Why should heiwa not accept solutions based on simulators? It is practically impossible to calculate these equations by hand..
In my opinion, this is a matter of formalism. However, I admit that it is also controversial, depending on the epistemological position adopted.
In my view, Heiwa's challenge directly questions the point on which a simulator is based, since in it, any data entered is already within the expected parameters of "reality" simulated. The simulator work always considering an "image-cropping" of reality and, in theory, all human knowledge related to what is intended to simulate. However, there is no point to show in a virtual way that a rocket can be launched, if this event is questionable in the real world. The simulator can even work with technology data 60s, but just because your programmer accepts that this is possible. Maybe this example not be the best, but the central idea of the non-acceptance of simulator is this.
This guy replie bellow was correct, but he relies only on mathematics and NASA data, which are questioned by Heiwa and others as inaccurate:
Quote from: Master_Evar on July 23, 2015, 11:18:48 AM
The simulation processes inout through correct mathematical algorithms and equations to generate a virtual reality. If something works in this simulator, it should work in reality. It calculates the gravity, air resistance, mass, thrust, acceleration, speed, direction, position, heat, etc. that you would have to calculate in real life if you were going to launch a rocket. Since mikeman managed to reach the moon in that simulation using a apollo rocket, apollo rockets in real life should also work and be able to go to the moon. If you or Heiwa thinks that the simulation is not realistic enough, please specify what mathematical equations are missing or wrong in the simulation's code. When it comes to space travel, it is dependant on some certain laws of physics. As long as the laws of physics involved in space flight are accounted for, the simulation should describe reality in an accurate way. It doesn't matter if the equations are written on a piece of paper or in a computer software, as long as they are correct.
We have too these words of the Head of Aerothermodynamics at ESA:
"And the real-life test through the Earth's atmosphere is the only way to really master re-entry, stresses Joseph Longo.
Neither simulation nor in computer simulation in facilities like a wind tunnel represent the reality. Therefore in the end you need, in any case, to fly."link:
http://www.euronews.com/2014/10/23/ixv-facing-the-challenge-of-re-entry/So, in short: The guys totally disagree with the numbers provided by Heiwa, But Heiwa says that calculations are based on official reports. And he disagrees with the results reported by these reports. And Orbiter simulator was designed as a realistic accepting all known physical theories, but only by most accepted paradigm, which is the same as that adopted by NASA. If Heiwa accept a solution arising from this software, he will be stepping in the conclusions that defends himself. But is just my opinion. I would be more demanding if it were my money...