I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge

  • 12191 Replies
  • 614982 Views
*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1850
  • Show me the evidence
Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12090 on: March 26, 2020, 04:07:49 AM »
If you want to see what is going to take people to Mars, go here
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48895.2040
Lots of pics of a rocket in development. Its not what NASA is selling, its a rougher, cheaper, get it done kind of rocket.

*

rabinoz

  • 24861
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12091 on: March 26, 2020, 06:13:13 AM »
Any new mission will need new aims, new reasons to justify the expenditure of such a great deal of money.

It's been 50 years. You mean the eggheads at NASA haven't been able to come up with something in all that time?
Of course NASA is "able to come up with something" but NASA relies on budget approval from Congress. In the 1960s the Cold War gave the US Government the incentive to "go to the Moon before the decade is out" to get ahead of the USSR in the "Space Race".
But there has been no such an incentive recently even though NASA has put through various proposals.
So stop your ignorant blaming of NASA when there is nothing that they can do about it and even now a change of government could see the 2025 Artemis program scrapped, who knows.
In any case, as I and others have said: There is no point just "going to the Moon again" - been there, done that and crewed space flight deniers like YOU wouldn't believe that any more than you believe the Apollo missions, the ISS or the Space Shuttles - so stop you silly hypocrisy!.

But ignoramuses like YOU blame NASA for everything, even things beyond their control. This is not to say that NASA has not made blunders.
The Space Shuttle was a wonder in many ways but, retrospect, it was a costly, hazardous and unwise blunder that was far less re-usable than planned.
Ain't hindsight wonderful?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39101
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12092 on: March 26, 2020, 06:25:14 AM »
That thing you posted looks like nonsense to me.
So you admit that you aren't qualified to judge the veracity of the evidence presented?  Good to know.

No. I'm not qualified in nonsense.
Then admit that you're not qualified to judge what is and what isn't nonsense.  Glad that we have sorted.
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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39101
Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12093 on: March 26, 2020, 06:28:00 AM »
Who the hell (other than racists) uses the term 'your kind' in a derogatory fashion?
There are 2 kinds of people in the world.  Those who divide people into different kinds and those who 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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39101
Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12094 on: March 26, 2020, 06:41:14 AM »
The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer will answer a lot of questions about the nature of anti matter soon.

Is the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer that has been attached to the ISS for the better part of 10 years the one that you're referring to? If so, then I'm not really sure how that would help your argument about chemical rockets being too inefficient to lift heavy payloads to orbit or manned space flight not being possible.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/alpha-magnetic-spectrometer.html
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.

*

Shifter

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12761
  • ASI
Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12095 on: March 26, 2020, 06:59:24 AM »
The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer will answer a lot of questions about the nature of anti matter soon.

Is the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer that has been attached to the ISS for the better part of 10 years the one that you're referring to? If so, then I'm not really sure how that would help your argument about chemical rockets being too inefficient to lift heavy payloads to orbit or manned space flight not being possible.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/alpha-magnetic-spectrometer.html

Oh we can blast shit up into orbit. But are there really asstronuts floating like fish in an aquarium on the IFS? Coming and going as they please?

I mean, if you want to get to this station, you have to get a pretty lucky bullseye shot. It's supposed to be moving at 7.66km/s. There's a very large amount of area above the Earth. Off by even a fraction of 1% and you are somewhere else completely. If you left 1 second later your target is over 7km/h away. than 1 second earlier. Not to mention if your speed trying to dock is off by even a slight amount it would = spectacular disaster!

Even if it were possible, what twerp would do it? It would be like playing Russian roulette with 5 bullets in the chamber. There is no guarantee anyone would be coming home after that. And whats the pay off? Osteoporosis? Cancer from being bombarded with radiation because your above the Earths protective atmoplane? Seriously? You guys are nuts


*

sokarul

  • 16766
  • Discount Chemist
Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12096 on: March 26, 2020, 07:07:43 AM »
You speak as if you know what you are talking about. You do not.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39101
Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12097 on: March 26, 2020, 07:19:09 AM »
Oh we can blast shit up into orbit. But are there really asstronuts floating like fish in an aquarium on the IFS? Coming and going as they please?
Well, that's where the AMS is installed, so I would have to go with yes.

I mean, if you want to get to this station, you have to get a pretty lucky bullseye shot. It's supposed to be moving at 7.66km/s. There's a very large amount of area above the Earth. Off by even a fraction of 1% and you are somewhere else completely. If you left 1 second later your target is over 7km/h away. than 1 second earlier. Not to mention if your speed trying to dock is off by even a slight amount it would = spectacular disaster!
Then it's a very good thing that spacecraft have reaction control thrusters and fairly sophisticated guidance systems so that they can maneuver once they get to orbit. 

Even if it were possible, what twerp would do it? It would be like playing Russian roulette with 5 bullets in the chamber. There is no guarantee anyone would be coming home after that. And whats the pay off? Osteoporosis? Cancer from being bombarded with radiation because your above the Earths protective atmoplane? Seriously? You guys are nuts
I agree 100% that space flight isn't for the faint of heart.  Then again, it's one of those things where if someone needs to explain it to you, then you wouldn't understand anyway.  Just try to understand that astronauts are highly trained professionals who understand the risks and work hard to mitigate them as much as possible.
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.

*

Shifter

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12761
  • ASI
Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12098 on: March 26, 2020, 07:38:14 AM »
You speak as if you know what you are talking about.
Indeed  8)

I agree 100%
Glad we are on the same page  8)

*

sokarul

  • 16766
  • Discount Chemist
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39101
Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12100 on: March 26, 2020, 08:16:51 AM »
I agree 100%
Glad we are on the same page  8)
Nope.  Not even the same book.
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.

?

frenat

  • 3497
Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12101 on: March 26, 2020, 03:50:23 PM »
The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer will answer a lot of questions about the nature of anti matter soon.

Is the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer that has been attached to the ISS for the better part of 10 years the one that you're referring to? If so, then I'm not really sure how that would help your argument about chemical rockets being too inefficient to lift heavy payloads to orbit or manned space flight not being possible.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/alpha-magnetic-spectrometer.html

Oh we can blast shit up into orbit. But are there really asstronuts floating like fish in an aquarium on the IFS? Coming and going as they please?

I mean, if you want to get to this station, you have to get a pretty lucky bullseye shot. It's supposed to be moving at 7.66km/s. There's a very large amount of area above the Earth. Off by even a fraction of 1% and you are somewhere else completely. If you left 1 second later your target is over 7km/h away. than 1 second earlier. Not to mention if your speed trying to dock is off by even a slight amount it would = spectacular disaster!

Even if it were possible, what twerp would do it? It would be like playing Russian roulette with 5 bullets in the chamber. There is no guarantee anyone would be coming home after that. And whats the pay off? Osteoporosis? Cancer from being bombarded with radiation because your above the Earths protective atmoplane? Seriously? You guys are nuts
No bullseye needed. You launch into a similar orbit then do orbit changes until you get closer, then do the final rendezvous via RADAR.

*

Shifter

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12761
  • ASI
Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12102 on: March 26, 2020, 03:55:18 PM »
The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer will answer a lot of questions about the nature of anti matter soon.

Is the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer that has been attached to the ISS for the better part of 10 years the one that you're referring to? If so, then I'm not really sure how that would help your argument about chemical rockets being too inefficient to lift heavy payloads to orbit or manned space flight not being possible.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/alpha-magnetic-spectrometer.html

Oh we can blast shit up into orbit. But are there really asstronuts floating like fish in an aquarium on the IFS? Coming and going as they please?

I mean, if you want to get to this station, you have to get a pretty lucky bullseye shot. It's supposed to be moving at 7.66km/s. There's a very large amount of area above the Earth. Off by even a fraction of 1% and you are somewhere else completely. If you left 1 second later your target is over 7km/h away. than 1 second earlier. Not to mention if your speed trying to dock is off by even a slight amount it would = spectacular disaster!

Even if it were possible, what twerp would do it? It would be like playing Russian roulette with 5 bullets in the chamber. There is no guarantee anyone would be coming home after that. And whats the pay off? Osteoporosis? Cancer from being bombarded with radiation because your above the Earths protective atmoplane? Seriously? You guys are nuts
No bullseye needed. You launch into a similar orbit then do orbit changes until you get closer, then do the final rendezvous via RADAR.

Great, sounds so easy. Maybe you can drive into a transport truck while it's moving at 7.66km/s and you only have a radar to guide you.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39101
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12103 on: March 26, 2020, 05:23:13 PM »
Great, sounds so easy. Maybe you can drive into a transport truck while it's moving at 7.66km/s and you only have a radar to guide you.
As long as the actual closure rate is moderate and road is smooth, then why should it be so hard?  Military pilots perform areal refueling under much more difficult conditions.
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.

*

rabinoz

  • 24861
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12104 on: March 26, 2020, 05:58:11 PM »
No bullseye needed. You launch into a similar orbit then do orbit changes until you get closer, then do the final rendezvous via RADAR.

Great, sounds so easy. Maybe you can drive into a transport truck while it's moving at 7.66km/s and you only have a radar to guide you.
Your ridicule, false analogies and total lack of understanding of orbital mechanics are noted and are meaningless.
This just proves that for your own sake you should leave topics that are far above your understanding well alone.

A spacecraft in orbit is nothing like driving "into a transport truck while it's moving at 7.66km/s" and who said, apart from you, with "you only have a radar to guide you".

Orbits are highly predictable and it is comparatively easy to catch the ISS by going into slightly lower orbit and just waiting then boosting back to the ISS altitude.
There are no bumps, no crosswinds and slight velocity changes are easy but it's a very slow process as the relative velocities are quite slow. Here's a docking video but you might not want to watch all 7 hours :o!

Start at about 57 minutes in and be bored out of your mind. Most real space missions are boring for 99% of the time.

?

frenat

  • 3497
Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12105 on: March 26, 2020, 06:15:58 PM »
The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer will answer a lot of questions about the nature of anti matter soon.

Is the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer that has been attached to the ISS for the better part of 10 years the one that you're referring to? If so, then I'm not really sure how that would help your argument about chemical rockets being too inefficient to lift heavy payloads to orbit or manned space flight not being possible.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/alpha-magnetic-spectrometer.html

Oh we can blast shit up into orbit. But are there really asstronuts floating like fish in an aquarium on the IFS? Coming and going as they please?

I mean, if you want to get to this station, you have to get a pretty lucky bullseye shot. It's supposed to be moving at 7.66km/s. There's a very large amount of area above the Earth. Off by even a fraction of 1% and you are somewhere else completely. If you left 1 second later your target is over 7km/h away. than 1 second earlier. Not to mention if your speed trying to dock is off by even a slight amount it would = spectacular disaster!

Even if it were possible, what twerp would do it? It would be like playing Russian roulette with 5 bullets in the chamber. There is no guarantee anyone would be coming home after that. And whats the pay off? Osteoporosis? Cancer from being bombarded with radiation because your above the Earths protective atmoplane? Seriously? You guys are nuts
No bullseye needed. You launch into a similar orbit then do orbit changes until you get closer, then do the final rendezvous via RADAR.

Great, sounds so easy. Maybe you can drive into a transport truck while it's moving at 7.66km/s and you only have a radar to guide you.
If both are moving at the same speed and can see each other AND use RADAR (why would you think there is only RADAR?) then what is the problem?  Relative velocity when docking is very low. That is all that matters.

*

Heiwa

  • 7885
Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12106 on: March 28, 2020, 05:20:30 PM »
If you have a submission to Heiwas challenge, then post it up. But of course, given the impossibility of getting a man to the moon and back again in the 1960s or even the 2010s as evidenced by the fact that no one has even bothered to pretend to get there, you cant do that.
If you bother to read the thread you might that has been done.
In any case, neither Heiwa, you nor anybody else has never proven that NASA's publicly available information is incorrect.

Topic is my Challenge - see post #1 - about correct info of human space travel. Have a try!

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 5516
  • Chinese Virus
Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12107 on: March 28, 2020, 05:25:26 PM »
If you have a submission to Heiwas challenge, then post it up. But of course, given the impossibility of getting a man to the moon and back again in the 1960s or even the 2010s as evidenced by the fact that no one has even bothered to pretend to get there, you cant do that.
If you bother to read the thread you might that has been done.
In any case, neither Heiwa, you nor anybody else has never proven that NASA's publicly available information is incorrect.

Topic is my Challenge - see post #1 - about correct info of human space travel. Have a try!

Actually the topic is how you owe people money, including myself.

Pay up or shut up.

*

Stash

  • 3832
Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12108 on: March 28, 2020, 05:25:52 PM »
If you have a submission to Heiwas challenge, then post it up. But of course, given the impossibility of getting a man to the moon and back again in the 1960s or even the 2010s as evidenced by the fact that no one has even bothered to pretend to get there, you cant do that.
If you bother to read the thread you might that has been done.
In any case, neither Heiwa, you nor anybody else has never proven that NASA's publicly available information is incorrect.

Topic is my Challenge - see post #1 - about correct info of human space travel. Have a try!

Actually, the topic is how someone won your challenge and you refused to pay them.

In the mean time, as has been pointed out many times, all the data needed to win the challenge is right in here:


https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/SP-4029.htm
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

Heiwa

  • 7885
Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12109 on: March 28, 2020, 05:27:14 PM »
It's been 50 years. You mean the eggheads at NASA haven't been able to come up with something in all that time?
Guys at NASA dont get to chose to go to the moon. They just get to follow orders from the US congress. Same as the guys who fly fighter jets dont get to chose who to bomb.

There is lots of science and development that can be done on the moon. Its has huge resource potential for starting up a real space economy. But wild thinking like that is not for politicians. They would humbly prefer their Yachts and private Jets.
Hm, I thought the POTUS decided all himself without any discussion in Congress and that's why nobody has won my Challenge (how to go to the Moon).
And what science can be done on the Moon?

*

Heiwa

  • 7885
Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12110 on: March 28, 2020, 05:32:35 PM »
If you have a submission to Heiwas challenge, then post it up. But of course, given the impossibility of getting a man to the moon and back again in the 1960s or even the 2010s as evidenced by the fact that no one has even bothered to pretend to get there, you cant do that.
If you bother to read the thread you might that has been done.
In any case, neither Heiwa, you nor anybody else has never proven that NASA's publicly available information is incorrect.

Topic is my Challenge - see post #1 - about correct info of human space travel. Have a try!

Actually, the topic is how someone won your challenge and you refused to pay them.

In the mean time, as has been pointed out many times, all the data needed to win the challenge is right in here:


https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/SP-4029.htm

Thanks. Use the info and win my Challenge! I must remind you all about the alleged winner of my Challenge (post #1) that he suggested I won (and paid) the Challenge to myself using a software for kids how to fly in space. That software was full of viruses which killed all space travellers. Ever heard of a virus killing us all?

*

rabinoz

  • 24861
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12111 on: March 28, 2020, 05:39:29 PM »
And what science can be done on the Moon?
Still proving your total ignorance again, I see! Keep it up ;D.

*

rabinoz

  • 24861
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12112 on: March 28, 2020, 05:54:26 PM »
Thanks. Use the info and win my Challenge!
Except that you refuse to believe those that know and understand these things thousands of times better than.
If your are so smart why don't you do the propellant calculations and prove NASA wrong? You don't because you can't ;D!

You challenges are just as much a fake as AE911T and the International Skeptics Forum think you are.
Why did they toss you out?

You a just a blowhard who understands nothing of the science behind crewed space missions but like all sufferers from the Dunning-Kruger Syndrome you think you know everything.

Still your delusions and ignorance are entertaining so you're some use around here.

*

Stash

  • 3832
Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12113 on: March 28, 2020, 07:32:45 PM »
If you have a submission to Heiwas challenge, then post it up. But of course, given the impossibility of getting a man to the moon and back again in the 1960s or even the 2010s as evidenced by the fact that no one has even bothered to pretend to get there, you cant do that.
If you bother to read the thread you might that has been done.
In any case, neither Heiwa, you nor anybody else has never proven that NASA's publicly available information is incorrect.

Topic is my Challenge - see post #1 - about correct info of human space travel. Have a try!

Actually, the topic is how someone won your challenge and you refused to pay them.

In the mean time, as has been pointed out many times, all the data needed to win the challenge is right in here:


https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/SP-4029.htm

Thanks. Use the info and win my Challenge! I must remind you all about the alleged winner of my Challenge (post #1) that he suggested I won (and paid) the Challenge to myself using a software for kids how to fly in space. That software was full of viruses which killed all space travellers. Ever heard of a virus killing us all?

I did use the info to win your challenge - It's all in that link. Let me know if there is anything missing. I'd be very surprised if there is, it's extremely comprehensive and detailed. Do you need my bank account information for wiring the funds?
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

rabinoz

  • 24861
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12114 on: March 28, 2020, 08:12:51 PM »
I did use the info to win your challenge - It's all in that link. Let me know if there is anything missing. I'd be very surprised if there is, it's extremely comprehensive and detailed. Do you need my bank account information for wiring the funds?
Do you mind sharing your new-found wealth ;D?

After all I might have prior claim:
Topic is to calculate the fuel required by spacecraft Apollo 11 for the Moon trip - see post #1.
That's already been done, first of all by NASA - ever heard of them?

Here is a detailed review of all that you didn't want to know about the Apollo missions, including details of actual fuel usage, some nice bedtime reading:
APOLLO BY THE NUMBERS - A Statistical Reference by Richard W. Orloff - SP-4029.pdf. It's a bit long at 344 pages.

If you disagree with the fuel usage please show your calculations for same.
Thanks in advance ;)!

*

Heiwa

  • 7885
Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12115 on: March 28, 2020, 09:24:13 PM »

I did use the info to win your challenge - It's all in that link. Let me know if there is anything missing. I'd be very surprised if there is, it's extremely comprehensive and detailed. Do you need my bank account information for wiring the funds?

To win my Challenge you have to

first describe the itineraries to complete a manned Moon return trip, a manned planet Mars return trip and an unmanned return trip to any asteroid from being ejected into space from orbit around Earth towards the Moon, Mars and/or asteroid, incl. departure dates Earth, arrival/departure dates Moon/Mars/asteroid and arrival dates Earth with due regard to the fact that the Moon orbits Earth, while Earth and Mars and asteroids orbit the Sun, i.e. three different trips must be described: One to the Moon. One to planet Mars. One to any asteroid. Then to

second calculate using basic astrophysical principles of space navigation and travel the amount of fuel (kg) (or energy (J)) required by external combustion chambers (also known as rocket engines), and to

third describe the spacecrafts incl. their masses before/after the various manoeuvers of the trips, i.e. orbit changes, any heat shield(s), if fitted for landings, the engines and fuel tanks that can carry the amount of fuel using 1960 or 2020 technology, the accommodation and gear for the persons aboard, and to

finally/fourth show that it is actually feasible to do the trips.


So please make an application, etc. Just to link to some garbage is not sufficient.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39101
Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12116 on: March 28, 2020, 09:41:48 PM »
Why does it seem that the rules to your "challenge" change every time that you post them?  First it was just to describe a trip to the moon.  Then you added a trip to Mars.  Now you want a trip to an asteroid.  There's plenty of documentation describing the Apollo trips to the moon.  Mars and asteroid trips can't be "won" because the hardware for those missions doesn't exist yet, so the fuel requirements can't be known.
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.

*

rabinoz

  • 24861
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12117 on: March 28, 2020, 10:29:39 PM »

Hey,

as promised, I performed a rough estimate on the mechanics involving a lunar transfer orbit. A more detailed, numerical calculation might follow in the next few days.

Heiwa, this should clear up that it is definitely possible to get to the moon (I admit that the actual orbit around the moon can not be calculated with this method, for this there will be the numerical integrator which might come later) and that you should never boost towards the moon. If you find any errors, please point them out.

Generally I would love if someone double-checked my math, the numbers do make sense but still..

The document can be found at https://www.docdroid.net/nSZ6vXb/moon.pdf.html
did use the info to win your challenge - It's all in that link. Let me know if there is anything missing. I'd be very surprised if there is, it's extremely comprehensive and detailed. Do you need my bank account information for wiring the funds?

To win my Challenge you have to
first describe the itineraries to complete a manned Moon return trip, a manned planet Mars return trip and an unmanned return trip to any asteroid from being ejected into space from orbit around Earth towards the Moon, Mars and/or asteroid, incl. departure dates Earth, arrival/departure dates Moon/Mars/asteroid and arrival dates Earth with due regard to the fact that the Moon orbits Earth, while Earth and Mars and asteroids orbit the Sun, i.e. three different trips must be described: One to the Moon. One to planet Mars. One to any asteroid. Then to

second calculate using basic astrophysical principles of space navigation and travel the amount of fuel (kg) (or energy (J)) required by external combustion chambers (also known as rocket engines), and to
third describe the spacecrafts incl. their masses before/after the various manoeuvers of the trips, i.e. orbit changes, any heat shield(s), if fitted for landings, the engines and fuel tanks that can carry the amount of fuel using 1960 or 2020 technology, the accommodation and gear for the persons aboard, and to
finally/fourth show that it is actually feasible to do the trips.
So please make an application, etc. Just to link to some garbage is not sufficient.

No you deceptive welcher! You add more to challenge every time anybody "wins" it!
This is your challenge posted by YOU!

Hm, in order to win my Challenge (actually the topic - see post #1) you must, e.g., be able to calculate how much fuel is required for a spacecraft to leave orbit Earth and blast off towards the target and brake there.

I simply notice nobody can do it. Plenty people say it can be done but cannot explain how. You do not win my Challenge saying it can be done.
Same people then get very upset, when I explain my Challenge is impossible to win (for obvious reasons).
I find it funny. Many threads here are about my findings and people saying I present fake findings. But nobody can show that my findings are incorrect. Think about it before asking stupid OT questions.
Numerous people have shown that you "present fake findings" but you're too ignorant to understand  a word of the science involved.

Please note EVERYBODY that Heiwa, himself, wrote that this is all that is needed to win his challenge:
Hm, in order to win my Challenge (actually the topic - see post #1) you must, e.g., be able to calculate how much fuel is required for a spacecraft to leave orbit Earth and blast off towards the target and brake there.

This is all of post #1:
Hey,

as promised, I performed a rough estimate on the mechanics involving a lunar transfer orbit. A more detailed, numerical calculation might follow in the next few days.

Heiwa, this should clear up that it is definitely possible to get to the moon (I admit that the actual orbit around the moon can not be calculated with this method, for this there will be the numerical integrator which might come later) and that you should never boost towards the moon. If you find any errors, please point them out.

Generally I would love if someone double-checked my math, the numbers do make sense but still..

The document can be found at https://www.docdroid.net/nSZ6vXb/moon.pdf.html

*

Heiwa

  • 7885
Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12118 on: March 29, 2020, 12:49:33 AM »
Why does it seem that the rules to your "challenge" change every time that you post them?  First it was just to describe a trip to the moon.  Then you added a trip to Mars.  Now you want a trip to an asteroid.  There's plenty of documentation describing the Apollo trips to the moon.  Mars and asteroid trips can't be "won" because the hardware for those missions doesn't exist yet, so the fuel requirements can't be known.
?? I just update my old Challenge, e.g. changed year 2019 to2020 today.
At the beginning a long time ago the Challenge was only the Moon. And then plenty people said it was easy to go to Mars, so I included planet Mars too. And then other people said they went to asteroids, so I challenged them about it, i.e. Japan and USA. Japan has already been to an asteroid and is on the way back, behind USA that only is at its asteroid right now. But if you ask them for details ... they never reply. It is like an invisible virus.

*

rabinoz

  • 24861
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #12119 on: March 29, 2020, 02:41:07 AM »
Why does it seem that the rules to your "challenge" change every time that you post them?  First it was just to describe a trip to the moon.  Then you added a trip to Mars.  Now you want a trip to an asteroid.  There's plenty of documentation describing the Apollo trips to the moon.  Mars and asteroid trips can't be "won" because the hardware for those missions doesn't exist yet, so the fuel requirements can't be known.
?? I just update my old Challenge, e.g. changed year 2019 to2020 today.
No! You just renege on any Challenge that anyone looks like winning and up the ante.

You're famous! Look at this recent comment I got on YouTube (names have been changed to protect the innocent ;D)
Quote from: Noah'a Ark2, 2 days ago
@RABinoz Oh dear, not that nutcase again. I went down the rabbit hole of reviewing his claims (and read through most of his thread on Apollo Hoax), and the man is certifiably off his rocker. Maybe he was good at marine engineering, but he's hopelessly lost at everything else. In particular, I seem to remember him having extreme difficulty with the braking burn to enter lunar orbit.

Nobody's going to bother wasting time on your fake challenges.

Noah'a Ark2 sure had your measure with his "Maybe he was good at marine engineering, but he's hopelessly lost at everything else."!

Now you want:
  • A trip to Mars: There been plenty of one-way Mars missions and quite a number soft landing. So far there have been no two-way missions.
  • A trip to an asteroid:
This has already been done in 2003-2010 with Hayabusa rendezvoused with Itokawa in mid-September 2005,studied the asteroid's shape, spin, topography, colour, composition, density, and history.
In November 2005, it landed on the asteroid and collected samples in the form of tiny grains of asteroidal material, which were returned to Earth aboard the spacecraft on 13 June 2010.

  • And you know that:
    • Apollo 8 Launched 21 Dec 1968, performed a lunar Orbit and returned to Earth 27 Dec 1968
    • Apollo 10 Launched 18 May 1969, performed a lunar Orbit and returned to Earth 26 May 1969
    • Apollo 11 Launched 16 July 1969, landed on Moon 20 July 1969 in the Sea of Tranquility and returned to Earth 24 July 1969
    • Apollo 12 Launched 14 Nov 1969, landed on Moon 19 Nov 196 in Ocean of Storms and returned to Earth 24 Nov 1969
    • Apollo 13 Launched 11 April 1970 perfect a Lunar Flyby but a Malfunction forced cancellation of lunar landing and returned to Earth 17 April 1970
    • Apollo 14 Launched 31 Jan 1971 landed on Moon 5 Feb 1971in Fra Mauro and Returned to Earth 9 Feb 1971
    • Apollo 15 Launched 26 July 1971 Landed on Moon 30 July 1971 at Hadley Rille and returned to Earth 7 August 1971
    • Apollo 16 Launched 16 April 1972 Landed on Moon 20 April 1972 at Descartes and returned to Earth 27 April 1972
    • Apollo 17 Launched 07 Dec 1972 and landed on Moon 11 Dec 1972 at Taurus-Littrow and returned to Earth 19 Dec 1972
Look, Heiwa, if you will not believe all these well documented mission you won't believe anything we say so either admit your challenges are fakes or prove the above missions did not not happen.

Put up or shut up!