I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge

Various experts suggest that spacecraft braking (reduction of speed) suddenly starts at 120 000 m altitude; 'the top of the atmosphere'. A magic brake force develops. It heats up the spacecraft - 'plasma' - thus 'plasma braking'. A hot FORCE!

No, that isn't what they suggest at all.

First of all, the braking begins gradually as the spacecraft starts to encounter the increasingly dense atmosphere. 

Secondly, there is nothing magic about atmospheric drag.

Thirdly, the plasma forms because of the extreme heating caused by the very high speed of the spacecraft slamming into the air molecules.

And that's it. The spacecraft slows down orderly and controlled: it is easy to predict the trajectory and ... after a while you can activate parachutes and drop down in front of a brassband playing. You have landed.

No, that's a gross over simplification of reentry. 

Gagagarin did it as #1 already 1961! But no brassband played. Only two schoolgirls and a farmhand saw him landing after a trip in space.

I doubt that anyone has ever landed their spacecraft in front of a brass band, so I have no idea of where you got that notion.

Between you and me only mentally damaged persons believe in 'plasma braking'. But it is the only way to end a human space travel trip. ROTFL!

Many of the engineers at a company that you invest in believe in plasma braking, so maybe you should reconsider your position.

Quote from: Heiwa on August 02, 2016, 08:49:52 PM

Various experts suggest that spacecraft braking (reduction of speed) suddenly starts at 120 000 m altitude; 'the top of the atmosphere'. A magic brake force develops. It heats up the spacecraft - 'plasma' - thus 'plasma braking'. A hot FORCE!

No, that isn't what they suggest at all.

First of all, the braking begins gradually as the spacecraft starts to encounter the increasingly dense atmosphere. 

Secondly, there is nothing magic about atmospheric drag.

Thirdly, the plasma forms because of the extreme heating caused by the very high speed of the spacecraft slamming into the air molecules.

Sorry. You are wrong about space craft landings.

The space craft braking starts immediately when plunging into the top of atmosphere at 120 000 m altitude. If not you crash at once. Thus the great magic brake force is active all the time.

The density of the amosphere is virtually zero at 120 000 m but the brake force is not. Noone can explain or calculate this magic constant brake force at no air density. And if the force is variable, you cannot calculate the trajectory and arrival point with the brassband playing and president waiting.

If it is correct that plasma is formed, i.e. the space craft is heated up, is not clear either. Normal aerodynamical forces occur at nominal temperatures only and there exist no research of aerodynamics at air temperatures of >1500°C and speeds > 5000 m/s.

Actually all descriptions of spacecraft landings by some sort of hot air resistance forces is pure science fiction invented in an alcoholic haze by dr. Buzz. Buy him a drink and he might tell you more.

That's why it is part of my Challenge (topic). To win the Challenge you must describe the trajectory of the re-entry. Not just copy/paste nonsense of some alcoholic wreck.

Sorry. You are wrong about space craft landings.

The space craft braking starts immediately when plunging into the top of atmosphere at 120 000 m altitude. If not you crash at once. Thus the great magic brake force is active all the time.

Anders, do you understand that reentry is a process that takes nearly 1/2 of an orbit of the earth to accomplish?

The space craft braking starts immediately when plunging into the top of atmosphere at 120 000 m altitude. If not you crash at once. Thus the great magic brake force is active all the time.

Nope. The atmpsphere at 120,000m is around 20 Kilopascals. And it gradually thins as you get higher. The atmosphere doesn't just stop. It gradually thins out. The atmosphereic drag is what slows down the sacecraft. The spacecraft gets to its TERMINAL VELOCITY.

You are all kinds of confused.

Quote from: Heiwa on August 03, 2016, 05:55:29 AM

Sorry. You are wrong about space craft landings.

The space craft braking starts immediately when plunging into the top of atmosphere at 120 000 m altitude. If not you crash at once. Thus the great magic brake force is active all the time.

Anders, do you understand that reentry is a process that takes nearly 1/2 of an orbit of the earth to accomplish?

Yes. You really have to start at the right location ... at the right time ... the right direction ... the known, high speed, etc, and then plunge into the atmosphere below that will slow you down, heat you up, try to destroy you.
 
Because, if something goes wrong, you are destroyed after a few minutes. It happens every time.

That's why you are a LOSER of my Challenge. You don't know how to reenter. You suffer from cognitive dissonance.

Don't blame me. You are sick!

Please, cure your self.

Quote from: markjo on August 03, 2016, 07:16:22 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 03, 2016, 05:55:29 AM

Sorry. You are wrong about space craft landings.

The space craft braking starts immediately when plunging into the top of atmosphere at 120 000 m altitude. If not you crash at once. Thus the great magic brake force is active all the time.

Anders, do you understand that reentry is a process that takes nearly 1/2 of an orbit of the earth to accomplish?

Yes. You really have to start at the right location ... at the right time ... the right direction ... the known, high speed, etc, and then plunge into the atmosphere below that will slow you down, heat you up, try to destroy you.
 
Because, if something goes wrong, you are destroyed after a few minutes. It happens every time.

That's why you are a LOSER of my Challenge. You don't know how to reenter. You suffer from cognitive dissonance.

Don't blame me. You are sick!

Please, cure your self.

Location doesn't matter that much for reentry, the atmosphere is the same everywhere (for these purposes)

Right time doesn't matter for the same reason as Location.

Right direction is easy. Just spin the spacecraft the right way.

I don't get why you think it is so hard.

(note: Right time and location is kind of important, but if you are off by a bit, you will just have to wait a bit longer to be picked up.)

Quote from: Heiwa on August 03, 2016, 10:17:22 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 03, 2016, 07:16:22 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 03, 2016, 05:55:29 AM

Sorry. You are wrong about space craft landings.

The space craft braking starts immediately when plunging into the top of atmosphere at 120 000 m altitude. If not you crash at once. Thus the great magic brake force is active all the time.

Anders, do you understand that reentry is a process that takes nearly 1/2 of an orbit of the earth to accomplish?

Yes. You really have to start at the right location ... at the right time ... the right direction ... the known, high speed, etc, and then plunge into the atmosphere below that will slow you down, heat you up, try to destroy you.
 
Because, if something goes wrong, you are destroyed after a few minutes. It happens every time.

That's why you are a LOSER of my Challenge. You don't know how to reenter. You suffer from cognitive dissonance.

Don't blame me. You are sick!

Please, cure your self.

Location doesn't matter that much for reentry, the atmosphere is the same everywhere (for these purposes)

Right time doesn't matter for the same reason as Location.

Right direction is easy. Just spin the spacecraft the right way.

I don't get why you think it is so hard.

(note: Right time and location is kind of important, but if you are off by a bit, you will just have to wait a bit longer to be picked up.)

The only thing that makes sense to me is Heiwa believes there is a exact point where space starts.  Which there really is not, the atmosphere just continues to get less dense. 

He also must deny the atmosphere can cause drag or at least not cause it until a certain altitude.  That is why he says, "mysterious force". Does not make sense.  There is drag in space since space is not entirely empty. Just the drag is negligible.

He ignores that spacecraft peak heating begins around 80 km and that is about when acceleration really begins to decrease.  I suspect he also ignores things like terminal velocity.  He will also ignore what that implies which there is more drag at lower altitudes.

This was already discussed here.  The result when you press him for answers is he will make a personal attack and claim it is off topic.

Quote from: Heiwa on August 03, 2016, 10:17:22 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 03, 2016, 07:16:22 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 03, 2016, 05:55:29 AM

Sorry. You are wrong about space craft landings.

The space craft braking starts immediately when plunging into the top of atmosphere at 120 000 m altitude. If not you crash at once. Thus the great magic brake force is active all the time.

Anders, do you understand that reentry is a process that takes nearly 1/2 of an orbit of the earth to accomplish?

Yes. You really have to start at the right location ... at the right time ... the right direction ... the known, high speed, etc, and then plunge into the atmosphere below that will slow you down, heat you up, try to destroy you.
 
Because, if something goes wrong, you are destroyed after a few minutes. It happens every time.

That's why you are a LOSER of my Challenge. You don't know how to reenter. You suffer from cognitive dissonance.

Don't blame me. You are sick!

Please, cure your self.

Location doesn't matter that much for reentry, the atmosphere is the same everywhere (for these purposes)

Right time doesn't matter for the same reason as Location.

Right direction is easy. Just spin the spacecraft the right way.

I don't get why you think it is so hard.

(note: Right time and location is kind of important, but if you are off by a bit, you will just have to wait a bit longer to be picked up.)

Sorry, you must start the reentry at the exact location at the exact time and direction to end up in front of your reception company and brass band. Remember you arrive at 11 000 m/s speed. If you arrive a minute late, you end up 660 kilometers away from the music.
It seems you haven't got a clue about reentries and are another LOSER of my Challenge.

Sorry, you must start the reentry at the exact location at the exact time and direction to end up in front of your reception company and brass band. Remember you arrive at 11 000 m/s speed. If you arrive a minute late, you end up 660 kilometers away from the music.
It seems you haven't got a clue about reentries and are another LOSER of my Challenge.

Then I guess that it's a good thing that computers can perform the necessary actions to within a fraction of a second. 

Quote from: Heiwa on August 03, 2016, 09:58:46 PM

Sorry, you must start the reentry at the exact location at the exact time and direction to end up in front of your reception company and brass band. Remember you arrive at 11 000 m/s speed. If you arrive a minute late, you end up 660 kilometers away from the music.
It seems you haven't got a clue about reentries and are another LOSER of my Challenge.

Then I guess that it's a good thing that computers can perform the necessary actions to within a fraction of a second.

Well, I wouldn't trust the software.

Noone seems to be able to understand the magic brake force that suddenly develops at 120 000 m altitude. It is said it is aerodynamic in nature but there is no air at 120 000 m altitude. Then it is said that it heats up a shield and the air around it to 1600°C but I have not seen any research about aerodynamic brake forces at 1600°C - the famous plasma brake force.  What instruments that calculate the plasma brake force is not known. Have they got some strain gauges aboard measuring the force on a known mass hanging in vacuum aboard.

There were 135 Shuttle reentries 1989-2007 and >76 Soyuz TM/TMA/TMA-M re-entries 1986-2016 so the brake force must be known. But all descriptions of Shuttle and Soyuz reentry trajectories seem to be unavailable - replaced by videos ot the last 30 seconds slow speed touch downs in front of the brass bands playing. I have a distinct feeling all >200 reentries were faked! Imagine that!
But it is easy - reentries take place in remote areas with no witnesses/media. So it is easy to fake them.

Quote from: markjo on August 04, 2016, 07:51:09 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 03, 2016, 09:58:46 PM

Sorry, you must start the reentry at the exact location at the exact time and direction to end up in front of your reception company and brass band. Remember you arrive at 11 000 m/s speed. If you arrive a minute late, you end up 660 kilometers away from the music.
It seems you haven't got a clue about reentries and are another LOSER of my Challenge.

Then I guess that it's a good thing that computers can perform the necessary actions to within a fraction of a second.

Well, I wouldn't trust the software.

Why not?  I would think that modern self-driving cars have a lot tougher timing challenges than a reentry burn.

Noone seems to be able to understand the magic brake force that suddenly develops at 120 000 m altitude.

No, it seems like you are the only one who doesn't understand it.  Just about everyone else understands there is nothing magical about the atmospheric density gradient.

It is said it is aerodynamic in nature but there is no air at 120 000 m altitude.

Actually, there is some air at 120,000 m, just not very much.  Then again, there isn't much barking going on at 120,000 m either.

Then it is said that it heats up a shield and the air around it to 1600°C but I have not seen any research about aerodynamic brake forces at 1600°C - the famous plasma brake force. 

Then you obviously haven't looked hard enough.  Maybe this will help:
https://www.google.com/#q=atmospheric+braking&tbm=bks

What instruments that calculate the plasma brake force is not known. Have they got some strain gauges aboard measuring the force on a known mass hanging in vacuum aboard.

It seems that accelerometers might be quite useful in measuring braking forces.

There were 135 Shuttle reentries 1989-2007 and >76 Soyuz TM/TMA/TMA-M re-entries 1986-2016 so the brake force must be known. But all descriptions of Shuttle and Soyuz reentry trajectories seem to be unavailable - replaced by videos ot the last 30 seconds slow speed touch downs in front of the brass bands playing. I have a distinct feeling all >200 reentries were faked! Imagine that!

When has a spacecraft ever landed in front of a brass band?

But it is easy - reentries take place in remote areas with no witnesses/media. So it is easy to fake them.

That depends.  The Russians land in remote areas and pre-shuttle missions landed in the Pacific ocean.  However, the shuttle landed in Florida or California and was visible to quite a few people.  As I recall, when the shuttle Colombia was lost, the breakup of the orbiter was visible in Texas.

It seems that accelerometers might be quite useful in measuring braking forces.

I fully agree. It is good to know that you brake during a reentry. But where does the brake force come from?

In order to win my Challenge you must clarify it.

And what accelerometers were fitted on Apollo 11 and the Shuttle?

Quote from: markjo on August 04, 2016, 10:47:48 AM

It seems that accelerometers might be quite useful in measuring braking forces.

I fully agree. It is good to know that you brake during a reentry. But where does the brake force come from?

After the initial de-orbit burn, atmospheric drag.  You do understand that drag (friction) is a force, don't you?

And what accelerometers were fitted on Apollo 11 and the Shuttle?

  What does it matter?

Quote from: Heiwa on August 05, 2016, 11:23:25 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 04, 2016, 10:47:48 AM

It seems that accelerometers might be quite useful in measuring braking forces.

I fully agree. It is good to know that you brake during a reentry. But where does the brake force come from?

After the initial de-orbit burn, atmospheric drag.  You do understand that drag (friction) is a force, don't you?

Quote from: Heiwa on August 05, 2016, 11:23:25 AM

And what accelerometers were fitted on Apollo 11 and the Shuttle?

  What does it matter?

But there is no atmospheric drag at 120 000 m altitude, where reentry starts. That's why you need a de-orbit burn if you are Elon Musk. To slow down. But Apollo 11 and the Shuttle never did any de-orbit burns at 120 000 m altitude. They just plunged straight into the thin atmosphere and ... slowed down.
You seem to mix up things. Elon wasn't born when dr. Buzz invented the no de-orbit burn reentry 1969.

Re accelerometers. To measure space craft brake forces during reentry. How do they do it. How do they know they brake horizontally or perpendicular?

But there is no atmospheric drag at 120 000 m altitude, where reentry starts.

First of all, yes, there is atmospheric drag at 120 km.  It isn't very much, but it does exist.  In fact, there is atmospheric drag even at 400 km, which is why the ISS needs to have its orbit raised every so often.

Secondly, who says that reentry begins at 120 km?

That's why you need a de-orbit burn if you are Elon Musk. To slow down. But Apollo 11 and the Shuttle never did any de-orbit burns at 120 000 m altitude. They just plunged straight into the thin atmosphere and ... slowed down.

No, no, no.  Apollo 11 did not just plunge into the atmosphere.  They grazed the edge of the atmosphere.  Why, for the love of all things sacred and profane, can you not get that through your thick skull?

You seem to mix up things. Elon wasn't born when dr. Buzz invented the no de-orbit burn reentry 1969.

You're the one who is mixed up if you think that either Elon or Buzz invented atmospheric reentry.

Re accelerometers. To measure space craft brake forces during reentry. How do they do it. How do they know they brake horizontally or perpendicular?

Accelerometers are no great mystery.  Why would you think that they would be any different in a spacecraft than in a regular aircraft?

Why, for the love of all things sacred and profane, can you not get that through your thick skull?

Yes, explain it. Not just throw up stinking questions like that. You sound sick or on drugs or both. Are you mentally fit?

This is (roughly) the reentry path:



There are a few problms with this image, but I couldn't find a better one. The biggest problem is that the image thinks like you that the "edge of the atmosphere" is where the braking starts. As you (hopefully) know, braking is always happening, just not as much the higher you go.

The true definition of the edge of the atmosphere is calle the "karmen line" It is the point where an airplane would have to be going orbital speed to get enough lift to stay aloft. So there is still plenty of atmosphere at that point (100km for your information)

It is rather obvious that the problem with the Flat-earthers and those that dont believe in space-travel, A-bombs or the like is quite easy to diagnose. It is called mental illness. Unfortunately, this mental illness is also often associated with an abominable level of education and a sub-par intellect. I am not trying to be rude, but this does actually explain most of what they say. Paranoid schizophrenia with some narcissistic personality disorder thrown in for good measure just to complete the mix.

The symptoms are all rather obvious. Paranoid schizophrenics believe everyone is against them. They also either hear voices or believe they have access to 'higher knowledge' or 'mystical secrets'. Sound familiar? There is no ability whatsover to debate because the basis of good debate is a belief in logic and at least the basics of the scientific method. Naturally, like all good schizos, they have no concept of logic. You will find a good number of schizophenic super geniuses who despite their illness are still able to accept by virtue of their intelligence, the basis of science and the world around us. But not so the crazies you find here. They combine their pitiful intellects and inferiority complexes with a solid does of sever mental illness and voila... a flat-earther is born.

So yes, the real answer is that you can never convince a crazy person of anything because... they are crazy.

The vast majority of conspiracy theorists are variations on this diagnosis. The Flat-earthers are the bottom of the barrel though. They believe only that which fits into their psychosis - even if it is a tortured fit. The true irony - and sadness - is that they call themselves Truth-seekers when in fact they seek nothing at all other than to be considered by other to be the one thing they are not - intelligent, educated and SANE.

It is rather obvious that the problem with the Flat-earthers and those that dont believe in space-travel, A-bombs or the like is quite easy to diagnose. It is called mental illness. Unfortunately, this mental illness is also often associated with an abominable level of education and a sub-par intellect. I am not trying to be rude, but this does actually explain most of what they say. Paranoid schizophrenia with some narcissistic personality disorder thrown in for good measure just to complete the mix.

The symptoms are all rather obvious. Paranoid schizophrenics believe everyone is against them. They also either hear voices or believe they have access to 'higher knowledge' or 'mystical secrets'. Sound familiar? There is no ability whatsover to debate because the basis of good debate is a belief in logic and at least the basics of the scientific method. Naturally, like all good schizos, they have no concept of logic. You will find a good number of schizophenic super geniuses who despite their illness are still able to accept by virtue of their intelligence, the basis of science and the world around us. But not so the crazies you find here. They combine their pitiful intellects and inferiority complexes with a solid does of sever mental illness and voila... a flat-earther is born.

So yes, the real answer is that you can never convince a crazy person of anything because... they are crazy.

The vast majority of conspiracy theorists are variations on this diagnosis. The Flat-earthers are the bottom of the barrel though. They believe only that which fits into their psychosis - even if it is a tortured fit. The true irony - and sadness - is that they call themselves Truth-seekers when in fact they seek nothing at all other than to be considered by other to be the one thing they are not - intelligent, educated and SANE.

Safety at sea is my business so I know a little about ships, sex and sea. So I started this Challengee many years ago about human space travel. I had never heard about the FE forum then, but some crazy person - mikeman7819 - said 18 months ago that  he had won my Challenge.  He hadn't even made an application, nor studied the Challenge rules at http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .

A luxury cruise in the West Indies of our wet, round Earth is my preferred style of travel. Good food! Plenty sex. Champagne for breakfast, lobster for lunch and caviar in the evening. Walking the decks in the evening, kissing in the Moon light, swimming in the aft end pool at midnight and dancing all night long.

Space travel? Being locked up inside a tin can space ship for weeks with no shower. Sounds crazy. No fun at all!

Why would anyone do it? And how? That is the Challenge.

And plenty people suggest they can do it. But so far nobody has calculated the fuel (kg) required for a trip.

People loving human space travel without a shower, sex, good food, etc, for weeks while being locked up in a miniscule spacecraft with no facilities whatsoever (not even a decent toilet!) suggest that I am an idiot, sick, doesn't know anytning about space and safety.

I just feel sorry for these people.

And plenty people suggest they can do it. But so far nobody has calculated the fuel (kg) required for a trip.

Incorrect.  The fuel required is calculated for each an every mission.

I am not trying to be rude, ...

Yes, you are.

Fliggs is being a little rude, but there is some truth in what he says. Suppose someone has to say it, plus people have been feeding heiwa here for years and won't stop. Could you get mad at a fly that keeps going back to the same piece of meat that never goes away??

As for this argument about braking with wind resistance. I can promise you wind will stop you, other wise airplanes would need little fuel to fly(well they wouldn't be able to fly anyways, but that is a different story). I have went 257 mph on two wheels at the Texas Mile...i can promise you the air will stop you lol.

Even if there was an exact line between atmosphere and space (which there isn't) who cares? Ever skip a rock?? Just skip some times slow your approach then down ya go. This is basically what they do anyways.

Some of the people here just make me shake my head

Quote from: Heiwa on August 06, 2016, 05:29:47 AM

And plenty people suggest they can do it. But so far nobody has calculated the fuel (kg) required for a trip.

Incorrect.  The fuel required is calculated for each an every mission.

Hm, to win my Challenge just calculate the amount of fuel required and explain what you use it for. The rules are very simple.

I love how he believes satellites exist and believes the propellant needed can not be calculated.  I guess he is assuming organizations launching satellites just guess and hope for the best.

He really needs to show where Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is flawed.  Then prove Kepler's, Newton's and Ideal Gas Laws are wrong and publish his findings for peer review.  It will change the world unless he is FOS and does not understand what he is talking about.

I sometimes wonder if he realizes much of what he says contradicts laws of physics and if he understands why they are called laws.

I love how he believes satellites exist and believes the propellant needed can not be calculated.  I guess he is assuming organizations launching satellites just guess and hope for the best.

He really needs to show where Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is flawed.  Then prove Kepler's, Newton's and Ideal Gas Laws are wrong and publish his findings for peer review.  It will change the world unless he is FOS and does not understand what he is talking about.

I sometimes wonder if he realizes much of what he says contradicts laws of physics and if he understands why they are called laws.

Hm, to simplify the Challenge the trips start in orbit Earth. First difficulty is to apply a force to get away from this orbit for Moon/Mars and then calculate the fuel used.

I started the Challenge 2012 and nobody can answer what force is required to get started. One reason is that the total mass of the spaceship then is not certain! You must carry fuel with you for landing/departing Moon/Mars  to return Earth.

So you have to calculate backwards. How much fuel is required to depart Moon/Mars to return Earth? And how much fuel is required to land on Moon/Mars with that fuel in the tanks?
 
And how much fuel is required to bring all that fuel out of orbit Earth to get started?
 
According my calculations you get pretty heavy in orbit Earth and cannot get off the ground! But those are my calculations according Tsiolkovsky rocket equation and Kepler's, Newton's and Ideal Gas Laws of all kind.

I really prefer a fresh cruise on a seagoing ship in the Caribbean with nice company than being locked up inside a stinking spaceship going to Mars. Only idiots seem to prefer the latter. Luckily they don't understand that they cannot bring the fuel with them, so the space trip to Mars is cancelled ... for ever. Space travel is one-way only.

Fliggs is being a little rude, but there is some truth in what he says. Suppose someone has to say it, plus people have been feeding heiwa here for years and won't stop. Could you get mad at a fly that keeps going back to the same piece of meat that never goes away??

As for this argument about braking with wind resistance. I can promise you wind will stop you, other wise airplanes would need little fuel to fly(well they wouldn't be able to fly anyways, but that is a different story). I have went 257 mph on two wheels at the Texas Mile...i can promise you the air will stop you lol.

Even if there was an exact line between atmosphere and space (which there isn't) who cares? Ever skip a rock?? Just skip some times slow your approach then down ya go. This is basically what they do anyways.

Some of the people here just make me shake my head

I don't think I am being rude at all. In fact, I went out of my way to not be rude. But the facts are still unpalatable and there is no way to tell someone unwilling that they suffer from a serious and high-level mental illness that isnt deeply confronting. They probably already know they are poorly educated and have a low intelligence as more than a few school reports would have said just as much.

The actual foundational truth that these self-appointed (and deluded) need to become aware of is that they are deeply and seriously mentally ill. Once that permeates their minds, there is help that can improve their lives.

I am not rude, but I am not subtle either. They are all suffering serious mental illness(es).

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on August 06, 2016, 07:13:18 PM

Fliggs is being a little rude, but there is some truth in what he says. Suppose someone has to say it, plus people have been feeding heiwa here for years and won't stop. Could you get mad at a fly that keeps going back to the same piece of meat that never goes away??

As for this argument about braking with wind resistance. I can promise you wind will stop you, other wise airplanes would need little fuel to fly(well they wouldn't be able to fly anyways, but that is a different story). I have went 257 mph on two wheels at the Texas Mile...i can promise you the air will stop you lol.

Even if there was an exact line between atmosphere and space (which there isn't) who cares? Ever skip a rock?? Just skip some times slow your approach then down ya go. This is basically what they do anyways.

Some of the people here just make me shake my head

I don't think I am being rude at all. In fact, I went out of my way to not be rude. But the facts are still unpalatable and there is no way to tell someone unwilling that they suffer from a serious and high-level mental illness that isnt deeply confronting. They probably already know they are poorly educated and have a low intelligence as more than a few school reports would have said just as much.

The actual foundational truth that these self-appointed (and deluded) need to become aware of is that they are deeply and seriously mentally ill. Once that permeates their minds, there is help that can improve their lives.

I am not rude, but I am not subtle either. They are all suffering serious mental illness(es).

Heiwa is Anders Björkman.

Here are my thoughts on him:

My guess professionally he feels like a failure and unwilling to admit it to himself.  He is likely  a narcissist and mildly delusional which fuels his need to feel important in the grand scheme of things. He is projecting when he claims others are suffering from cognitive dissonance.  I  would not be surprised to find out he learned about cognitive dissonance from a therapist or psychologist  who was treating him.

Evidence:

1. He claims to have received a death sentence, because the US government has targeted him for revealing nuclear secretes. 

2. He put this on his CV on his webpage,"Björkman is a nice, friendly guy with good humour. Very brave! Very clever! And good looking."

3. He designed a solution to prevent oil spills which I suspect he expected to be received with accolades and widely used.  The reality is it was rejected by the US Coast Guard for use in US waters.  My guess it would not be used anyway since it added complexity, cost and a rather significant loss of cargo space without adding any real benefits over a multi-hull design.

4. His willful ignorance when it comes to physics. He ignores Newton's, Kepler's and Ideal Gas Laws when it does not support his belief.

5 If people lose interest he bumps this thread, usually with something to bait people.  You can see this if you look at some of his past post in this thread.

6. He lives in a building owned and operated by a company who manages subsidized housing.

7. His company does not appear on any list from official sources.  The only place his company is listed is his website.  He does not even provide a client or past project list.

8. He requested a nuclear bomb be detonated near his home.  Not accepting if they granted the request it would at the very least be a health hazard to many people.  This is a behavior of someone who at the very least thinks they are important enough to have this done just for them.

9. He feels the need to frequently say his challenge is very popular and it gets 500 visitors a day.

10.  Mentions NASA and other space agencies have not submitted anything to him.  When it is very likely people within these organizations likely never heard of him.

11. He resorts to insults, avoidance, burden of proof and claiming things off topic if he is pushed for answers and evidence for his claims.

12. He claimed to be in the satellite launch business.  Then changed that to owning shares of a company who was. Then claimed he owned shares of a company that owns shares of a company that is.  The reason he changed his claims was someone called him out and offered proof.

13.  He moved the goal post for his challenge on more than one occasion and then denied he made any changes.

14. He claims no one has ever calculated the propellant use for him.  When it has been done here and another forum.

That should be enough.  I like to list the things like this in this thread every so often.  Just in case a newcomer arrives and may take him seriously since he is an engineer.

Quote from: fliggs on August 07, 2016, 12:59:16 AM

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on August 06, 2016, 07:13:18 PM

Fliggs is being a little rude, but there is some truth in what he says. Suppose someone has to say it, plus people have been feeding heiwa here for years and won't stop. Could you get mad at a fly that keeps going back to the same piece of meat that never goes away??

As for this argument about braking with wind resistance. I can promise you wind will stop you, other wise airplanes would need little fuel to fly(well they wouldn't be able to fly anyways, but that is a different story). I have went 257 mph on two wheels at the Texas Mile...i can promise you the air will stop you lol.

Even if there was an exact line between atmosphere and space (which there isn't) who cares? Ever skip a rock?? Just skip some times slow your approach then down ya go. This is basically what they do anyways.

Some of the people here just make me shake my head

I don't think I am being rude at all. In fact, I went out of my way to not be rude. But the facts are still unpalatable and there is no way to tell someone unwilling that they suffer from a serious and high-level mental illness that isnt deeply confronting. They probably already know they are poorly educated and have a low intelligence as more than a few school reports would have said just as much.

The actual foundational truth that these self-appointed (and deluded) need to become aware of is that they are deeply and seriously mentally ill. Once that permeates their minds, there is help that can improve their lives.

I am not rude, but I am not subtle either. They are all suffering serious mental illness(es).

Heiwa is Anders Björkman.

Here are my thoughts on him:

My guess professionally he feels like a failure and unwilling to admit it to himself.  He is likely  a narcissist and mildly delusional which fuels his need to feel important in the grand scheme of things. He is projecting when he claims others are suffering from cognitive dissonance.  I  would not be surprised to find out he learned about cognitive dissonance from a therapist or psychologist  who was treating him.

Evidence:

1. He claims to have received a death sentence, because the US government has targeted him for revealing nuclear secretes. 

2. He put this on his CV on his webpage,"Björkman is a nice, friendly guy with good humour. Very brave! Very clever! And good looking."

3. He designed a solution to prevent oil spills which I suspect he expected to be received with accolades and widely used.  The reality is it was rejected by the US Coast Guard for use in US waters.  My guess it would not be used anyway since it added complexity, cost and a rather significant loss of cargo space without adding any real benefits over a multi-hull design.

4. His willful ignorance when it comes to physics. He ignores Newton's, Kepler's and Ideal Gas Laws when it does not support his belief.

5 If people lose interest he bumps this thread, usually with something to bait people.  You can see this if you look at some of his past post in this thread.

6. He lives in a building owned and operated by a company who manages subsidized housing.

7. His company does not appear on any list from official sources.  The only place his company is listed is his website.  He does not even provide a client or past project list.

8. He requested a nuclear bomb be detonated near his home.  Not accepting if they granted the request it would at the very least be a health hazard to many people.  This is a behavior of someone who at the very least thinks they are important enough to have this done just for them.

9. He feels the need to frequently say his challenge is very popular and it gets 500 visitors a day.

10.  Mentions NASA and other space agencies have not submitted anything to him.  When it is very likely people within these organizations likely never heard of him.

11. He resorts to insults, avoidance, burden of proof and claiming things off topic if he is pushed for answers and evidence for his claims.

12. He claimed to be in the satellite launch business.  Then changed that to owning shares of a company who was. Then claimed he owned shares of a company that owns shares of a company that is.  The reason he changed his claims was someone called him out and offered proof.

13.  He moved the goal post for his challenge on more than one occasion and then denied he made any changes.

14. He claims no one has ever calculated the propellant use for him.  When it has been done here and another forum.

That should be enough.  I like to list the things like this in this thread every so often.  Just in case a newcomer arrives and may take him seriously since he is an engineer.

We should challenge Heiwa to land on the moon in the Lunar Lander game, you know in 2D and all the hills with the fuel indicator and stuff.

@Woody

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/shock-interview-anders-bjorkman-is-a-professional-technologist-who-doesnt-believe-in-nukes/

Topic is however my Challenge. Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX suggests that six astronuts sit in six chairs in his Mars space trip capsule for six months going to Mars but has not told me how much fuel is required for the trip. Elon's Mars space trip capsule lacks a toilet! It doesn't look good. But the trip will start 2024! http://www.afr.com/technology/spacex-could-send-people-to-mars-in-2024-elon-musk-says-20160605-gpc6xz

I suggest Elon tests it himself on ground for six months. With some journalists!

Quote from: Woody on August 06, 2016, 10:35:42 PM

I love how he believes satellites exist and believes the propellant needed can not be calculated.  I guess he is assuming organizations launching satellites just guess and hope for the best.

He really needs to show where Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is flawed.  Then prove Kepler's, Newton's and Ideal Gas Laws are wrong and publish his findings for peer review.  It will change the world unless he is FOS and does not understand what he is talking about.

I sometimes wonder if he realizes much of what he says contradicts laws of physics and if he understands why they are called laws.

Hm, to simplify the Challenge the trips start in orbit Earth. First difficulty is to apply a force to get away from this orbit for Moon/Mars and then calculate the fuel used.

I started the Challenge 2012 and nobody can answer what force is required to get started. One reason is that the total mass of the spaceship then is not certain! You must carry fuel with you for landing/departing Moon/Mars  to return Earth.

So you have to calculate backwards. How much fuel is required to depart Moon/Mars to return Earth? And how much fuel is required to land on Moon/Mars with that fuel in the tanks?
 
And how much fuel is required to bring all that fuel out of orbit Earth to get started?
 
According my calculations you get pretty heavy in orbit Earth and cannot get off the ground! But those are my calculations according Tsiolkovsky rocket equation and Kepler's, Newton's and Ideal Gas Laws of all kind.

I really prefer a fresh cruise on a seagoing ship in the Caribbean with nice company than being locked up inside a stinking spaceship going to Mars. Only idiots seem to prefer the latter. Luckily they don't understand that they cannot bring the fuel with them, so the space trip to Mars is cancelled ... for ever. Space travel is one-way only.

You got one thing right!  Missions are usually designed and planned from the payload down.

You really need to go back and redo your calculations.  Do I need the post the ones I already did in this thread again?

You seem to keep forgetting about them.  My calculations are done using basic astrophysical principles. Which according to the rules of your "challenge" is acceptable so I assume it is acceptable to use here.

Maybe you need to mention to your doctor you are having trouble with your memory.

I showed you the TWR, Delta-V per stage and propellant used per second for the first stage of the Saturn V assuming GVM. I am assuming you can figure out the altitude the first stage could reach and how fast the rocket would be going when the propellant was completely consumed.  I did make the mistake assuming you would know the answer for the propellant used per second when I posted the ISP and thrust.  So maybe you do not know how to get the answer.

I will give you a hint Newton's Laws are certainly involved. So is that thing you call a "mysterious force" that the atmosphere causes to varying degrees depending on density you have trouble grasping called drag.

I also suggest you review Kepler's, Newton's and the Ideal Gas Laws.  Since you really do not seem to understand much of what you say contradicts them.  If you want evidence of that just look at what you have claimed as an acceptable and reliable sources.  What is taught in schools and in books and used by many, many professionals world wide.

I can walk you through calculated TWR if you like.  I see you made the claim again the Saturn V could not get off the ground. (I am assuming that is the rocket you are claiming could not lift off)  Seeing how my calculation assuming GVM resulted in a TWR of around 1.15.  Which means it could lift off.  Why not show us your calculations since mine and yours differ.  Then we can see who has made an error.