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

http://web.archive.org/web/20041118103812/http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm


Translunar injection data, with all Apollo flights at a velocity of less than escape velocity at low earth orbit. Also as further confirmation, an eccentricity of less than 1. FYI escape velocity has an eccentricity of 1 or more.

Why do you think you still have a point, preening nutter mainframes?

Do you think Words are Reality?

I don't care what YOU think has happened here; every single neutral reader has already googled 'escape velocity' & knows you are a raging Psycho.

So STFU, ok?

& LOL!!!

Why do you think you still have a point, preening nutter mainframes?

Do you think Words are Reality?

I don't care what YOU think has happened here; every single neutral reader has already googled 'escape velocity' & knows you are a raging Psycho.

So STFU, ok?

& LOL!!!

So translated into English that would be "I have no comeback because I've presented with irrefutable data and I still don't understand escape velocity".

I suspect every neutral reader thinks you're a gaseous windbag who has to resort to petulant insults when he is losing an argument.

LOL!!!

Do you really think I intend to debate FAKE data with a FAKE persona about a FAKE rocket, you f**king MANIAC?!?

LMFAO!!!

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, PSYCHOPATH?!?

You made a stupid comment, then wasted 5 pages twisting every available Fact from very available Source to try to justify your crass stupidity, then you accuse ME of being a gaseous windbag?!?!?

ROFLMFAO!!!

F**k Off, tin-foil hatter!

lol

u mad?

lol

One thing I have never understood in this time, is the obsession with writing 'f**k' instead of 'fuck'. We know what 'f**k' means, it means 'fuck', it should be just as vulgar of a word. After all, it is the same word. There's no chance that it could be used to represent any other term: the word fork is not censored.
It's one of your peculiarities. Are the letters 'u' and 'c' especially controversial? I can't understand this.

LOL!!!

Do you really think I intend to debate FAKE data with a FAKE persona about a FAKE rocket, you f**king MANIAC?!?

LMFAO!!!

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, PSYCHOPATH?!?

You made a stupid comment, then wasted 5 pages twisting every available Fact from very available Source to try to justify your crass stupidity, then you accuse ME of being a gaseous windbag?!?!?

ROFLMFAO!!!

F**k Off, tin-foil hatter!

So still no evidence based rebuttal then.

You see all of my arguement is fact based and every time you think it is wrong, it is in fat because you have once again misunderstood the science or maths behind it. Major example being your total misunderstanding of newtons third.

Apparently you had loads of ammunition to fire at us. All I've seen so far is a load of blanks....

'Fact-based...'

LOL!!!

The Saturn V allegedly weighed 3,000 tonnes, psycho, & was made of aluminium sheeting & mild steel bracing, & propelled by a fuel that was only +20C above absolute f**king zero!

It is a preposterous mass of hoax, fail & LOL that could never, ever, in a million years get off the ground...

Just NEVER.

We've been through this already, Lying Psycho mainframes; & you LOST, remember?

Now; it's been fun watching you foam at the mouth because you could not even decide what 'escape velocity' actually is; but the Real FACTS are that ALL 'space-travel' is a HOAX.

Because rockets are useless & cannot work at all in low-pressure systems anyway...

Everyone knows this, psycho; except you, poor thing.

So come on, psycho; back to Earth now... Fun's over for today.

But still; LMFAO - at YOU!!!

http://web.archive.org/web/20041118103812/http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm


Translunar injection data, with all Apollo flights at a velocity of less than escape velocity at low earth orbit. Also as further confirmation, an eccentricity of less than 1. FYI escape velocity has an eccentricity of 1 or more.

Of course the Kepler factor is less than 1.  They were not sending the rocket to infinity.  However, they did supposedly send it to the moon, and the moon would have been pulling on it, meaning that the escape velocity from the Earth would have been less than if the moon did not exist, which is what all of those conflicting escape velocities from college professors who have never even seen a rocket suggest. 

Of course the Kepler factor is less than 1.  They were not sending the rocket to infinity.  However, they did supposedly send it to the moon, and the moon would have been pulling on it, meaning that the escape velocity from the Earth would have been less than if the moon did not exist, which is what all of those conflicting escape velocities from college professors who have never even seen a rocket suggest.

Actually, it's really easy to plot an escape trajectory that does not go anywhere near the Moon.  The Moon may speed up the space craft, but it also slows the space craft down the exact same amount when it goes away from the Moon.

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2015, 04:55:26 PM

Of course the Kepler factor is less than 1.  They were not sending the rocket to infinity.  However, they did supposedly send it to the moon, and the moon would have been pulling on it, meaning that the escape velocity from the Earth would have been less than if the moon did not exist, which is what all of those conflicting escape velocities from college professors who have never even seen a rocket suggest.

Actually, it's really easy to plot an escape trajectory that does not go anywhere near the Moon.  The Moon may speed up the space craft, but it also slows the space craft down the exact same amount when it goes away from the Moon.

Naive little boy.  It is not easy.  You can not just magically make the moon disappear.  Even if the moon was on the other side of the Earth from the direction that the space ship is traveling, it is still there and must be accounted for, but in this case its pull would be in the opposite direction.  This is why escape velocity is specifically given only assuming that the Earth is only factor.

Naive little boy.  It is not easy.  You can not just magically make the moon disappear.  Even if the moon was on the other side of the Earth from the direction that the space ship is traveling, it is still there and must be accounted for, but in this case its pull would be in the opposite direction.  This is why escape velocity is specifically given only assuming that the Earth is only factor.

It only effects the escape velocity by a few meters per second, it's negligible in most cases.

I notice you've changed your signature, mikeman (lol!).

'Science is not to prove yourself right, it's to become right.'

Creepy! Kinda like 'Get right with God', but replacing 'God' with 'Science'.

Anyway; do you think you've 'become right' through science, mikeman?

Quote from: Mainframes on August 31, 2015, 02:37:03 PM

http://web.archive.org/web/20041118103812/http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm


Translunar injection data, with all Apollo flights at a velocity of less than escape velocity at low earth orbit. Also as further confirmation, an eccentricity of less than 1. FYI escape velocity has an eccentricity of 1 or more.

Of course the Kepler factor is less than 1.  They were not sending the rocket to infinity.

Well done. You've just confirmed the rocket didn't reach escape velocity.

And just to clarify - escape velocity is essentially a theoretical concept as it assumes no other gravitational effects. Whereas in real life there are many other gravitational effects acting on the rocket in one way or another.

The fact remains that the Saturn did not achieve escape velocity and it was never required. Just an elliptical orbit with a focus near the radius of the moons orbit about 40^o ahead of the moon.

Again layperson terminology is not helping. The phrase escape earths gravity is often used to describe any circumstance in which an object can be propelled away from the earth or in which an object reaches gravity source that is locally stronger than the earth. For example, Apollo reaching the point at which it accelerates towards the moon. It still hasn't escaped the earths gravity but the moon just has a stronger influence at that point.

Quote from: Mainframes on August 31, 2015, 02:37:03 PM

http://web.archive.org/web/20041118103812/http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm


Translunar injection data, with all Apollo flights at a velocity of less than escape velocity at low earth orbit. Also as further confirmation, an eccentricity of less than 1. FYI escape velocity has an eccentricity of 1 or more.

Of course the Kepler factor is less than 1.  They were not sending the rocket to infinity. 

"Kepler Factor"? It looks like you mean eccentricity here. Why not use the same terminology as everyone else, especially since it was used in the post you're replying to? Are you afraid that doing so might make what you're saying more clear than you want?

However, they did supposedly send it to the moon, and the moon would have been pulling on it, meaning that the escape velocity from the Earth would have been less than if the moon did not exist, which is what all of those conflicting escape velocities from college professors who have never even seen a rocket suggest.

Now you're complaining about conflicting terminology, in the very same post. Oh the irony...

I notice you've changed your signature, mikeman (lol!).

'Science is not to prove yourself right, it's to become right.'

Creepy! Kinda like 'Get right with God', but replacing 'God' with 'Science'.

Anyway; do you think you've 'become right' through science, mikeman?

Yes, science us to become right.  Any good scientist is not stuck to an idea and they try to avoid bias.  It is highly likely that any preconceptions people have are wrong, especially considering how much they tend to conflict.  Science is designed specifically to be unaffected with bias and reveal the truth so we can all know how the universe works, and it doesn't work if you are wrong.

The point is: when you use science you have to be prepared to admit that you are wrong because it's highly likely.

[The point is: when you use science you have to be prepared to admit that you are wrong...

So how come you never do?

Is it because you've 'become right' through Science & are thus now Infallible?

Kinda weird attitude for a Mormon; would you describe yourself as a Heretic?

Well done. You've just confirmed the rocket didn't reach escape velocity.

LOL!!!

The rocket DIDN'T EXIST, psycho!

3,000-tonne flying machines have a tendency not to, like Santa's flying reindeer, the Tooth Fairy, etc...

Quote from: Mainframes on August 31, 2015, 11:07:14 PM

Well done. You've just confirmed the rocket didn't reach escape velocity.

LOL!!!

The rocket DIDN'T EXIST, psycho!

3,000-tonne flying machines have a tendency not to, like Santa's flying reindeer, the Tooth Fairy, etc...

Just because you don't understand science doesn't mean it isn't possible.

Yes, Saturn V weighed 3,000 tonnes but fortunately the thrust developed by its five engines totals more than this and gives net force upwards. Result? The rocket moves upwards.

Just because you don't understand science doesn't mean it isn't possible.

LOL!!!

Just because you SAY a thing is science does not mean it IS science, Psycho.

The reason I don't understand what you say is NOT because it is SCIENCE; it is because it is NONSENSE.

Learn the difference, Psycho...

Quote from: Mainframes on September 01, 2015, 02:13:36 PM

Just because you don't understand science doesn't mean it isn't possible.

LOL!!!

Just because you SAY a thing is science does not mean it IS science, Psycho.

The reason I don't understand what you say is NOT because it is SCIENCE; it is because it is NONSENSE.

Learn the difference, Psycho...

That's strange because all the science I quote is well documented, well understood and highly repeatable. You sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming liar, liar, liar won't change that and just makes you look like fool.

Quote from: Mainframes on August 31, 2015, 11:07:14 PM

Well done. You've just confirmed the rocket didn't reach escape velocity.

LOL!!!

The rocket DIDN'T EXIST, psycho!

3,000-tonne flying machines have a tendency not to, like Santa's flying reindeer, the Tooth Fairy, etc...

Except that lots of people saw the "imaginary" Saturn V lift offs with their own eyes.


By the way, did you know that the weight of the Saturn V dropped at a rate of about 24 tons per second during lift off?  Did you know that by the time the first stage engines cutoff, the weight of the Saturn V dropped by around 2200 tons?

Do you realise what a drop of 24 tons in one second would be like?

It's irrelevant to be fair because the supposed saturn V still had to lift 3000 tons off the platform...obviously assuming it was real. which is certainly wasn't.

Just try and imagine getting rid of 24 tons of fuel in one second by burning it. 

Do you realise what a drop of 24 tons in one second would be like?

It's irrelevant to be fair because the supposed saturn V still had to lift 3000 tons off the platform...obviously assuming it was real. which is certainly wasn't.

Just try and imagine getting rid of 24 tons of fuel in one second by burning it. 

Yeah the ignition of 24 tonnes of fuel and oxidiser per second would probably create so much force it could lift a massive object, say 3000 tonnes worth.....

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 01, 2015, 03:36:59 PM

Do you realise what a drop of 24 tons in one second would be like?

It's irrelevant to be fair because the supposed saturn V still had to lift 3000 tons off the platform...obviously assuming it was real. which is certainly wasn't.

Just try and imagine getting rid of 24 tons of fuel in one second by burning it. 

Yeah the ignition of 24 tonnes of fuel and oxidiser per second would probably create so much force it could lift a massive object, say 3000 tonnes worth.....

Another one with aspergers'.

Quote from: Mainframes on September 01, 2015, 04:08:43 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 01, 2015, 03:36:59 PM

Do you realise what a drop of 24 tons in one second would be like?

It's irrelevant to be fair because the supposed saturn V still had to lift 3000 tons off the platform...obviously assuming it was real. which is certainly wasn't.

Just try and imagine getting rid of 24 tons of fuel in one second by burning it. 

Yeah the ignition of 24 tonnes of fuel and oxidiser per second would probably create so much force it could lift a massive object, say 3000 tonnes worth.....

Another one with aspergers'.

So all you have left is blindly insulting people. Brilliant......

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 01, 2015, 04:11:21 PM

Quote from: Mainframes on September 01, 2015, 04:08:43 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 01, 2015, 03:36:59 PM

Do you realise what a drop of 24 tons in one second would be like?

It's irrelevant to be fair because the supposed saturn V still had to lift 3000 tons off the platform...obviously assuming it was real. which is certainly wasn't.

Just try and imagine getting rid of 24 tons of fuel in one second by burning it. 

Yeah the ignition of 24 tonnes of fuel and oxidiser per second would probably create so much force it could lift a massive object, say 3000 tonnes worth.....

Another one with aspergers'.

So all you have left is blindly insulting people. Brilliant......

Just giving out what you people give out. I'm merely making an observation. You people do it plenty of times.

Do you realise what a drop of 24 tons in one second would be like?

It's irrelevant to be fair because the supposed saturn V still had to lift 3000 tons off the platform...obviously assuming it was real. which is certainly wasn't.

Just try and imagine getting rid of 24 tons of fuel in one second by burning it. 

Five of these bad boys ought to do the trick:

That's strange because all the science I quote is well documented, well understood and highly repeatable.

O rly?

So go ahead & repeat some of it, then...

Like the bit where a 3,000 tonne rocket magically levitates off the ground, reaches 24,000 mph & travels 500,000 miles through a vacuum to the stupid Moon & back, maybe?

& markjo; care to show us the miraculous fuel-pumps that could somehow deliver 24 tons of fuel per second to your silly fake 'bad boy' engines?

They'll be pretty big, won't they? Cos 24 tons is a very large volume of any material to shift in one second.

LOL!!!

You guys can dress up your science-fiction fantasies any way you want, but that's all they'll ever be; science-fact they are NOT.

Quote from: Mainframes on September 01, 2015, 03:19:54 PM

That's strange because all the science I quote is well documented, well understood and highly repeatable.

O rly?

So go ahead & repeat some of it, then...

Like the bit where a 3,000 tonne rocket magically levitates off the ground, reaches 24,000 mph & travels 500,000 miles through a vacuum to the stupid Moon & back, maybe?

& markjo; care to show us the miraculous fuel-pumps that could somehow deliver 24 tons of fuel per second to your silly fake 'bad boy' engines?

They'll be pretty big, won't they? Cos 24 tons is a very large volume of any material to shift in one second.

LOL!!!

You guys can dress up your science-fiction fantasies any way you want, but that's all they'll ever be; science-fact they are NOT.

Oh no it's a big number I didn't understand. It can't possibly be true!

24 tonnes per second across five engines equates to about 5 tonnes a second. This is split across two turbo pumps for fuel and oxidiser giving very roughly 2.5 tonnes per second per pump. Even a cursory Google would probably give you industrial pumps that are capable of this flow rate.

That's another blank you've fired from your massive arsenal to fire at us.

Next......