uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on January 28, 2018, 12:02:27 PM

An orbiting body will get faster as it goes towards whatever it's orbiting and slower as it goes away.

But, if the orbiting body is only under the influence of gravity and inertia, then it would be incapable of "going away".

Because gravity is an accelerative force, whilst inertia is not a force at all:

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-2/Characteristics-of-a-Projectile-s-Trajectory

So gravity would ALWAYS overcome inertia, and the orbiting body would ALWAYS crash into whatever large mass it was orbiting.

Why? Gravity being a force and inertia being mass doesn't make this argument follow.

Quote from: totallackey on January 28, 2018, 06:40:15 AM

What is the chair preventing the crash and burn of these satellites?

Their trajectories don't intersect with other bodies.

= NO CHAIR NECESSARY (also contradicting Geoff the rabbibot)[/quote]
Idiot! A chair can stop the Voodoo Priest from "falling down", but satellites' "trajectories don't intersect with other bodies".

You're no better at reading than your dim-witted troll partner, the Voodoo Priest, who, by the way, claims that the earth is a Globe.

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 28, 2018, 12:53:05 PM

Quote from: Copper Knickers on January 28, 2018, 12:02:27 PM

An orbiting body will get faster as it goes towards whatever it's orbiting and slower as it goes away.

But, if the orbiting body is only under the influence of gravity and inertia, then it would be incapable of "going away".

Because gravity is an accelerative force, whilst inertia is not a force at all:

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-2/Characteristics-of-a-Projectile-s-Trajectory

So gravity would ALWAYS overcome inertia, and the orbiting body would ALWAYS crash into whatever large mass it was orbiting.

Why? Gravity being a force and inertia being mass doesn't make this argument follow.

Yes it does.

If the inertia of a body is sufficient to overcome the gravity of the nearest mass then it will simply carry on moving until it reaches another mass with sufficient gravity to capture it.

For your mad fake orbits to work, the body must somehow overcome the gravity of the nearest mass, then impossibly turn round and return to this mass for no physical reason whatsoever, then somehow miss being captured again, and so on and so on, ad infinitum...

It is a total physical impossibility, completely defying all empirical observation.

This is not debatable, which is why you are all desperately attempting to revise the laws of physics in order to justify your nonsense.

This thread is a shitshow - just a constant rearguard action of Pseudoscience mudslinging from the most obvious AI algorithms on the entire internet.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on January 28, 2018, 12:02:27 PM

An orbiting body will get faster as it goes towards whatever it's orbiting and slower as it goes away.

But, if the orbiting body is only under the influence of gravity and inertia, then it would be incapable of "going away".

Because gravity is an accelerative force, whilst inertia is not a force at all:

You keep asserting that, "inertia is not a force at all" but who claimed otherwise?

Physics Classroom, Vectors - Motion and Forces in Two Dimensions - Lesson 2 - Projectile Motion, Characteristics of a Projectile's Trajectory

Why not read further in the Physics Classroom till you get to this:
     Physics Classroom, Circular Motion and Satellite Motion
and finally you get to this bit!
     Physics Classroom, Circular Motion and Satellite Motion - Lesson 4 - Planetary and Satellite Motion, Circular Motion Principles for Satellites

So gravity would ALWAYS overcome inertia, and the orbiting body would ALWAYS crash into whatever large mass it was orbiting.

Totally incorrect as the above reference shows!
According to the "Physics Classroom, Lesson 4 - Planetary and Satellite Motion" you are totally wrong!

So! This is not debatable, so please stop lying about it.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on January 28, 2018, 01:37:08 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 28, 2018, 12:53:05 PM

So gravity would ALWAYS overcome inertia, and the orbiting body would ALWAYS crash into whatever large mass it was orbiting.

Why? Gravity being a force and inertia being mass doesn't make this argument follow.

Yes it does.

If the inertia of a body is sufficient to overcome the gravity of the nearest mass then it will simply carry on moving until it reaches another mass with sufficient gravity to capture it.

For your mad fake orbits to work, the body must somehow overcome the gravity of the nearest mass, then impossibly turn round and return to this mass for no physical reason whatsoever, then somehow miss being captured again, and so on and so on, ad infinitum...

What does "overcome the gravity of the nearest mass" mean, precisely, and why would an orbiting body need to do that?

Well after reading with an openmind satelites still don't make any sense whatsoever......
Nobody really understands the underlying forces that enables them to remain their respective orbits....lots of pseudo explanations, but hardly more than a hypothetical math contest.

Much more interresting is how those extremely unreliable rockets (my video) of the late fifties and early sixties were able to reach the exact altitude and speed and deploy the satelites in the preferred ''hot spot''.
No onboard computer technology.......so is there anyone who can remotely describe what happened after launch and how the whole trajectory and velocity was meticulously monitored and controled from that moment until deployment ? Because all rocket launch footage of that period give the impression they hardly control the very thing and one should consider it a good day if it is going straight up in the skies.......let alone the exact altitude and velocity needed to deploy a satelite in a precise orbit......

Well after reading with an openmind satelites still don't make any sense whatsoever......
Nobody really understands the underlying forces that enables them to remain their respective orbits....lots of pseudo explanations, but hardly more than a hypothetical math contest.

Much more interresting is how those extremely unreliable rockets (my video) of the late fifties and early sixties were able to reach the exact altitude and speed and deploy the satelites in the preferred ''hot spot''.
No onboard computer technology.......so is there anyone who can remotely describe what happened after launch and how the whole trajectory and velocity was meticulously monitored and controled from that moment until deployment ? Because all rocket launch footage of that period give the impression they hardly control the very thing and one should be lucky it is going up in the skies.......let alone the exact altitude and velocity needed to deploy a satelite in the precise orbit......

So how do you explain the existence of satellites then?

Quote from: dutchy on January 28, 2018, 03:43:11 PM

Well after reading with an openmind satelites still don't make any sense whatsoever......
Nobody really understands the underlying forces that enables them to remain their respective orbits....lots of pseudo explanations, but hardly more than a hypothetical math contest.

Much more interresting is how those extremely unreliable rockets (my video) of the late fifties and early sixties were able to reach the exact altitude and speed and deploy the satelites in the preferred ''hot spot''.
No onboard computer technology.......so is there anyone who can remotely describe what happened after launch and how the whole trajectory and velocity was meticulously monitored and controled from that moment until deployment ? Because all rocket launch footage of that period give the impression they hardly control the very thing and one should be lucky it is going up in the skies.......let alone the exact altitude and velocity needed to deploy a satelite in the precise orbit......

So how do you explain the existence of satellites then?

Care to answer my question first ?

Well after reading with an openmind satelites still don't make any sense whatsoever......
Nobody really understands the underlying forces that enables them to remain their respective orbits....lots of pseudo explanations, but hardly more than a hypothetical math contest.

Gravity and horizontal velocity in balance.  How hard is that to understand?

Because all rocket launch footage of that period give the impression they hardly control the very thing and one should consider it a good day if it is going straight up in the skies.......let alone the exact altitude and velocity needed to deploy a satelite in a precise orbit......

Actually, if a rocket goes straight up for more than a few seconds, then it's a very bad day for trying to put a satellite into orbit.

Actually, if a rocket goes straight up for more than a few seconds, then it's a very bad day for trying to put a satellite into orbit.

It was figuratively when i wrote ''straight up''........i know rockets make this huge arc after launch that suggest they end up in ocea.....orbit

But care to answer my question from a few posts back ?

Much more interresting is how those extremely unreliable rockets (my video) of the late fifties and early sixties were able to reach the exact altitude and speed and deploy the satelites in the preferred ''hot spot''.
No onboard computer technology.......so is there anyone who can remotely describe what happened after launch and how the whole trajectory and velocity was meticulously monitored and controled from that moment until deployment ? Because all rocket launch footage of that period give the impression they hardly control the very thing and one should consider it a good day if it is going straight up in the skies.......let alone the exact altitude and velocity needed to deploy a satelite in a precise orbit......

Quote from: markjo on January 28, 2018, 03:54:26 PM

Actually, if a rocket goes straight up for more than a few seconds, then it's a very bad day for trying to put a satellite into orbit.

It was figuratively when i wrote ''straight up''........i know rockets make this huge arc after launch that suggest they end up in ocea.....orbit

But care to answer my question from a few posts back ?

Much more interresting is how those extremely unreliable rockets (my video) of the late fifties and early sixties were able to reach the exact altitude and speed and deploy the satelites in the preferred ''hot spot''.
No onboard computer technology.......so is there anyone who can remotely describe what happened after launch and how the whole trajectory and velocity was meticulously monitored and controled from that moment until deployment ? Because all rocket launch footage of that period give the impression they hardly control the very thing and one should consider it a good day if it is going straight up in the skies.......let alone the exact altitude and velocity needed to deploy a satelite in a precise orbit......

Are you saying that ground based computers couldn't transmit instructions to guide the rocket and satellite deployment?

Quote from: dutchy on January 28, 2018, 04:06:29 PM

Quote from: markjo on January 28, 2018, 03:54:26 PM

Actually, if a rocket goes straight up for more than a few seconds, then it's a very bad day for trying to put a satellite into orbit.

It was figuratively when i wrote ''straight up''........i know rockets make this huge arc after launch that suggest they end up in ocea.....orbit

But care to answer my question from a few posts back ?

Much more interresting is how those extremely unreliable rockets (my video) of the late fifties and early sixties were able to reach the exact altitude and speed and deploy the satelites in the preferred ''hot spot''.
No onboard computer technology.......so is there anyone who can remotely describe what happened after launch and how the whole trajectory and velocity was meticulously monitored and controled from that moment until deployment ? Because all rocket launch footage of that period give the impression they hardly control the very thing and one should consider it a good day if it is going straight up in the skies.......let alone the exact altitude and velocity needed to deploy a satelite in a precise orbit......

Are you saying that ground based computers couldn't transmit instructions to guide the rocket and satellite deployment?

"PS-1 was not designed to be controlled, it could only be observed..." - Wikipedia

Quote from: markjo on January 28, 2018, 04:32:29 PM

Quote from: dutchy on January 28, 2018, 04:06:29 PM

Quote from: markjo on January 28, 2018, 03:54:26 PM

Actually, if a rocket goes straight up for more than a few seconds, then it's a very bad day for trying to put a satellite into orbit.

It was figuratively when i wrote ''straight up''........i know rockets make this huge arc after launch that suggest they end up in ocea.....orbit

But care to answer my question from a few posts back ?

Much more interresting is how those extremely unreliable rockets (my video) of the late fifties and early sixties were able to reach the exact altitude and speed and deploy the satelites in the preferred ''hot spot''.
No onboard computer technology.......so is there anyone who can remotely describe what happened after launch and how the whole trajectory and velocity was meticulously monitored and controled from that moment until deployment ? Because all rocket launch footage of that period give the impression they hardly control the very thing and one should consider it a good day if it is going straight up in the skies.......let alone the exact altitude and velocity needed to deploy a satelite in a precise orbit......

Are you saying that ground based computers couldn't transmit instructions to guide the rocket and satellite deployment?

"PS-1 was not designed to be controlled, it could only be observed..." - Wikipedia

I'm sorry, were you trying to make a point?

Sputnik was launched into a low earth elliptical orbit that lasted about 3 months before it burned up in the atmosphere.  I'd hardy call that a "preferred hot spot'' for a satellite orbit.

But, if the orbiting body is only under the influence of gravity and inertia, then it would be incapable of "going away".

Because gravity is an accelerative force, whilst inertia is not a force at all:

EVERY force is "accelerative force".
Acceleration is ALWAYS result of force.
a = F / m

I gave you link about "inertial forces".
Did you ever read it, or it was too much?

Or I'm bot who repeats your claims about "inertia is not a force" ?

Inertia is property of matter.
Inertial forces are caused by inertia.
(They are reaction to external forces.)

Do you know the meaning of the term "caused" ?

---------------------------------------------

"The dent in the hood was caused by hammer."
"But hammer is not the dent."

Actually, if a rocket goes straight up for more than a few seconds, then it's a very bad day for trying to put a satellite into orbit.

Why, are rockets now unable to manouvre in your fantasy space?

Because by far the most energy efficient trajectory is straight up...

Look:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectile_motion#/media/File%3AIdeal_projectile_motion_for_different_angles.svg

Damn! Them ballistics get you every single time, don't they?

Gravity is not the AI shillgorithm's friend.

Well after reading with an openmind satelites still don't make any sense whatsoever......

Nobody really understands the underlying forces that enables them to remain their respective orbits....lots of pseudo explanations, but hardly more than a hypothetical math contest.

Quuite incorrect! What you really mean is that you, Papa Legba, Totallackey etc, do not "understand the underlying forces that enables them to remain their respective orbits".

But anyone that studies the topic "with an openmind" can understand the simple cases and even elliptic orbits are not that hard to follow.

Maybe you should that explanations that Papa Legba so kindly introduced us to, starting with:

Physics Classroom, Vectors - Motion and Forces in Two Dimensions - Lesson 2 - Projectile Motion, Characteristics of a Projectile's Trajectory

Then read further in the Physics Classroom till you get to this:
     Physics Classroom, Circular Motion and Satellite Motion
and finally to this bit!
     Physics Classroom, Circular Motion and Satellite Motion - Lesson 4 - Planetary and Satellite Motion, Circular Motion Principles for Satellites

Much more interresting is how those extremely unreliable rockets (my video) of the late fifties and early sixties were able to reach the exact altitude and speed and deploy the satelites in the preferred ''hot spot''.
No onboard computer technology.......so is there anyone who can remotely describe what happened after launch and how the whole trajectory and velocity was meticulously monitored and controled from that moment until deployment ? Because all rocket launch footage of that period give the impression they hardly control the very thing and one should consider it a good day if it is going straight up in the skies.......let alone the exact altitude and velocity needed to deploy a satelite in a precise orbit......

You exaggerate, but so what?
Well before that the Saturn rockets used for the Apollo missions had onboard computers and quite sophisticated control and guidance systems were standard.

Of course, that being the time of the cold-war an lot of effort was put into the design the control systems of the most horrendous ICBMs.
The same technology had spin-offs in the "space-race" as well.

Quote from: markjo on January 28, 2018, 03:54:26 PM

Actually, if a rocket goes straight up for more than a few seconds, then it's a very bad day for trying to put a satellite into orbit.

Why, are rockets now unable to manouvre in your fantasy space?

I have no idea why, are rockets are unable to manoeuvre in your fantasy space, but they are quite able to manoeuvre in our real space.

Because by far the most energy efficient trajectory is straight up...
Look:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectile_motion#/media/File%3AIdeal_projectile_motion_for_different_angles.svg

Totally irrelevant!

• The rocket is not simply a projectile fired with some initial velocity, but is continually driven by the thrust of the rocket.
  
  
• The rocket is not simply trying to "get up to a certain altitude", but to get to the correct altitude with the correct tangential velocity for the satellite to orbit the earth.

There's a bit more involved than simply ballistics.

Hence "the most energy efficient trajectory" for that rocket is not "straight up". The most efficient trajectory is roughly as in:The initial vertical section is partly to get out of the denser atmosphere while travelling at the lowest velocity.
And partly because that profile is dictated by the combination of the forces of gravity and thrust on a rocket of rapidly falling mass.

Go and read about it in Why Do Rockets Follow A Curved Trajectory While Going Into Space?

Or go and learn it properly from:
         Rocket & Space technology, ORBITAL MECHANICS
in particular
         Rocket & Space technology, Launch of a Space Vehicle.

Of course that has hard sums and thingos like that so it might be a bit tough for poor old Papa Legba!
never mind you can always get some school-kids to read it to you.

Quote from: markjo on January 28, 2018, 03:54:26 PM

Actually, if a rocket goes straight up for more than a few seconds, then it's a very bad day for trying to put a satellite into orbit.

Why, are rockets now unable to manouvre in your fantasy space?

Because by far the most energy efficient trajectory is straight up...

Things that go straight up tend to come straight back down.  This is very bad for satellites.  There is a significant horizontal velocity component to orbits that you seem to completely ignore.

Hence "the most energy efficient trajectory" for that rocket is not "straight up". The most efficient trajectory is roughly as in:

The initial vertical section is partly to get out of the denser atmosphere while travelling at the lowest velocity.
And partly because that profile is dictated by the combination of the forces of gravity and thrust on a rocket of rapidly falling mass.

Go and read about it in Why Do Rockets Follow A Curved Trajectory While Going Into Space?

Of course that has hard sums and thingos like that so it might be a bit tough for poor old Papa Legba!
never mind you can always get some school-kids to read it to you.

The continious stream of cgi has clouded your objective grasp on reality.
On that cartoon the arc is visible because of scale !!!!, but in real life the arc starts almost immidiatly !!!
If what we see in a real launch would match your image then the rocket would start to bend over in a few mm.
If that cartoon was transposed to reality , we would see it go straight up ( take a good look at that picture !!!) but instead we see a huge arc in real life !!!!

The picture would be correct if the rocket would bend extremely after a few mm, which it doesn't.

One thing globers always find difficult to grasp is scale,....  their curvature is sometimes to small to see and sometimes to big not to notice....it seems their globe has several shapes.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 28, 2018, 07:30:33 PM

Hence "the most energy efficient trajectory" for that rocket is not "straight up". The most efficient trajectory is roughly as in:

The initial vertical section is partly to get out of the denser atmosphere while travelling at the lowest velocity.
And partly because that profile is dictated by the combination of the forces of gravity and thrust on a rocket of rapidly falling mass.

Go and read about it in Why Do Rockets Follow A Curved Trajectory While Going Into Space?

Of course that has hard sums and thingos like that so it might be a bit tough for poor old Papa Legba!
never mind you can always get some school-kids to read it to you.

The continious stream of cgi has clouded your objective grasp on reality.
On that cartoon the arc is visible because of scale !!!!, but in real life the arc starts almost immidiatly !!!
If what we see in a real launch would match your image then the rocket would start to bend over in a few mm.
If that cartoon was transposed to reality , we would see it go straight up ( take a good look at that picture !!!) but instead we see a huge arc in real life !!!!

The picture would be correct if the rocket would bend extremely after a few mm, which it doesn't.

One thing globers always find difficult to grasp is scale,....  their curvature is sometimes to small to see and sometimes to big not to notice....it seems their globe has several shapes.

Who are globers?  How does GPS work?

Quote from: dutchy on January 28, 2018, 11:57:54 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 28, 2018, 07:30:33 PM

Hence "the most energy efficient trajectory" for that rocket is not "straight up". The most efficient trajectory is roughly as in:

The initial vertical section is partly to get out of the denser atmosphere while travelling at the lowest velocity.
And partly because that profile is dictated by the combination of the forces of gravity and thrust on a rocket of rapidly falling mass.

Go and read about it in Why Do Rockets Follow A Curved Trajectory While Going Into Space?

Of course that has hard sums and thingos like that so it might be a bit tough for poor old Papa Legba!
never mind you can always get some school-kids to read it to you.

The continious stream of cgi has clouded your objective grasp on reality.
On that cartoon the arc is visible because of scale !!!!, but in real life the arc starts almost immidiatly !!!
If what we see in a real launch would match your image then the rocket would start to bend over in a few mm.
If that cartoon was transposed to reality , we would see it go straight up ( take a good look at that picture !!!) but instead we see a huge arc in real life !!!!

The picture would be correct if the rocket would bend extremely after a few mm, which it doesn't.

One thing globers always find difficult to grasp is scale,....  their curvature is sometimes to small to see and sometimes to big not to notice....it seems their globe has several shapes.

Who are globers?  How does GPS work?

Did you compare that picture with the footage of a real rocket launch ? If you would transpose the amount of real life arc to a picture then it would start to bend immidiatly and much more than what is seen on that picture.

Now either the picture portraits it wrong, or real rockets don't have a trajectory as displayed in the graphic picture.....
Which is it ? And could we at least have a proper graphic that mimicks what we observe while gazing upwards during a real rocket launch ....

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 28, 2018, 05:39:56 PM

Quote from: markjo on January 28, 2018, 03:54:26 PM

Actually, if a rocket goes straight up for more than a few seconds, then it's a very bad day for trying to put a satellite into orbit.

Why, are rockets now unable to manouvre in your fantasy space?

Because by far the most energy efficient trajectory is straight up...

Things that go straight up tend to come straight back down.  This is very bad for satellites.  There is a significant horizontal velocity component to orbits that you seem to completely ignore.o

Oh, so rockets CAN'T manouvre in your fantasy space then?

Even with all their gimballed nozzles,  cold gas thrusters and sundry imaginary doohickeys?

Cos if they could then by far the most efficient trajectory is to go straight up, then hang a tight turn in the desired direction...

This would save tons of fuel, and I thought fuel to payload efficiency was super important to your silly fake shpayze rokkitz?

Make your mind up, shillgorithmics!

And there's no such thing as an orbit anyway...

When you have to claim that gravity both does and does not force things downwards in the same sentence, as your AI pal rabbibot did earlier in this thread, then you're pretty much finished aintcha?

Of course, you will carry on lying about this fact forever, as you are programmed to do and allowed to get away with for reasons that nobody understands.

sphayze rokkitz and munlundungs
Brilliant Papa !!!!

Quote from: rabinoz on January 28, 2018, 07:30:33 PM

Hence "the most energy efficient trajectory" for that rocket is not "straight up". The most efficient trajectory is roughly as in:

The initial vertical section is partly to get out of the denser atmosphere while travelling at the lowest velocity.
And partly because that profile is dictated by the combination of the forces of gravity and thrust on a rocket of rapidly falling mass.

The picture would be correct if the rocket would bend extremely after a few mm, which it doesn't.

Garbage! 
The drawing was just for an illustration and certainly not to scale, but it certainly doesn't show "bend extremely after a few mm"!

I notice that you don't bother posting any evidence. So look at the following video.Telemetry is shown, so you can plot an accurate trajectory yourself - easier if the video is played full screen.

Quote from: dutchy on January 28, 2018, 11:57:54 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 28, 2018, 07:30:33 PM

Hence "the most energy efficient trajectory" for that rocket is not "straight up". The most efficient trajectory is roughly as in:

The initial vertical section is partly to get out of the denser atmosphere while travelling at the lowest velocity.
And partly because that profile is dictated by the combination of the forces of gravity and thrust on a rocket of rapidly falling mass.

The picture would be correct if the rocket would bend extremely after a few mm, which it doesn't.

Garbage! 
The drawing was just for an illustration and certainly not to scale, but it certainly doesn't show "bend extremely after a few mm"!

I notice that you don't bother posting any evidence. So look at the following video.

STS-133 The Final Launch of Space Shuttle Discovery including T-5 hold, actual launch at 11:04

Telemetry is shown, so you can plot an accurate trajectory yourself - easier if the video is played full screen.

So give me a diagram to SCALE !!!!
And your footage exactly proofs my point completely !
I’m typing from my phone, but i will post some damaging proof

Quote from: markjo on January 28, 2018, 07:57:35 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 28, 2018, 05:39:56 PM

Quote from: markjo on January 28, 2018, 03:54:26 PM

Actually, if a rocket goes straight up for more than a few seconds, then it's a very bad day for trying to put a satellite into orbit.

Why, are rockets now unable to manouvre in your fantasy space?

Because by far the most energy efficient trajectory is straight up...

Things that go straight up tend to come straight back down.  This is very bad for satellites.  There is a significant horizontal velocity component to orbits that you seem to completely ignore.

Oh, so rockets CAN'T manouvre in your fantasy space then?
Even with all their gimballed nozzles,  cold gas thrusters and sundry imaginary doohickeys?

Of course rockets can manoeuvre, but they cannot accelerate instantly from zero to orbital velocity.
So they gain velocity and elevation at the same time, elementary.

Cos if they could then by far the most efficient trajectory is to go straight up, then hang a tight turn in the desired direction...

Incorrect! Why ever would that be the most fuel efficient?

This would save tons of fuel, and I thought fuel to payload efficiency was super important to your silly fake shpayze rokkitz?

Totally incorrect garbage!
I've given reasons from people that know many times more about optimum launch trajectories than a demented Voodoo Priest!

I find it cute FE'ers and their cohort spout anything about scale when distances of more than a few thousand kilometers are incomprehensible to them.

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 29, 2018, 02:05:07 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 28, 2018, 07:57:35 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 28, 2018, 05:39:56 PM

Quote from: markjo on January 28, 2018, 03:54:26 PM

Actually, if a rocket goes straight up for more than a few seconds, then it's a very bad day for trying to put a satellite into orbit.

Why, are rockets now unable to manouvre in your fantasy space?

Because by far the most energy efficient trajectory is straight up...

Things that go straight up tend to come straight back down.  This is very bad for satellites.  There is a significant horizontal velocity component to orbits that you seem to completely ignore.

Oh, so rockets CAN'T manouvre in your fantasy space then?
Even with all their gimballed nozzles,  cold gas thrusters and sundry imaginary doohickeys?

Of course rockets can manoeuvre, but they cannot accelerate instantly from zero to orbital velocity.
So they gain velocity and elevation at the same time, elementary.

Quote from: Papa Legba

Cos if they could then by far the most efficient trajectory is to go straight up, then hang a tight turn in the desired direction...

Incorrect! Why ever would that be the most fuel efficient?

Quote from: Papa Legba

This would save tons of fuel, and I thought fuel to payload efficiency was super important to your silly fake shpayze rokkitz?

Totally incorrect garbage!
I've given reasons from people that know many times more about optimum launch trajectories than a demented Voodoo Priest!

Oh, you now seem to be claiming that rockets cannot gain velocity and elevation at the same time whilst heading straight up.

Which is contrary to all observable data.

And you also seem to think that the most direct route would use the same amount of fuel as a far longer route...

Bet you don't get good gas mileage out of your car, rabbibot!

And you end with your usual lame appeal to imaginary authority...

Well, this guy was an imaginary authority on satellite orbits, rabbibot:

https://m.rediff.com/news/1998/feb/02clarke.htm

So you know where you can shove THAT!

Lastly, here is a timelapse of a silly fake shpayze rokkit launch:



It clearly bears no similarity whatsoever to your claimed shpayze rokkit trajectory, and is not gaining in altitude at all as it leaves shot.

Sideways to space since 1957!

Obvious automated bot shitposting from rvlvr which will go unpunished as ever...

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 29, 2018, 02:05:07 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 28, 2018, 07:57:35 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 28, 2018, 05:39:56 PM

Quote from: markjo on January 28, 2018, 03:54:26 PM

Actually, if a rocket goes straight up for more than a few seconds, then it's a very bad day for trying to put a satellite into orbit.

Why, are rockets now unable to manouvre in your fantasy space?

Because by far the most energy efficient trajectory is straight up...

Things that go straight up tend to come straight back down.  This is very bad for satellites.  There is a significant horizontal velocity component to orbits that you seem to completely ignore.

Oh, so rockets CAN'T manouvre in your fantasy space then?
Even with all their gimballed nozzles,  cold gas thrusters and sundry imaginary doohickeys?

Of course rockets can manoeuvre, but they cannot accelerate instantly from zero to orbital velocity.
So they gain velocity and elevation at the same time, elementary.

Quote from: Papa Legba

Cos if they could then by far the most efficient trajectory is to go straight up, then hang a tight turn in the desired direction...

Incorrect! Why ever would that be the most fuel efficient?

Quote from: Papa Legba

This would save tons of fuel, and I thought fuel to payload efficiency was super important to your silly fake shpayze rokkitz?

Totally incorrect garbage!
I've given reasons from people that know many times more about optimum launch trajectories than a demented Voodoo Priest!

Oh, you now seem to be claiming that rockets cannot gain velocity and elevation at the same time whilst heading straight up.

Which is contrary to all observable data.

And you also seem to think that the most direct route would use the same amount of fuel as a far longer route...

Bet you don't get good gas mileage out of your car, rabbibot!

And you end with your usual lame appeal to imaginary authority...

Well, this guy was an imaginary authority on satellite orbits, rabbibot:

https://m.rediff.com/news/1998/feb/02clarke.htm

So you know where you can shove THAT!

Lastly, here is a timelapse of a silly fake shpayze rokkit launch:



It clearly bears no similarity whatsoever to your claimed shpayze rokkit trajectory, and is not gaining in altitude at all as it leaves shot.

Sideways to space since 1957!

So give me a diagram to SCALE !!!!
And your footage exactly proofs my point completely !
I’m typing from my phone, but i will post some damaging proof

Why should I bother? I gave you a video with telemetry, go do it for yourself! Then go and read the documentation I provided!

Damaging proof! Fiddlesticks. What damaging proof could you post against the thousands of successful satellite launches?

2017 Space Launch Statistics,  December 31, 2017

The year 2017 saw a total of 90 known orbital launch attempts from seven nations and space ports in eight different countries. 2017 had the second most orbital launch attempts of any year in the current century, short of 92 launches in 2014 and showing a slight increase from 2016 that had 85 known launch attempts. In the lead for 2017 are the United States with 29 (+1) orbital launch attempts, taking the top position on their own for the first time since 2003 after sharing it with China in 2016. Russia, having been the leader for most years since the turn of the century, ranks second in 2017 with 21 performed launches and the Chinese take third position with 18 missions. Europe's rockets flew nine times this year while Japan pushed its record for space launches conducted in a single year to seven and India took a slight step back with five launches in 2017.

2017 saw a diversification of the global launcher fleet as China added two new vehicles, Japan tested out the world's smallest orbital launch vehicle and commercial launch provider Rocket Lab debuted its Electron rocket. More than 20 different launch vehicle families were in action in 2017, flying in 37 different vehicle configurations. One vehicle was officially retired as Russia's Soyuz U sailed into orbit one last time after a four-decade career.

Read more at Spaceflight101, 2017 Space Launch Statistics

At present, there are about 402 satellites in geosynchronous orbit and the Goddard Space Flight Center's lists 2,271 satellites currently in orbit.