I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge

  • 14391 Replies
  • 3084674 Views
*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • +0/-0
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4320 on: May 03, 2016, 06:14:45 AM »
You have demonstrated you do not understand the subject matter of your challenge.
Hm, I created my two €1M Challenges (topic) many years ago and so far nobody has won anything.

You just have to (1) explain how a weak and lightweight top crushes a strong and heavy bottom of any structure by GRAVITY and (2) calculate the amount of fuel required to overcome GRAVITY for a manned return trip in space.

I wonder why it is so difficult.

Maybe it is impossible?

Nothing to be upset about!

Or maybe you are not clever enough? Your brain is too small?

Well, if your brain is too small, I have not advice to help.

Maybe you can find some pill on the Internet enlarging it? They say you can enlarge your penis by a pill.

But it is off topic.

It seems you must understand GRAVITY to win my solemn Challenges.

Seems you can not offer evidence you challenge is legitimate.  Resorting to ad hominem, avoiding answering questions, trying to change the subject are not tactics someone resorts to using if they have a good argument and evidence.

Why not just show your calculations you did that supports something like the Saturn V could not lift off the pad?

I showed you the calculations for TWR, delta-v, fuel used per second seems odd an engineer can not reply with the same or show me where those calculations are wrong.

Since you keep saying it is off topic how about showing me your calculations in a thread I started about the just this subject?  If you are right and have done the calculations you should destroy me in that thread.

I'll just post questions about your challenge in this thread unless you bring up something you claim is off topic.

Good news. My Challenge (topic) is legitimate at least where I live. I thought that should be clear as I answer all questions about it. If it is not legimitate here, pls call the police.

My Challenge (topic) is that you shall calculate how weak tops crush solid bottoms and/or the amount of fuel you need for a manned space trip to Mars and back.

A thread started by you about my calculations. Why should I destroy you there. I am a nice person not destroying persons about such nonsense. Of course I have done military service and learnt about blowing up, killing and destroying the enemy but ... not about any calculations.

Here we are supposed to have fun discussing flat earth, gravity, space, etc. Relax and have fun ... and learn a little.

*

getrealzommb

  • 894
  • +0/-0
  • We do actually live on a ball: But who cares?
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4321 on: May 03, 2016, 09:43:25 AM »
Qouted wrong.... Deleted
« Last Edit: May 03, 2016, 10:48:46 AM by getrealzommb »

*

getrealzommb

  • 894
  • +0/-0
  • We do actually live on a ball: But who cares?
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4322 on: May 03, 2016, 09:48:33 AM »

Good news. My Challenge (topic) is legitimate at least where I live. I thought that should be clear as I answer all questions about it. If it is not legimitate here, pls call the police.

My Challenge (topic) is that you shall calculate how weak tops crush solid bottoms and/or the amount of fuel you need for a manned space trip to Mars and back.

A thread started by you about my calculations. Why should I destroy you there. I am a nice person not destroying persons about such nonsense. Of course I have done military service and learnt about blowing up, killing and destroying the enemy but ... not about any calculations.

Here we are supposed to have fun discussing flat earth, gravity, space, etc. Relax and have fun ... and learn a little.

Originally you posted:

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

I believe some have succeeded in this challenge, and you have failed to pay up. As far as I can tell you are a fraud!
« Last Edit: May 03, 2016, 09:52:41 AM by getrealzommb »

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • +0/-0
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4323 on: May 03, 2016, 09:57:14 AM »

I believe some have succeeded in this challenge, and you have failed to pay up. As far as I can tell you are a fraud!

Hm, fraud is criminal deception or a person/organization that deceives. So who have I deceived?

And who has won my Challenge 2? When, how, how much fuel was used, etc.

As far as I am concerned nobody has won anything and nobody has been deceived by me.

The Challenge is still there.

Of course plenty people suggest that NASA went to the Moon 1969 but ... nobody knows how much fuel was used or has tried to calculate it, which is the Challenge.

I tried to calculate the fuel used and ... I became too heavy to get off the ground. I needed 20 Shuttles to get my spartan spacecraft into orbit ready to go to the Moon. To go to Mars I needed 40 Shuttles.

Then I found out that the Shuttle was a fraud.

Finally I never managed to re-enter Earth to end the trip alive. I then concluded human space travel is impossible.

Maybe NASA is a fraud?

« Last Edit: May 03, 2016, 10:00:27 AM by Heiwa »

?

palmerito0

  • 582
  • +0/-0
  • Why does this forum exist?
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4324 on: May 03, 2016, 10:44:20 AM »
You broke the agreement you made with the public and all those who attempted your "Challenge" by not giving them the money promised.
Heiwa on the impossibility of space travel:

There are no toilets up there and sex is also a problem, just to mention a few difficulties.

WHEEEEEEEEEEE

*

getrealzommb

  • 894
  • +0/-0
  • We do actually live on a ball: But who cares?
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4325 on: May 03, 2016, 10:47:18 AM »

I believe some have succeeded in this challenge, and you have failed to pay up. As far as I can tell you are a fraud!

Hm, fraud is criminal deception or a person/organization that deceives. So who have I deceived?

And who has won my Challenge 2? When, how, how much fuel was used, etc.

As far as I am concerned nobody has won anything and nobody has been deceived by me.

The Challenge is still there.

Of course plenty people suggest that NASA went to the Moon 1969 but ... nobody knows how much fuel was used or has tried to calculate it, which is the Challenge.

I tried to calculate the fuel used and ... I became too heavy to get off the ground.

NASA needed 1  Saturn V rocket  to get the Appollo 11 spacecraft into orbit and onward to the Moon.


Finally I never managed to re-enter Earth to end the trip alive. I then concluded human space travel is impossible.

Maybe NASA is a fraud?

Maybe you lack the intelligence/education/specialization required to solve the energy and reentry issue? 
Does NASA rely one persons knowledge to get them into space, or do they have the worlds best scientists working on the problem?
What makes you think Heiwa > NASA?
The simulations of the moon trip provided by Mike247 is an accurate proof of concept, and worthy of completion of your challenge. You should honor his efforts.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2016, 10:59:00 AM by getrealzommb »

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4326 on: May 03, 2016, 10:56:49 AM »
It is all a stupid hoax but a military secret that if revealed is punished by DEATH! Anybody like me actually proving that nuclear bombs and space trips are fake will be punished by DEATH.

It is not funny to be punished by DEATH but I do it anyway. I am not afraid of DEATH, you see.


Still not DEAD!

Hello?
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • +0/-0
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4327 on: May 03, 2016, 11:45:59 AM »

Maybe you lack the intelligence/education/specialization required to solve the energy and reentry issue? 
Does NASA rely one persons knowledge to get them into space, or do they have the worlds best scientists working on the problem?
What makes you think Heiwa > NASA?
The simulations of the moon trip provided by Mike247 is an accurate proof of concept, and worthy of completion of your challenge. You should honor his efforts.

Yes, I  lack maybe the intelligence/education/specialization required to solve the energy and reentry issues, blah, blah. Many twerps think so.

But it is not the topic - the Challenge.

Please, try to comment on the topic!

If you want to meet me, discuss your mental problems, etc, with me ... personally ... just call me.

But I am not a doctor. I am an engineer. Quite good at ships. Are you a ship? Or just a nervous wreck?

If the latter, I leave you shuddering at the bottom of the sea.

Am I not disgusting?
« Last Edit: May 03, 2016, 11:49:39 AM by Heiwa »

*

Dinosaur Neil

  • 3177
  • +0/-0
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4328 on: May 03, 2016, 01:53:22 PM »
Heiwa, please just shut up and go away. Your desperation to try and get the last word is the only thing driving this thread. Nobody cares what you have to say, it was established 100 pages back that you're a fraudulent worm, now get lost.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

?

Woody

  • 1144
  • +0/-0
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4329 on: May 03, 2016, 04:08:24 PM »
You have demonstrated you do not understand the subject matter of your challenge.
Hm, I created my two €1M Challenges (topic) many years ago and so far nobody has won anything.

You just have to (1) explain how a weak and lightweight top crushes a strong and heavy bottom of any structure by GRAVITY and (2) calculate the amount of fuel required to overcome GRAVITY for a manned return trip in space.

I wonder why it is so difficult.

Maybe it is impossible?

Nothing to be upset about!

Or maybe you are not clever enough? Your brain is too small?

Well, if your brain is too small, I have not advice to help.

Maybe you can find some pill on the Internet enlarging it? They say you can enlarge your penis by a pill.

But it is off topic.

It seems you must understand GRAVITY to win my solemn Challenges.

Seems you can not offer evidence you challenge is legitimate.  Resorting to ad hominem, avoiding answering questions, trying to change the subject are not tactics someone resorts to using if they have a good argument and evidence.

Why not just show your calculations you did that supports something like the Saturn V could not lift off the pad?

I showed you the calculations for TWR, delta-v, fuel used per second seems odd an engineer can not reply with the same or show me where those calculations are wrong.

Since you keep saying it is off topic how about showing me your calculations in a thread I started about the just this subject?  If you are right and have done the calculations you should destroy me in that thread.

I'll just post questions about your challenge in this thread unless you bring up something you claim is off topic.

Good news. My Challenge (topic) is legitimate at least where I live. I thought that should be clear as I answer all questions about it. If it is not legimitate here, pls call the police.

My Challenge (topic) is that you shall calculate how weak tops crush solid bottoms and/or the amount of fuel you need for a manned space trip to Mars and back.

A thread started by you about my calculations. Why should I destroy you there. I am a nice person not destroying persons about such nonsense. Of course I have done military service and learnt about blowing up, killing and destroying the enemy but ... not about any calculations.

Here we are supposed to have fun discussing flat earth, gravity, space, etc. Relax and have fun ... and learn a little.

Why the focus on Mars and your other challenge now?  Why are you not mentioning the Moon anymore? 

If you do not have the money or means to pay then yes your challenge is not legitimate.  It maybe not against the law in France, it surely is not legally enforceable and anyone feeling they won have no legal recourse. 

Funny how I can very easily show I have a certain amount of money, but for some reason your are incapable of doing so. 

Weird how your address is to a building owned by a company that runs subsidized housing, yet you can afford to pay €1 m if anyone wins your challenge.  Maybe we should notify the authorities, because it seems you are fraudulently receiving government assistance.  Unless someone can have €1,000,000 or more in assets and still qualify for government programs like that.

Also strange you ignored the other questions I had about your challenge.  Someone would have to spend quite a bit of time and effort unless they just copied and pasted NASA's information.  Are the questions I asked not reasonable?  Surely wanting verification you have the funds beyond just you saying you do is not off topic or should prove that difficult to accomplish.


*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • +0/-0
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4330 on: May 03, 2016, 10:18:51 PM »

Why the focus on Mars and your other challenge now?  Why are you not mentioning the Moon anymore? 


The rules of my Challenges are at http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm , i.e. any challenger must describe human trips to both the Moon and planet Mars. Nobody is forced to accept the rules or even participate. All is just for fun to show how clever you (and I) are.

It seems NASA will send humans to Mars in the near furture, while ESA will establish a strawberry farm on the Moon side not facing Earth in a few years. If NASA can send humans to Mars and if ESA can send humans to the Moon, it appears that it is possible to win my Challenge.

IMO only un-manned satellites can be sent one-way into space as entries to and landings on heavenly bodies incl. Earth from space are impossible. You cannot find the location in space to start an entry or re-entry and are going too fast and in an unknown direction and the result is that you will always crash or be vaporized by atmosphere.

Therefore I consider the suggestions of NASA and ESA as fraud. Likewise the ISS (owned by NASA and Roscosmos) is a hoax. Isn't it 100% clear after studying my web pages?

The money is therefore safe with me.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2016, 01:26:07 PM by Heiwa »

?

frenat

  • 3752
  • +0/-2
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4331 on: May 04, 2016, 05:30:38 AM »
You mean of course that the money doesn't exist because you've refused to prove you have it for years.  Stop the lying Heiwa.  Nobody believes you have the money.

*

TheSchwa1337

  • 55
  • +0/-0
  • Confused quite honestly on the whole matter @ hand
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4332 on: May 04, 2016, 08:56:03 PM »
Nice.  You get to buy everyone a round when you get the money.  (if you get it)
Count me in!
Quote from: Papa Legba on April 29, 2016, 01:15:13 PM

I've got top men working on babyhighspeed's potentially disastrous amazon voodoo detector recalibration issue right now...

Top... Men!

*

TheSchwa1337

  • 55
  • +0/-0
  • Confused quite honestly on the whole matter @ hand
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4333 on: May 04, 2016, 09:00:34 PM »
I haven't seen any results of any simulations of any kind so far. To win my Challenge you must show that your figures and descriptions are complete and realistic.
If the simulations, e.g. include a 357.5 seconds blast to produce 97 400 N thrust, burning 10 898 kg of fuel, to get backwards into orbit around the fast moving Moon (in order not to crash on it or miss it) that orbits Earth that orbits the Sun at great speed, the description must also include in what direction the thrust was applied, by whom it was done and how, etc. How was the steering jets controlled so that the rocket thrust was applied in exactly the right direction. I am also interested in how the fuel pump was driven to pump 31 kg/s fuel to the rocket engine. Electric?  From where? Batteries? And at what pressure was the fuel injected? It seems quite complicated to manually steer a spacecraft into Moon orbit and I haven't seen, as said above, any realistic simulations or descriptions of it. The 1969 NASA + Buzz descriptions are a little vague, to say the least. You have to perform better to win my Challenge.

Sense when did the challenge include describing every nut and bolt of the Saturn V and it's payload?  I have completed the challenge as detailed in your website and your website clearly says that completion of the challenge as detailed in your website would make you €1,000,000 richer.  I have completed the challenge alas detailed in your website and now you are not holding up your end of the deal.  How about we have a community vote as to if I won the challenge or not.  Sound fair?
Cast vote for mikeman7918

Rules were clearly stated.

Screen shots of PM for proof further?
Quote from: Papa Legba on April 29, 2016, 01:15:13 PM

I've got top men working on babyhighspeed's potentially disastrous amazon voodoo detector recalibration issue right now...

Top... Men!

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • +0/-0
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4334 on: May 04, 2016, 10:03:52 PM »
I haven't seen any results of any simulations of any kind so far. To win my Challenge you must show that your figures and descriptions are complete and realistic.
If the simulations, e.g. include a 357.5 seconds blast to produce 97 400 N thrust, burning 10 898 kg of fuel, to get backwards into orbit around the fast moving Moon (in order not to crash on it or miss it) that orbits Earth that orbits the Sun at great speed, the description must also include in what direction the thrust was applied, by whom it was done and how, etc. How was the steering jets controlled so that the rocket thrust was applied in exactly the right direction. I am also interested in how the fuel pump was driven to pump 31 kg/s fuel to the rocket engine. Electric?  From where? Batteries? And at what pressure was the fuel injected? It seems quite complicated to manually steer a spacecraft into Moon orbit and I haven't seen, as said above, any realistic simulations or descriptions of it. The 1969 NASA + Buzz descriptions are a little vague, to say the least. You have to perform better to win my Challenge.

Sense when did the challenge include describing every nut and bolt of the Saturn V and it's payload?  I have completed the challenge as detailed in your website and your website clearly says that completion of the challenge as detailed in your website would make you €1,000,000 richer.  I have completed the challenge alas detailed in your website and now you are not holding up your end of the deal.  How about we have a community vote as to if I won the challenge or not.  Sound fair?
Cast vote for mikeman7918

Rules were clearly stated.

Screen shots of PM for proof further?
Not really required. Poor mikeman7918 simply failed the Challenge by not fulfilling the requirements of the rules as explained many times in this long thread. mikeman7918 could, e.g. not explain how to re-enter at >11 000 m/s speed into Earth's atmosphere and land 10 minutes later. 
No humans have ever been flying around at such speeds - a world record! - due to being subject of GRAVITY for >48 hrs. They were just dropping down towards the centre of Earth all the time going faster and faster and not flying around at all.
Try yourself. Drop something on Earth and let it fall 48 hrs! How to stop it then? Pulling a brake? Friction.
Only fools believe you can stop a spacecraft. They do not understand that all space travel is only one-way. You cannot stop and land after departure.


?

palmerito0

  • 582
  • +0/-0
  • Why does this forum exist?
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4335 on: May 04, 2016, 10:34:41 PM »
Or maybe burn retrograde?

OR GODDAM FRICTION?
Heiwa on the impossibility of space travel:

There are no toilets up there and sex is also a problem, just to mention a few difficulties.

WHEEEEEEEEEEE

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • +0/-0
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4336 on: May 05, 2016, 12:14:15 AM »
Or maybe burn retrograde?

OR GODDAM FRICTION?

A retrograde burn at 11 000 m/s speed? For that you need fuel that you cannot carry with you from Earth. Sorry, doesn't work.

FRICTION? Well, the atmosphere is only 110 000 m thick and with speed 11 000 m/s verticall down, you pass it in 10 seconds before contacting ground. Sorry, too little time.
The famous NASA hero dr. Buzz, inventor of the heat shield brake, suggest that you turn 88° before entering the atmosphere and then enter almost horizontally at a small angle, when FRICTION melts the heat shield, etc, etc. But dr. Buzz is just a retired alcoholic mumbling that he did a re-entry 1969 watching through a window the heat shield melting in front of him. Do you believe it? 

?

Empirical

  • 1307
  • +0/-0
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4337 on: May 05, 2016, 09:03:12 AM »
Quote
FRICTION? Well, the atmosphere is only 110 000 m thick and with speed 11 000 m/s verticall down, you pass it in 10 seconds before contacting ground. Sorry, too little time.

Maybe go in at a smaller angle than straight down.

?

palmerito0

  • 582
  • +0/-0
  • Why does this forum exist?
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4338 on: May 05, 2016, 09:12:18 AM »
Or maybe burn retrograde?

OR GODDAM FRICTION?

A retrograde burn at 11 000 m/s speed? For that you need fuel that you cannot carry with you from Earth. Sorry, doesn't work.

FRICTION? Well, the atmosphere is only 110 000 m thick and with speed 11 000 m/s verticall down, you pass it in 10 seconds before contacting ground. Sorry, too little time.
The famous NASA hero dr. Buzz, inventor of the heat shield brake, suggest that you turn 88° before entering the atmosphere and then enter almost horizontally at a small angle, when FRICTION melts the heat shield, etc, etc. But dr. Buzz is just a retired alcoholic mumbling that he did a re-entry 1969 watching through a window the heat shield melting in front of him. Do you believe it?

Hurr durr, of course we can't trust the drunk astronauts and their 'shpayze-shittles'!  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

On a more serious note, again, argument from incredulity. He explains how it's done, but of course it doesn't work.

Seriously, just buy KSP with a small portion of your 1,000,000 euros and buy this 30 euro game. Install Ferram Aerospace for realistic aerodynamics, Realism Overhaul for realistic parts and weights, and Real Solar System for realistic ship and planet sizes.
Heiwa on the impossibility of space travel:

There are no toilets up there and sex is also a problem, just to mention a few difficulties.

WHEEEEEEEEEEE

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • +0/-0
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4339 on: May 05, 2016, 09:13:57 AM »
Quote
FRICTION? Well, the atmosphere is only 110 000 m thick and with speed 11 000 m/s verticall down, you pass it in 10 seconds before contacting ground. Sorry, too little time.

Maybe go in at a smaller angle than straight down.

But how? GRAVITY has been pulling you straight, vertically down for at least 48 hrs at increasing speed/direction. You are actually dropping straight down on Earth. To change course to go in at a smaller angle in the last moment, you have to apply a big force sideways but GRAVITY is still pulling you straight, vertically down all the time.
Many astronuts believe flying in vacuum space between planets is like flying a plane in air above a planet, I am sorry to say. Actually human space travel is impossible.
Only alcoholics like dr. Buzz say they have done space travel but he shouldn't even be allowed to drive a car.

*

MrDebunk

  • 358
  • +0/-0
  • Chaotic good
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4340 on: May 05, 2016, 07:55:06 PM »

Why the focus on Mars and your other challenge now?  Why are you not mentioning the Moon anymore? 


The rules of my Challenges are at http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm , i.e. any challenger must describe human trips to both the Moon and planet Mars. Nobody is forced to accept the rules or even participate. All is just for fun to show how clever you (and I) are.

It seems NASA will send humans to Mars in the near furture, while ESA will establish a strawberry farm on the Moon side not facing Earth in a few years. If NASA can send humans to Mars and if ESA can send humans to the Moon, it appears that it is possible to win my Challenge.

IMO only un-manned satellites can be sent one-way into space as entries to and landings on heavenly bodies incl. Earth from space are impossible. You cannot find the location in space to start an entry or re-entry and are going too fast and in an unknown direction and the result is that you will always crash or be vaporized by atmosphere.

Therefore I consider the suggestions of NASA and ESA as fraud. Likewise the ISS (owned by NASA and Roscosmos) is a hoax. Isn't it 100% clear after studying my web pages?

The money is therefore safe with me.

Two words. Heat shields.
M R D E B U N K (the reboot)

Quote from: totallackofintelligence
You sound like shill.

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • +0/-0
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4341 on: May 05, 2016, 08:26:47 PM »

Why the focus on Mars and your other challenge now?  Why are you not mentioning the Moon anymore? 


The rules of my Challenges are at http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm , i.e. any challenger must describe human trips to both the Moon and planet Mars. Nobody is forced to accept the rules or even participate. All is just for fun to show how clever you (and I) are.

It seems NASA will send humans to Mars in the near furture, while ESA will establish a strawberry farm on the Moon side not facing Earth in a few years. If NASA can send humans to Mars and if ESA can send humans to the Moon, it appears that it is possible to win my Challenge.

IMO only un-manned satellites can be sent one-way into space as entries to and landings on heavenly bodies incl. Earth from space are impossible. You cannot find the location in space to start an entry or re-entry and are going too fast and in an unknown direction and the result is that you will always crash or be vaporized by atmosphere.

Therefore I consider the suggestions of NASA and ESA as fraud. Likewise the ISS (owned by NASA and Roscosmos) is a hoax. Isn't it 100% clear after studying my web pages?

The money is therefore safe with me.

Two words. Heat shields.

I know! Used on US InterContinental Ballistic Missiles, ICBMs, to prevent the nuclear warhead from melting at re-entry so it can wipe out the target.
The US ICBMs are sent up to 1 200 000 m altitude by a rocket from where they then drop down almost vertically to arrive at the top of the atmosphere at 130 000 m altitude at say 6 500 m/s and increasing velocity a little later. It means they will hit ground/Moscow/St Petersburg or whatever after 20+ seconds. The heat shield prevents the ICBM from melting. However, it is a military secret how the heat shield works to protect the US.
As the ICBM arrives at 6 500 m/s speed and shall detonate at 650 m altitude to wipe out the target, the timing is very important. If it explodes 0.11 seconds too late it has already crashed and only destroyed the heat shield.
If you intend to use a heat shield to win my Challenge (topic) you must really show that it works.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45130
  • +90/-135
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4342 on: May 05, 2016, 08:52:44 PM »
The US ICBMs are sent up to 1 200 000 m altitude by a rocket from where they then drop down almost vertically to arrive at the top of the atmosphere at 130 000 m altitude at say 6 500 m/s and increasing velocity a little later.
No, that isn't quite how ICBMs work.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • +0/-0
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4343 on: May 05, 2016, 09:10:50 PM »
The US ICBMs are sent up to 1 200 000 m altitude by a rocket from where they then drop down almost vertically to arrive at the top of the atmosphere at 130 000 m altitude at say 6 500 m/s and increasing velocity a little later.
No, that isn't quite how ICBMs work.

Well, the following flight phases of an ICBM can be distinguished ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile ):
•   boost phase: 3 to 5 minutes; it is shorter for a solid-fuel rocket than for a liquid-propellant rocket; depending on the trajectory chosen, typical burnout speed is 4 km/s (2.5 mi/s), up to 7.8 km/s (4.8 mi/s); altitude at the end of this phase is typically 150 to 400 km (93 to 249 mi).
•   midcourse phase: approx. 25 minutes—sub-orbital spaceflight with a flightpath being a part of an ellipse with a vertical major axis; the apogee (halfway through the midcourse phase) is at an altitude of approximately 1,200 km (750 mi); the semi-major axis is between 3,186 and 6,372 km (1,980 and 3,959 mi); the projection of the flight path on the Earth's surface is close to a great circle, slightly displaced due to earth rotation during the time of flight; the missile may release several independent warheads and penetration aids, such as metallic-coated balloons, aluminum chaff, and full-scale warhead decoys.
•   re-entry phase (starting at an altitude of 100 km, 62 mi): 2 minutes – impact is at a speed of up to 7 km/s (4.3 mi/s) (for early ICBMs less than 1 km/s (0.62 mi/s)); see also maneuverable reentry vehicle.
ICBMs usually use the trajectory which optimizes range for a given amount of payload (the minimum-energy trajectory); an alternative is a depressed trajectory, which allows less payload, shorter flight time, and has a much lower apogee.

Of course the real details are military secrets. IMO the whole thing doesn't work at all. http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .


?

palmerito0

  • 582
  • +0/-0
  • Why does this forum exist?
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4344 on: May 05, 2016, 09:50:48 PM »
IMO

That's your propblem. Everything you say is an opinion unbased in facts.
Heiwa on the impossibility of space travel:

There are no toilets up there and sex is also a problem, just to mention a few difficulties.

WHEEEEEEEEEEE

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • +0/-0
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4345 on: May 05, 2016, 10:39:39 PM »
IMO

That's your propblem. Everything you say is an opinion unbased in facts.

I have no problems. It seems my Challenge (topic) is your problem.  Heat shield! To fly to Mars. LOL, LOL, LOL!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45130
  • +90/-135
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4346 on: May 06, 2016, 05:31:56 AM »
The US ICBMs are sent up to 1 200 000 m altitude by a rocket from where they then drop down almost vertically to arrive at the top of the atmosphere at 130 000 m altitude at say 6 500 m/s and increasing velocity a little later.
No, that isn't quite how ICBMs work.

Well, the following flight phases of an ICBM can be distinguished ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile ):
•   boost phase: 3 to 5 minutes; it is shorter for a solid-fuel rocket than for a liquid-propellant rocket; depending on the trajectory chosen, typical burnout speed is 4 km/s (2.5 mi/s), up to 7.8 km/s (4.8 mi/s); altitude at the end of this phase is typically 150 to 400 km (93 to 249 mi).
•   midcourse phase: approx. 25 minutes—sub-orbital spaceflight with a flightpath being a part of an ellipse with a vertical major axis; the apogee (halfway through the midcourse phase) is at an altitude of approximately 1,200 km (750 mi); the semi-major axis is between 3,186 and 6,372 km (1,980 and 3,959 mi); the projection of the flight path on the Earth's surface is close to a great circle, slightly displaced due to earth rotation during the time of flight; the missile may release several independent warheads and penetration aids, such as metallic-coated balloons, aluminum chaff, and full-scale warhead decoys.
•   re-entry phase (starting at an altitude of 100 km, 62 mi): 2 minutes – impact is at a speed of up to 7 km/s (4.3 mi/s) (for early ICBMs less than 1 km/s (0.62 mi/s)); see also maneuverable reentry vehicle.
ICBMs usually use the trajectory which optimizes range for a given amount of payload (the minimum-energy trajectory); an alternative is a depressed trajectory, which allows less payload, shorter flight time, and has a much lower apogee.

Of course the real details are military secrets. IMO the whole thing doesn't work at all. http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Nowhere does that say that the warheads reenter the atmosphere nearly vertically as you claim, because they don't.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • +0/-0
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4347 on: May 06, 2016, 07:54:46 AM »
The US ICBMs are sent up to 1 200 000 m altitude by a rocket from where they then drop down almost vertically to arrive at the top of the atmosphere at 130 000 m altitude at say 6 500 m/s and increasing velocity a little later.
No, that isn't quite how ICBMs work.

Well, the following flight phases of an ICBM can be distinguished ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile ):
•   boost phase: 3 to 5 minutes; it is shorter for a solid-fuel rocket than for a liquid-propellant rocket; depending on the trajectory chosen, typical burnout speed is 4 km/s (2.5 mi/s), up to 7.8 km/s (4.8 mi/s); altitude at the end of this phase is typically 150 to 400 km (93 to 249 mi).
•   midcourse phase: approx. 25 minutes—sub-orbital spaceflight with a flightpath being a part of an ellipse with a vertical major axis; the apogee (halfway through the midcourse phase) is at an altitude of approximately 1,200 km (750 mi); the semi-major axis is between 3,186 and 6,372 km (1,980 and 3,959 mi); the projection of the flight path on the Earth's surface is close to a great circle, slightly displaced due to earth rotation during the time of flight; the missile may release several independent warheads and penetration aids, such as metallic-coated balloons, aluminum chaff, and full-scale warhead decoys.
•   re-entry phase (starting at an altitude of 100 km, 62 mi): 2 minutes – impact is at a speed of up to 7 km/s (4.3 mi/s) (for early ICBMs less than 1 km/s (0.62 mi/s)); see also maneuverable reentry vehicle.
ICBMs usually use the trajectory which optimizes range for a given amount of payload (the minimum-energy trajectory); an alternative is a depressed trajectory, which allows less payload, shorter flight time, and has a much lower apogee.

Of course the real details are military secrets. IMO the whole thing doesn't work at all. http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Nowhere does that say that the warheads reenter the atmosphere nearly vertically as you claim, because they don't.

Hm, they start from USA (or a sub) going up to an apogee at 1 200 000 m altitude in space and then they drop down on Russia with final arrival 7 000 m/s speed. Total time for the attack about 30 minutes. I have a feeling they come down pretty vertical from 1 200 000 m altitude but entering the atmosphere at 100 000 m altitude and needing 120 seconds (?) to hit ground going through the atmosphere, the vertical speed vector is only 833 m/s, so then they impact ground at 6.79° angle = almost horizontal ... at 7000 m/s speed.
Reason why the description is nonsense is that the US ICBMs are just a big fraud/hoax. Like the NASA human space travel program. That's why nobody wins my Challenge.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45130
  • +90/-135
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4348 on: May 06, 2016, 08:34:42 AM »
Hm, they start from USA (or a sub) going up to an apogee at 1 200 000 m altitude in space and then they drop down on Russia with final arrival 7 000 m/s speed. Total time for the attack about 30 minutes. I have a feeling they come down pretty vertical from 1 200 000 m altitude but entering the atmosphere at 100 000 m altitude and needing 120 seconds (?) to hit ground going through the atmosphere, the vertical speed vector is only 833 m/s, so then they impact ground at 6.79° angle = almost horizontal ... at 7000 m/s speed.
Anders, perhaps you should take a look at this document.  It should give you an idea of how to calculate the trajectory of an ICBM.
http://www2.mae.ufl.edu/~uhk/ICBM.pdf
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11248
  • +12/-7
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #4349 on: May 06, 2016, 09:35:55 AM »
Shielding is something I can speak on from a hands perspective. I need no hearsay, text books, or "google proof".

You can hit a piece of the textile directly with a plasma cutter, it will only ground for a brief second, then a tiny piece will burn off, you lose your ground and then you need to reposition.

During high speed re entry, this is all that happens. The air is compressed to the extent of creating plasma in front of the object. The shielding continually does this burn off effect. The inability to create a constant ground and heat transfer protects the structure behind this. Without this shielding , even the most rigid know metals would have no chance of survival even for a few seconds. 

Technically this is rocket science, however it's not really "rocket science" in a genius sense. I know heiwa, you will never understand it from either willfull or unintentional ignorance, however that does not effect the reality of it.

Ok that was my attempted communication with this guy for this month without spending useless time exposing him for the crack pot liar he is. Do I get a gold star or anything?
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir