I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge

and you further prove you don't understand orbital mechanics.  Just how much is "plenty of fuel" and how do you know it doesn't have enough?  If you're really an engineer you should know the numbers already.  This is YOUR claim and YOUR burden of proof to show there is not enough.  Transfer orbits don't take much fuel at all and are nowhere near impossible.  Just like your site, your post is nothing but argument from incredulity.  Got anything that isn't a logical fallacy?

I thought I had described the Shuttle docking with the ISS in the past in point A at my web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . Capsule dockings are exactly the same. I normally back up my findings with numbers. It is not orbital dynamics. It is simple space travel. I describe the difficulties at my website.

If you arrive 100 m/s too fast/slow (or 1.3% too fast/slow) for docking and the capsule have mass say 6000 kg (incl. 2000 kg payload) you need about 200 kg of fuel to correct it or 10% of the payload. And that fuel must create a force in the exact direction. It is not easy. If you apply the force in the wrong direction, you are lost.

Just ask NASA how much fuel they use for docking and how much fuel the capsule can carry. Why not ask for a video of the inside of the capsule, when new asstronuts arrive and steer it towards the ISS? 

And the Kerbal capsule? LOL. It does not use any fuel at all. It is just a video game for babies.

 

Incorrect. If you are coming in 100ms too fast, you need 100 m/s of delta-v. You can't know the fuel amount without knowing stats about the engine. If the engine has a specific impulse of 3,000, you will only need 16kg of fuel. You know nothing.

Incorrect. If you are coming in 100ms too fast, you need 100 m/s of delta-v. You can't know the fuel amount without knowing stats about the engine. If the engine has a specific impulse of 3,000, you will only need 16kg of fuel. You know nothing.

Yes - delta v is 100. And the mass of the capsule is 6000 kg. You need about 3.6 % of the total mass to change speed 100 m/s or 200 kg of fuel. I agree, the engine is not very efficient because it is a Mickey Mouse toy rocket fitted in the capsule. Just study my web site.

Regardless - the re-entry is not possible. The capsule burns up in 10 seconds hitting the atmosphere at 8000 m/s speed.

You are a serious case of cognitive dissonance. But you are not alone.

What is the efficiency of the engine that you are referring to? Because 1 kg of fuel could give the same delta-v as 100kg if the engine efficiency is different.

What is the efficiency of the engine that you are referring to? Because 1 kg of fuel could give the same delta-v as 100kg if the engine efficiency is different.

Ask Elon Musk, CEO SpaceX! It's his capsule!  The DRAGON! All fantasy, of course, but anyway. The rocket engines are little holes in the sides. How they can steer, brake or speed up the capsule (LOL) is magic.

You don't even know the efficiency. HOW THE HELL CAN YOU CALCULATE HOW MUCH FUEL IS NEEDED!?

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on July 25, 2016, 09:15:21 AM

What is the efficiency of the engine that you are referring to? Because 1 kg of fuel could give the same delta-v as 100kg if the engine efficiency is different.

Ask Elon Musk, CEO SpaceX! It's his capsule!  The DRAGON! All fantasy, of course, but anyway. The rocket engines are little holes in the sides. How they can steer, brake or speed up the capsule (LOL) is magic.

Look up the engines for any lifter you know. They will have a value called 'specific impulse' or 'isp'. That's their efficiency.

For example, the Vulcain 2 engine on the Ariane 5 has a specific impulse of 429 seconds in a vacuum. The F1 engine on the Saturn V has a specific impulse of 263 seconds at sea level. And the Merlin 1D has a specific impulse of 282 seconds at sea level for its regular version, and a specific impulse of 348 seconds in a vacuum for its vacuum version.

Here we see Elon's Dragon capsule that flies to the ISS with people and food. I assume the rocket engins' outlets are the holes in the walls of the capsule. How they can eject gas at 2000 m/s in the right directions is a mystery for me.

And where are the fuel tanks? And how much fuel is aboard. And three windows.

The whole thing looks like a joke. Can it fly to the ISS ... and back to Earth?

Quote from: Heiwa on July 25, 2016, 09:27:26 AM

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on July 25, 2016, 09:15:21 AM

What is the efficiency of the engine that you are referring to? Because 1 kg of fuel could give the same delta-v as 100kg if the engine efficiency is different.

Ask Elon Musk, CEO SpaceX! It's his capsule!  The DRAGON! All fantasy, of course, but anyway. The rocket engines are little holes in the sides. How they can steer, brake or speed up the capsule (LOL) is magic.

Look up the engines for any lifter you know. They will have a value called 'specific impulse' or 'isp'. That's their efficiency.

For example, the Vulcain 2 engine on the Ariane 5 has a specific impulse of 429 seconds in a vacuum. The F1 engine on the Saturn V has a specific impulse of 263 seconds at sea level. And the Merlin 1D has a specific impulse of 282 seconds at sea level for its regular version, and a specific impulse of 348 seconds in a vacuum for its vacuum version.

We discuss now small rocket engines installed in capsules to be used in vacuum space. Not monster engines to lift nuclear bombs, etc.

You don't even know the efficiency. HOW THE HELL CAN YOU CALCULATE HOW MUCH FUEL IS NEEDED!?

To win my Challenge (topic) you, not me, must know the efficieny of your engines selected for the trips to be able to calculate the fuel consumption.

I know that the efficiency is lousy and that human space travel is impossible. Space trips are always only one-way, no return and no possibility to stop, land, restart, etc, etc, bla, bla. Not very good for humans.

Nothing to get upset about. You have only been fooled by NASA since the 1950's.

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on July 25, 2016, 09:38:23 AM

You don't even know the efficiency. HOW THE HELL CAN YOU CALCULATE HOW MUCH FUEL IS NEEDED!?

To win my Challenge (topic) you, not me, must know the efficieny of your engines selected for the trips to be able to calculate the fuel consumption.

I know that the efficiency is lousy and that human space travel is impossible. Space trips are always only one-way, no return and no possibility to stop, land, restart, etc, etc, bla, bla. Not very good for humans.

Nothing to get upset about. You have only been fooled by NASA since the 1950's.

Weird you do not show anyone the proper way.  Why not post one of your calculations here, explaining your methodology.  Certainly you do not need more hits on your "popular" web site.

How about telling us what solution you would come up for docking 2 unmanned space craft in orbit?  Since you are an engineer you should be able to come up with a solution.  Just a concept is all I am asking for.

Here is mine:

Put something on the craft capable of maneuvering it.

Use a method to measure distance between the two craft.  Radar, laser range finder, something similar to ILS installed on planes, visual confirmation and similar methods.

Use that something that can maneuver and the aids to line up the craft to close in.

Have some type of thing on both craft that allows them to lock together when connected.

Seems it is something that can be accomplished since everything I mentioned has be designed, built and used successfully for Earth bound stuff like planes.

I find it rather humorous part of your problems and disbelief are for relatively simple things.
You must be one shitty engineer if you can not at the very least come up with a simple concept to solve a problem like I did above.

You continue to claim you are about revealing the truth and made the claim the Apollo V could not lift off the pad. Could you show us what is wrong with the below?

Saturn V TWR:

5 F-1 engines with 6.672.000 N thrust each=33,360,000 N

2 896 895 kg gross rocket mass

(6,672,000N*5)/(2,896,895*9. 8 )=1.17  TWR

I used the GVM and the result shows the Saturn V could lift off the pad.

On your site the only thing you calculated was the total mass off the fuel.  Then claimed it was a lot and somehow evidence human space travel is faked.

Here is your opportunity to show us you know what you are talking about and teach us the proper way to calculate TWR.

You ignored other opportunities.  IMHO this demonstrates your motives is not seeking the truth and revealing to others.  It suggest your motives is either trolling or to support your world view regardless of any other evidence.

Quote from: Heiwa on July 25, 2016, 10:32:49 AM

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on July 25, 2016, 09:38:23 AM

You don't even know the efficiency. HOW THE HELL CAN YOU CALCULATE HOW MUCH FUEL IS NEEDED!?

To win my Challenge (topic) you, not me, must know the efficieny of your engines selected for the trips to be able to calculate the fuel consumption.

I know that the efficiency is lousy and that human space travel is impossible. Space trips are always only one-way, no return and no possibility to stop, land, restart, etc, etc, bla, bla. Not very good for humans.

Nothing to get upset about. You have only been fooled by NASA since the 1950's.

Weird you do not show anyone the proper way.  Why not post one of your calculations here, explaining your methodology.  Certainly you do not need more hits on your "popular" web site.

How about telling us what solution you would come up for docking 2 unmanned space craft in orbit?  Since you are an engineer you should be able to come up with a solution.  Just a concept is all I am asking for.

Here is mine:

Put something on the craft capable of maneuvering it.

Use a method to measure distance between the two craft.  Radar, laser range finder, something similar to ILS installed on planes, visual confirmation and similar methods.

Use that something that can maneuver and the aids to line up the craft to close in.

Have some type of thing on both craft that allows them to lock together when connected.

Seems it is something that can be accomplished since everything I mentioned has be designed, built and used successfully for Earth bound stuff like planes.

I find it rather humorous part of your problems and disbelief are for relatively simple things.
You must be one shitty engineer if you can not at the very least come up with a simple concept to solve a problem like I did above.

You continue to claim you are about revealing the truth and made the claim the Apollo V could not lift off the pad. Could you show us what is wrong with the below?

Saturn V TWR:

5 F-1 engines with 6.672.000 N thrust each=33,360,000 N

2 896 895 kg gross rocket mass

(6,672,000N*5)/(2,896,895*9. 8 )=1.17  TWR

I used the GVM and the result shows the Saturn V could lift off the pad.

On your site the only thing you calculated was the total mass off the fuel.  Then claimed it was a lot and somehow evidence human space travel is faked.

Here is your opportunity to show us you know what you are talking about and teach us the proper way to calculate TWR.

You ignored other opportunities.  IMHO this demonstrates your motives is not seeking the truth and revealing to others.  It suggest your motives is either trolling or to support your world view regardless of any other evidence.

You really have to study the Challenge rules - http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .

Fuel consumption (kg) and trip starts in Earth orbit (how you got there is of no importance). In orbit you shall apply a force to your manned spacecraft, so you can reach the targets (Moon and Mars). You must calculate the fuel used to produce this force. On arrival you must explain how you land and fuel consumed. And then you shall return to Earth with ... I assume ... no fuel left.
You must also describe the trajectories. Speed varies all the time as you know. After applying the initial force at departure to reach a certain speed, speed is reduced until target gravity gets hold of you and speed increases again, etc, etc.

The Challenge is not to prove that rocket works, bla, bla. The Challenge is just to describe two manned space trips - Moon and Mars - fuel consumed and trajectories/timetables.

Nobody seems to be able to do it. Reason is that it is not possible. You cannot apply the correct forces, you cannot predict your trajectories, you cannot estimate the fuel required and soon you are lost.

Re Saturn V it is out of production since 1973 and I have my doubts that it was ever built. It looks like a stage prop to me. 

Another purpose of the Challenge is to have fun.  But I am the only one having fun, it seems. Only unhappy people making sour comments. Cognitive dissonance, I assume.

Another purpose of the Challenge is to have fun.  But I am the only one having fun, it seems. Only unhappy people making sour comments. Cognitive dissonance, I assume.

I'll give you a million dollars if you can prove that cognitive dissonance exists.

Quote from: Heiwa on July 25, 2016, 11:52:54 AM

Another purpose of the Challenge is to have fun.  But I am the only one having fun, it seems. Only unhappy people making sour comments. Cognitive dissonance, I assume.

I'll give you a million dollars if you can prove that cognitive dissonance exists.

Cognitive dissonance was first investigated by Leon Festinger, arising out of a participant observation study of a cult which believed that they could fly to the Moon and Mars, and what happened to its members — particularly the really committed ones who had given up their homes and jobs to work for the cult — when the trips did not happen due to lack of fuel.

While fringe members were more inclined to recognize that they had made fools of themselves and to "put it down to experience", committed members were more likely to re-interpret the evidence to show that they were right all along (the flights were cancelled because of the faithfulness of the cult members and not lack of fuel).

Bullwinkle, he just proved that he has cognitive dissonance, and therefore won your challenge. You better cough up the money lest the internet police come after you.

Bullwinkle, he just proved that he has cognitive dissonance, and therefore won your challenge. You better cough up the money lest the internet police come after you.

That was more oratory than proof.

(I don't have a million dollars and I'm not paying anyone anything.  )

Quote from: inquisitive on July 23, 2016, 10:48:20 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 23, 2016, 10:43:16 AM

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on July 23, 2016, 10:33:37 AM

haha. "keep it simple" Yet he wants the most complicated and useless information about rocket design.

Rocket design? No manned space craft fuel consumption! I assume each tank aboard has a gauge indicating the amount of fuel in the tank. Just copy the values during the trip.
On a seagoing ship we record the daily fuel consumption for engines, boilers, generators, etc, in a log book. I assume the same is done on a spacecraft going to Mars. There is little else to do!

Again, how will you know if the numbers given are correct?

Well, first we record the application, then it is reviewed and discussed and then we know, if the numbers given are correct.

Who exactly is "we"?

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on July 25, 2016, 02:38:03 PM

Bullwinkle, he just proved that he has cognitive dissonance, and therefore won your challenge. You better cough up the money lest the internet police come after you.

That was more oratory than proof.

(I don't have a million dollars and I'm not paying anyone anything.  )

I'll happily cover your debt.   It was worth it for the chuckle. 

Who exactly is "we"?

I'm guessing there are more than a few voices in his head.

Here we see Elon's Dragon capsule that flies to the ISS with people and food.

No, the manned version of the Dragon capsule has not flown to the ISS yet.  It isn't scheduled to fly to the ISS until sometime next year.

I assume the rocket engins' outlets are the holes in the walls of the capsule. How they can eject gas at 2000 m/s in the right directions is a mystery for me.

If you can't figure out how to point the capsule in the right direction to fire your thrusters, then I don't see how you can possibly believe that you are qualified to judge a manned space flight challenge.

And where are the fuel tanks? And how much fuel is aboard. And three windows.

More importantly, where's the damned toilet?!?!

The whole thing looks like a joke. Can it fly to the ISS ... and back to Earth?

Ummm....  You do realize that it gets a pretty hefty boost from a Falcon 9 rocket, don't you?

Ummm....  You do realize that it gets a pretty hefty boost from a Falcon 9 rocket, don't you?

Of course! And that is the difficulty. The capsule to dock with the ISS (LOL) gets a pretty hefty boost from a Falcon 9 rocket during the launch earlier. If it is too hefty or too slow or in the wrong direction or time, the capsule has to slow down or change course afterwards, or vice versa, to approach the ISS and for that fuel is required.
You seem to believe that steering a spacecraft in 3D space is simple. It isn't. The forces must be applied exactly at the right locations, times, directions and powers to ensure that the spacecraft proceeds to the target.

Just study the Kerbal video! The pilot doesn't know where he is and hasn't got a clue what force to apply when, where, in what direction. And the pilot doesn't worry about the fuel. Only idiots pay $30 for such advice.

To win my impossible €1M Challenge you must be much more clever. But read the instructions first! Then you will know that the Challenge cannot be won.

Isn't it FUN?

You seem to believe that steering a spacecraft in 3D space is simple. It isn't. The forces must be applied exactly at the right locations, times, directions and powers to ensure that the spacecraft proceeds to the target.

How is it that much more difficult than steering a cruise missile to its target?

Quote from: Heiwa on July 26, 2016, 03:05:20 AM

You seem to believe that steering a spacecraft in 3D space is simple. It isn't. The forces must be applied exactly at the right locations, times, directions and powers to ensure that the spacecraft proceeds to the target.

How is it that much more difficult than steering a cruise missile to its target?

You compare a Ferrari with a T-Ford!

The spacecraft is travelling at 8 000 m/s speed in space at 400 000 m altitude.

A cruise missile is travelling at 150 m/s speed just above ground at <500 m altitude.

Quote from: luckyfred on July 26, 2016, 03:26:15 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 26, 2016, 03:05:20 AM

You seem to believe that steering a spacecraft in 3D space is simple. It isn't. The forces must be applied exactly at the right locations, times, directions and powers to ensure that the spacecraft proceeds to the target.

How is it that much more difficult than steering a cruise missile to its target?

You compare a Ferrari with a T-Ford!

The spacecraft is travelling at 8 000 m/s speed in space at 400 000 m altitude.

A cruise missile is travelling at 150 m/s speed just above ground at <500 m altitude.

perfect example...

one has to keep the trajectory while compensating for disturbances (such as wind) and while avoinding hitting the ground  and other obstacles even if its purposely skimming the ground, all of these on its own.(Ferrari)

the other has only to keep the trajectory with no external disturbances or without risk of hitting anything, constantly monitored and eventually corrected from the ground. (Ford)

So why is the Ford so much more difficult?

Quote from: markjo on July 25, 2016, 08:27:05 PM

Ummm....  You do realize that it gets a pretty hefty boost from a Falcon 9 rocket, don't you?

Of course! And that is the difficulty. The capsule to dock with the ISS (LOL) gets a pretty hefty boost from a Falcon 9 rocket during the launch earlier. If it is too hefty or too slow or in the wrong direction or time, the capsule has to slow down or change course afterwards, or vice versa, to approach the ISS and for that fuel is required.

Have you ever head the term "launch window"?  It's a relatively short period of time when conditions are optimal for reaching the desired orbit. 

You seem to believe that steering a spacecraft in 3D space is simple. It isn't. The forces must be applied exactly at the right locations, times, directions and powers to ensure that the spacecraft proceeds to the target.

I never said that anything to do with space flight is simple.  I am, however, saying that difficult does not mean impossible.

Just study the Kerbal video! The pilot doesn't know where he is and hasn't got a clue what force to apply when, where, in what direction. And the pilot doesn't worry about the fuel. Only idiots pay $30 for such advice.

Then it's a good thing that none of the real space agencies rely on Kerbal for their training.

To win my impossible €1M Challenge you must be much more clever. But read the instructions first! Then you will know that the Challenge cannot be won.

Isn't it FUN?

Why should anyone bother wasting their time with a challenge that the judge keeps saying can't be won?

If you make a mistake, it would only take a little but of delta-v to fix it.

You seem to think that spaceflight is impossible just because it would be to difficult. Which makes no sense.

You are an idiot.

Why should anyone bother wasting their time with a Challenge that the judge keeps saying can't be won?

Good question. Reason is of course that people suffer from cognitive dissonance and believe that human space travel is possible and that they can win my Challenge and collect €1M.

They just understand that external rockets can be used to accelerate spacecrafts but do not understand that spacecrafts themselves cannot carry the fuel required to stop and start during the rest of the trip.

Re docking in orbit they believe that the approaching spacecraft magically arrives close the spacecraft in orbit and that minimum fuel is required for final docking manoeuvres, etc, etc. They live in a fantasy world.

So they cannot reply to the Challenge question - how much fuel is required for the trip and how do you use it?

And then they get upset that I cannot answer the question to win my own Challenge. Why should I win my own Challenge. I know it is not possible.

Worst is the re-entry problem. People believing in human space travel also believe that a magic force develops when the spacecraft comes dropping down on Earth again hitting the atmosphere and that this force stops the spacecraft.

They do no understand that this force is so great that it immediately destroys or vaporizes the spacecraft. It burns up. It takes 10 seconds. If the atmosphere wasn't there the spacecraft would just crash against the ground.

But no - people believing in human space travel believe you can fly around in a little landing module and touch down on the Moon, take off again, etc, etc. They believe it was done 1969. They do not understand that they were fooled.

I really feel sorry for such people.

Have you ever seen someone skydive?

That same "magic force" seems to hit them the second they open their parachute...

Oh wait, spacecraft also open parachutes. Must be just a coincidence...

If you make a mistake, it would only take a little but of delta-v to fix it.

You seem to think that spaceflight is impossible just because it would be to difficult. Which makes no sense.

You are an idiot.

Delta v is just change in velocity and fuel used for it (or mass before/after speed change).

But the force to change velocity must also be applied at the right time, in the right location and in the right direction in space and have the right order, so it is very probable that you miss the target and waste the fuel. Human space travel is not just changing speed!

I am not an idiot. My identity is known - name, address, full style. Going around calling me an idiot is not very clever. But anonymous twirps can of course do it. Maybe they feel better?

delta-v is NOT a measure of how much fuel is used. You still haven't learned anything.

Once in orbit, you don't need to know where you are, there is no "Galactic Positioning System" You just need to know how far away from your target you are and how fast you are going towards (or away) from it. Then you just need to burn pro grade, then once you are close, burn retrograde. Congratulations, you are close. Now you just turn on the reaction control system to get yourself docked.