Intercontinental ballistic missile

  • 1723 Replies
  • 34054 Views
?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #60 on: December 29, 2018, 09:21:03 AM »
Modern ICBMs donít have fins.  Clearly you have no idea how the guidance systems work.  How can your comments to have any credibility when youíre so demonstrably wrong? 
If they don't have fins then they don't go ballistic for starters.
Unless you want to tell me how the guidance system works on a pointed tube that spews out propellant.

Quote from: MicroBeta

Why canít ICBMs hold enough fuel?

Mike
A model rocket will answer that question.
Too much fuel needed to go ballistic and to carry the mass of the rocket.
Basically a ballistic rocket would be dead within a minute or so. Maybe I'm being a bit too kind.

Not only that but no way in hell would anything like a supposed ICBM be able to launch from an underground silo without blowing itself to smithereens.

Proof? Nahhh I don't have proof anymore than you do of them doing what is claimed they do.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #61 on: December 29, 2018, 10:15:36 AM »
Modern ICBMs donít have fins.  Clearly you have no idea how the guidance systems work.  How can your comments to have any credibility when youíre so demonstrably wrong? 
3
If they don't have fins then they don't go ballistic for starters.
Unless you want to tell me how the guidance system works on a pointed tube that spews out propellant.

Quote from: MicroBeta

Why canít ICBMs hold enough fuel?

Mike
A model rocket will answer that question.
Too much fuel needed to go ballistic and to carry the mass of the rocket.
Basically a ballistic rocket would be dead within a minute or so. Maybe I'm being a bit too kind.

Not only that but no way in hell would anything like a supposed ICBM be able to launch from an underground silo without blowing itself to smithereens.

Proof? Nahhh I don't have proof anymore than you do of them doing what is claimed they do.
What are you trying to achive by saying you not believe ICBMs do not exist and you are unwilling to find out about the technology or people involved?

*

Stash

  • 1734
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #62 on: December 29, 2018, 12:25:32 PM »
Modern ICBMs donít have fins.  Clearly you have no idea how the guidance systems work.  How can your comments to have any credibility when youíre so demonstrably wrong? 
If they don't have fins then they don't go ballistic for starters.
Unless you want to tell me how the guidance system works on a pointed tube that spews out propellant.

Quote from: MicroBeta

Why canít ICBMs hold enough fuel?

Mike
A model rocket will answer that question.
Too much fuel needed to go ballistic and to carry the mass of the rocket.
Basically a ballistic rocket would be dead within a minute or so. Maybe I'm being a bit too kind.

Not only that but no way in hell would anything like a supposed ICBM be able to launch from an underground silo without blowing itself to smithereens.

Proof? Nahhh I don't have proof anymore than you do of them doing what is claimed they do.

Your sense of logic deteriorates rapidly. I suppose the 1000's of plane flights per year that fly thousands of miles can't do so based upon model plane technology as well.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #63 on: December 29, 2018, 12:54:11 PM »
I don't believe it is so I'm questioning.
You aren't simply questioning. You are dismissing it and asserting it to be false.
You have completely baseless assertions regarding it.
You baselessly assert the range is a few hundred miles with nothing backing it up.

Again, why do you think the range is so short? What line of reasoning did you go through to arrive at that number, or did you just pull it from thin air?

You see, I'm after the facts. I want facts.
I don't want to live on conspiracy theories and guesses. It's a pain to want to know the truth and not being able to convince myself of something being exactly that.
This is why I'm questioning.
BS. You don't want any facts.
You want to stick to the conspiracy theories and pretend you are better than everyone else for not believing all the lies.

Again, we have no way to provide you with physical evidence without you being here in person.
If you want physical proof, you need to seek it yourself, not ask for it in a forum.

If it's possible it's plausible.
No. They are very different.
If you purchase a lottery ticket, it is possible that you will win, but not plausible.
Plausible requires for it to not only be possible, but also easy to achieve/a high likelihood of success.
It needs to be probable to be plausible.

Can grade school kids build rockets and launch them?
They can definitely build small ones and get an idea for what is needed.
But they probably need more skills to be able to measure well enough to extrapolate to ICBMs.

Why would any conspiracy need to involve a thousand people actively knowing and taking part?
Because of all the people that would need to work on it (or more correctly, for the conspiracy, to pretend to work on it).


if so, ask yourself why any missile requires an engine.
An engine is simply something that makes it move under its own power.
The alternative to an engine is a launch mechanism that provides all the power to it at once, which would almost certainly destroy it.

If they don't have fins then they don't go ballistic for starters.
So bullets, the basis of ballistics, can't go ballistic?
Are you aware of just how stupid that is?

Unless you want to tell me how the guidance system works on a pointed tube that spews out propellant.
You have already been told, but like usual you ignore it.
You can change which way the propellant is pushed out.
Due to physics which you reject, this results in forces on the rocket to push it in various ways.


A model rocket will answer that question.
No it won't.
Not in the slightest.

You are going to need a lot more than a baseless assertion like that.
Just how to model rockets show ICBMs can't have enough fuel?
Do you not understand scaling and different types of fuel?

By that same absence of reasoning model planes refute long distance planes.
My quadcopter can only fly for a 20 minutes or so. So how do helicopters and planes manage to stay up for hours?
Yet plenty of people fly in such planes every day.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #64 on: December 29, 2018, 01:37:40 PM »
Wow...
Scepti youre so full of yourself.
You claim fact and truth.

I claim nothing of the sort. You claim that I claim it. That's your issue, not mine.

Aah true true.
Your language was professing truth.
But you did disclaimer yourself.

*

rabinoz

  • 21151
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #65 on: December 29, 2018, 02:40:25 PM »
A model rocket will answer that question.
Possibly if you scale the results correctly.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Too much fuel needed to go ballistic and to carry the mass of the rocket.
Your evidence for such a claim, please. Here go and read up on the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation as described in:
Quote from: Wikipedia
Tsiolkovsky rocket equation
The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, classical rocket equation, or ideal rocket equation, describes the motion of vehicles that follow the basic principle of a rocket: a device that can apply acceleration to itself using thrust by expelling part of its mass with high velocity and thereby move due to the conservation of momentum.

The equation relates the delta-v (the maximum change of velocity of the rocket if no other external forces act) with the effective exhaust velocity and the initial and final mass of a rocket, or other reaction engine.

For any such maneuver (or journey involving a sequence of such maneuvers):
The equation relates the delta-v (the maximum change of velocity of the rocket if no other external forces act) with the effective exhaust velocity and the initial and final mass of a rocket, or other reaction engine.

For any such maneuver (or journey involving a sequence of such maneuvers):
         
where:
          Δv is delta-V Ė the maximum change of velocity of the vehicle (with no external forces acting).
          m0 is the initial total mass, including propellant, also known as wet mass.
          mf is the final total mass without propellant, also known as dry mass.
          ve is the effective exhaust velocity relative to the rocket.
          ln is the natural logarithm function.
By the way Tsiolkovsky published his rocket equation around 1900!

You prove it is not possible!
The launch mass of a Minuteman III is 35,300 kg and the final warhead mass is only 1150 kg and much of the difference is the propellant in three stages.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Basically a ballistic rocket would be dead within a minute or so. Maybe I'm being a bit too kind.
Why? For something like the Minuteman III there are 3 stages and the boost phase lasts up to 5 minutes reaching a velocity of up to 7.8 km/s.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Not only that but no way in hell would anything like a supposed ICBM be able to launch from an underground silo without blowing itself to smithereens.
Why? The US Minuteman III first stage is ignited in the silo and ejected by the compressed gases but the Polaris was ejected by compressed air.

Vandenberg Air Force Base Minute Man III Launch GT 218
At just after 0:18 secs see all the hot gases leaving the top of the silo before the missile leaves.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Proof? Nahhh I don't have proof anymore than you do of them doing what is claimed they do.
Sure, we know that you cannot believe nothing that you are incapable of understanding - there's no need to keep repeating it!

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #66 on: December 29, 2018, 03:21:18 PM »
Modern ICBMs don’t have fins.  Clearly you have no idea how the guidance systems work.  How can your comments to have any credibility when you’re so demonstrably wrong? 
If they don't have fins then they don't go ballistic for starters.
Unless you want to tell me how the guidance system works on a pointed tube that spews out propellant.
Come on.  You already know they use inertial guidance and trust vector control.

Quote from: MicroBeta

Why can’t ICBMs hold enough fuel?

Mike
A model rocket will answer that question.
Too much fuel needed to go ballistic and to carry the mass of the rocket.
Basically a ballistic rocket would be dead within a minute or so. Maybe I'm being a bit too kind.
You are just repeating yourself.  What is the basis for your assumption that it would require too much fuel.

Not only that but no way in hell would anything like a supposed ICBM be able to launch from an underground silo without blowing itself to smithereens.

Proof? Nahhh I don't have proof anymore than you do of them doing what is claimed they do.
I don’t really need to show you any proof.  It’s just an ignorant claim on your part.  From an engineering standpoint venting the first stage thrust gases is actually pretty easy.  Not only that but some land-based silos use gas ejection systems similar to submarines.

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 #67 on: December 29, 2018, 08:36:25 PM »
Modern ICBMs donít have fins.  Clearly you have no idea how the guidance systems work.  How can your comments to have any credibility when youíre so demonstrably wrong? 
If they don't have fins then they don't go ballistic for starters.
Unless you want to tell me how the guidance system works on a pointed tube that spews out propellant.

Quote from: MicroBeta

Why canít ICBMs hold enough fuel?

Mike
A model rocket will answer that question.
Too much fuel needed to go ballistic and to carry the mass of the rocket.
Basically a ballistic rocket would be dead within a minute or so. Maybe I'm being a bit too kind.

Not only that but no way in hell would anything like a supposed ICBM be able to launch from an underground silo without blowing itself to smithereens.

Proof? Nahhh I don't have proof anymore than you do of them doing what is claimed they do.

Your sense of logic deteriorates rapidly. I suppose the 1000's of plane flights per year that fly thousands of miles can't do so based upon model plane technology as well.
I'd say your sense of logic deteriorates rapidly by using straw-man arguments to try and gain one-upmanship.
We are dealing with so called ICBM's.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #68 on: December 29, 2018, 09:27:03 PM »
I don't believe it is so I'm questioning.
You aren't simply questioning. You are dismissing it and asserting it to be false.
Of course. From my point of view I am.
Nobody is proving it to be anything to the contrary, except for using sketchy videos and trying to explain why no ICBM's are credibly launched.
It doesn't bode well for a truth.

Quote from: JackBlack
You baselessly assert the range is a few hundred miles with nothing backing it up.
I do, you are right. I do this based on seeing missiles/rockets expelling their fuel in short order. I can see why this would be the case and so I liken it to all rockets, even those I believe are a fantasy, which is one reason as to why I believe they are just that.


Quote from: JackBlack
Again, we have no way to provide you with physical evidence without you being here in person.
Being where in person? Your home?
Where can I go that you know of that will provide me with ultimate proof of an ICBM?
Before you answer you need to actually be sure of what you say. Don't just name a base and tell me a silo is there...or whatever.

Quote from: JackBlack
If you want physical proof, you need to seek it yourself, not ask for it in a forum.
People like yourself assert that an ICBM is reality. I dispute it. You ask me for proof that it doesn't exist. I ask you for proof that they do.
That's how it works.
Providing me with obscure text or sketchy video/pictures is not proof. It's simply your acceptance as a proof, to you.
Telling me to go and physically see is providing me with zero proof.

Quote from: JackBlack
If it's possible it's plausible.
No. They are very different.
If you purchase a lottery ticket, it is possible that you will win, but not plausible.
Plausible requires for it to not only be possible, but also easy to achieve/a high likelihood of success.
It needs to be probable to be plausible.
It doesn't matter about a high likelihood of success.
It takes one lottery ticket to win a lottery.
If 10,000 buy one ticket each then your chances of winning are plausible, possible and as probable as each and everyone of the rest of those ticket buyers...unless it's rigged to ensure this is not the case..


Quote from: JackBlack
Can grade school kids build rockets and launch them?
They can definitely build small ones and get an idea for what is needed.
So, yes.

Quote from: JackBlack
But they probably need more skills to be able to measure well enough to extrapolate to ICBMs.
Assuming ICBM's are a reality of which we haven't quite got any concrete proof of.

Quote from: JackBlack
if so, ask yourself why any missile requires an engine.
An engine is simply something that makes it move under its own power.
We are talking about a so called ICBM which is basically a vertical rocket that apparently goes into near so called orbit before arcing onto its target.
Why an engine?
Why not a firework solid fuel type set up?

Engines work well in horizontal vehicles that have a means of using atmosphere and/or ground friction to push into/against.

A so called rocket with an engine is nonsensical. There's just no need for an engine and no realistic chance of an engine creating the thrust a rocket would require to lift it's own mass and fuel into a vertical to so called near orbit and to arc to a target on another continent.

I refuse to believe it because it appears to be illogical fantasy and there's good reason why nobody sees them in action.

Quote from: JackBlack
The alternative to an engine is a launch mechanism that provides all the power to it at once, which would almost certainly destroy it.
Absolutely not.
A firework with solid fuel works fine in using full thrust.
A missile is the same.
It's the reason they launch at such speed and also the reason they use their fuel up in short order.


Quote from: JackBlack
If they don't have fins then they don't go ballistic for starters.
So bullets, the basis of ballistics, can't go ballistic?
Are you aware of just how stupid that is?
They can certainly go vertical but certainly not stable vertical for too long, unless they have some kind of steadying grooves to make them spin..and even then they won't be stable for long.
We're talking seconds before stability is compromised.

Quote from: JackBlack
Unless you want to tell me how the guidance system works on a pointed tube that spews out propellant.
You have already been told, but like usual you ignore it.
You can change which way the propellant is pushed out.
Due to physics which you reject, this results in forces on the rocket to push it in various ways.

On a car, yes you can change the way propellant comes out. It's called a throttle.
On a rocket it's pointless because a rocket going vertical requires full thrust, so any change to that would destroy the rocket in short order in terms of vertical push and stability.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2018, 09:39:22 PM by sceptimatic »

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #69 on: December 29, 2018, 09:36:23 PM »
The US Minuteman III first stage is ignited in the silo and ejected by the compressed gases but the Polaris was ejected by compressed air.
This is the issue.
A so called sub compressing a so called polaris missile out of a vertical tube from a depth under water which is ejected at such force as to somehow easily push through that dense water (by the way, anyone seen a bullet fired underwater?) and to not only reach the surface is short order, full of fuel and explosive, not to mention the actual structure of that so called rocket, it also manages to have it's entire length ejected out of the water with enough distance to its arse end to allow it to ignite and immediately full thrust into the atmosphere and then to somehow align itself to be able to hit the right arc by so called guidance....somehow and destroy the target thousands of miles away.

It all sounds fantastic for films.
Real life? I seriously seriously doubt it.

Quote from: rabinoz

Vandenberg Air Force Base Minute Man III Launch GT 218
At just after 0:18 secs see all the hot gases leaving the top of the silo before the missile leaves.


The reality of this would be a fire ball rocket, blown to smithereens. It's fiction in my opinion.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #70 on: December 29, 2018, 09:56:01 PM »
Modern ICBMs donít have fins.  Clearly you have no idea how the guidance systems work.  How can your comments to have any credibility when youíre so demonstrably wrong? 
If they don't have fins then they don't go ballistic for starters.
Unless you want to tell me how the guidance system works on a pointed tube that spews out propellant.
Come on.  You already know they use inertial guidance and thrust vector control.
Inertial guidance? Briefly explain this and tell me how this works.
Also briefly explain the thrust vector control.
No need for any text book copying. Just give me the explainable basics for the dummy that I am.

Quote from: MicroBeta
Quote from: MicroBeta

Why canít ICBMs hold enough fuel?

Mike
A model rocket will answer that question.
Too much fuel needed to go ballistic and to carry the mass of the rocket.
Basically a ballistic rocket would be dead within a minute or so. Maybe I'm being a bit too kind.
You are just repeating yourself.  What is the basis for your assumption that it would require too much fuel.
Due to the short time I see genuine rockets expend their fuel.

Quote from: MicroBeta
Not only that but no way in hell would anything like a supposed ICBM be able to launch from an underground silo without blowing itself to smithereens.

Proof? Nahhh I don't have proof anymore than you do of them doing what is claimed they do.
I donít really need to show you any proof.
Correct, you don't. But then again you have no credence by stating this.
Quote from: MicroBeta
  Itís just an ignorant claim on your part.
It could be but is it any more ignorant than you being unwilling to show me your proof?

Quote from: MicroBeta
From an engineering standpoint venting the first stage thrust gases is actually pretty easy.
Tell me about it in the most basic way as to how easy this is.


Quote from: MicroBeta
  Not only that but some land-based silos use gas ejection systems similar to submarines.

Mike
Can you show me a diagram of how this would work?
Can you explain how it would work, as basic as you can.
Imagine shooting out a mammoth so called ICBM from a silo with compressed air and hoping it ignites once it leaves the silo.
However, it seems like it's some kind of safe-ish tried and tested set up....right? Would this be right?
So why are they still using silos that engulf in furnace like flames that spew out of the silo and engulf the rocket which would surely super heat the skin and fuel inside.
Or is there some magic coating on it?
You tell me you're clued up on all of this so how about basically explain the points I've put to you.

« Last Edit: December 29, 2018, 10:03:10 PM by sceptimatic »

*

rabinoz

  • 21151
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #71 on: December 29, 2018, 11:20:51 PM »
Nobody is proving it to be anything to the contrary, except for using sketchy videos and trying to explain why no ICBM's are credibly launched.
Plenty of ICBM's have been credibly launched but not armed with nuclear warheads!

Quote from: sceptimatic
On a rocket it's pointless because a rocket going vertical requires full thrust, so any change to that would destroy the rocket in short order in terms of vertical push and stability.
Incorrect! It does not require "full thrust". The forward thrust is well in excess of the weight of the rocket. Look up the details for, say, the Minuteman III.
And a slight change in the direction of the thrust has a negligible effect on the nett forward thrust.

And virtually all large rockets are "steered" using gimballed motors.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #72 on: December 29, 2018, 11:47:07 PM »
Nobody is proving it to be anything to the contrary, except for using sketchy videos and trying to explain why no ICBM's are credibly launched.
Plenty of ICBM's have been credibly launched but not armed with nuclear warheads!
Credibly to you is merely the acceptance that the story told to you is believable. That does not mean there have been real launches of ICBM's, it sim ply means you accept there have.
That's not proof of anything other than a reliance on a story/stories told/read to/by you.

Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: sceptimatic
On a rocket it's pointless because a rocket going vertical requires full thrust, so any change to that would destroy the rocket in short order in terms of vertical push and stability.
Incorrect! It does not require "full thrust". The forward thrust is well in excess of the weight of the rocket.
A vertical rocket requires full thrust for successful operation.
There is no throttle for vertical rockets because a throttle is counter-productive.


Quote from: rabinoz
Look up the details for, say, the Minuteman III.
And a slight change in the direction of the thrust has a negligible effect on the nett forward thrust.
The story about them is worthless to me. I see those things as fantasy. Even the videos are sketchy as all hell.
 
Quote from: rabinoz
And virtually all large rockets are "steered" using gimballed motors.
Give me a brief explanation how a gimballed motor would work on your ICBM in order to steer and balance it.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2018, 11:48:44 PM by sceptimatic »

*

Stash

  • 1734
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #73 on: December 30, 2018, 12:09:47 AM »
Modern ICBMs donít have fins.  Clearly you have no idea how the guidance systems work.  How can your comments to have any credibility when youíre so demonstrably wrong? 
If they don't have fins then they don't go ballistic for starters.
Unless you want to tell me how the guidance system works on a pointed tube that spews out propellant.

Quote from: MicroBeta

Why canít ICBMs hold enough fuel?

Mike
A model rocket will answer that question.
Too much fuel needed to go ballistic and to carry the mass of the rocket.
Basically a ballistic rocket would be dead within a minute or so. Maybe I'm being a bit too kind.

Not only that but no way in hell would anything like a supposed ICBM be able to launch from an underground silo without blowing itself to smithereens.

Proof? Nahhh I don't have proof anymore than you do of them doing what is claimed they do.

Your sense of logic deteriorates rapidly. I suppose the 1000's of plane flights per year that fly thousands of miles can't do so based upon model plane technology as well.
I'd say your sense of logic deteriorates rapidly by using straw-man arguments to try and gain one-upmanship.
We are dealing with so called ICBM's.

Actually, your main argument has been around fuel capacity and distance. We have planes that can go farther than ICBM's, so what's the big hurdle with fuel capacity and distance when it comes to a rocket? And somehow model rocketry is the key?

I think you're real problem with ICBM's is not fuel capacity or distance, it's height. B/c they fly high enough to present a problem for your dome. But you don't want to bring up the height/dome issue b/c that puts you in bind. You're whole thing here is that we can't give you physical evidence of an ICBM to your satisfaction b/c physical evidence is all you will accept. But if you bring up the real issue you have, you'd have to cough up some physical evidence of you dome, which you have none.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #74 on: December 30, 2018, 12:28:09 AM »
Actually, your main argument has been around fuel capacity and distance.
And also vertical launch capability from silo's and submarines.

Quote from: Stash
We have planes that can go farther than ICBM's, so what's the big hurdle with fuel capacity and distance when it comes to a rocket? And somehow model rocketry is the key?
Planes are hollow tubes with big wings and jet engines/turbines and also horizontal in flight.

A rocket is a vertical tube full of propellant, whether it's a gas and liquid or a solid fuel.
The model rockets show how quickly they expend their fuel. It's generally in seconds rather than into minutes, unless we are shown so called ICBM's or so called space rockets. And only then do they become many minutes, yet are all video sketchy and obscure or movie worthy, with absolutely no physical evidence to show them as a reality.

Quote from: Stash
I think you're real problem with ICBM's is not fuel capacity or distance, it's height.
 B/c they fly high enough to present a problem for your dome.
 But you don't want to bring up the height/dome issue b/c that puts you in bind.
Nahhh. We can definitely leave out a dome on this score. We don't need to bring a dome into it. Let's just concentrate on the so called missiles.

Quote from: Stash
You're whole thing here is that we can't give you physical evidence of an ICBM to your satisfaction b/c physical evidence is all you will accept.
Correct I can't give physical evidence as to them not existing by my logic but then again if I could I would have no need to question them.
However, you have no physical evidence as to the legitimacy of them except to abide by stories told to you or read by you, or shown to you on sketchy videos and such.
You cannot deny this.


Quote from: Stash
But if you bring up the real issue you have, you'd have to cough up some physical evidence of you dome, which you have none.
I don't need to try and justify a dome where this is concerned.

*

Stash

  • 1734
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #75 on: December 30, 2018, 02:09:08 AM »
A rocket is a vertical tube full of propellant, whether it's a gas and liquid or a solid fuel.
The model rockets show how quickly they expend their fuel. It's generally in seconds rather than into minutes, unless we are shown so called ICBM's or so called space rockets. And only then do they become many minutes, yet are all video sketchy and obscure or movie worthy, with absolutely no physical evidence to show them as a reality.

So we'll go with your model rocket theory - You make a connection between model rockets and ICBMs without so much as a smidge of data to back it up. Just an assertion.

I was looking at model rockets. Estes makes many including the 'Ascender'. Here are it's specs:
Pro Series II E2X
Length: 42.1 in. (106.9 cm)
Diameter: 2 in. (5.1 cm)
Estimated Weight: 11 oz. (311.8 g)

Projected Altitude: 2000 ft. (610 m).

Here are the specs for a Minuteman ICBM:
Minuteman first stage rocket booster, manufactured by Thiokol, weighed a total of 51,251 pounds. The motor case material was made of D6AC steel. This first stage was 18.6 feet long and 5.5 feet in diameter. The weight of the propellant itself was 45,670 pounds.
The second stage solid fuel rocket booster manufactured by Aerojet used titanium as its motor case material. Its total weight is 12,072 pounds, and the propellant alone weighs 10,380 pounds. The second stage booster has a length of 9.1 feet and a diameter of 3.7 feet.
Third stage booster was manufactured by the Hercules Powder Company. The motor case material used for this booster was made from S-901 fiberglass. Total weight of this booster was 4,484 pounds and the propellant alone weighed 3,668 pounds. The third stage booster has a length of 5.1 feet and a diameter of 3.1 feet. 

Of the 68k lbs of the missile, almost 60k is propellant alone, aka, fuel. Thatís an 88% fuel to weight ratio. Weíll say itís the same for the Ascender.

88% of 11 oz of the Ascender is 9.68 oz of propellant. Again, it can fly 2000 ft high.

So for every 10 oz (easy number) of propellant I can send it up 2000 feet, give or take. 60k pounds of ICBM fuel is 960,000 oz. divide by 10 = 96,000.

96,000 x 2000 ft = 192,000,000 feet or 36,363 miles.

So, according to your model rocket theory, my ICBM should be able to go straight up 36k miles. (Math is not my strong suit so doublecheck as needed)

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #76 on: December 30, 2018, 02:49:41 AM »
Actually, your main argument has been around fuel capacity and distance.
And also vertical launch capability from silo's and submarines.

Quote from: Stash
We have planes that can go farther than ICBM's, so what's the big hurdle with fuel capacity and distance when it comes to a rocket? And somehow model rocketry is the key?
Planes are hollow tubes with big wings and jet engines/turbines and also horizontal in flight.

A rocket is a vertical tube full of propellant, whether it's a gas and liquid or a solid fuel.
The model rockets show how quickly they expend their fuel. It's generally in seconds rather than into minutes, unless we are shown so called ICBM's or so called space rockets. And only then do they become many minutes, yet are all video sketchy and obscure or movie worthy, with absolutely no physical evidence to show them as a reality.

Quote from: Stash
I think you're real problem with ICBM's is not fuel capacity or distance, it's height.
 B/c they fly high enough to present a problem for your dome.
 But you don't want to bring up the height/dome issue b/c that puts you in bind.
Nahhh. We can definitely leave out a dome on this score. We don't need to bring a dome into it. Let's just concentrate on the so called missiles.

Quote from: Stash
You're whole thing here is that we can't give you physical evidence of an ICBM to your satisfaction b/c physical evidence is all you will accept.
Correct I can't give physical evidence as to them not existing by my logic but then again if I could I would have no need to question them.
However, you have no physical evidence as to the legitimacy of them except to abide by stories told to you or read by you, or shown to you on sketchy videos and such.
You cannot deny this.


Quote from: Stash
But if you bring up the real issue you have, you'd have to cough up some physical evidence of you dome, which you have none.
I don't need to try and justify a dome where this is concerned.

Why is it on the one hand youíre scrupulously skeptical about the existance of real physical objects, ICBMs which thousands of people have been involved in manufacturing, transporting and seen with their own eyes yet you maintain the earth has a dome, and the sun is a carbon arc ? Two things no one has seen!

Should you wish you could examine the massive paper trails these ICBMs have created to find the truth. But what could you do to prove the existance of the dome?

The Russians once a year paraded their ICBMs for all the world to see. You could speak to any number of sub mariners, or other members of the armed forces who have come into contact with them yet there is not a single person in the world who has seen the dome! Just as there is not a single shred of proof for your ideas that relate to the sun!

Would you not agree there is some mismatch in your thinking depending on what you are dealing with? It strikes me that concepts and objects that contradict your world veiew are treated with the upmost scepticism, demanding outrageous levels of evidence ,while those ideas you subscribe too are accepted blindly.

If you treated the dome with the same level of skepticism that you treat ICBMs, I wonder if it would make you change your mind?

What do You Think?

*

rabinoz

  • 21151
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #77 on: December 30, 2018, 02:56:17 AM »
with absolutely no physical evidence to show them as a reality.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
you have no physical evidence as to the legitimacy of them except to abide by stories told to you or read by you, or shown to you on sketchy videos and such.
Please define what you would class as "physical evidence as to the legitimacy of them" because obviously no-one here has an ICBM in their basement!
Microbeta has served on a nuclear sub, but I doubt they give an ICBM to take home on leaving.

So exactly what you would class as "physical evidence as to the legitimacy of them"?
In another thread you posted:
My sun is a centre of Earth carbon arc and would be not seen as a beam going up but a beam after reflection from the dome back down to wherever it shines.
Firstly where is your physical evidence for such an assertion? There isn't even any "sketchy videos and such".
Then where is your carbon arc at the centre of the Earth?  Because commercial passenger planes fly almost over and observation flight go exactly over "the centre of the Earth".
I'm sure seeing your your carbon arc shining up from the centre of the Earth onto clouds would a very news-worthy event!
Take a look at:

Special Polar Flight - Flying over North Pole,
Sam Chui, 322,861 views

             
Awesome Arctic Flight to the Northpole 2016, Dji_Aviation
At: 12:38 min 89įN,
       14:06 min final seconds and
       14:30 min 90į North!!!
Why didn't those passengers see your carbon arc sun?

By the way, do you duck up to the North Pole every so often to replace the carbon electrodes?
Quote
The rods are slowly burnt away in use, and the distance between them needs to be regularly adjusted in order to maintain the arc.
Just wondering!
     

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #78 on: December 30, 2018, 03:07:56 AM »
I'd say your sense of logic deteriorates rapidly by using straw-man arguments to try and gain one-upmanship.
We are dealing with so called ICBM's.
That argument wasn't a strawman. It was dealing with your either complete lack of an argument, or your strawman, depending upon how you want to view it.
Model rockets no more prove ICBMs are fake than model planes prove long distance planes are fake.

I do this based on seeing missiles/rockets expelling their fuel in short order.
And have you bothered timing that and seeing how it varies, especially with scaling?

Even if you want to claim that rockets to launch objects into orbit are fake, they take quite some time to expend all their fuel.

In order to conclude hundreds of miles you would need some math, or a very good reference for that (e.g. a similar rocket only capable of going a hundred or so miles.

So it still remains a baseless assertion.

Being where in person?
Anywhere. In order to get physical proof from someone you need to be there in person. As such appealing to it in a discussion on the internet and rejecting the evidence provided is just dishonest crap.

You ask me for proof that it doesn't exist. I ask you for proof that they do.
No, we ask for evidence and/or rational arguments.
A rational weighing of the available evidence would lead one to conclude that ICBMs do exist.

There is absolutely nothing to indicate they don't exist.

It doesn't matter about a high likelihood of success.
No, it does. That is literally the difference between something just being possible and something being plausible.

Everyone in a group having the same low odds of winning doesn't magically make you winning plausible.

Assuming ICBM's are a reality of which we haven't quite got any concrete proof of.
No, even if you want to just treat them as a hypothetical possibility to examine what would actually be needed.

We are talking about a so called ICBM which is basically a vertical rocket that apparently goes into near so called orbit before arcing onto its target.
No we aren't.
We are talking about an ICBM. While they may typically start going vertical, they do not remain that way as that would be extremely inefficient.

Why an engine?
Why not a firework solid fuel type set up?
i.e. why not a solid fuel based engine?
Even if it is using solid fuel it will still be an engine.

Engines work well in horizontal vehicles that have a means of using atmosphere and/or ground friction to push into/against.
Again, you not understanding physics, such as that every force has a reaction force, doesn't magically make that physics wrong.
You don't need to push against the atmosphere to move. You can easily do so by throwing things.

There's just no need for an engine
Without an engine it wont move, unless you try and dump all the kinetic energy in at once, which would likely destroy it.
So I would say there is a very big need.

and no realistic chance of an engine creating the thrust a rocket would require
Again, stop with the baseless assertions.

I refuse to believe it because it appears to be illogical fantasy
Yet you can't actually show any issue.
Instead you just assert it can't work.

A firework with solid fuel works fine in using full thrust.
Yes, a firework with a solid rocket engine works fine.
So what?
The alternative to an engine would be like a gun.

They can certainly go vertical but certainly not stable vertical for too long, unless they have some kind of steadying grooves to make them spin..and even then they won't be stable for long.
We're talking seconds before stability is compromised.
And there you go with yet more baseless assertions.

On a car, yes you can change the way propellant comes out. It's called a throttle.
That is because a car steers with wheels.

On a rocket it's pointless because a rocket going vertical requires full thrust, so any change to that would destroy the rocket in short order in terms of vertical push and stability.
And yet another baseless assertion.
Again, they don't go vertical. That would be stupidity. They will typically fly in a continuous arc, akin to an elliptical orbit which intersects Earth.
And no, there is no reason to assume a change in thrust would destroy the rocket.
Stop just asserting BS.

The model rockets show how quickly they expend their fuel. It's generally in seconds rather than into minutes
Likewise model planes show how quickly they expend their fuel. It's generally in minutes rather than into hours required for long distance flights.
So once again, according to your "reasoning", long distance planes don't exist.

Stop acting like you are doing this to be skeptical.
With all the nonsense you assert with absolutely no backing you are not skeptical in the slightest. You are quite happy to accept baseless garbage and promote it to everyone as if it explains everything.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #79 on: December 30, 2018, 03:19:45 AM »
A rocket is a vertical tube full of propellant, whether it's a gas and liquid or a solid fuel.
The model rockets show how quickly they expend their fuel. It's generally in seconds rather than into minutes, unless we are shown so called ICBM's or so called space rockets. And only then do they become many minutes, yet are all video sketchy and obscure or movie worthy, with absolutely no physical evidence to show them as a reality.

So we'll go with your model rocket theory - You make a connection between model rockets and ICBMs without so much as a smidge of data to back it up. Just an assertion.

I was looking at model rockets. Estes makes many including the 'Ascender'. Here are it's specs:
Pro Series II E2X
Length: 42.1 in. (106.9 cm)
Diameter: 2 in. (5.1 cm)
Estimated Weight: 11 oz. (311.8 g)

Projected Altitude: 2000 ft. (610 m).

Here are the specs for a Minuteman ICBM:
Minuteman first stage rocket booster, manufactured by Thiokol, weighed a total of 51,251 pounds. The motor case material was made of D6AC steel. This first stage was 18.6 feet long and 5.5 feet in diameter. The weight of the propellant itself was 45,670 pounds.
The second stage solid fuel rocket booster manufactured by Aerojet used titanium as its motor case material. Its total weight is 12,072 pounds, and the propellant alone weighs 10,380 pounds. The second stage booster has a length of 9.1 feet and a diameter of 3.7 feet.
Third stage booster was manufactured by the Hercules Powder Company. The motor case material used for this booster was made from S-901 fiberglass. Total weight of this booster was 4,484 pounds and the propellant alone weighed 3,668 pounds. The third stage booster has a length of 5.1 feet and a diameter of 3.1 feet. 

Of the 68k lbs of the missile, almost 60k is propellant alone, aka, fuel. Thatís an 88% fuel to weight ratio. Weíll say itís the same for the Ascender.

88% of 11 oz of the Ascender is 9.68 oz of propellant. Again, it can fly 2000 ft high.

So for every 10 oz (easy number) of propellant I can send it up 2000 feet, give or take. 60k pounds of ICBM fuel is 960,000 oz. divide by 10 = 96,000.

96,000 x 2000 ft = 192,000,000 feet or 36,363 miles.

So, according to your model rocket theory, my ICBM should be able to go straight up 36k miles. (Math is not my strong suit so doublecheck as needed)
Sorry but None of that proves anything.

You're working from one reality to one fantasy. It proves nothing.



*

Stash

  • 1734
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #80 on: December 30, 2018, 03:26:57 AM »
A rocket is a vertical tube full of propellant, whether it's a gas and liquid or a solid fuel.
The model rockets show how quickly they expend their fuel. It's generally in seconds rather than into minutes, unless we are shown so called ICBM's or so called space rockets. And only then do they become many minutes, yet are all video sketchy and obscure or movie worthy, with absolutely no physical evidence to show them as a reality.

So we'll go with your model rocket theory - You make a connection between model rockets and ICBMs without so much as a smidge of data to back it up. Just an assertion.

I was looking at model rockets. Estes makes many including the 'Ascender'. Here are it's specs:
Pro Series II E2X
Length: 42.1 in. (106.9 cm)
Diameter: 2 in. (5.1 cm)
Estimated Weight: 11 oz. (311.8 g)

Projected Altitude: 2000 ft. (610 m).

Here are the specs for a Minuteman ICBM:
Minuteman first stage rocket booster, manufactured by Thiokol, weighed a total of 51,251 pounds. The motor case material was made of D6AC steel. This first stage was 18.6 feet long and 5.5 feet in diameter. The weight of the propellant itself was 45,670 pounds.
The second stage solid fuel rocket booster manufactured by Aerojet used titanium as its motor case material. Its total weight is 12,072 pounds, and the propellant alone weighs 10,380 pounds. The second stage booster has a length of 9.1 feet and a diameter of 3.7 feet.
Third stage booster was manufactured by the Hercules Powder Company. The motor case material used for this booster was made from S-901 fiberglass. Total weight of this booster was 4,484 pounds and the propellant alone weighed 3,668 pounds. The third stage booster has a length of 5.1 feet and a diameter of 3.1 feet. 

Of the 68k lbs of the missile, almost 60k is propellant alone, aka, fuel. Thatís an 88% fuel to weight ratio. Weíll say itís the same for the Ascender.

88% of 11 oz of the Ascender is 9.68 oz of propellant. Again, it can fly 2000 ft high.

So for every 10 oz (easy number) of propellant I can send it up 2000 feet, give or take. 60k pounds of ICBM fuel is 960,000 oz. divide by 10 = 96,000.

96,000 x 2000 ft = 192,000,000 feet or 36,363 miles.

So, according to your model rocket theory, my ICBM should be able to go straight up 36k miles. (Math is not my strong suit so doublecheck as needed)
Sorry but None of that proves anything.

You're working from one reality to one fantasy. It proves nothing.

How so, I'm using your model rocket theory? At least I'm trying to play your theory out. All you've been doing is saying, "just cuz."

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #81 on: December 30, 2018, 03:28:18 AM »
Sorry but None of that proves anything.
Likewise, all your baseless assertions prove nothing.
You have literally nothing to challenge the existence of ICBMs.

The best you have is an appeal to absence of physical evidence.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #82 on: December 30, 2018, 03:36:52 AM »
Why is it on the one hand youíre scrupulously skeptical about the existance of real physical objects, ICBMs which thousands of people have been involved in manufacturing, transporting and seen with their own eyes yet you maintain the earth has a dome, and the sun is a carbon arc ? Two things no one has seen!
First of all you have no clue whether ICBM's are a reality or merely a made up fantasy. You simply accept them as real because of your adherence to official stories told by who you believe are authorities on them.
Seeing a big tube is not evidence of a big working rocket.

As for me believing the Earth has a dome and the sun is a carbon arc within it, is my physically unprovable theory or musing or whatever anyone wants to call it. I do not throw it out as fact. I defend it as my theory.


Quote from: Lonegranger
Should you wish you could examine the massive paper trails these ICBMs have created to find the truth. But what could you do to prove the existance of the dome?
What massive paper trails?
As for proving the existence of a dome. Can you prove the existence of an untouchable mirror?


Quote from: Lonegranger
The Russians once a year paraded their ICBMs for all the world to see. You could speak to any number of sub mariners, or other members of the armed forces who have come into contact with them yet there is not a single person in the world who has seen the dome! Just as there is not a single shred of proof for your ideas that relate to the sun!
Parading pipes with cones and what not does not mean those things are working rockets.
It wouldn't take much to mock up anything like that as a gimmick.

Quote from: Lonegranger
Would you not agree there is some mismatch in your thinking depending on what you are dealing with?
No I wouldn't.

Quote from: Lonegranger
It strikes me that concepts and objects that contradict your world veiew are treated with the upmost scepticism, demanding outrageous levels of evidence ,while those ideas you subscribe too are accepted blindly.
First of all, the stuff that contradicts my world view are the one's that are accepted blindly. My theories are not accepted at all by anyone that I can recall, so you're way off on that one.
Quote from: Lonegranger
If you treated the dome with the same level of skepticism that you treat ICBMs, I wonder if it would make you change your mind?
What do You Think?
Considering I came to the dome theory by process of experimentation with my overall theory, then it's hard to be sceptical over it.

ICBM's , in my opinion are gimmicks.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #83 on: December 30, 2018, 03:52:18 AM »
with absolutely no physical evidence to show them as a reality.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
you have no physical evidence as to the legitimacy of them except to abide by stories told to you or read by you, or shown to you on sketchy videos and such.
Please define what you would class as "physical evidence as to the legitimacy of them" because obviously no-one here has an ICBM in their basement!
Seeing one launched from a submarine in how we are shown in the sketchy videos, except to physically observe it from a reasonable distance to jump out of the water, ignite and thrust into the sky after first checking the vertical launch tbe of the sub with the so called warhead inside of it.

Something like that.

Quote from: rabinoz

Microbeta has served on a nuclear sub, but I doubt they give an ICBM to take home on leaving.
He may have served on a sub. He may think he's served on a nuclear sub. He may think that sub had ICBM's aboard.
You have no clue whether he was on a sub or whether he's reading books on subs or war books or whatever.
It's very easy for anyone to reference anything they want to argue. It doesn't mean they are legitimate.

however, assuming he is legitimate in serving on the sub and what not, he cannot prove what I'm arguing against.



Quote from: rabinoz

In another thread you posted:
My sun is a centre of Earth carbon arc and would be not seen as a beam going up but a beam after reflection from the dome back down to wherever it shines.
Firstly where is your physical evidence for such an assertion? There isn't even any "sketchy videos and such".

Quote from: rabinoz

Then where is your carbon arc at the centre of the Earth?

Quote from: rabinoz

  Because commercial passenger planes fly almost over and observation flight go exactly over "the centre of the Earth".

Quote from: rabinoz

I'm sure seeing your your carbon arc shining up from the centre of the Earth onto clouds would a very news-worthy event!

Quote from: rabinoz

Take a look at:

Special Polar Flight - Flying over North Pole,
Sam Chui, 322,861 views

             
Awesome Arctic Flight to the Northpole 2016, Dji_Aviation
At: 12:38 min 89įN,
       14:06 min final seconds and
       14:30 min 90į North!!!
Why didn't those passengers see your carbon arc sun?

Quote from: rabinoz

By the way, do you duck up to the North Pole every so often to replace the carbon electrodes?

Quote from: rabinoz

The rods are slowly burnt away in use, and the distance between them needs to be regularly adjusted in order to maintain the arc.
Just wondering!
     
All of the rest of this pertaining to the sun and such, place it in a relevant thread or make a topic. It's no good in this one.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #84 on: December 30, 2018, 04:02:57 AM »


How so, I'm using your model rocket theory? At least I'm trying to play your theory out. All you've been doing is saying, "just cuz."
Fine, keep using what you think. I'm simply saying you're using it for one reality and transferring it to something you do not have a clue about as a reality, except to be told it is.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #85 on: December 30, 2018, 04:04:25 AM »
Sorry but None of that proves anything.
Likewise, all your baseless assertions prove nothing.
You have literally nothing to challenge the existence of ICBMs.

The best you have is an appeal to absence of physical evidence.
No more need for you to tell me then. Take a back seat.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #86 on: December 30, 2018, 04:59:52 AM »

Considering I came to the dome theory by process of experimentation with my overall theory, then it's hard to be sceptical over it.

ICBM's , in my opinion are gimmicks.
[/quote]

Haha
Please define "process of experimentation"

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #87 on: December 30, 2018, 05:05:06 AM »
Modern ICBMs donít have fins.  Clearly you have no idea how the guidance systems work.  How can your comments to have any credibility when youíre so demonstrably wrong? 
If they don't have fins then they don't go ballistic for starters.
Unless you want to tell me how the guidance system works on a pointed tube that spews out propellant.
Come on.  You already know they use inertial guidance and thrust vector control.
Inertial guidance? Briefly explain this and tell me how this works.
Also briefly explain the thrust vector control.
No need for any text book copying. Just give me the explainable basics for the dummy that I am.
Okay, Iíll bite.  Accelerometers provide inputs to a computer that takes the inputs to determine changes in direction.  The computer takes those inputs and vectors thrust from the engines to stay on course throughout it's flight.

Quote from: MicroBeta
Quote from: MicroBeta

Why canít ICBMs hold enough fuel?

Mike
A model rocket will answer that question.
Too much fuel needed to go ballistic and to carry the mass of the rocket.
Basically a ballistic rocket would be dead within a minute or so. Maybe I'm being a bit too kind.
You are just repeating yourself.  What is the basis for your assumption that it would require too much fuel.
Due to the short time I see genuine rockets expend their fuel.
I honestly hope you donít actually believe you can determine the range of all rockets because youíve watched rockets lift of and fly.

The amateur model rocketry record for altitude is ≈72 miles.  What does it tell you about how far ICBMs can fly if a model rocket that is carried around in pickup truck can reach 72 miles.

Quote from: MicroBeta
Not only that but no way in hell would anything like a supposed ICBM be able to launch from an underground silo without blowing itself to smithereens.

Proof? Nahhh I don't have proof anymore than you do of them doing what is claimed they do.
I donít really need to show you any proof.
Correct, you don't. But then again you have no credence by stating this.
Quote from: MicroBeta
  Itís just an ignorant claim on your part.
It could be but is it any more ignorant than you being unwilling to show me your proof?

Quote from: MicroBeta
From an engineering standpoint venting the first stage thrust gases is actually pretty easy.
Tell me about it in the most basic way as to how easy this is.


Quote from: MicroBeta
  Not only that but some land-based silos use gas ejection systems similar to submarines.

Mike
Can you show me a diagram of how this would work?
Can you explain how it would work, as basic as you can.
Imagine shooting out a mammoth so called ICBM from a silo with compressed air and hoping it ignites once it leaves the silo.
However, it seems like it's some kind of safe-ish tried and tested set up....right? Would this be right?
So why are they still using silos that engulf in furnace like flames that spew out of the silo and engulf the rocket which would surely super heat the skin and fuel inside.
Or is there some magic coating on it?
You tell me you're clued up on all of this so how about basically explain the points I've put to you.
Wow...ďsilos that engulf in furnace like flames that spew out of the silo and engulf the rocketĒ...rather graphic and so completely wrong. 

The exhaust is directed through ducts and out of the silo.  Temperatures and pressures in the silo during launch remain well below allowable values for the materials being used.  And, the reason itís still used is because itís cheaper and easier to build. 

Here's a link to all the diagrams you could want. 

http://www.themilitarystandard.com/missile/titan1/layout.php

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

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #88 on: December 30, 2018, 05:52:58 AM »
Did anyone mention that model hobby rockets use solid fuel?
Little different that liquid...
Just a touch different.

Thanks for another great analogy.
Try again.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #89 on: December 30, 2018, 08:22:33 AM »
Did anyone mention that model hobby rockets use solid fuel?
Little different that liquid...
Just a touch different.

Thanks for another great analogy.
Try again.
I was waiting for septimatic's next reply but since you brought it up....not only do they use solid fuel but there are kits to measure speed, acceleration, and height. 

One of the records model rocketry enthusiasts are contending for is maximum altitude with minimum drift.  From what I can find the current record is 8.2 km with horizontal drift 180 m.   They use the same inertial guidance and thrust vector control that ICBMs use; although, on a much smaller scale. 

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