can't. Would love for you to prove me wrong, and you might actually get people to take your "challenge" seriously.

Until then you are hope less right now. Sucks, because you might just be a nice guy, however this crap about your farce of a un winnable challenge with 0 financial backing is wasting peoples time.

If I were a mod I would give you the boot until you came to your senses. Since I am not, I am just going to keep this up.

He's not going to come to his senses.  He's been doing this for years across various forums.  His challenge has been met but he'll deny it because he doesn't understand it and then changes the rules as well as spew insults with those that don't agree with him.  You are right that he is only doing this for attention hence his regular referrals to the "popular thread" or "popular website".  IF his challenge were real he would prove he has the money.  But he won't despite years of requests for him to do so.  Any reasonable person would conclude and/or has concluded he is just full of it.

I attempted to give you an out to be a decent person and apologize for screwing with everyone  ( that offer will always stand, would rather productive conversation than this).

Thanks. What drug are you on, baby? You sound sick so it must be a bad one.

And true to form there are the insults.  At least Heiwa is a predictable troll.

Well, it is a private, valuable building owned by us living there and it is close to everything: jobs, shops, schools, hospitals, railway station, beaches, sport facilities, fishing, skiing in the mountains, opera house, theaters, cinemas, airport, sailing, restaurants, etc. Why do you suggest it is a council housing? There are some nearby but today you cannot build anything in the vicinity as there is little space available = prices are HIGH and it costs a lot to live here! Luckily Monaco/Monte Carlo is just 200 m away with plenty jobs/activities, etc. You sound as if you are just jealous and stupid. Off topic as usual, too. I always wonder why so many sick people write nonsense at Internet forums. Evidently I must publish my address so that Challengers can contact me and see that the Challenge is real. And sick people think it is some equivalent of social/council housing. I just feel sorry for them.

The building is owned by ICF Habitat Novedis*. Did you not follow the link? Why do you continue to lie?

*And holy shit, do you really live rent-free?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 22, 2016, 10:01:15 AM

I attempted to give you an out to be a decent person and apologize for screwing with everyone  ( that offer will always stand, would rather productive conversation than this).

Thanks. What drug are you on, baby? You sound sick so it must be a bad one.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 21, 2016, 09:27:15 PM

Well, it is a private, valuable building owned by us living there and it is close to everything: jobs, shops, schools, hospitals, railway station, beaches, sport facilities, fishing, skiing in the mountains, opera house, theaters, cinemas, airport, sailing, restaurants, etc. Why do you suggest it is a council housing? There are some nearby but today you cannot build anything in the vicinity as there is little space available = prices are HIGH and it costs a lot to live here! Luckily Monaco/Monte Carlo is just 200 m away with plenty jobs/activities, etc. You sound as if you are just jealous and stupid. Off topic as usual, too. I always wonder why so many sick people write nonsense at Internet forums. Evidently I must publish my address so that Challengers can contact me and see that the Challenge is real. And sick people think it is some equivalent of social/council housing. I just feel sorry for them.

The building is owned by ICF Habitat Novedis*. Did you not follow the link? Why do you continue to lie?

*And holy shit, do you really live rent-free?

Holy crap!! Rent free?? Gotta love public assistance.. Maybe he does have a million euro, since apparently he hasn't been paying for anything.

Heiwa...
Well despite drinking a bit too much from time to time that is it my friend. I would take a deep breath and look in the mirror my friend, I think it's time. You know people will accept you for the real you...just be yourself. This persona though, it needs to be taken out back and beat with a hose.

Also you calling me broke when you live in public assistance rent free! At least I pay my way on my own, my house is paid for as is my business warehouse and i did so by busting ass. So let's calm down bud.

The offer is still open. Just admit you screwed up and apologize, be yourself and you would be amazed what would happen:)

Quote from: markjo on April 22, 2016, 05:30:28 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 22, 2016, 04:20:06 AM

Able to be won? Well, you have to develop new technology to navigate in space to be able to calculate the trajectory...

Why can't current technology be used for navigating in space?

Thanks for asking.

You have to know the time and location of your departure and arrival way points (both at altitudes above moving/rotating planets/moon)  and then calculate the trajectory in between to ensure that a force applied at the departure way point and its momentum will bring you to the arrival point.
That force must be applied at the right location/time/direction/duration. If you apply the force in the wrong direction you will never arrive at your goal. Fuel is burnt to create the force and your mass is reduced.

During the trip the gravity force of the departure planet is reduced and after a while the gravity force of the arrival moon/planet is increased, while during the complete trip the gravity force of the Sun acts on it. The effect is that the momentum (speed/direction) changes all the time and to establish the trajectory becomes very complicated, incl. solving high degrees differential equations (the n-body problem).

Some people suggest that the trajectory is part of a simple orbit around the Sun that starts, where the departure way point is in orbit around the Sun and at altitude from the rotating Earth, and ends, where the arrival way point is at altitude in its orbit around the Sun of the Moon also orbiting Earth or the rotating Mars orbiting the Sun at arrival - so you really have to be certain that the moving arrival way point really pops up before you at arrival. It is part of the Challenge.

NASA says you can always detemine your position in 3D space during the trip using stars as some sort of GPS locations to ensure that you are at right course. It does not solve the problem because if you are going in the wrong direction you cannot correct it. 

NASA therefore recommends that you aim for some passing object and do a gravity assisted kick to get back on course  ... but cannot explain how it works.

If I manage to get close to the arrival way point, I always arrive at the wrong speed and direction and crashes below the way point due to lack of fuel to apply a correct brake force. To win the Challenge you must avoid that.

My basic knowledge is however limited to navigation at sea between way points in the interface water/air on Earth and influenced by currents and wind (and islands and underwater rocks) where you have to apply a force all the time to get going and stop when the force is removed.. It is much easier than 3D space navigation.

So once again you prove that you disregard answers you have been given.

Lets look at your model.

You say when a spacecraft tries to go somewhere it slows as it gets further from Earth.

Eventually it will get to some unclaimed distance and begin falling and accelerating back towards the Earth.

So you admit gravity of a mass can accelerate an object.

Since you say use basic principles you admit things like satellites are in free fall around the Earth.

If a satellite is falling fast enough it will continue to free fall around the Earth.  That is why there is a minimum orbital velocity for every planet and moon.

So lets look a a gravity assist.

It uses gravity to accelerate the spacecraft and/or alter course.

You state gravity is capable accelerating something.

I am not sure on your stance on if gravity is able to alter a trajectory.  Seems with your model it can since it pulls a spacecraft trying to get to the moon and beyond back to Earth.

So if something is traveling fast enough to fall past a planet, gravity can accelerate things, can alter trajectories why exactly is a gravity assist impossible?

Even using your model it is possible.

As for navigation explain why satellites can be put into the orbits they need to be.  Then explain what changes when people are on board or the same techniques can not be used going to the moon.

Here is somethings you claim NASA does not make available regarding guidance and navigation.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700026482.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720022040.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700078804.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700011707.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700026442.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700015780.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700025421.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700025333.pdf

There is more available. Kind of odd you were unable to find this kind of technical information.  Seems you are only able to find press releases.

You just going to say it is lies or going to back up your claim showing us where it is wrong?

Going to just pretend the above does not exist and continue to claim NASA does not offer explanations?

Quote from: markjo on April 22, 2016, 05:30:28 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 22, 2016, 04:20:06 AM

Able to be won? Well, you have to develop new technology to navigate in space to be able to calculate the trajectory...

Why can't current technology be used for navigating in space?

Thanks for asking.

You have to know the time and location of your departure and arrival way points (both at altitudes above moving/rotating planets/moon)  and then calculate the trajectory in between to ensure that a force applied at the departure way point and its momentum will bring you to the arrival point.

Yes, that's pretty much the point of navigation.

That force must be applied at the right location/time/direction/duration. If you apply the force in the wrong direction you will never arrive at your goal.

That's why they have a guidance computer to make sure that the appropriate force is applied in the correct direction.

Fuel is burnt to create the force and your mass is reduced.

Umm, yes.

During the trip the gravity force of the departure planet is reduced and after a while the gravity force of the arrival moon/planet is increased, while during the complete trip the gravity force of the Sun acts on it. The effect is that the momentum (speed/direction) changes all the time and to establish the trajectory becomes very complicated, incl. solving high degrees differential equations (the n-body problem).

Yes, very complicated and very difficult calculations.  Thank goodness that they have a guidance computer to help with some of those calculations.

Some people suggest that the trajectory is part of a simple orbit around the Sun that starts, where the departure way point is in orbit around the Sun and at altitude from the rotating Earth, and ends, where the arrival way point is at altitude in its orbit around the Sun of the Moon also orbiting Earth or the rotating Mars orbiting the Sun at arrival - so you really have to be certain that the moving arrival way point really pops up before you at arrival. It is part of the Challenge.

Actually, the trajectory to the moon is a highly elliptical orbit around the earth.  Remember that the spacecraft is starting from a roughly 90 mile high circular orbit around the earth.  The orbit is then extended to a highly elliptical orbit that reaches to the moon.

NASA says you can always detemine your position in 3D space during the trip using stars as some sort of GPS locations to ensure that you are at right course.

No, not like GPS.  More like the celestial navigation that sailors have been using for hundreds of years.

It does not solve the problem because if you are going in the wrong direction you cannot correct it. 

Sure you can.  That's why you stick a big rocket engine on the back.  In fact, the Apollo missions had several mid-course correction burns built into the flight plans.

NASA therefore recommends that you aim for some passing object and do a gravity assisted kick to get back on course  ... but cannot explain how it works.

Ummm.... No.  That isn't how mid-course corrections work.  Remember that big rocket engine that I mentioned earlier?  Guess what that's for.

If I manage to get close to the arrival way point, I always arrive at the wrong speed and direction and crashes below the way point due to lack of fuel to apply a correct brake force.

Why do you assume that you will always arrive at the wrong speed and direction?  If your trajectory was calculated and executed correctly, then there is no reason that you shouldn't arrive at the correct direction and speed to safely reenter the atmosphere.

To win the Challenge you must avoid that.

Actually, if you want to survive the trip, then you must avoid that.

My basic knowledge is however limited to navigation at sea between way points in the interface water/air on Earth and influenced by currents and wind (and islands and underwater rocks) where you have to apply a force all the time to get going and stop when the force is removed.. It is much easier than 3D space navigation.

Then it's a good thing that no one is counting on you to navigate their spacecraft.

I remind all posters that topic is my popular Challenge about human space travel and the fuel required to do a trip to the Moon and Mars.

The topic is not what I know about space travel or where I live. Anwers to those important questions you find at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm .

It seems we all agree that you need fuel to get off the ground into orbit around Earth and more fuel is needed to get out of the orbit and on to Moon and Mars.

So what is the mass of your spacecraft with humans orbiting Earth ready to go on a trip into space?

355 tons? At 7500 m/s speed and 300 000 m altitude? (As suggested by someone).

How did you get it there?

And what is the mass/speed after leaving Earth orbit going to Moon?

55 tons and >11 000 m/s?

So you needed 300 tons of fuel to propel your 55 tons spacecraft away from Earth?

Maybe it is correct!

But is it possible? 300 tons? How did you get it off the ground?

You really have to check the figures.

Most spacecrafts are much lighter - like the French Microscope sent off yesterday - 300 kg - without humans aboard to verify the gravity constant and if Einstein is right. A little late but anyway!

But if the spacecraft shall have indoor swimmingpool and tenniscourt it gets heavy. Humans require some comfort in space.

The Challenge is also to explain the purpose of humans in space? Is it to plant strawberries on the Moon as suggested by NASA?

Or to build a hotel on the Moon 2020 facing outwards as suggested by ESA? ESA believes that an outwards facing hotel on the Moon will always be in the Sun so you don't have to worry about the heating.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 22, 2016, 07:13:35 AM

If I manage to get close to the arrival way point, I always arrive at the wrong speed and direction and crashes below the way point due to lack of fuel to apply a correct brake force.

Why do you assume that you will always arrive at the wrong speed and direction?  If your trajectory was calculated and executed correctly, then there is no reason that you shouldn't arrive at the correct direction and speed to safely reenter the atmosphere.

I do not assume anything. I simulate space travel where I apply a force one day to my spacecraft burning fuel to reach the target a couple of days later at an exact time, location, speed and direction (i.e. a certain altitude above the Moon or Earth).
I always fail and crash. The gravity force of the Moon or Earth is too strong and pulls me straight down. A force applied to my spacecraft several days earlier cannot prevent it.
It seems human space travel is difficult.

Quote from: markjo on April 22, 2016, 06:46:57 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 22, 2016, 07:13:35 AM

If I manage to get close to the arrival way point, I always arrive at the wrong speed and direction and crashes below the way point due to lack of fuel to apply a correct brake force.

Why do you assume that you will always arrive at the wrong speed and direction?  If your trajectory was calculated and executed correctly, then there is no reason that you shouldn't arrive at the correct direction and speed to safely reenter the atmosphere.

I do not assume anything. I simulate space travel where I apply a force one day to my spacecraft burning fuel to reach the target a couple of days later at an exact time, location, speed and direction (i.e. a certain altitude above the Moon or Earth).
I always fail and crash. The gravity force of the Moon or Earth is too strong and pulls me straight down. A force applied to my spacecraft several days earlier cannot prevent it.
It seems human space travel is difficult.

Then it seems like you're using the wrong programs.  I personally have been learning STK and GMAT, but I think the best one for amateurs like yourself would be KSP. 

Trajectory optimization isn't like shooting at ducks.  We don't need to guess about anything.  We know where the bodies are, where they're going to be, how strong their gravities are, and how to plan the burn accordingly to achieve the desired result.  All of this is done by professionals with professional software. 

I remind all posters that topic is my popular Challenge about human space travel and the fuel required to do a trip to the Moon and Mars.

The topic is not what I know about space travel or where I live. Anwers to those important questions you find at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm .

It seems we all agree that you need fuel to get off the ground into orbit around Earth and more fuel is needed to get out of the orbit and on to Moon and Mars.

So what is the mass of your spacecraft with humans orbiting Earth ready to go on a trip into space?

355 tons? At 7500 m/s speed and 300 000 m altitude? (As suggested by someone).

How did you get it there?

And what is the mass/speed after leaving Earth orbit going to Moon?

55 tons and >11 000 m/s?

So you needed 300 tons of fuel to propel your 55 tons spacecraft away from Earth?

Maybe it is correct!

But is it possible? 300 tons? How did you get it off the ground?

You really have to check the figures.

Most spacecrafts are much lighter - like the French Microscope sent off yesterday - 300 kg - without humans aboard to verify the gravity constant and if Einstein is right. A little late but anyway!

But if the spacecraft shall have indoor swimmingpool and tenniscourt it gets heavy. Humans require some comfort in space.

The Challenge is also to explain the purpose of humans in space? Is it to plant strawberries on the Moon as suggested by NASA?

Or to build a hotel on the Moon 2020 facing outwards as suggested by ESA? ESA believes that an outwards facing hotel on the Moon will always be in the Sun so you don't have to worry about the heating.

You are the the sole judge of the challenge so your understanding of the physics involved is on topic.

You living in subsidised housing is on topic since it suggest you do not have the assets to pay if the challenge is met.

You demonstrating dishonesty by making claims like being sentenced to death, the misleading claim of being involved in commercial spaceflight business, claiming to be part owner of the building you live in(unless since taxes pay for it you consider that as ownership), intentionally misquoting NASA officials, ignoring when people show you where information is available that you claim is not, etc is on topic.  Since you are the judge and manager of the challenge and your integrity is important to consider if the challenge is legitimate.

I am not sure what the maximum income and assets someone can have in France to qualify for subsidized housing, but guess if you can afford to offer a €1,000,000 prize you should not qualify.

I rather quickly determine your challenge is not legitimate and just here to point out your failings in understanding and with your model.

If your challenge is legitimate it should be rather simple to provide proof of having the assets to pay if someone wins.

Why should anyone go through the time and effort to win your challenge without being assured you have the money? It will take a lot of time and effort.  The reason I have not gone beyond debating you here.

By the way you should be able to defend why gravity assist are impossible when your model suggest they are possible.  I pointed out where your model says they should be possible.

Why not just explain why if gravity can effect a spaceships velocity as your model says it can a spacecraft can not take advantage of this?

I have not found anything on your site that answers that question.

Quote from: Heiwa on April 22, 2016, 07:59:27 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 22, 2016, 06:46:57 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on April 22, 2016, 07:13:35 AM

If I manage to get close to the arrival way point, I always arrive at the wrong speed and direction and crashes below the way point due to lack of fuel to apply a correct brake force.

Why do you assume that you will always arrive at the wrong speed and direction?  If your trajectory was calculated and executed correctly, then there is no reason that you shouldn't arrive at the correct direction and speed to safely reenter the atmosphere.

I do not assume anything. I simulate space travel where I apply a force one day to my spacecraft burning fuel to reach the target a couple of days later at an exact time, location, speed and direction (i.e. a certain altitude above the Moon or Earth).
I always fail and crash. The gravity force of the Moon or Earth is too strong and pulls me straight down. A force applied to my spacecraft several days earlier cannot prevent it.
It seems human space travel is difficult.

Then it seems like you're using the wrong programs.  I personally have been learning STK and GMAT, but I think the best one for amateurs like yourself would be KSP. 

Trajectory optimization isn't like shooting at ducks.  We don't need to guess about anything.  We know where the bodies are, where they're going to be, how strong their gravities are, and how to plan the burn accordingly to achieve the desired result.  All of this is done by professionals with professional software.

If he is truly interested in learning KSP is a great tool.  A bit simplified but if someone does not understand the basics they will not get to a low orbit or anywhere beyond.

Heiwa:

KSP uses the patched conics model and real world formulas for determining things like delta-v, TWR, drag, etc. 

You can even uses CKAN to install mods that change things to make it more realistic.  The base simulation is simplified to make it more accessible and easier.