It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship

& mikeman: learn about problems of scale.

& shut up.

Retard.

Way ahead of you.  The probelem with your idea that big solid rocket boosters will burn through their casing is that the fuel insulates the casing until just a few seconds before burnout which actually happens after they are jettisoned because the boosters loose power over time and they eventually produce so little thrust that there is no point in keeping them around.  Problems of scale do make larger solid rocket boosters harder to make space shuttle scale boosters, but it's nothing that hundreds of highly trained NASA rocket scientists and engineers can't handle.

Space shuttle launches are public events and you can see the shuttle all the way until solid rocket booster separation, so there is no denying that they do exactaly what we are told.

Yes, mikeman; smashing the laws of physics to bits is 'nothing that hundreds of highly trained NASA rocket engineers & scientists can't handle...'

There's no denying THAT!

You retard.

In fact, the problem of scale is that, above a certain size, solid fuel rockets cannot take off with any useful payload/range capability.

& that size is 25 feet high & 2 feet wide, max.

But meh; believe what you want...

Like 3.000-tonne 'moon-rockets'.

LOL!!!

Yes, mikeman; smashing the laws of physics to bits is 'nothing that hundreds of highly trained NASA rocket engineers & scientists can't handle...'

There's no denying THAT!

You retard.

In fact, the problem of scale is that, above a certain size, solid fuel rockets cannot take off with any useful payload/range capability.

& that size is 25 feet high & 2 feet wide, max.

But meh; believe what you want...

Like 3.000-tonne 'moon-rockets'.

LOL!!!

And how did you come by the max size of 25 feet high and two feet wide?

How did you come to the max size of 363 feet tall & 3,000 tonnes weight for the Saturn V?

Wikipedia & pure gullibility?

LMAO!!!

Nah; I just used logic & science.

Plus I asked REAL rocket engineers & physicists; you should meet some.

Not that they'd talk to the likes of you...

ROFLMAO!!!

Plus I asked REAL rocket engineers & physicists;

Do these "REAL rocket engineers and physicists" think that rockets push off the atmosphere too?

Victory Legba!!!!!!

FE 1
RE 0

How did you come to the max size of 363 feet tall & 3,000 tonnes weight for the Saturn V?

Wikipedia & pure gullibility?

LMAO!!!

Nah; I just used logic & science.

Plus I asked REAL rocket engineers & physicists; you should meet some.

Not that they'd talk to the likes of you...

ROFLMAO!!!

Please takes us through your logic and scientific step used to derive the limits you have quoted. Please include all fact, equations and theories used.

Also please name the engineers and scientists, their qualifications and current employment.

Victory Legba!!!!!!

FE 1
RE 0

Pffft. Hardly.

All he's done is pull a number out of his arse and then blow hot air with no backing.

Here is a spent rocket fuel molecule traveling at hypersonic speed about to hit an air molecule. How does that push the rocket?

Here is a spent rocket fuel molecule traveling at hypersonic speed about to hit an air molecule. How does that push the rocket?

The quality of your rebuttals are dropping quickly. Pitiful really.

Yes, mikeman; smashing the laws of physics to bits is 'nothing that hundreds of highly trained NASA rocket engineers & scientists can't handle...'

Which law or laws of physics do you think this breaks?

In fact, the problem of scale is that, above a certain size, solid fuel rockets cannot take off with any useful payload/range capability.

And that size is so arbitrarily large that we will never have need for such things.

& that size is 25 feet high & 2 feet wide, max.

How did you get to that conclusion?  Citation badly needed.

Rocket launches are public events.  Anyone can come and watch a building sized rocket lift off.  How is this possible if it's impossible?

Victory Legba!!!!!!

FE 1
RE 0

All Papa Legba is doing is pretending like he knows physics and that physics bend to his will.  He indirectly denies that every action have an equal and opposite reaction and thinks that his bullcrap will fool people with a pulse.

The quality of your rebuttals are dropping quickly. Pitiful really.

That's probably because you people keep refusing to understand to simple concepts.  If you want to have an intelligent discussion then start acting like adults and stop plugging you ears and saying "LA LA LA LA LA, I can't hear you!"

Quote from: sokarul on July 12, 2015, 05:03:09 PM

Here is a spent rocket fuel molecule traveling at hypersonic speed about to hit an air molecule. How does that push the rocket?
<snip>

The quality of your rebuttals are dropping quickly. Pitiful really.

And that's your rebuttal?   Pitiful is hardly an adequate  descripton,    Non existent would be closer.

Revised scoring.   TF = tin foil numnuts,  RW = real world,   Papa isn't a flat earther,   you flat earthers should at least be grateful for that small mercy.  He is however a tin foil numnut.

TF = 0
RW= 1780

I'll concede to award the TF team one point if they can adequately describe the principle of conservation of momentum.

The silence is deafening.

Still waiting for a detailed proof of your maximum rocket size Papa.

Some of us have jobs, mainframes; the fact that you are here ALL THE TIME, impatiently waiting my answer, speaks volumes about who you really are.

Also, you earlier said: 'the shuttle does not need aerodynamics'; a statement so blatantly mendacious that it beggars belief.

So STFU.

Same goes for the rest of you.

Cos I am not here to respond, or debate, or any other thing you want me to do.

I am here to OPEN DOORWAYS.

Enter; or Do Not Enter...

I do not care which.

Anyhow; PROBLEMS OF SCALE.

If a rocket is doubled in every dimension, then the areas quadruple & thus the weights multiply by eight.

So there comes a point -very quickly - where it simply cannot overcome its own mass & achieve acceleration.

The V2, at 45 feet high & 5.5 feet wide, was struggling to take off already; so no way  could something as brobdingnagian as the Saturn V exist.

Simple stuff, but - as ever - you'll ignore the implications.

Why?

Again, I do not care...

But LOL!!! anyway.

Some of us have jobs, mainframes; the fact that you are here ALL THE TIME, impatiently waiting my answer, speaks volumes about who you really are.

Also, you earlier said: 'the shuttle does not need aerodynamics'; a statement so blatantly mendacious that it beggars belief.

So STFU.

Same goes for the rest of you.

Cos I am not here to respond, or debate, or any other thing you want me to do.

I am here to OPEN DOORWAYS.

Enter; or Do Not Enter...

I do not care which.

Anyhow; PROBLEMS OF SCALE.

If a rocket is doubled in every dimension, then the areas quadruple & thus the weights multiply by eight.

So there comes a point -very quickly - where it simply cannot overcome its own mass & achieve acceleration.

The V2, at 45 feet high & 5.5 feet wide, was struggling to take off already; so no way  could something as brobdingnagian as the Saturn V exist.

Simple stuff, but - as ever - you'll ignore the implications.

Why?

Again, I do not care...

But LOL!!! anyway.

The pressure inside the combustion chamber of a Saturn V is less then that of a scuba tank, and there are pressure tanks which are bigger then a Saturn V engine.  This alone disproves your argument.

Quote from: sokarul on July 12, 2015, 05:03:09 PM

Here is a spent rocket fuel molecule traveling at hypersonic speed about to hit an air molecule. How does that push the rocket?

The quality of your rebuttals are dropping quickly. Pitiful really.

Not my fault a simple MS paint destroys everything they believe in.

Some of us have jobs, mainframes; the fact that you are here ALL THE TIME, impatiently waiting my answer, speaks volumes about who you really are.

Also, you earlier said: 'the shuttle does not need aerodynamics'; a statement so blatantly mendacious that it beggars belief.

So STFU.

Same goes for the rest of you.

Cos I am not here to respond, or debate, or any other thing you want me to do.

I am here to OPEN DOORWAYS.

Enter; or Do Not Enter...

I do not care which.

Anyhow; PROBLEMS OF SCALE.

If a rocket is doubled in every dimension, then the areas quadruple & thus the weights multiply by eight.

So there comes a point -very quickly - where it simply cannot overcome its own mass & achieve acceleration.

The V2, at 45 feet high & 5.5 feet wide, was struggling to take off already; so no way  could something as brobdingnagian as the Saturn V exist.

Simple stuff, but - as ever - you'll ignore the implications.

Why?

Again, I do not care...

But LOL!!! anyway.

That's not entirely true. If you have a hollow cylinder 1m in diameter and 1m tall and.1m thick walls its volume would be approximately 0.3m³ and able to hold 0.5m³ of fuel. If you double the radius and height but keep the width of the walls approximately the same thickness, the volume of the hollow cylinder becomes 1.2 m³ while able to hold 5.1m³ of fuel; a four-fold increase in structure volume gives a ten-fold increase in fuel capacity! You will have a much lower acceleration curve but ultimately you can put more force/kg in to the system overall. If you keep drag forces relatively the same, which is feasible then you end up with a higher velocity assuming all fuel is consumed.

Some of us have jobs, mainframes; the fact that you are here ALL THE TIME, impatiently waiting my answer, speaks volumes about who you really are.

Also, you earlier said: 'the shuttle does not need aerodynamics'; a statement so blatantly mendacious that it beggars belief.

So STFU.

Same goes for the rest of you.

Cos I am not here to respond, or debate, or any other thing you want me to do.

I am here to OPEN DOORWAYS.

Enter; or Do Not Enter...

I do not care which.

Anyhow; PROBLEMS OF SCALE.

If a rocket is doubled in every dimension, then the areas quadruple & thus the weights multiply by eight.

So there comes a point -very quickly - where it simply cannot overcome its own mass & achieve acceleration.

The V2, at 45 feet high & 5.5 feet wide, was struggling to take off already; so no way  could something as brobdingnagian as the Saturn V exist.

Simple stuff, but - as ever - you'll ignore the implications.

Why?

Again, I do not care...

But LOL!!! anyway.

My post count is less than four a day. That hardly qualifies as on all the time.

I never stated that the Shuttle does not need aerodynamics. Please show the quote.

And finally the V2 hardly struggled to take off. It was able to reach suborbital altitude which was really very good given it was pretty much the first of its kind.

So, "It's heavy so there's no way it could possibly be lifted," is your argument?

What, pray tell, do you believe happens at the open to public rocket launches?

Again; you are all so very DEMANDING, are you not?

Are you as incapable of doing your own research as you are of thinking logically, comprehending basic scientific laws or addressing the main points in any post that goes counter to your despicable cultist brainwashing?

Anyhow...

Bijane: no, that is not my argument; learn to read.

& I do not care what happens at a 'rocket launch'; because whatever - if anything - is hurled into the sky at these events cannot be going to space.

I have proven this already, remember?

Mainframes: seems it was sokarul who said the shuttle does not need aerodynamics, not you.

But so what? You all say so many stupid things, so regularly, that it's hard to keep track.

Whatever; enjoy your tiny 'win'.

Rama set: so what if a bigger rocket can hold more fuel, if the extra mass of that same fuel then prevents it from taking off?

Learn to think.

sokarul: so a drawing of two dots & an arrow 'destroys everything I believe in', does it?

I suggest all it destroys is your own credibility as a rational being...

But maybe that's just me?

Mikeman: You may have noticed a big bunch of flames shooting out the back of a rocket; this looks kinda like a big explosion to me.

& if a rocket on a launch-pad doesn't get out of the way of that big explosion sharp-ish, it will get blown to bits by it.

This is why REAL rockets accelerate FAST, whilst FANTASY rockets accelerate VEEEERY SLOOOOWLY, so it looks good for sc-fi fan-boys like yourself & your cultist brethren.

But that's enough of addressing your inane & pointless drivel; in my next post we'll be moving on again.

No clues as to where, this time...

But I promise you; it will be LOL!!!

We are demanding because you are abusive and state that all the science and engineering we know is wrong yet you can provide no actual basis for your arguments other than hot air. Still no prrof of your 'maximum' size of a rocket either.

In the mean time, most of us can provide you with a fairly detailed analysis with facts, figures and scientific theory to explain exactly how and why rockets work.

& I do not care what happens at a 'rocket launch'; because whatever - if anything - is hurled into the sky at these events cannot be going to space.
I have proven this already, remember?

Except you really should care because you're insisting it's impossible, which it's clearly not... ah well.

If by 'proven' you mean 'asserted falsely despite repeated correction', then sure.

We are demanding because you are abusive and state that all the science and engineering we know is wrong yet you can provide no actual basis for your arguments other than hot air. Still no prrof of your 'maximum' size of a rocket either.

In the mean time, most of us can provide you with a fairly detailed analysis with facts, figures and scientific theory to explain exactly how and why rockets work.

Weirdly, none of you can provide any proof that they do work.
There's a difference between people who believe in fantasy and those who can actually see fantasy. You see: you don't need direct physical proof for this; all you need is to see the absurdity for what it is when pushed into your face.

You people just hang on to clear as day bullshit for reasons that baffle. You've all been explained to in nearly every manner available as to how absurd these space rockets are and somehow you try and aid in keeping them alive.
I accept the fantasist to do this. If you are a fantasist, then fair enough. If not, then if you believe this crap after being shown what it is, then you are not functioning correctly.


3000 ton space rockets? 
Rockets filled with hydrogen that ignite on a launch pad where the fire engulf's a quarter of the rocket with no problem.
A rocket lifting off as slow as a bicycle with no stability problems. 
The list is endless with the things that can show this crap up for what it is but there's a few.

It absolutely beggars belief how people can buy into this blatant garbage; it really does.

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 15, 2015, 12:49:05 AM

& I do not care what happens at a 'rocket launch'; because whatever - if anything - is hurled into the sky at these events cannot be going to space.
I have proven this already, remember?

Except you really should care because you're insisting it's impossible, which it's clearly not... ah well.

If by 'proven' you mean 'asserted falsely despite repeated correction', then sure.

It clearly is impossible with so called apace rockets.

Weirdly, none of you can provide any proof that they do work.

Have you lost the ability to read, in addition to you lack of ability to reason?   Proof has been provided already numerous times.   

What would you consider to be definitive proof?   Just so we are perfectly clear on what you are trying to say.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 15, 2015, 01:16:14 AM

Weirdly, none of you can provide any proof that they do work.

Have you lost the ability to read, in addition to you lack of ability to reason?   Proof has been provided already numerous times.   

What would you consider to be definitive proof?   Just so we are perfectly clear on what you are trying to say.

Indeed. Let me see, what evidence do we have?

Huge amounts of documentary footage
Thermodynamics
Materials science
Chemistry
Fluid dynamics
Reaction engineering
Physics and mechanics
Equations of motion
Newtons laws
Acoustics and sonic dynamics
Electronics
Orbital mechanics

I'm sure I've barely touched the surface but all of these disciplines are involved and all are reproducible and in constant use in other engineering fields.

In addition to this we can provide a large amount of the engineering specs for multiple types of rockets.

In response all we've received from you and Papa is an obvious and complete ignorance of how newtons 3rd law is applied. If you can't even get that basic concept correct it's no wonder you don't get rocketry.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 15, 2015, 01:16:14 AM

Weirdly, none of you can provide any proof that they do work.

Have you lost the ability to read, in addition to you lack of ability to reason?   Proof has been provided already numerous times.   

What would you consider to be definitive proof?   Just so we are perfectly clear on what you are trying to say.

Physical proof has not been provided.
The famous five solving a crime with pictures showing the scene is not evidence of reality. It is evidence that a story has been told that is backed up with pictures.


So here's the key. Definitive proof is seeing a 3000 ton rocket lift off into space, or at least simply lift off, as long as that rocket can be physically inspected enough, even by ordinary vision to be deemed to be legitimate.
Astronauts getting inside and staying inside would be a bonus.

What is not definitive proof is a TV launch in conjunction with a small missile launch seen by people who are probably 10 miles away.
What also does not constitute definitive proof is bozo's like yourself who pop into topics and proclaim that their uncle seen a launch close up, or better still, the actual person saying they have seen it close up.

Also, crying and screaming by numb nut people like yourself  that it's all true, means absolutely eff all to me. 

Quote from: Rayzor on July 15, 2015, 02:09:51 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 15, 2015, 01:16:14 AM

Weirdly, none of you can provide any proof that they do work.

Have you lost the ability to read, in addition to you lack of ability to reason?   Proof has been provided already numerous times.   

What would you consider to be definitive proof?   Just so we are perfectly clear on what you are trying to say.

Physical proof has not been provided.
The famous five solving a crime with pictures showing the scene is not evidence of reality. It is evidence that a story has been told that is backed up with pictures.


So here's the key. Definitive proof is seeing a 3000 ton rocket lift off into space, or at least simply lift off, as long as that rocket can be physically inspected enough, even by ordinary vision to be deemed to be legitimate.
Astronauts getting inside and staying inside would be a bonus.

What is not definitive proof is a TV launch in conjunction with a small missile launch seen by people who are probably 10 miles away.
What also does not constitute definitive proof is bozo's like yourself who pop into topics and proclaim that their uncle seen a launch close up, or better still, the actual person saying they have seen it close up.

Also, crying and screaming by numb nut people like yourself  that it's all true, means absolutely eff all to me. 

Very true,  I've noticed that physical evidence and visual proof means nothing to people who have their head up their arse.   You need to pull your head out and have a dose of reality.   Numbnut!

Rama set: so what if a bigger rocket can hold more fuel, if the extra mass of that same fuel then prevents it from taking off?

You are evidently wrong in this regard since there is ample documentation of rockets up to the Saturn V taking off. Your arguments have to deal with the fact that large heVy objects can lift off or prove that the preponderance of evidence is all incorrect.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 15, 2015, 01:16:14 AM

Weirdly, none of you can provide any proof that they do work.

Have you lost the ability to read, in addition to you lack of ability to reason?   Proof has been provided already numerous times.   

What would you consider to be definitive proof?   Just so we are perfectly clear on what you are trying to say.

The only proof in this thread was provided by legba. The Sci-fi fans are just cheering NASA on.