Heiwas lack of understanding in everything and his obsession with poop

No, I just say that Arianespace only puts small satellites in orbits. It is a one-way business. These satellites cannot come back and land on Earth. Not even the rockets can land.  Just ask them or visit their web site http://www.arianespace.com/

Ok, I will.

Hmmm....

Look what I just found:

Vega, the latest member of the family of launchers operated by Arianespace, has successfully launched the IXV (Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle) atmospheric reentry demonstrator. The fourth Vega launch took place on February 11 at 10:40 am (local time) from the Guiana Space Center in French Guiana. Developed by the European Space Agency, the IXV marks the latest step by Europe in the development of atmospheric reentry technologies, a key to manned flights.

Quote from: Kami on May 04, 2017, 10:59:45 AM

Sorry to bring this up again but I was away for some time. The sole reason we need a captain on ships nowadays is that he is responsible and can react in case something goes wrong. Guidance and collision detection nowadays is quite good but you need someone responsible - the captain. Jumping off the ship immediately is not the appropriate reaction. Noone expects him to drown but IMO he is responsible to stay as long as he can to help and coordinate the evacuation. I hope this guy serves a looooong time in jail.


On topic: heiwa, safety at sea is definitely not easy, but rocket science plays in a different league (there is a reason it is called rocket science)

While you have clearly demonstrated that you do not even understand the simplest orbital mechanics, I thought you at least had some grasp on your region of expertise. Seems that I was wrong.

If you understand anything about orbital mechanics please tell me whether I made any mistakes in the calculations I posted.

On a ship the chief engineer is responsible for the machinery and on passenger ships the ship's doctor looks after medical affairs, etc, etc. If you think a captain is responsible for everything, you sound like an American shipowner who is not responsible for anything except collecting the money.
Re orbital mechanics I pay since many years €1M to anyone who can describe the fuel consumption of manned trips to the Moon and planet Mars. http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm . It seems nobody knows how to do these basic calculations. I present my calculations at my website and it seems I get too heavy to get off the ground, even if my spacecraft is very light - without swimming pool and facilities we provide on a ship.

The main reason ships dominate and have dominated international cargo transfer is that for them weight does not really matter. Build a ship twice the size, you can carry twice the stuff. In rocket science it is a little different. As you said, you have to keep it light. Your suggestion to put a swimming pool (or a sauna or sth similar) on a spacecraft again proves your ignorance or sheer incompetence.
I described how to calculate the fuel consumption to go to the moon on the first post of this article, starting from LEO. You ignored it. Your challenge is a lie and you constantly crying for it is a little pathetic, to be honest.

Of course the captain is not responsible for everything, but he is the ultimate authority on the ship. And if an accident happens, it is his responsibility to ensure a swift evacuation. You can not do that if you are not on the ship.

Re orbital mechanics I pay since many years €1M to anyone who can describe the fuel consumption of manned trips to the Moon and planet Mars. http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm . It seems nobody knows how to do these basic calculations. I present my calculations at my website and it seems I get too heavy to get off the ground, even if my spacecraft is very light - without swimming pool and facilities we provide on a ship.

As you already know, fuel consumption for space travel is calculated using the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, so your challenge has been met.  Building a rocket that is light enough and powerful enough to make the trip with the fuel calculated is a completely different challenge.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 10:34:35 AM

No, I just say that Arianespace only puts small satellites in orbits. It is a one-way business. These satellites cannot come back and land on Earth. Not even the rockets can land.  Just ask them or visit their web site http://www.arianespace.com/

Ok, I will.

Hmmm....

Look what I just found:

Quote from: http://www.arianespace.com/press-release/successful-launch-of-ixv-reentry-demonstrator-by-vega/

Vega, the latest member of the family of launchers operated by Arianespace, has successfully launched the IXV (Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle) atmospheric reentry demonstrator. The fourth Vega launch took place on February 11 at 10:40 am (local time) from the Guiana Space Center in French Guiana. Developed by the European Space Agency, the IXV marks the latest step by Europe in the development of atmospheric reentry technologies, a key to manned flights.

Yes, the European Xpace Agecny, EXA, is into the fake human space travel biz together with NAXA and Xpaces. You know, you say you send humans into space and then tell media that they have magically returned by a reentry, slowing down and landing. A simple, magic Houdini trick!  EXA just subcontracts the launches of their fake spacecrafts to Arianespace and fakes the landings themselves. EXA is just 50 years behind NAXA to steal money from the tax payers that way. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .

Quote from: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 11:18:36 AM

Re orbital mechanics I pay since many years €1M to anyone who can describe the fuel consumption of manned trips to the Moon and planet Mars. http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm . It seems nobody knows how to do these basic calculations. I present my calculations at my website and it seems I get too heavy to get off the ground, even if my spacecraft is very light - without swimming pool and facilities we provide on a ship.

As you already know, fuel consumption for space travel is calculated using the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, so your challenge has been met.  Building a rocket that is light enough and powerful enough to make the trip with the fuel calculated is a completely different challenge.

LOL - Tsiolkovsky only calculates speed change ignoring influence of gravity. If you think Tsiolkovsky is the answer to win my Challenge, you know nothing about orbital mechanics.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 11:18:36 AM

Quote from: Kami on May 04, 2017, 10:59:45 AM

Sorry to bring this up again but I was away for some time. The sole reason we need a captain on ships nowadays is that he is responsible and can react in case something goes wrong. Guidance and collision detection nowadays is quite good but you need someone responsible - the captain. Jumping off the ship immediately is not the appropriate reaction. Noone expects him to drown but IMO he is responsible to stay as long as he can to help and coordinate the evacuation. I hope this guy serves a looooong time in jail.


On topic: heiwa, safety at sea is definitely not easy, but rocket science plays in a different league (there is a reason it is called rocket science)

While you have clearly demonstrated that you do not even understand the simplest orbital mechanics, I thought you at least had some grasp on your region of expertise. Seems that I was wrong.

If you understand anything about orbital mechanics please tell me whether I made any mistakes in the calculations I posted.

On a ship the chief engineer is responsible for the machinery and on passenger ships the ship's doctor looks after medical affairs, etc, etc. If you think a captain is responsible for everything, you sound like an American shipowner who is not responsible for anything except collecting the money.
Re orbital mechanics I pay since many years €1M to anyone who can describe the fuel consumption of manned trips to the Moon and planet Mars. http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm . It seems nobody knows how to do these basic calculations. I present my calculations at my website and it seems I get too heavy to get off the ground, even if my spacecraft is very light - without swimming pool and facilities we provide on a ship.

The main reason ships dominate and have dominated international cargo transfer is that for them weight does not really matter. Build a ship twice the size, you can carry twice the stuff. In rocket science it is a little different. As you said, you have to keep it light. Your suggestion to put a swimming pool (or a sauna or sth similar) on a spacecraft again proves your ignorance or sheer incompetence.
I described how to calculate the fuel consumption to go to the moon on the first post of this article, starting from LEO. You ignored it. Your challenge is a lie and you constantly crying for it is a little pathetic, to be honest.

Of course the captain is not responsible for everything, but he is the ultimate authority on the ship. And if an accident happens, it is his responsibility to ensure a swift evacuation. You can not do that if you are not on the ship.

Thanks for agreeing that the captain is not responsible for everything. BTW - if an accident happens in space, how do you evacuate your spacecraft and save the people aboard? And who is responsible.

And shouldn't a space craft for humans have facilities for the people? Or should they just be locked up for the complete trip? That's inhuman!

Re your first post there are some calculations of yours what speed you have in orbit and what speed you must have to reach the Moon in another orbit ... and crash. Nothing about fuel consumption. I pointed it out in my answer to you then.

But as you are so clever, why don't you calculate the speed increase to put a spacecraft in orbit around the Sun like the 100% fake OSIRIS REx and what the trajectory looks like to return to Earth after about a year for a (fake) gravity sling shot. Study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for this hoax and waste of tax payers money.



Note how OSIRIS REx was speeding away from Earth at high speed last September inside Earth's orbit around the Sun and how ISIRIS REx is now slowing down (!) in its strange orbit (trajectory!) now outside the Earth that is catching up from behind at constant speed. Earth and spacecraft OSIRIS REx will meet again in September. It is really MAGIC!

Yes, the European Xpace Agecny, EXA, is into the fake human space travel biz together with NAXA and Xpaces. You know, you say you send humans into space and then tell media that they have magically returned by a reentry, slowing down and landing. A simple, magic Houdini trick!

It is a truly pitiful engineer who can't tell the difference between technology and magic.

If you think Tsiolkovsky is the answer to win my Challenge, you know nothing about orbital mechanics.

Oh, I'm sure that no one will ever be able to do enough to win any of your silly little challenges.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 07:18:13 PM

Yes, the European Xpace Agecny, EXA, is into the fake human space travel biz together with NAXA and Xpaces. You know, you say you send humans into space and then tell media that they have magically returned by a reentry, slowing down and landing. A simple, magic Houdini trick!

It is a truly pitiful engineer who can't tell the difference between technology and magic.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 07:21:35 PM

If you think Tsiolkovsky is the answer to win my Challenge, you know nothing about orbital mechanics.

Oh, I'm sure that no one will ever be able to do enough to win any of your silly little challenges.

Yes, and you are a loser knowing nothing about orbital magics. Here is explain the tricks, incl. OSIRIS REx at my website and you cannot even understand them.

Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?

Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?

No, you must study his very popular website.  He explains it all there.
And by explain I mean he says, but of course that's impossible.

Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?

It is nothing wrong with the maths. But it is only maths of instant speed increase and no calculations of associated fuel consumption. If you do that, you will find that you are too heavy to get off the ground to start with. I though I explained that in Reply #1 of this thread.

Quote from: disputeone on May 04, 2017, 08:03:53 PM

Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?

It is nothing wrong with the maths. But it is only maths of instant speed increase and no calculations of associated fuel consumption. If you do that, you will find that you are too heavy to get off the ground to start with. I though I explained that in Reply #1 of this thread.

No, you just claim it.  You show nothing to support.  Which is all you ever do.  Make claims you cannot back up.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 08:13:22 PM

Quote from: disputeone on May 04, 2017, 08:03:53 PM

Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?

It is nothing wrong with the maths. But it is only maths of instant speed increase and no calculations of associated fuel consumption. If you do that, you will find that you are too heavy to get off the ground to start with. I though I explained that in Reply #1 of this thread.

No, you just claim it.  You show nothing to support.  Which is all you ever do.  Make claims you cannot back up.

Which pushes peoples buttons.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 08:13:22 PM

Quote from: disputeone on May 04, 2017, 08:03:53 PM

Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?

It is nothing wrong with the maths. But it is only maths of instant speed increase and no calculations of associated fuel consumption. If you do that, you will find that you are too heavy to get off the ground to start with. I though I explained that in Reply #1 of this thread.

No, you just claim it.  You show nothing to support.  Which is all you ever do.  Make claims you cannot back up.

?? No, I show that there are no calculations of fuel consumption, only calculations of speed changes. Read again my Reply #1! But you cannot change speed without using fuel.
And the amount of fuel required for any manned space trip is so large that ... you never get off the ground. It is basic rocket science. It is not even basic orbital mechanics - topic.

The amount of fuel required for any manned space trip is so large that ... you never get off the ground. It is basic rocket science. It is not even basic orbital mechanics - topic.

Show us how in the context of F=ma.

Here. Copy and paste from your website if you have to. Saying you can prove it then refusing to and calling people stupid because you can't debunk their arguments is lame.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 08:38:56 PM

The amount of fuel required for any manned space trip is so large that ... you never get off the ground. It is basic rocket science. It is not even basic orbital mechanics - topic.

Show us how in the context of F=ma.

Here. Copy and paste from your website if you have to. Saying you can prove it then refusing to and calling people stupid because you can't debunk their arguments is lame.

?? Applying a force F to a mass m will displace the mass at increased speed a. Example - planet Earth applies force F by gravity (no fuel required!) to an apple in a tree on Earth. The apple drops from the tree at increased speed. Mass m remains unchanged. When the apple crashes against ground, ground applies a new force and applies it on the apple which stops!

To produce a force F to move a spacecraft fuel is required. But how much? That's the question.

However, the force F must also be applied in the right direction, at the right location and at the right time. If you are already moving at high speed changing direction all the time (e.g. in an orbit or somewhere in Universe), things get complicated.

And if your mass changes (is reduced) by producing the force F, then you have to consider it too.

All stupid idiots having failed my Challenge forgot these basics of orbital mechanics.

So you can't show us that the mass of the shuttle is too great to accelerate it with the force available?

What's with you guys?

Quote from: disputeone on May 04, 2017, 09:39:07 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 08:38:56 PM

The amount of fuel required for any manned space trip is so large that ... you never get off the ground. It is basic rocket science. It is not even basic orbital mechanics - topic.

Show us how in the context of F=ma.

Here. Copy and paste from your website if you have to. Saying you can prove it then refusing to and calling people stupid because you can't debunk their arguments is lame.

?? Applying a force F to a mass m will displace the mass at increased speed a. Example - planet Earth applies force F by gravity (no fuel required!) to an apple in a tree on Earth. The apple drops from the tree at increased speed. Mass m remains unchanged. When the apple crashes against ground, ground applies a new force and applies it on the apple which stops!

To produce a force F to move a spacecraft fuel is required. But how much? That's the question.

However, the force F must also be applied in the right direction, at the right location and at the right time. If you are already moving at high speed changing direction all the time (e.g. in an orbit or somewhere in Universe), things get complicated.

And if your mass changes (is reduced) by producing the force F, then you have to consider it too.

All stupid idiots having failed my Challenge forgot these basics of orbital mechanics.

So far you've utterly failed my challenge so perhaps you should think twice before calling others "stupid idiots".

In fact, if you were the professional you claim to be you probably wouldn't be using that kind of language anyway. That's more like something an immature teenager would post.

Quote from: frenat on May 04, 2017, 05:40:16 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 05:38:13 AM

Quote from: frenat on May 04, 2017, 05:30:41 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 05:27:42 AM

Quote from: Denspressure on May 04, 2017, 04:32:29 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 03, 2017, 09:26:41 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 03, 2017, 06:47:13 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 03, 2017, 05:34:32 PM

You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip.

If space trips are as simple as you claim, then why should they be impossible?

Space trips putting satellites in orbits one way are simple. Human space trips are impossible! You cannot stop and land afterwards. All space trips are one way ... until you run out of fuel.

Of course you can stop.

Fire in the opposite direction.

No! Of course not. No fuel for it. Lose http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm and you will understand. It is basic rocket science. No way to return, land and stop.

Heiwa proves AGAIN the topic of the thread.

Hm? But how to re-enter, brake, land and stop when returning from space? Explain and win €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .

You've been shown multiple times and only proven your dishonesty and ignorance.

When, where, how?

Hello?... Hello? Did you forgot we are the same people who have watched you being told this over and over and over again? Did you think you could just wait a few weeks and then come back here and post as though those conversations never occurred? Do you think we've forgotten? What exactly is your point here? Everyone of us knows when, where, and how so you're just making yourself look ridiculous.

So you can't show us that the mass of the shuttle is too great to accelerate it with the force available?

What's with you guys?

That a 90 tons Shuttle with only 15 tons payload could not take off from ground, I show since many years at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm .

What the public saw at launches and was shown live on TV was a lightweight mock-up or prop sent away behind the clouds. The fake Shuttle then was vaporized when it ran out of fuel. The Shuttle seen landing weeks later was just dropped of from the top of a jumbo jet. What a stupid magic trick.

Quote from: Badxtoss on May 04, 2017, 08:16:49 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 08:13:22 PM

Quote from: disputeone on May 04, 2017, 08:03:53 PM

Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?

It is nothing wrong with the maths. But it is only maths of instant speed increase and no calculations of associated fuel consumption. If you do that, you will find that you are too heavy to get off the ground to start with. I though I explained that in Reply #1 of this thread.

No, you just claim it.  You show nothing to support.  Which is all you ever do.  Make claims you cannot back up.

?? No, I show that there are no calculations of fuel consumption, only calculations of speed changes. Read again my Reply #1! But you cannot change speed without using fuel.
And the amount of fuel required for any manned space trip is so large that ... you never get off the ground. It is basic rocket science. It is not even basic orbital mechanics - topic.

Great, show us the math proves you have to carry so much fuel you can't launch.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 08:38:56 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on May 04, 2017, 08:16:49 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 08:13:22 PM

Quote from: disputeone on May 04, 2017, 08:03:53 PM

Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?

It is nothing wrong with the maths. But it is only maths of instant speed increase and no calculations of associated fuel consumption. If you do that, you will find that you are too heavy to get off the ground to start with. I though I explained that in Reply #1 of this thread.

No, you just claim it.  You show nothing to support.  Which is all you ever do.  Make claims you cannot back up.

?? No, I show that there are no calculations of fuel consumption, only calculations of speed changes. Read again my Reply #1! But you cannot change speed without using fuel.
And the amount of fuel required for any manned space trip is so large that ... you never get off the ground. It is basic rocket science. It is not even basic orbital mechanics - topic.

Great, show us the math proves you have to carry so much fuel you can't launch.

Just study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm , copy paste what you do not understand and I will explain why you do not understand.
Arianespace need plenty of fuel just to launch a small satellite into orbit 2017. NASA 50 years earlier launched 10 times heavier satellites/spacecraft using less fuel.
So NASA faked it 1969.
Actually they were told to fake. The public then didn't understand anything anyway.
Isn't it funny? We were fooled 1969 with asstronuts on the Moon.

Quote from: Kami on May 04, 2017, 12:07:35 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 11:18:36 AM

Quote from: Kami on May 04, 2017, 10:59:45 AM

Sorry to bring this up again but I was away for some time. The sole reason we need a captain on ships nowadays is that he is responsible and can react in case something goes wrong. Guidance and collision detection nowadays is quite good but you need someone responsible - the captain. Jumping off the ship immediately is not the appropriate reaction. Noone expects him to drown but IMO he is responsible to stay as long as he can to help and coordinate the evacuation. I hope this guy serves a looooong time in jail.


On topic: heiwa, safety at sea is definitely not easy, but rocket science plays in a different league (there is a reason it is called rocket science)

While you have clearly demonstrated that you do not even understand the simplest orbital mechanics, I thought you at least had some grasp on your region of expertise. Seems that I was wrong.

If you understand anything about orbital mechanics please tell me whether I made any mistakes in the calculations I posted.

On a ship the chief engineer is responsible for the machinery and on passenger ships the ship's doctor looks after medical affairs, etc, etc. If you think a captain is responsible for everything, you sound like an American shipowner who is not responsible for anything except collecting the money.
Re orbital mechanics I pay since many years €1M to anyone who can describe the fuel consumption of manned trips to the Moon and planet Mars. http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm . It seems nobody knows how to do these basic calculations. I present my calculations at my website and it seems I get too heavy to get off the ground, even if my spacecraft is very light - without swimming pool and facilities we provide on a ship.

The main reason ships dominate and have dominated international cargo transfer is that for them weight does not really matter. Build a ship twice the size, you can carry twice the stuff. In rocket science it is a little different. As you said, you have to keep it light. Your suggestion to put a swimming pool (or a sauna or sth similar) on a spacecraft again proves your ignorance or sheer incompetence.
I described how to calculate the fuel consumption to go to the moon on the first post of this article, starting from LEO. You ignored it. Your challenge is a lie and you constantly crying for it is a little pathetic, to be honest.

Of course the captain is not responsible for everything, but he is the ultimate authority on the ship. And if an accident happens, it is his responsibility to ensure a swift evacuation. You can not do that if you are not on the ship.

Thanks for agreeing that the captain is not responsible for everything. BTW - if an accident happens in space, how do you evacuate your spacecraft and save the people aboard? And who is responsible.

And shouldn't a space craft for humans have facilities for the people? Or should they just be locked up for the complete trip? That's inhuman!

Re your first post there are some calculations of yours what speed you have in orbit and what speed you must have to reach the Moon in another orbit ... and crash. Nothing about fuel consumption. I pointed it out in my answer to you then.

But as you are so clever, why don't you calculate the speed increase to put a spacecraft in orbit around the Sun like the 100% fake OSIRIS REx and what the trajectory looks like to return to Earth after about a year for a (fake) gravity sling shot. Study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for this hoax and waste of tax payers money.



Note how OSIRIS REx was speeding away from Earth at high speed last September inside Earth's orbit around the Sun and how ISIRIS REx is now slowing down (!) in its strange orbit (trajectory!) now outside the Earth that is catching up from behind at constant speed. Earth and spacecraft OSIRIS REx will meet again in September. It is really MAGIC!

More proof from Heiwa that he doesn't understand orbital mechanics. 

Quote from: disputeone on May 04, 2017, 10:40:25 PM

So you can't show us that the mass of the shuttle is too great to accelerate it with the force available?

What's with you guys?

That a 90 tons Shuttle with only 15 tons payload could not take off from ground, I show since many years at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm .

What the public saw at launches and was shown live on TV was a lightweight mock-up or prop sent away behind the clouds. The fake Shuttle then was vaporized when it ran out of fuel. The Shuttle seen landing weeks later was just dropped of from the top of a jumbo jet. What a stupid magic trick.

no, what you show only is your extreme ignorance.  Don't worry, we've all been laughing at you.  That was your goal, right?

Quote from: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 07:34:23 PM

Note how OSIRIS REx was speeding away from Earth at high speed last September inside Earth's orbit around the Sun and how ISIRIS REx is now slowing down (!) in its strange orbit (trajectory!) now outside the Earth that is catching up from behind at constant speed. Earth and spacecraft OSIRIS REx will meet again in September. It is really MAGIC!

More proof from Heiwa that he doesn't understand orbital mechanics.

Well - let's test your understanding of orbital mechanics or dynamics. It seems planet Earth orbits the Sun at almost constant speed in an almost cirkel - green in the figure above. The 360° orbit Earth takes a year. The Sun is the yellow spot in the middle.

Spacecraft OSIRIS REx was launched from Earth orbiting the Sun on 8 September 2016 into an ellpitical or hyperbolic (!) orbit around the Sun - red in the figure above.
The Atlas V rocket launched OSIRIS-REx with a hyperbolic escape velocity (!) of 5.4 km/s (over 12,000 mph). In space, OSIRIS-REx performs a series of Deep Space Maneuvers (DSM), changing velocity by another 0.52 km/s (1,163 mph).
See - http://www.asteroidmission.org/mission/#cruise
After a year and two weeks orbiting (!) the sun, OSIRIS-REx will make a flyby of Earth. Earth's gravitational field will pull the spacecraft towards the planet Earth where it can "borrow" a small amount of Earth's orbital energy. This additional energy is used to increase OSIRIS-REx's orbital inclination and sling it back into space for a rendezvous with Bennu.
The flyby will take place September 22, 2017 and the spacecraft will reach Bennu November 2018. Bennu is an asteroid orbiting around the Sun in the blue elliptical orbit inclined to the Earth orbit.

Now, what kind of trajectory is OSIRIS REx doing? It took off from Earth heading towards the Sun on 8 September 2016 leaving Earth behind in a hyperbolic orbit inside Earth's orbit. What is a hyperbolic orbit? Ever heard of one? What is OSIRIS REx orbiting around? The Sun?
1 May 2017 OSIRIS REx is still far ahead of planet Earth - actually 5.91 light minutes - outside Earth's orbit but now Earth is getting closer every day. OSIRIS REx will collide with Earth September 22, 2017.
But NO! There will only be a flyby.

Anyway - to show that you are clever - what was/is the OSIRIS REx speeds (relative Sun and Earth) the first of every month since launch until flyby? It is basic orbital dynamics!

Quote from: frenat on May 05, 2017, 05:13:53 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 07:34:23 PM

Note how OSIRIS REx was speeding away from Earth at high speed last September inside Earth's orbit around the Sun and how ISIRIS REx is now slowing down (!) in its strange orbit (trajectory!) now outside the Earth that is catching up from behind at constant speed. Earth and spacecraft OSIRIS REx will meet again in September. It is really MAGIC!

More proof from Heiwa that he doesn't understand orbital mechanics.

Well - let's test your understanding of orbital mechanics or dynamics. It seems planet Earth orbits the Sun at almost constant speed in an almost cirkel - green in the figure above. The 360° orbit Earth takes a year.

Spacecraft OSIRIS REx was launched from Earth orbiting the Sun on 8 September 2016 into an ellpitical or hyperbolic (!) orbit around the Sun - red in the figure above.
The Atlas V rocket launched OSIRIS-REx with a hyperbolic escape velocity (!) of 5.4 km/s (over 12,000 mph). In space, OSIRIS-REx perform a series of Deep Space Maneuvers, changing velocity by another 0.52 km/s (1,163 mph).
See - http://www.asteroidmission.org/mission/#cruise
After a year and two weeks orbiting (!) the sun, OSIRIS-REx will make a flyby of Earth. Earth's gravitational field will pull the spacecraft towards the planet Earth where it can "borrow" a small amount of Earth's orbital energy. This additional energy is used to increase OSIRIS-REx's orbital inclination and sling it back into space for a rendezvous with Bennu.
The flyby will take place September 22, 2017 and the spacecraft will reach Bennu November 2018. Bennu is an asteroid orbiting around the Sun in the blue elliptical orbit inclined to the Earth orbit.

Now, what kind of trajectory is OSIRIS REx doing? It took off from Earth heading towards the Sun on 8 September 2016 leaving Earth behind in a hyperbolic orbit inside Earth's orbit. What is a hyperbolic orbit? Ever heard of one? What is OSIRIS REx orbiting around? The Sun?
1 May 2017 OSIRIS REx is still far ahead of planet Earth - actually 5.91 light minutes - outside Earth's orbit but now Earth is getting closer every day. OSIRIS REx will collide with Earth September 22, 2017.
But NO! There will only be a flyby.

Anyway - to show that you are clever - what was/is the OSIRIS REx speeds (relative Sun and Earth) the first of every month since launch until flyby? It is basic orbital dynamics!

If you don't know what a hyberbolic orbit is then you only prove AGAIN that you don't understand orbital mechanics.  But at least you're staying on topic.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 05, 2017, 07:23:30 AM

Quote from: frenat on May 05, 2017, 05:13:53 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 07:34:23 PM

Note how OSIRIS REx was speeding away from Earth at high speed last September inside Earth's orbit around the Sun and how ISIRIS REx is now slowing down (!) in its strange orbit (trajectory!) now outside the Earth that is catching up from behind at constant speed. Earth and spacecraft OSIRIS REx will meet again in September. It is really MAGIC!

More proof from Heiwa that he doesn't understand orbital mechanics.

Well - let's test your understanding of orbital mechanics or dynamics. It seems planet Earth orbits the Sun at almost constant speed in an almost cirkel - green in the figure above. The 360° orbit Earth takes a year.

Spacecraft OSIRIS REx was launched from Earth orbiting the Sun on 8 September 2016 into an ellpitical or hyperbolic (!) orbit around the Sun - red in the figure above.
The Atlas V rocket launched OSIRIS-REx with a hyperbolic escape velocity (!) of 5.4 km/s (over 12,000 mph). In space, OSIRIS-REx perform a series of Deep Space Maneuvers, changing velocity by another 0.52 km/s (1,163 mph).
See - http://www.asteroidmission.org/mission/#cruise
After a year and two weeks orbiting (!) the sun, OSIRIS-REx will make a flyby of Earth. Earth's gravitational field will pull the spacecraft towards the planet Earth where it can "borrow" a small amount of Earth's orbital energy. This additional energy is used to increase OSIRIS-REx's orbital inclination and sling it back into space for a rendezvous with Bennu.
The flyby will take place September 22, 2017 and the spacecraft will reach Bennu November 2018. Bennu is an asteroid orbiting around the Sun in the blue elliptical orbit inclined to the Earth orbit.

Now, what kind of trajectory is OSIRIS REx doing? It took off from Earth heading towards the Sun on 8 September 2016 leaving Earth behind in a hyperbolic orbit inside Earth's orbit. What is a hyperbolic orbit? Ever heard of one? What is OSIRIS REx orbiting around? The Sun?
1 May 2017 OSIRIS REx is still far ahead of planet Earth - actually 5.91 light minutes - outside Earth's orbit but now Earth is getting closer every day. OSIRIS REx will collide with Earth September 22, 2017.
But NO! There will only be a flyby.

Anyway - to show that you are clever - what was/is the OSIRIS REx speeds (relative Sun and Earth) the first of every month since launch until flyby? It is basic orbital dynamics!

If you don't know what a hyberbolic orbit is then you only prove AGAIN that you don't understand orbital mechanics.  But at least you're staying on topic.

Just tell me the speeds of OSIRIS REx in its hyperbolic orbit the 1st of every months.
It seems that a spacecraft under standard assumptions traveling along a hyperbolic trajectory will coast to infinity, so I cannot understand how it can return to Earth after a year and two weeks?
Your clarifications will be highly appreciated.

Quote from: frenat on May 05, 2017, 07:26:00 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 05, 2017, 07:23:30 AM

Quote from: frenat on May 05, 2017, 05:13:53 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 04, 2017, 07:34:23 PM

Note how OSIRIS REx was speeding away from Earth at high speed last September inside Earth's orbit around the Sun and how ISIRIS REx is now slowing down (!) in its strange orbit (trajectory!) now outside the Earth that is catching up from behind at constant speed. Earth and spacecraft OSIRIS REx will meet again in September. It is really MAGIC!

More proof from Heiwa that he doesn't understand orbital mechanics.

Well - let's test your understanding of orbital mechanics or dynamics. It seems planet Earth orbits the Sun at almost constant speed in an almost cirkel - green in the figure above. The 360° orbit Earth takes a year.

Spacecraft OSIRIS REx was launched from Earth orbiting the Sun on 8 September 2016 into an ellpitical or hyperbolic (!) orbit around the Sun - red in the figure above.
The Atlas V rocket launched OSIRIS-REx with a hyperbolic escape velocity (!) of 5.4 km/s (over 12,000 mph). In space, OSIRIS-REx perform a series of Deep Space Maneuvers, changing velocity by another 0.52 km/s (1,163 mph).
See - http://www.asteroidmission.org/mission/#cruise
After a year and two weeks orbiting (!) the sun, OSIRIS-REx will make a flyby of Earth. Earth's gravitational field will pull the spacecraft towards the planet Earth where it can "borrow" a small amount of Earth's orbital energy. This additional energy is used to increase OSIRIS-REx's orbital inclination and sling it back into space for a rendezvous with Bennu.
The flyby will take place September 22, 2017 and the spacecraft will reach Bennu November 2018. Bennu is an asteroid orbiting around the Sun in the blue elliptical orbit inclined to the Earth orbit.

Now, what kind of trajectory is OSIRIS REx doing? It took off from Earth heading towards the Sun on 8 September 2016 leaving Earth behind in a hyperbolic orbit inside Earth's orbit. What is a hyperbolic orbit? Ever heard of one? What is OSIRIS REx orbiting around? The Sun?
1 May 2017 OSIRIS REx is still far ahead of planet Earth - actually 5.91 light minutes - outside Earth's orbit but now Earth is getting closer every day. OSIRIS REx will collide with Earth September 22, 2017.
But NO! There will only be a flyby.

Anyway - to show that you are clever - what was/is the OSIRIS REx speeds (relative Sun and Earth) the first of every month since launch until flyby? It is basic orbital dynamics!

If you don't know what a hyberbolic orbit is then you only prove AGAIN that you don't understand orbital mechanics.  But at least you're staying on topic.

Just tell me the speeds of OSIRIS REx in its hyperbolic orbit the 1st of every months.
It seems that a spacecraft under standard assumptions traveling along a hyperbolic trajectory will coast to infinity, so I cannot understand how it can return to Earth after a year and two weeks?
Your clarifications will be highly appreciated.

Why should I spend the time to do the work when you won't understand it, will deny it out of hand, and you will still only prove you don't understand orbital mechanics at all?  YOU are not worth my time.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 05, 2017, 07:35:03 AM

Just tell me the speeds of OSIRIS REx in its hyperbolic orbit the 1st of every months.
It seems that a spacecraft under standard assumptions traveling along a hyperbolic trajectory will coast to infinity, so I cannot understand how it can return to Earth after a year and two weeks?
Your clarifications will be highly appreciated.

Why should I spend the time to do the work when you won't understand it, will deny it out of hand, and you will still only prove you don't understand orbital mechanics at all?  YOU are not worth my time.

Well, it seems you cannot describe a hyperbolic orbit of OSIRIS REx spacecraft starting from Earth and ending at a flyby of Earth one year two weeks later. It confirms my understanding that the whole spacecraft and its trip is a hoax. Thanks!

Quote from: frenat on May 05, 2017, 07:42:33 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 05, 2017, 07:35:03 AM

Just tell me the speeds of OSIRIS REx in its hyperbolic orbit the 1st of every months.
It seems that a spacecraft under standard assumptions traveling along a hyperbolic trajectory will coast to infinity, so I cannot understand how it can return to Earth after a year and two weeks?
Your clarifications will be highly appreciated.

Why should I spend the time to do the work when you won't understand it, will deny it out of hand, and you will still only prove you don't understand orbital mechanics at all?  YOU are not worth my time.

Well, it seems you cannot describe a hyperbolic orbit of OSIRIS REx spacecraft starting from Earth and ending at a flyby of Earth one year two weeks later. It confirms my understanding that the whole spacecraft and its trip is a hoax. Thanks!

What part of you are not worth my time do you not understand?
No, it seems I'm not your lackey that will do whatever you ask when it is clear you don't have the basic understanding to start with.  At least you're good for humor though!