Intercontinental ballistic missile

  • 1723 Replies
  • 34095 Views
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #480 on: January 11, 2019, 09:50:17 AM »
So what did destroy people and property in WWII, there are people alive today who can explain to you?
Dropped bombs from aircraft.

Quote from: inquisitive
So all history is unproven?
Nope, just most of it that cannot be verified.
A life of stories told of old, told as a truth and sold to the gullible but not necessarily the bold.
Yet you are not interested in finding out the truth beyond your thoughts by research and investigation.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #481 on: January 11, 2019, 09:59:01 AM »
For the moment, lets put aside sub launched missiles and even silo launched systems.  That leaves us with missiles that launch from above ground platforms.  This was a favorite of the Soviets.  These can be launched much like any model rocket. 

However, I contend that within a denpressure model there are too many differences between rockets to say definitively that there can be no acceleration on vertical launch.  If I understand denpressure correctly, those differences can not only cause a rocket to not accelerate in the vertical direction, it can also cause the rocket to slow on ascent, or a rocket actually be able to accelerate.  Do you agree or disagree?
A rocket could accelerate vertically......IF it can build thrust.

The problem with that is, big rockets/missiles would be fireworks. Solid fuel fireworks made of the lightest and strongest material at the cheapest price, plus ease of making to enable those rockets/missiles to do a certain job.

The job is simple.
To hit a target after arcing to it.

To do this they don't play the acceleration game. They simply springboard into the air under full thrust.

From this point is where we differ in our thinking. Assuming you don't bring up throttling so called space rockets.

You believe a rocket thrusts against it's insides and does all its work at that point, whilst ejecting hot fiery gases as simply an exhaust into the atmosphere as something that does absolutely no work.
You believe that this kick ass action inside the rocket at full thrust is somehow constantly kicking that rocket up its own arse and accelerating it as the rocket fuel is spent, making the rocket lighter.

How people cannot see that as clear and utter nonsense is beyond me but....and I say BUT. I do understand adherence to indoctrinated belief's. I was one, remember.
Except itís not indoctrinated belief.  Itís real hands on experience by everyone who flies model rockets.  Thatís why I provided you with all the sources for all the materials you would need to test it yourself.

I donít understand how you can make such a statement if you havenít disproven the data from the model rocketry community.  According to you, any claims that model rockets accelerate throughout their flights and that the rockets donít go ďdead stickĒ and immediately when the first stage engines stop and separate are complete nonsense.  How can you make that claim if you havenít tested it? 

Mike
Since it costs 1.82Ę to produce a penny, putting in your 2Ę if really worth 3.64Ę.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #482 on: January 11, 2019, 10:07:12 AM »
So what did destroy people and property in WWII, there are people alive today who can explain to you?
Dropped bombs from aircraft.

Quote from: inquisitive
So all history is unproven?
Nope, just most of it that cannot be verified.
A life of stories told of old, told as a truth and sold to the gullible but not necessarily the bold.
Yet you are not interested in finding out the truth beyond your thoughts by research and investigation.
What is the truth?


?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #483 on: January 11, 2019, 10:09:44 AM »
For the moment, lets put aside sub launched missiles and even silo launched systems.  That leaves us with missiles that launch from above ground platforms.  This was a favorite of the Soviets.  These can be launched much like any model rocket. 

However, I contend that within a denpressure model there are too many differences between rockets to say definitively that there can be no acceleration on vertical launch.  If I understand denpressure correctly, those differences can not only cause a rocket to not accelerate in the vertical direction, it can also cause the rocket to slow on ascent, or a rocket actually be able to accelerate.  Do you agree or disagree?
A rocket could accelerate vertically......IF it can build thrust.

The problem with that is, big rockets/missiles would be fireworks. Solid fuel fireworks made of the lightest and strongest material at the cheapest price, plus ease of making to enable those rockets/missiles to do a certain job.

The job is simple.
To hit a target after arcing to it.

To do this they don't play the acceleration game. They simply springboard into the air under full thrust.

From this point is where we differ in our thinking. Assuming you don't bring up throttling so called space rockets.

You believe a rocket thrusts against it's insides and does all its work at that point, whilst ejecting hot fiery gases as simply an exhaust into the atmosphere as something that does absolutely no work.
You believe that this kick ass action inside the rocket at full thrust is somehow constantly kicking that rocket up its own arse and accelerating it as the rocket fuel is spent, making the rocket lighter.

How people cannot see that as clear and utter nonsense is beyond me but....and I say BUT. I do understand adherence to indoctrinated belief's. I was one, remember.
Except itís not indoctrinated belief.  Itís real hands on experience by everyone who flies model rockets.  Thatís why I provided you with all the sources for all the materials you would need to test it yourself.

I donít understand how you can make such a statement if you havenít disproven the data from the model rocketry community.  According to you, any claims that model rockets accelerate throughout their flights and that the rockets donít go ďdead stickĒ and immediately when the first stage engines stop and separate are complete nonsense.  How can you make that claim if you havenít tested it? 

Mike
The fact you keep referring to model rockets tells me you are extremely weak in thought and proof.
You admitted you've never toyed with model rockets but equally you've admitted you've never seen an ICBM in action.
How do you know what the truth is?

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #484 on: January 11, 2019, 10:49:10 AM »
For the moment, lets put aside sub launched missiles and even silo launched systems.  That leaves us with missiles that launch from above ground platforms.  This was a favorite of the Soviets.  These can be launched much like any model rocket. 

However, I contend that within a denpressure model there are too many differences between rockets to say definitively that there can be no acceleration on vertical launch.  If I understand denpressure correctly, those differences can not only cause a rocket to not accelerate in the vertical direction, it can also cause the rocket to slow on ascent, or a rocket actually be able to accelerate.  Do you agree or disagree?
A rocket could accelerate vertically......IF it can build thrust.

The problem with that is, big rockets/missiles would be fireworks. Solid fuel fireworks made of the lightest and strongest material at the cheapest price, plus ease of making to enable those rockets/missiles to do a certain job.

The job is simple.
To hit a target after arcing to it.

To do this they don't play the acceleration game. They simply springboard into the air under full thrust.

From this point is where we differ in our thinking. Assuming you don't bring up throttling so called space rockets.

You believe a rocket thrusts against it's insides and does all its work at that point, whilst ejecting hot fiery gases as simply an exhaust into the atmosphere as something that does absolutely no work.
You believe that this kick ass action inside the rocket at full thrust is somehow constantly kicking that rocket up its own arse and accelerating it as the rocket fuel is spent, making the rocket lighter.

How people cannot see that as clear and utter nonsense is beyond me but....and I say BUT. I do understand adherence to indoctrinated belief's. I was one, remember.
Except it’s not indoctrinated belief.  It’s real hands on experience by everyone who flies model rockets.  That’s why I provided you with all the sources for all the materials you would need to test it yourself.

I don’t understand how you can make such a statement if you haven’t disproven the data from the model rocketry community.  According to you, any claims that model rockets accelerate throughout their flights and that the rockets don’t go “dead stick” and immediately when the first stage engines stop and separate are complete nonsense.  How can you make that claim if you haven’t tested it? 

Mike
The fact you keep referring to model rockets tells me you are extremely weak in thought and proof.
You admitted you've never toyed with model rockets but equally you've admitted you've never seen an ICBM in action.
How do you know what the truth is?
Actually, I have “toyed” with model rockets.  That is something I have repeatedly stated and have never stated I have no experience with them.  To be clear, I have more than toyed with them.  When I was a kid I personally launched or have been involved in launching dozens of rockets.  When I was in Scouts we competed against other troops five times.

I refer model rocketry so you don’t have to simply rely on my claims and explanations.  I choose model rocketry because it’s something a lot of people have in common, local clubs/groups are easy to find, and the materials are relatively cheap and easy to use; all of which, makes any claims of performance easily testable and verifiable by everyone.

Large scale commercial & government rockets don’t fit any of the above criteria but if you think that makes me weak in thought then I suggest you really haven’t thought this through.

Mike
Since it costs 1.82Ę to produce a penny, putting in your 2Ę if really worth 3.64Ę.

?

JCM

  • 245
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #485 on: January 11, 2019, 12:42:07 PM »
Sceptimatic you deny rockets work the way they do, but scoff at the notion of joining a rocketry club and doing some actual experimentation.

 As for the relationship between model rockets and ICBMs or rockets carrying satellites or humans into space the principles are the very same which you are denying so you would learn from firsthand experience.   

Assuming you really want to learn even more advanced rocketry, many many teams of amateurs are testing the limits of what they can do on limited budgets.   Copenhagen Suborbitals is just one of them which is completely voluntary, non profit, and all of their research and data is open source for you and the world to see whenever you want.  I posted some of their videos which you didnít comment on.

 

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #486 on: January 11, 2019, 01:04:10 PM »
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

The issue is the fantasy of it being widespread media pushed into the psyche of the general public.
We are a bunch of naive mind absorbent people who basically mimic what's fed to us, which is why things like ICBM's and what not become a mind reality but not a physical reality. In my honest opinion of course.
How did you come to the conclusion? (i.e. you done the maths or you've seen one in person but didn't work).
Simple experiments and basic logic and a large dose of hunch by looking at the videos of it all.
It doesn't sit right with me. It doesn't appear to be able to perform what we are told.


Now, by all means tell me I have no right to question.
By all means tell me I'm wrong.
By all means tell me that I need to do calculations to prove what I'm saying.

And everything else.

My answer to that is, you believe it all because you fail to accept things can be duped on this so called scale.
You can be told all the equations as to how this stuff works and all you're going on is what you'e told as to how those equations work in that scenario, Something you've never seen performed in real life scenarios in terms of the physical end product of that so called equation.

It all boils down to religious type believing (faith) in all of this stuff that you will never see in action, physically.
It sounds good in how it's told. But then again so does fantasy stuff.
The issue is in deciphering what is real and what is actual fantasy or a mixture of the two to make up a full story.
Which simple experiments have you done? Whats your basic logic on rockets? Why doesn't sit right with you? Why doesn't it appear to be able to perform what we are told? Did you just wake up one morning and thought ICBM can't work?

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #487 on: January 11, 2019, 01:14:07 PM »
I'm saying the V1 and the V2 are gimmicks.
And you would be wrong.
Sure, they weren't as great as the German's hoped, but they were real weapons.

Simple experiments and basic logic and a large dose of hunch by looking at the videos of it all.
Except you have repeatedly refused to do experiments and have absolutely no logic backing you up.
Claiming something appears ridiculous doesn't refute it.
Claiming one particular thing does something, so this vastly different thing should behave in the exact same way doesn't refute it.

Now, by all means tell me I have no right to question.
By all means tell me I'm wrong.
By all means tell me that I need to do calculations to prove what I'm saying.
You have a right to question. But if you want to try extrapolating from one case to a vastly different case you will need calculations.

My answer to that is, you believe it all because you fail to accept things can be duped on this so called scale.
And you are completely wrong.
At the very least some of us believe it because we understand the physics behind it, even having done some experiments based upon those physics, and thus understand there is nothing impossible or improbable about it.

It all boils down to religious type believing (faith) in all of this stuff that you will never see in action, physically.
No, that is your rejection of it.

They all seem to show what I expected
Because you don't understand how scale works or how to extrapolate, and are just taking a cursory look rather than trying to look at it in detail.
What did you use to determine that once the rocket is off the launchpad it doesn't accelerate?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #488 on: January 12, 2019, 12:26:21 AM »

Actually, I have ďtoyedĒ with model rockets.  That is something I have repeatedly stated and have never stated I have no experience with them.  To be clear, I have more than toyed with them.  When I was a kid I personally launched or have been involved in launching dozens of rockets.  When I was in Scouts we competed against other troops five times.

I refer model rocketry so you donít have to simply rely on my claims and explanations.  I choose model rocketry because itís something a lot of people have in common, local clubs/groups are easy to find, and the materials are relatively cheap and easy to use; all of which, makes any claims of performance easily testable and verifiable by everyone.

Large scale commercial & government rockets donít fit any of the above criteria but if you think that makes me weak in thought then I suggest you really havenít thought this through.

Mike
I have thought this through and I stand by what I'm saying.
The simple issue is, you don't know if ICBM's are real.
All you are arguing with is nothing other than missiles that springboard into the air before coming back down in short order.

You also think using scale for small to supposed large rockets in terms of achieving what we are told, is so called evidence that it's all legit.

It's like me saying I've fitted a rocket thruster to my bar of gold and it wont 50 feet into the air, then telling you I've managed to scale it up and also fitted a rocket thruster to a 40/50/60/100/200, etc, foot bar of gold and managed to get this thruster to produce the amount needed to do the exact same thing.

Have I went overboard?

We are being sold a fantasy but not a pretty fantasy; just a worrying fantasy designed to keep us all compliant and worried but equally comforted by the reasons given for having so called ICBM's and how they protect as well as have the supposed potential to destroy countries...or at the extreme end, big rockets enabling people to walk on other so called planets.

It's a good story. It's a scary story and a clever story in many ways. It makes for good movies and documentaries.
It doesn't show real life, in my opinion.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #489 on: January 12, 2019, 12:44:02 AM »
Sceptimatic you deny rockets work the way they do, but scoff at the notion of joining a rocketry club and doing some actual experimentation.
I'm in a rocketry club every year. I set off rockets. They're solid fuel rockets on a launching stick in a tube.
They work great because of their make-up.
They fizz to full thrust and springboard into the air before burning out in seconds.
The initial acceleration at the start is the reason it springboards and holds it's max thrust and consistent speed from that point.
I don't really need to go any further on that in terms of getting a rocket to do anything other than that, because that's the ultimate a vertical rocket will ever achieve under solid fuel full thrust.

Anything else is inferior.

However, large rockets like we are told, such as ICBM's and so called space rockets....are gimmicks and will be gimmicks until someone proves me wrong.
None of you have done so but you argue because you appeal to authority and argue from that stance.

As you know, it doesn't make anything you say any more valid than what I say. It just makes what you say, more popular.


Quote from: JCM
As for the relationship between model rockets and ICBMs or rockets carrying satellites or humans into space the principles are the very same which you are denying so you would learn from firsthand experience.
Of course the principles are the very same.
The principles are the very same for anything on a scale up.
The issue (as I said earlier) is in how far that scale can go up to be feasible.
You mention model rockets and try to avoid the other stuff lately. Why?
Because the potential truth is, the thrust needed for those large rockets is so ridiculous as to render them nothing more than a fantasy.
But the maths add up, right?
You can add anything up.

Here's something.
Add up the maths for a rocket 10 times as big as the so called Apollo rockets and what so called thrusting engines would be needed.
It'll be a silly number but it can be calculated.
The issue is, will it be something realistic and worthwhile?
Of course it won't.

This is what we're dealing with. Gimmicks. Fantasy. In my opinion of course.
 
Quote from: JCM
Assuming you really want to learn even more advanced rocketry, many many teams of amateurs are testing the limits of what they can do on limited budgets.   Copenhagen Suborbitals is just one of them which is completely voluntary, non profit, and all of their research and data is open source for you and the world to see whenever you want.  I posted some of their videos which you didnít comment on.
No need for me to learn about model rockets.

The potential fantasy one's are the one's I'm looking at.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #490 on: January 12, 2019, 12:48:41 AM »

Which simple experiments have you done? Whats your basic logic on rockets? Why doesn't sit right with you? Why doesn't it appear to be able to perform what we are told? Did you just wake up one morning and thought ICBM can't work?
I simply started wondering how they could launch a compressed air rocket from a sub tube, vertically from over 100 feet depth to jump right out of the ocean.

I also wondered how a massive so called space rocket could launch at bicycle like speed under full thrust and stay stable and then somehow build up speed.

I started to look at missile launches and so called ICBM launches as well as so called space rocket launches and saw what should happen to what shouldn't.
This is just one small part but a major part in knowing the fantasy of those so called mammoth rockets.


Gimmicks.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #491 on: January 12, 2019, 12:56:33 AM »
I'm saying the V1 and the V2 are gimmicks.
And you would be wrong.
Sure, they weren't as great as the German's hoped, but they were real weapons.

You have no clue whether they were real. You read the history books and accept them as being real.

Quote from: JackBlack
They all seem to show what I expected
Because you don't understand how scale works or how to extrapolate, and are just taking a cursory look rather than trying to look at it in detail.
What did you use to determine that once the rocket is off the launchpad it doesn't accelerate?
Scaling up is fine.
The issue isn't in scaling up, it's how feasible scaling up can become when dealing with reality.
You can scale up a rocket to be as big as you want and calculate the thrust to weight ratios, etc. You can upgrade the so called engines to cater for it and even add an extra 50 so called satellites into the rocket for good measure with calculations all married up.
Your rocket could be the biggest rocket ever. 10 times bigger than the so called Apollo rockets.

You have the equations to prove it works on paper. Now all you have to do is build it.
Am I going overboard?
I don't think I am.

You see, my argument is simple. You can scale anything up or even down if your intentions and feasibility are legitimate to gain a physical working, provable model.

You can also scale up and down on paper without providing real physical proof as to the working of that.


*

Stash

  • 1736
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #492 on: January 12, 2019, 01:16:33 AM »
Sceptimatic you deny rockets work the way they do, but scoff at the notion of joining a rocketry club and doing some actual experimentation.
I'm in a rocketry club every year. I set off rockets. They're solid fuel rockets on a launching stick in a tube.
They work great because of their make-up.
They fizz to full thrust and springboard into the air before burning out in seconds.
The initial acceleration at the start is the reason it springboards and holds it's max thrust and consistent speed from that point.
I don't really need to go any further on that in terms of getting a rocket to do anything other than that, because that's the ultimate a vertical rocket will ever achieve under solid fuel full thrust.

You just sort of just think all this without really knowing all this. Thereís a company in America called Estes. They make model rockets and have for as long as I can remember. If you launched rockets built from kits as a kid or an adult, it was manufactured by Estes.

This from one of their manuals:

"To produce enough thrust to move a tiny rocket, like a MosquitoTM with a C6-7 engine, to an altitude of 1700 feet in less than nine seconds (1.70 seconds of thrusting flight and 7 seconds of coasting flight), the small rocketís engine must cause the rocket to move very fast. An average speed for this upward flight would be 195.4 feet per second (1700 feet divided by 8.7 seconds).

Actually, the rocket moves faster and faster as the engine is thrusting. At the end of this thrusting portion of the flight (1.7 seconds into flight time from liftoff), the model rocket is traveling at its maximum speed. This maximum speed is 670 feet per second or about 3.5 times as fast as the average speed.
After the propellant is gone, the rocket is moving upward without a thrust force pushing it on up."


www2.estesrockets.com/pdf/2844_estes_math_of_model_rocketry_tn-5.pdf

This from the people who make the rockets you set off in your rocketry club. So I suppose that itís just more indoctrination on their part to make sure ďthe manĒ keeps us down. It's one thing to be skeptical, but another to just be obstinate for the sake of it.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #493 on: January 12, 2019, 01:30:57 AM »
The simple issue is, you don't know if ICBM's are real.
No. The simple issue is that we know they are entirely possible while you are rejecting with what amounts to nothing more than baseless assertions.

We also know how much the military love their weapons and thus it is quite reasonable to assume they have quite a few ICBMs.

All you are arguing with is nothing other than missiles that springboard into the air before coming back down in short order.
No. We are arguing with an understanding of the physics behind these model rocket launches which don't have any magic springboard effect.
This understanding allows us to extrapolate.

You also think using scale for small to supposed large rockets in terms of achieving what we are told, is so called evidence that it's all legit.
No, we are using scale to point out that just because a statement is true for a small rocket doesn't mean it is true for a large one.
This applies universally, not just to rockets. Cars and planes are other good examples, where the small ones also expend their fuel in a much shorter time, and often have lower top speeds, and for planes a lower service ceiling.

This means you can't say a small rocket only lasts a short time and goes a short height into the air so big ones can't go far or last for long.

What you are doing is akin to saying, well this RC car only lasted for 10 minutes so I couldn't possibly drive a car for an hour down a highway as it would need to refuelled every 10 minutes and thus all long distance travel is a lie.

We are being sold a fantasy
So far all we have to indicate it is a fantasy is your baseless claim that it is.
You are yet to show a single problem with ICBMs.
You not liking it or thinking it is ridiculous or couldn't work isn't a problem for ICBMs.

I don't really need to go any further on that in terms of getting a rocket to do anything other than that, because that's the ultimate a vertical rocket will ever achieve under solid fuel full thrust.
And you make this conclusion based upon what? Absolutely nothing.
You have no idea what the variables are and what effect changing them would do. As such you have no idea if it is the best.

And what did you use to determine it uses a magic springboard followed by constant speed? Your eyes?
Do you have any footage where we can clearly see the magic springboard, followed by constant speed and then dead stop after the engine stops?

However, large rockets like we are told, such as ICBM's and so called space rockets....are gimmicks and will be gimmicks until someone proves me wrong.
You are the one asserting they are gimmicks and impossible. As such you have a burden to prove that.
Also, you have been proven wrong, repeatedly. You just ignore it.

Add up the maths for a rocket 10 times as big as the so called Apollo rockets and what so called thrusting engines would be needed.
It'll be a silly number but it can be calculated.
The issue is, will it be something realistic and worthwhile?
That depends upon the resources available and what you want to do with it.

But eventually scaling up will result in big problems, just like it always does.
That doesn't mean intermediates are fake.

A good example is buildings.
What you are doing is accepting small houses exist and rejecting the existence of skyscrapers claiming they can't possible be real and now using an example of a sky scraper 10 times the size of the largest to act like they are ridiculous.

You have no clue whether they were real. You read the history books and accept them as being real.
Again, not true. I also understand the science behind it.
I know that they are possible.
I don't know for certain that they were real, but that is the rational conclusion from the available evidence.

Scaling up is fine.
The issue isn't in scaling up, it's how feasible scaling up can become when dealing with reality.
That isn't your objection at all.
Your objection is small rockets can't do it so larger ones can't either; a soap bar can't launch out of water so neither can an ICBM; bullets stop in water quickly so so must ICBMs.
Again, it is akin to saying a model car only lasts 10 minutes so a full size car can't last longer than 10 minutes.
That simply isn't how scale works.
You need to understand what factors are causing these things and understand how scale affects that.

A good reference is bullets/soap vs ICBMs in water. The resistance/drag is proportional to the area which scales by the square of the linear scale factor.
But the mass, and thus the momentum and the necessary force to achieve a certain acceleration scales by the cube.
Thus doubling the linear dimension will quadruple the force, but octuple the mass and thus half the acceleration. As such, an ICBM, launched a the same speed as your bar of soap, will go much further than the soap.

You see, my argument is simple. You can scale anything up or even down if your intentions and feasibility are legitimate to gain a physical working, provable model.
No, that is literally the opposite of your argument.
Your argument is that scale doesn't matter and everything should behave the same.
If that was your argument, then there is no issue because it doesn't show ICBMs are fake.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #494 on: January 12, 2019, 02:14:54 AM »
Sceptimatic you deny rockets work the way they do, but scoff at the notion of joining a rocketry club and doing some actual experimentation.
I'm in a rocketry club every year. I set off rockets. They're solid fuel rockets on a launching stick in a tube.
They work great because of their make-up.
They fizz to full thrust and springboard into the air before burning out in seconds.
The initial acceleration at the start is the reason it springboards and holds it's max thrust and consistent speed from that point.
I don't really need to go any further on that in terms of getting a rocket to do anything other than that, because that's the ultimate a vertical rocket will ever achieve under solid fuel full thrust.

You just sort of just think all this without really knowing all this. Thereís a company in America called Estes. They make model rockets and have for as long as I can remember. If you launched rockets built from kits as a kid or an adult, it was manufactured by Estes.

This from one of their manuals:

"To produce enough thrust to move a tiny rocket, like a MosquitoTM with a C6-7 engine, to an altitude of 1700 feet in less than nine seconds (1.70 seconds of thrusting flight and 7 seconds of coasting flight), the small rocketís engine must cause the rocket to move very fast. An average speed for this upward flight would be 195.4 feet per second (1700 feet divided by 8.7 seconds).

Actually, the rocket moves faster and faster as the engine is thrusting. At the end of this thrusting portion of the flight (1.7 seconds into flight time from liftoff), the model rocket is traveling at its maximum speed. This maximum speed is 670 feet per second or about 3.5 times as fast as the average speed.
After the propellant is gone, the rocket is moving upward without a thrust force pushing it on up."


www2.estesrockets.com/pdf/2844_estes_math_of_model_rocketry_tn-5.pdf

This from the people who make the rockets you set off in your rocketry club. So I suppose that itís just more indoctrination on their part to make sure ďthe manĒ keeps us down. It's one thing to be skeptical, but another to just be obstinate for the sake of it.
In red bold.
Transfer that thought to the so called ICBM's and the so called space rockets.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #495 on: January 12, 2019, 02:49:47 AM »
Transfer that thought to the so called ICBM's and the so called space rockets.
And you end up with what we see.
A slower initial acceleration, and a much higher top speed.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #496 on: January 12, 2019, 02:50:35 AM »
Sceptimatic you deny rockets work the way they do, but scoff at the notion of joining a rocketry club and doing some actual experimentation.
I'm in a rocketry club every year. I set off rockets. They're solid fuel rockets on a launching stick in a tube.
They work great because of their make-up.
They fizz to full thrust and springboard into the air before burning out in seconds.
The initial acceleration at the start is the reason it springboards and holds it's max thrust and consistent speed from that point.
I don't really need to go any further on that in terms of getting a rocket to do anything other than that, because that's the ultimate a vertical rocket will ever achieve under solid fuel full thrust.

You just sort of just think all this without really knowing all this. Thereís a company in America called Estes. They make model rockets and have for as long as I can remember. If you launched rockets built from kits as a kid or an adult, it was manufactured by Estes.

This from one of their manuals:

"To produce enough thrust to move a tiny rocket, like a MosquitoTM with a C6-7 engine, to an altitude of 1700 feet in less than nine seconds (1.70 seconds of thrusting flight and 7 seconds of coasting flight), the small rocketís engine must cause the rocket to move very fast. An average speed for this upward flight would be 195.4 feet per second (1700 feet divided by 8.7 seconds).

Actually, the rocket moves faster and faster as the engine is thrusting. At the end of this thrusting portion of the flight (1.7 seconds into flight time from liftoff), the model rocket is traveling at its maximum speed. This maximum speed is 670 feet per second or about 3.5 times as fast as the average speed.
After the propellant is gone, the rocket is moving upward without a thrust force pushing it on up."


www2.estesrockets.com/pdf/2844_estes_math_of_model_rocketry_tn-5.pdf

This from the people who make the rockets you set off in your rocketry club. So I suppose that itís just more indoctrination on their part to make sure ďthe manĒ keeps us down. It's one thing to be skeptical, but another to just be obstinate for the sake of it.
In red bold.
Transfer that thought to the so called ICBM's and the so called space rockets.
Done that.

How are satellites launched?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #497 on: January 12, 2019, 02:51:41 AM »
The simple issue is, you don't know if ICBM's are real.
No. The simple issue is that we know they are entirely possible while you are rejecting with what amounts to nothing more than baseless assertions.
Baseless assertions to you because you accept them as real without anything more than appealing to authority.

Quote from: JackBlack
We also know how much the military love their weapons and thus it is quite reasonable to assume they have quite a few ICBMs.
Again you are simply appealing to authority.



Quote from: JackBlack
We are being sold a fantasy
So far all we have to indicate it is a fantasy is your baseless claim that it is.
You are yet to show a single problem with ICBMs.
You not liking it or thinking it is ridiculous or couldn't work isn't a problem for ICBMs.
I think I've shown a few issues with the so called ICBM. You telling me I haven't is you basing that on ...what provable evidence?



Quote from: JackBlack
And what did you use to determine it uses a magic springboard followed by constant speed? Your eyes?
My eyes for lift off for provable rockets and my mindset on knowing rockets have to use max thrust to stay vertically airborne against every lessening atmospheric push from that thrust that evens out due to loss of mass by ejection of burned/burning fuel. This ensures a consistent speed but no acceleration.

Quote from: JackBlack
Add up the maths for a rocket 10 times as big as the so called Apollo rockets and what so called thrusting engines would be needed.
It'll be a silly number but it can be calculated.
The issue is, will it be something realistic and worthwhile?
That depends upon the resources available and what you want to do with it.

But eventually scaling up will result in big problems, just like it always does.
That doesn't mean intermediates are fake.
It doesn't mean they're real, either, in terms of what we are told are rockets.


Quote from: JackBlack
A good example is buildings.
What you are doing is accepting small houses exist and rejecting the existence of skyscrapers claiming they can't possible be real and now using an example of a sky scraper 10 times the size of the largest to act like they are ridiculous.
Not at all. When you get down to launching those buildings into the air then we can marry them all up with what I'm talking about.
If you want to tell me a rocket shape can be built that is bigger than the empire state building then I won't argue it.
Tell me it can launch and I'll be having questions and arguments over it.


Quote from: JackBlack
You have no clue whether they were real. You read the history books and accept them as being real.
Again, not true. I also understand the science behind it.
I know that they are possible.
I don't know for certain that they were real, but that is the rational conclusion from the available evidence.
In bold is all I really need to know. You answer everything with those few words.




Quote from: JackBlack
A good reference is bullets/soap vs ICBMs in water. The resistance/drag is proportional to the area which scales by the square of the linear scale factor.
But the mass, and thus the momentum and the necessary force to achieve a certain acceleration scales by the cube.
Thus doubling the linear dimension will quadruple the force, but octuple the mass and thus half the acceleration. As such, an ICBM, launched a the same speed as your bar of soap, will go much further than the soap.
Let's put this into simple perspective.
If you want to launch a 40 foot missile full of fuel and whatever else from a missile tube, vertically, then you have to not only be able to apply enough compression to overcome the missile itself but also the pressure all around it that is friction gripping it and also holding back the extreme pressure of water back from breaching that membrane.
But that's not all. You also need enough pressure to add to that to accelerate that missile from that tube to ensure it pushes its way through over 100 feet of water that is clamping it with each millimetre of movement and  for that missile to still have enough momentum to actually entirely exit that water before it supposedly fires its thrust to escape in to the atmosphere to a target.

It's nonsense in my opinion.


?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #498 on: January 12, 2019, 02:52:59 AM »
Transfer that thought to the so called ICBM's and the so called space rockets.
And you end up with what we see.
A slower initial acceleration, and a much higher top speed.
Nope. I believe it's impossible.

*

Stash

  • 1736
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #499 on: January 12, 2019, 02:55:05 AM »
Sceptimatic you deny rockets work the way they do, but scoff at the notion of joining a rocketry club and doing some actual experimentation.
I'm in a rocketry club every year. I set off rockets. They're solid fuel rockets on a launching stick in a tube.
They work great because of their make-up.
They fizz to full thrust and springboard into the air before burning out in seconds.
The initial acceleration at the start is the reason it springboards and holds it's max thrust and consistent speed from that point.
I don't really need to go any further on that in terms of getting a rocket to do anything other than that, because that's the ultimate a vertical rocket will ever achieve under solid fuel full thrust.

You just sort of just think all this without really knowing all this. Thereís a company in America called Estes. They make model rockets and have for as long as I can remember. If you launched rockets built from kits as a kid or an adult, it was manufactured by Estes.

This from one of their manuals:

"To produce enough thrust to move a tiny rocket, like a MosquitoTM with a C6-7 engine, to an altitude of 1700 feet in less than nine seconds (1.70 seconds of thrusting flight and 7 seconds of coasting flight), the small rocketís engine must cause the rocket to move very fast. An average speed for this upward flight would be 195.4 feet per second (1700 feet divided by 8.7 seconds).

Actually, the rocket moves faster and faster as the engine is thrusting. At the end of this thrusting portion of the flight (1.7 seconds into flight time from liftoff), the model rocket is traveling at its maximum speed. This maximum speed is 670 feet per second or about 3.5 times as fast as the average speed.
After the propellant is gone, the rocket is moving upward without a thrust force pushing it on up."


www2.estesrockets.com/pdf/2844_estes_math_of_model_rocketry_tn-5.pdf

This from the people who make the rockets you set off in your rocketry club. So I suppose that itís just more indoctrination on their part to make sure ďthe manĒ keeps us down. It's one thing to be skeptical, but another to just be obstinate for the sake of it.
In red bold.
Transfer that thought to the so called ICBM's and the so called space rockets.

I think you missed the point, which you have been denying all along, even with model rockets, "Actually, the rocket moves faster and faster as the engine is thrusting."

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #500 on: January 12, 2019, 02:55:30 AM »
Transfer that thought to the so called ICBM's and the so called space rockets.
And you end up with what we see.
A slower initial acceleration, and a much higher top speed.
Nope. I believe it's impossible.
What are your science and engineering qualifications to state that?

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #501 on: January 12, 2019, 03:09:11 AM »
you accept them as real without anything more than appealing to authority.
Quit repeating the same lie. It wont magically make it true.
I accept them as real because the evidence (including experiments I have conducted myself) shows that they are possible.
It isn't just accepting authority. It is understanding.

Again you are simply appealing to authority.
The only "appeal to authority" there was accepting that the military like weapons. Are you disagreeing with that now as well?

I think I've shown a few issues with the so called ICBM.
And you are wrong.
I have explained what is wrong with your so called issues. You have been completely unable to refute these explanations other than just repeating your assertions or ignoring me/dismissing the argument.
You are yet to provide an actual issue.


My eyes for lift off for provable rockets and my mindset on knowing rockets have to use max thrust to stay vertically airborne against every lessening atmospheric push from that thrust that evens out due to loss of mass by ejection of burned/burning fuel. This ensures a consistent speed but no acceleration.
So all you have verified is that they take off, and then you just make up the rest?
Try actual experiments, where you actually monitor what happens, in a way were it can be measured.

Not at all. When you get down to launching those buildings into the air then we can marry them all up with what I'm talking about.
Not for that comparison.
After a certain size, buildings become completely ridiculous with no purpose and even become unable to support themselves.
This very large buildings not being practical doesn't mean intermediate ones aren't.
As such, you trying to appeal to rockets much larger than those which exist doesn't magically mean real rockets are fake.

If you want to tell me a rocket shape can be built that is bigger than the empire state building then I won't argue it.
Even if I said it was going to be 20 km tall?

In bold is all I really need to know. You answer everything with those few words.
So you don't care about truth and logic and reason and instead stick to completley insane levels of evidence.
I don't know for certain that Germany is real as I have never been there. That doesn't mean I'm not a complete nutjob if I think it is fake, as all the evidence indicates it is real.

Again, you want to claim they are fake, when all the evidence indicates that they are real.
Do you have anything other than your basless claim.

Let's put this into simple perspective.
If you want to launch a 40 foot missile full of fuel and whatever else from a missile tube, vertically, then you have to not only be able to apply enough compression to overcome the missile itself but also the pressure all around it that is friction gripping it and also holding back the extreme pressure of water back from breaching that membrane.
But that's not all. You also need enough pressure to add to that to accelerate that missile from that tube to ensure it pushes its way through over 100 feet of water that is clamping it with each millimetre of movement and  for that missile to still have enough momentum to actually entirely exit that water before it supposedly fires its thrust to escape in to the atmosphere to a target.
And I have shown that is entirely possible.
You not liking it doesn't magically mean it isn't.

If you want to convince any sane person you need more than your useless opinion.
Do you have any rational justification for why it should be impossible?
So far all you have done is shown that multiple forces are at work.
Yes, it will require a significant force. But that doesn't magically mean it is impossible or would break the rocket.

Nope. I believe it's impossible.
Reality is not dictated by your beliefs.
Do you have any justification for it being impossible?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #502 on: January 12, 2019, 03:56:33 AM »

Actually, the rocket moves faster and faster as the engine is thrusting.
At maximum thrust horizontally on wheels (for instance) a rocket would indeed build up speed by acceleration until  its max thrust is diminished or terminated.

It will do this because it loses mass but not thrust, making it accelerate and also doing this in the same horizontally dense atmosphere consistently as it moves through it.

I have no issues with this.

The issue is, the rocket is not horizontal in the case I'm arguing. It is vertical and doing exactly the same thing with its fuel, except for the fact that it's having to push through less and less atmosphere, which means it cannot accelerate by losing mass through burning fuel, because the loss of mass is required to keep the rocket at a consistent speed because although it pushes through less resistance it also pushes against less resistance.

Action and reaction in equal terms, always.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2019, 04:08:48 AM by sceptimatic »

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #503 on: January 12, 2019, 04:08:03 AM »
In bold is all I really need to know. You answer everything with those few words.
So you don't care about truth and logic and reason and instead stick to completley insane levels of evidence.
I don't know for certain that Germany is real as I have never been there. That doesn't mean I'm not a complete nutjob if I think it is fake, as all the evidence indicates it is real.
Nobody's calling you a nutjob for believing anything you haven't witnessed, to be real.
You seem to think that for those who decide to not accept things to be real if they haven't witnessed them, based on nothing more than your appeals to authority.


Quote from: JackBlack
Again, you want to claim they are fake, when all the evidence indicates that they are real.
Do you have anything other than your basless claim.
Do you?

Quote from: JackBlack
Let's put this into simple perspective.
If you want to launch a 40 foot missile full of fuel and whatever else from a missile tube, vertically, then you have to not only be able to apply enough compression to overcome the missile itself but also the pressure all around it that is friction gripping it and also holding back the extreme pressure of water back from breaching that membrane.
But that's not all. You also need enough pressure to add to that to accelerate that missile from that tube to ensure it pushes its way through over 100 feet of water that is clamping it with each millimetre of movement and  for that missile to still have enough momentum to actually entirely exit that water before it supposedly fires its thrust to escape in to the atmosphere to a target.
And I have shown that is entirely possible.
You not liking it doesn't magically mean it isn't.

If you want to convince any sane person you need more than your useless opinion.
Do you have any rational justification for why it should be impossible?
So far all you have done is shown that multiple forces are at work.
Yes, it will require a significant force. But that doesn't magically mean it is impossible or would break the rocket.
And it certainly doesn't mean it's possible and wouldn't break the rocket.


Quote from: JackBlack
Nope. I believe it's impossible.
Reality is not dictated by your beliefs.
Do you have any justification for it being impossible?
Reality is dictated by provable facts.
All I can go on is my own hypothesis and basically circumstantial evidence at best and a hunch.
The reason for this is, I'm not armed with a library of stories in my favour....you are....but that does not make you correct in what you believe, it simply makes you correct in your own mind backed up by mass opinion of like-minded story book readers.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2387
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #504 on: January 12, 2019, 07:35:24 AM »
Nobody's calling you a nutjob for believing anything you haven't witnessed, to be real.
You seem to think that for those who decide to not accept things to be real if they haven't witnessed them, based on nothing more than your appeals to authority.

Do you want me to go back through the insulting behavior archive that transformed my attitude towards flat earthers to what it is now or do you want to revise that statement?

*

Stash

  • 1736
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #505 on: January 12, 2019, 12:29:09 PM »

Actually, the rocket moves faster and faster as the engine is thrusting.
At maximum thrust horizontally on wheels (for instance) a rocket would indeed build up speed by acceleration until  its max thrust is diminished or terminated.

It will do this because it loses mass but not thrust, making it accelerate and also doing this in the same horizontally dense atmosphere consistently as it moves through it.

I have no issues with this.

The issue is, the rocket is not horizontal in the case I'm arguing. It is vertical and doing exactly the same thing with its fuel, except for the fact that it's having to push through less and less atmosphere, which means it cannot accelerate by losing mass through burning fuel, because the loss of mass is required to keep the rocket at a consistent speed because although it pushes through less resistance it also pushes against less resistance.

Action and reaction in equal terms, always.

First off, anyone who has ever dealt with model rockets, as you claim you have, knows Estes, the leading manufacturer of model kit rockets/engines. Estes is not talking about model rockets on wheels moving horizontally. They are talking about their model rockets that shoot up vertically like, well, how model rockets do. And Estes states, "Actually, the rocket moves faster and faster as the engine is thrusting."

Is Estes wrong about their model rockets? Are they a part of the conspiracy as well?

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #506 on: January 12, 2019, 01:14:39 PM »
The issue is, the rocket is not horizontal in the case I'm arguing. It is vertical and doing exactly the same thing with its fuel, except for the fact that it's having to push through less and less atmosphere, which means it cannot accelerate by losing mass through burning fuel, because the loss of mass is required to keep the rocket at a consistent speed because although it pushes through less resistance it also pushes against less resistance.

Action and reaction in equal terms, always.
Again, as already explained this literally makes no sense.
If by magic the force is based required to accelerate is based upon how much atmosphere it is pushing through rather than its mass, then it having less resistance to push through combined with less atmosphere to push against simply means the same effective thrust.
This puts you in the same setup as the horizontal rocket.

It has the same effective thrust but less mass so it accelerates.

So again, the issue is you, not the rocket.
It is also refuted by actual measurements of rockets rather than just assuming like you do.


Nobody's calling you a nutjob for believing anything you haven't witnessed, to be real.
Because I'm not being insane and rejecting things which have plenty of evidence backing them up.

You seem to think that for those who decide to not accept things to be real if they haven't witnessed them, based on nothing more than your appeals to authority.
Again, I'm not making appeals to authority.

Do you?
Yes, which you have repeatedly ignored.
You don't care about evidence or reality, just your delusional fantasies.

And it certainly doesn't mean it's possible and wouldn't break the rocket.
Yes, your pathetic analysis which is purely qualitative provides no estimate as to if it is possible or would break the rocket.
My analysis, which actually used numbers, shows it is possible and wouldn't break the rocket.
In order for your claim to be anything more than simply you don't like it, you would need to show that it isn't possible or that it would break the rocket.

Reality is dictated by provable facts.
And you have no such facts backing you.
You have also made it clear you have no desire to obtain them.
Instead you will just resort to wild speculation based upon your idea of how reality should work, which itself is not based upon any facts.

All I can go on is my own hypothesis and basically circumstantial evidence at best and a hunch.
No, you can go out and do experiments to learn and actually understand how things work.
For example, you can go and actually measure rockets throughout the course of the flight, rather than just noticing that they launch and speculating how the rest goes.
You can use actual measurements rather than guessing.
You can vary the rocket, such as changing its size and shape and seeing how it affects it.

Sure, you can't reasonably go to the full scale of an ICBM, but you can at least start getting numbers to be able to extrapolate to an ICBM reasonably.

The reason for this is, I'm not armed with a library of stories in my favour....you are
No I am not.
I don't rely upon these library stories.
I rely upon experiments which have shown how reality works which allows me to understand how reality works and extrapolate it to things I haven't experimented on.

Stop acting like you have no way to improve your understanding of reality and that everyone who disagrees with you is just an indoctrinated fool with no idea about how reality works. It doesn't help your case at all.

Go and do the experiments suggested, filming it and uploading the footage for all to see. See if it supports your baseless insane claims or if it supports what others are claiming.

*

sokarul

  • 15670
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #507 on: January 12, 2019, 04:04:06 PM »
In the fiction you are fed, nowhere.
In denpressure it clearly shows how it all works, which I've explained time and time again and you supposedly saying you are smart cannot seem to get it.

The medicine ball displaces atmosphere by its own dense mass like I've said.
The person holding it and kneeling on a wheeled board pushes that dense mass (medicine ball) horizontally.
On that initial throw up until he releases that ball he is compressing the atmosphere directly in front of him. It's like he's throwing the ball against a spring. But he's also got the less dense atmosphere behind him that is acting as his leverage to actually throw the ball forward in the first place.
The more he holds and pushes that ball, the more compression he manages on top of the actual compression already reacting to the medicine ball's dense mass in the first place, without him doing anything to it..

This compression is acting against his push until he releases that ball.
The harder his push the more compression he creates and the more reaction of compression to his action of energy throw,

You take that compression away and he not only has no means of compressing the atmosphere in front, he has no leverage to actually throw the ball in the first place.

It's pretty logical to understand and people should not be swayed by the dupe of pseudo science from mainstream.
How much air is required for a 170 lbs guy?

Why can't I use my feet to compress air and jump off of the air?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #508 on: January 12, 2019, 10:57:29 PM »
Nobody's calling you a nutjob for believing anything you haven't witnessed, to be real.
You seem to think that for those who decide to not accept things to be real if they haven't witnessed them, based on nothing more than your appeals to authority.

Do you want me to go back through the insulting behavior archive that transformed my attitude towards flat earthers to what it is now or do you want to revise that statement?

No, Scepti doesnt talk down to us, eh?
He smuggly closes his eyes and states things with an air of superiority.


?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #509 on: January 13, 2019, 12:52:57 AM »
Nobody's calling you a nutjob for believing anything you haven't witnessed, to be real.
You seem to think that for those who decide to not accept things to be real if they haven't witnessed them, based on nothing more than your appeals to authority.

Do you want me to go back through the insulting behavior archive that transformed my attitude towards flat earthers to what it is now or do you want to revise that statement?
Feel free to do as you wish.