NASA 'lies'

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 14, 2016, 10:25:23 PM

Plus, NASA Lies about Newton's 3rd Law & everybody with a brain knows it...

Guess that lets you out, Papa Lima Tango.

It's interesting how those that know they've lost the plot have to fall back on foul language and misrepresentation (like you know Geoff's gone west, as it were).

Bye, bye loser. Give my regards to the rest of the "Terrible Triplets".

He's just upset we destroyed his arguments so thoroughly.

Papa I made a thread specifically for immature insults, please don't resort to them here.

Please join me in AR for childish insults, thanks.

Edit nya nya nya nya nya nyah, top of page Papa. I know how you dislike that.

Ha ha it's always a bonus to get the top of the page to piss him off.

I really think it might be just about over though, honestly. Papa can't even crap up a basic insult or retort today.

Then there was that beauty from septic tank

.
You get no equations from  me, ever. No equations are needed to explain anything. You want to live on them then go ahead.

Him also stating we live in a world where we can fly and swim through the air...I feel and am hoping I am correct, that the wave of absolute ignorance has begun to come to a heed.

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on June 14, 2016, 04:18:30 PM

My dear markjo...

You really are a condescending prick, aren't you?

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on June 14, 2016, 04:18:30 PM

...this is not the first time you are asking me to answer as if I knew what NASA's doing. How should I know?

Obviously you know that NASA had to wait almost 3 years for a report to be published so that they could use their own test data, so it sounds like you know NASA's doings much better than I do.

My dearest markjo and rabinoz,

You've switched to my humble personality again, which apparently means you've run out of your ammo. Of course, I might have followed the gracious advice most kindly given by our dear Papa Legba and meekly remark that you both are but imbecilic dumbass morons, to begin with...
 

However, (i) it's so perfectly clear; (ii) you seem to understand that yourself and (iii) I have little doubt that Papa Legba will gladly, with his usual persuasive mildness, help you in realizing that, should you still have any doubts. Besides, his battle skills are far superiour to mine.
 

So, let's us go back to the topic and briefly summarize what all of us have found. Namely, you, dear markjo, provided the link that points to that NASA technical note:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680021275.pdf

It is dated August 1968 and says that the material for the Apollo heat shield catastrophically failed and the hole in the model spaceship appeared after 95.5 seconds of flight, which had the maximum velocity of about 3 km/s (3,139 m/s or 10,299 ft/s) and maximum height (apogee) of about 23,178 m (76,045 ft).

This is what NASA had, as of August 1968.

If I am not mistaken, the first lunar mission was launched on July 16, 1969, at 9:32 am EDT.

Any ideas how they managed to come back and re-enter at 11 km/s?
 

So, let's us go back to the topic and briefly summarize what all of us have found. Namely, you, dear markjo, provided the link that points to that NASA technical note:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680021275.pdf

It is dated August 1968 and says that the material for the Apollo heat shield catastrophically failed and the hole in the model spaceship appeared after 95.5 seconds of flight, which had the maximum velocity of about 3 km/s (3,139 m/s or 10,299 ft/s) and maximum height (apogee) of about 23,178 m (76,045 ft).

On what date was that experiment performed?

On what date was that experiment performed?

The 3rd stage of Grieving is Bargaining...

Classic case.

Anyhoo; NASA Lies about Newton's 3rd law & you can easily prove it by counting the number of Objects a rocket (singular noun) is...

If the number of Objects you count a rocket as being is ONE, then NASA are lying about N3.

Cue retards!

Quote from: markjo on June 15, 2016, 07:55:36 AM

On what date was that experiment performed?

The 3rd stage of Grieving is Bargaining...

Classic case.

Anyhoo; NASA Lies about Newton's 3rd law & you can easily prove it by counting the number of Objects a rocket (singular noun) is...

If the number of Objects you count a rocket as being is ONE, then NASA are lying about N3.

Cue retards!

How many component parts?

Hi, my first post here so please excuse me if I have messed up in my quote formatting.
I have been lurking here for a while and have been sent off on a number of areas of research that I have found most interesting.

With regard to Technical Note D-4713 it appears that Humble_Scientist feels that this represents the latest knowledge on ablative material research by NASA  as at August 1968.

Thus, a technical note dated, for example, "August 1968" contributed to existing knowledge that NASA had before. This is the bleeding edge of what NASA knows, as of August 1968. Agreed? Now, dear rabinoz, could you please have a look at the first page of the document? At the bottom of the page, to the right? What date do you see? Isn't it "August 1968"? What a pleasant surprise!

So, "NASA Technical Note NASA TN D-4713" contains the last information on the topic that NASA had in August 1968. Is it clear? I do hope so.

Is it possible that NASA published this valuable note and, at the same time, was hiding some results? Of course, not. Please have a look at the last page, again, and read:

To my reading this document is limited in scope to one particular test of an ablative material, that was carried out in 1965. This document does not even discuss the two additional test pieces of ablative material that were tested during the same launch in 1965. These tests along with information on this test are documented in TN D-4791. This was published in September 1968 and refers to the additional test prices as being of Apollo Ablator Material, which are of a different composition to the nose piece documented in TN D-4713.
So it would appear that TN D-4713 does not represent the full extent of NASA's knowledge of ablative materials in the second half of 1968.

Just my thoughts,
Arthur.

Cool story bro...

Here's some more sci-fi while we're at it.

Stagnation point is where the bow shock wave is, and also where the massive amount of heat that you talk about sits. Between the stagnation point and the ablative material are gasses much cooler than the heat at the stagnation point.

Here's a good example of the shills ignoring a thread when they're losing & starting another to try again, specifically the 'reaction engine formula' nonsense one...

Anyhoo; NASA Lies about Newton's 3rd law & you can easily prove it by counting the number of Objects a rocket (singular noun) is...

If the number of Objects you count a rocket as being is ONE, then NASA are lying about N3 because N3 requires TWO entirely separate Objects.

Cue retards!

Pretty new here, but it's obvious Papa Legba believes the Earth is a sphere.
He loves the blue marble.
Just has no friends in real life, and chooses to troll here everyday for attention.

We've all known a Papa L... It's sad, but it's our duty as humans to care for him.

Here's a good example of the shills ignoring a thread when they're losing & starting another to try again, specifically the 'reaction engine formula' nonsense one...

Anyhoo; NASA Lies about Newton's 3rd law & you can easily prove it by counting the number of Objects a rocket (singular noun) is...

If the number of Objects you count a rocket as being is ONE, then NASA are lying about N3 because N3 requires TWO entirely separate Objects.

Cue retards!

How many objects is a car?

Here's a good example of the shills ignoring a thread when they're losing & starting another to try again, specifically the 'reaction engine formula' nonsense one...

Anyhoo; NASA Lies about Newton's 3rd law & you can easily prove it by counting the number of Objects a rocket (singular noun) is...

If the number of Objects you count a rocket as being is ONE, then NASA are lying about N3 because N3 requires TWO entirely separate Objects.

Cue retards!

Papa Legba still can't count! Look it goes like this 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, oops I've run out of fingers!

A rocket, including payload, is made up of numerous components including, but not restricted to:

• Rocket body one or more,
• Engines, from 1 to many,
• Fuel tanks,
• Oxidiser tanks,
• Fuel pumps,
• Fuel feed systemsystem,
• Engine ignition system,
• Interstage Separation System,
• 1 to 9 ullage rockets per stage,
• Hypergolic fuel for ignition of each stage,
• Payload and payload launching components.

What's that? 11 types of component, with quite a number of many of them.
Undoubtedly plus an almost innumerable number of other components.

But the rocket does not have any thrust till we add (yes a separate pair of components). Fuel for each stage and oxidiser for each stage, both of which are often added as late as possible! (just like loading a gun). You shouldn't carry a loaded gun, nor transport a fuelled rocket.

Papa Legba is now going to tell us that a gun does not recoil! Count gun = one component!
And and he is right a gun cannot recoil without a cartridge.
And a rocket cannot give any thrust (recoil) without fuel and oxidiser.

Have another nice day Papa!
Yours sincerely RABinOZ

PS You will notice that I'm trying to be kind to him by explaining it all so carefully, but since only been reading kindergarten Newton's Laws and Space 4 Kiddies so it's a bit hard! Any kindergarten teachers that could assist!

STFU Geoff.

In terms of how it functions according to Newton's 3rd law a rocket is One Object.

The medium through which it moves, i.e. the atmosphere, is Object Two, with which it creates a force-pairing in order to produce motion.

Simple stuff, which everybody acknowledges except for idiots, shills & lying NASA.

Did a forum-slide on this didn't you?

That's okay; 'John Davis' doesn't mind...

'John Davis' sees NOTHING!

In terms of how it functions according to Newton's 3rd law a rocket is One Object.

The medium through which it moves, i.e. the atmosphere, is Object Two, with which it creates a force-pairing in order to produce motion.

Simple stuff, which everybody acknowledges except for idiots, shills & lying NASA.

In terms of how it functions according to Newton's 3rd law a rocket is One Object.

The medium through which it moves, i.e. the atmosphere, is Object Two, with which it creates a force-pairing in order to produce motion.

You probably think that light needs a medium to propagate through too.

Try asking a real scientist like Lord kelvin about that, 'John', you desperate old fuck.

Cos idgaf.

In terms of how it functions according to Newton's 3rd law a rocket is One Object.

The medium through which it moves, i.e. the atmosphere, is Object Two, with which it creates a force-pairing in order to produce motion.

Simple stuff, which everybody acknowledges except for idiots, shills & lying NASA.

Try asking a real scientist like Lord kelvin about that, 'John', you desperate old fuck.

Cos idgaf.

You probably won't get one either with that kind of attitude.

In terms of how it functions according to Newton's 3rd law a rocket is One Object.

The medium through which it moves, i.e. the atmosphere, is Object Two, with which it creates a force-pairing in order to produce motion.

Simple stuff, which everybody acknowledges except for idiots, shills & lying NASA.

You're thinking of propeller driven airplanes. 

Rockets work differently.

Sorry 'John' but you seem to think persisting in your sock-shill bullshit will change the laws of physics...

However, as you've disabled the quote function on the forum that YOU run again, I can only leave you with a LMFAO & a GTFO rather than a reiteration of the basic physics you have refused to comprehend, despite all evidence, for over a year now.

You mental old shitbag on your mental old shitforum.

Papa again does not know that gas has mass, so has momentum, and momentum is conserved.

Hi Mainframes!

If an object with mass pushes against nothing, then of course its momentum will be conserved.

In the case of a gas, this has been experimentally proven; you know, Free Expansion of gasses in a vacuum & all that?

So, as ever, you have no point whatsoever except to promote your lying shill garbage...

Which lovely 'John Davis' allows you to do, ad infinitum...

Because 'John Davis' is markjo.

Simple stuff & lol.

Now fuck off.

Hi Mainframes!

If an object with mass pushes against nothing, then of course its momentum will be conserved.

In the case of a gas, this has been experimentally proven; you know, Free Expansion of gasses in a vacuum & all that?

So, as ever, you have no point whatsoever except to promote your lying shill garbage...

Which lovely 'John Davis' allows you to do, ad infinitum...

Because 'John Davis' is markjo.

Simple stuff & lol.

Now fuck off.

Hi Papa!

btw I haven't posted so you're just making yourself look like a tool.

Perhaps you have seen the examples of Newton's 3rd where a single object splits in two and still conserved momentum with each object moving in opposite direction to the other. Sort of like a rocket and its exhaust......

Sorry 'John' but you seem to think persisting in your sock-shill bullshit will change the laws of physics...

The laws of physics are just fine as they are.

It's your understanding of those laws of physics that needs work.

Your inability to understand that one object can be carried inside of (and subsequently ejected from) another object seems to defy all reason as well.

Try asking a real scientist like Lord kelvin about that, 'John', you desperate old fuck.
Cos idgaf.
In terms of how it functions according to Newton's 3rd law a rocket is One Object.
The medium through which it moves, i.e. the atmosphere, is Object Two, with which it creates a force-pairing in order to produce motion.
Simple stuff, which everybody acknowledges except for idiots, shills & lying NASA.

Who told you that "In terms of how it functions according to Newton's 3rd law a rocket is One Object."?
Would it have been that authority you have quoted a hundred times by now ?

Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.


2. For years, space travel was believed to be impossible because there was nothing that rockets could push off of in space in order to provide the propulsion necessary to accelerate. This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because ...
a. ... space is void of air so the rockets have nothing to push off of.
b. ... gravity is absent in space.
c. ... space is void of air and so there is no air resistance in space.
d. ... nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
See Answer

Then the answer:

Check your understanding answer

Answer: D
It is a common misconception that rockets are unable to accelerate in space. The fact is that rockets do accelerate. There is indeed nothing for rockets to push off of in space - at least nothing which is external to the rocket. But that's no problem for rockets. Rockets are able to accelerate due to the fact that they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction opposite the direction which they wish to accelerate.

from Physics Classroom - Home, Newton's Laws - Lesson 4 - Newton's Third Law of Motion Nope, it's not in there!


So poor Papa still can't fathom how  Naughty Nasty NASA  (with a lot of help from those  Wascally Wussians  ) put the ISS into orbit.
All the best now, have a nice day (or night in you case).
Yours sincerely RABinOZ

STFU Geoff'n'John.

Perhaps you have seen the examples of Newton's 3rd where a single object splits in two and still conserved momentum with each object moving in opposite direction to the other.

Is it 'man on fucking skateboard with fucking medicine ball' time again you dickhead?

STFU Geoff'n'John.

Quote from: Mainframes on June 22, 2016, 02:27:59 PM

Perhaps you have seen the examples of Newton's 3rd where a single object splits in two and still conserved momentum with each object moving in opposite direction to the other.

Is it 'man on fucking skateboard with fucking medicine ball' time again you dickhead?

Are you suggesting that the man on a skateboard with medicine balls experiment isn't a valid example of Newton's third law?

Quote from: Copper Knickers on May 31, 2016, 01:30:59 PM

Quite often on these boards it's asserted or implicated that NASA tells lies.

Does anyone have any specific, concrete examples of NASA lying? By this I mean examples either of NASA admitting to falsehood, or of there being generally and authoritatively accepted evidence that contradicts what NASA has said.

I'm not asking for conspiracy theory kind of stuff, or people's opinions. Just proper evidence. Ideally there would be citations, both for what NASA has claimed and also for the contradiction.

You must be joking.

Classic..laughed my ass off.

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 23, 2016, 12:13:51 PM

STFU Geoff'n'John.

Quote from: Mainframes on June 22, 2016, 02:27:59 PM

Perhaps you have seen the examples of Newton's 3rd where a single object splits in two and still conserved momentum with each object moving in opposite direction to the other.

Is it 'man on fucking skateboard with fucking medicine ball' time again you dickhead?

Are you suggesting that the man on a skateboard with medicine balls experiment isn't a valid example of Newton's third law?

You know exactly what I am suggesting...

John.

Plus lol at your use of the word 'experiment' about a shitty false analogy for rocket thrust that has been repeatedly busted as bullshit...

John.

Anyhoo; I'm sure you have small animals to torture or some other psycho-hobby that needs attending to...

John.

Don't let me keep you...

John.

Quote from: markjo on June 23, 2016, 07:19:39 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 23, 2016, 12:13:51 PM

STFU Geoff'n'John.

Quote from: Mainframes on June 22, 2016, 02:27:59 PM

Perhaps you have seen the examples of Newton's 3rd where a single object splits in two and still conserved momentum with each object moving in opposite direction to the other.

Is it 'man on fucking skateboard with fucking medicine ball' time again you dickhead?

Are you suggesting that the man on a skateboard with medicine balls experiment isn't a valid example of Newton's third law?

You know exactly what I am suggesting...

Then why don't you humor me and say the words?

I'm sure that you can find some shitspam copypasta somewhere.

Why don't you unlock all four of the threads I said them in, John?

You're the admin, after all...