Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS

  • 221 Replies
  • 31892 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #120 on: March 08, 2019, 11:35:23 PM »
You are aware you personally can take some longer exposure photographs of the sky over the Equator and you will see the pale lights of the geosynchronous satellites right not rotating with everything else in the sky?
Are the satellites on full beam or are they painted with luminous road sign type covering?
Do those lights stay perfectly still in the night sky until they disappear?
Have you personally observed this?

Quote from: JCM
  This would require some photography skills and equipment you may not have.  This is easy to find online if you refuse to look for yourself with your own equipment. So no, a balloon cannot stay in one place seemingly indefinitely to produce that light (which is what dishes are pointed at) and is not providing your satellite cable 24/7 with only problems when the dish is bumped... or weather gets in the way of the signal...
That I may not have. And you I would hazard a guess at. What about anyone else?

As for weather getting in the way or the dish being bumped. Many people have dishes for decades and never altered and yet the so called satellites are supposedly dead and replaced.....but how?
Also, the sky is full of clouds at many a time and yet these supposed satellites still manage to send a signal through them yet can't manage it when it rains down here.
Come on for crying out loud, have a think about it.
 
Quote from: JCM
Can you elaborate on how balloons and massive antennaes with deep foundations are providing that point in the sky transmitting satellite TV for thousands and thousands of miles around them? Or guy wires?  How do they work? Are they hanging off the dome made of frozen helium?  You made the claim, you should defend it.
Balloons for weather. Weather balloons. Do I really need to elaborate on that?

As for antennas; I think they speak for themselves.
There's reasons why they're so high. There's reasons why high rise buildings are full of transmitters and such like.

They work well.
Anything in that sky is in atmosphere. There's nothing floating in some vacuum. People need to get out of sci-fi mode.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #121 on: March 09, 2019, 12:27:50 AM »
We can all easily confirm for ourselves that small rockets work. Yet you wish to claim this 3000 tonne rocket can't, yet you can provide no justification for why.
If the 3000 tonne rocket should blow itself up, why shouldn't the small rocket?
Just where should the threshold be? What calculations can you make to see if a rocket will blow up or work?

Forget small rockets.

I could tie a tiny model ship to a small rocket and launch that ship into he air.
Could I do that with a large ship?

What's this got to do with ships, right?
It's simple. You say if a model rocket can do it, why not a 3000 tonne one.

Let's make this simple and clear. All you need to do is answer it as best you can. Use whatever copy/paste you need.

I'll start.
This is what is told to us.
The Saturn V rocket's first stage carries 203,400 gallons (770,000 liters) of kerosene fuel and 318,000 gallons (1.2 million liters) of liquid oxygen needed for combustion. At liftoff, the stage's five F-1 rocket engines ignite and produce 7.5 million pounds of thrust.
The first stage of the Saturn V rocket, using five F-1 rocket engines, produced 7.5 million lbs. (3.4 million kilograms) of thrust and was used during launch for about 2 minutes. It gobbled up 20 tons (40,000 pounds) of fuel per second.

5 engines each burning 4 tonnes of fuel per second.

Holding 203,400 gallons of Kerosene and 318,000 gallons of liquid oxygen.

Think about this so called massive rocket holding this Kerosene and liquid oxygen.
Imagine the tanks and the strengths of the tanks to hold this.

Let's look at Liquid oxygen storage.

Storage And Handling Tips For Liquid Oxygen

Transportation: Liquid oxygen containers must be handled carefully. Never roll the container. Always use a cart or dolly to move it and secure the container to the device with a strap to help protect it from falling off. Keep containers upright and properly labeled.


Storage: Oxygen is non-flammable but will react with most organic materials, including those that burn. In fact, oxygen can make materials burn faster and hotter. Proper storage is essential to safety. When storing the material, consider 4 things:

Vessels. Oxygen of all kinds must be stored in vessels that are non-reactive with the gas and that have high ignition temperatures.
Temperature. Liquid oxygen is so cold that even during the coldest days of winter, the air temperature is much warmer than the oxygen itself. Keeping liquid oxygen insulated from this nearby heat is essential. Containers should be able to withstand temperature and pressure changes and conform to national standards and codes.
Location. Keep the containers in a well-ventilated area and protected from weather extremes. Do not store it near any flammable or combustible materials.
Pressure Values. Do not tamper with container pressure relief devices, which are designed to control the internal pressure of the container by automatically venting.

Imagine all of this in a big rocket just standing there, let alone supposedly igniting 20 tonnes of fuel up the side of it as we see...same with the space x types.
Imagine if this was real life?


I'm sure people know how containers of liquid oxygen are stored on a small scale.

However, let's concentrate on those big engines. The F1 so called rocket engines.
Each one managing to eject 4 tonnes of fuel per second through the pipes to the combustion chamber.

It's easy to just accept it as being some amazing thing.
Let's try and make this more realistic.

Imagine being stood near 4 tonnes of unburned fuel in a big container held aloft and imagine a hole opening up 6 feet in diameter under that load.
How long do you think it would take for the fuel empty from that container?

Fairly quick, right? Maybe 3 seconds more or less, fair enough?
If you want to argue it we can go for 1 second but we know it would be a little longer.

This would be through a 6 foot hole.
The f1 engine does not show any large holes to eject this 4 tonnes a second of fuel from. It shows fairly small feed pipes to a chamber.

Any pipe will have a flow rate. A maximum flow rate and it will not be 4 tonnes per second.
You see, this is where people lose their logic in favour of acceptance of sci-fi in order to allow big 3000 tonne sci-fi rockets to go into so called space.

Today they play around with Falcon heavy and space X light and what not.
Basically do what they want, as long as they can make the story fit.

Take a look at the F1 engines. Look at the diagrams.
Reason with yourselves.

After all, you aren't going to be able to shoot a massive cannon ball through  the barrel of an sir pistol just as you aren't going to throw 4 tonnes of fuel through a small diameter pipe.



Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #122 on: March 09, 2019, 12:34:09 AM »
Sceptimatic, do you believe 737s travel at 1600 mph?
No.

Well of course not because you’re a FEer, but are you going to argue that, in RE, 737s that travel eastward travel at 1600 mph so the Earth isn’t rotating faster than the plane can fly to its intended destination?
Maybe ask sci-fi fan Brian Cox what happens. He seems to be in the know and then confused about it all.

I’m not asking Brian Cox. I’m asking you. I’m just trying to understand what you make of RE.

Do you believe, in a RE scenario, that a 737 has to be traveling 1600 mph if it’s traveling east?

I’d imagine you almost have to given what you have said earlier in this thread.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #123 on: March 09, 2019, 12:42:30 AM »
Sceptimatic, do you believe 737s travel at 1600 mph?
No.

Well of course not because you’re a FEer, but are you going to argue that, in RE, 737s that travel eastward travel at 1600 mph so the Earth isn’t rotating faster than the plane can fly to its intended destination?
Maybe ask sci-fi fan Brian Cox what happens. He seems to be in the know and then confused about it all.

I’m not asking Brian Cox. I’m asking you. I’m just trying to understand what you make of RE.

Do you believe, in a RE scenario, that a 737 has to be traveling 1600 mph if it’s traveling east?

I’d imagine you almost have to given what you have said earlier in this thread.
Put up a topic on it and I'll answer it.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #124 on: March 09, 2019, 12:47:29 AM »
You are aware you personally can take some longer exposure photographs of the sky over the Equator and you will see the pale lights of the geosynchronous satellites right not rotating with everything else in the sky?
Are the satellites on full beam or are they painted with luminous road sign type covering?
What on earth do you mean by "satellites on full beam"?
No they are not "painted with luminous road sign type covering"! Are you really as ignorant on these things as you make out.
But satellites are usually only visibly when:
     Lit by the sun in the early evening or before dawn in the morning.
     Silhouetted against the sun by day or against the moon by night.
Geostationary satellites are so high that they are in the sunlight for much longer but are too high to be seen without a good telescope.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: JCM
  This would require some photography skills and equipment you may not have.  This is easy to find online if you refuse to look for yourself with your own equipment. So no, a balloon cannot stay in one place seemingly indefinitely to produce that light (which is what dishes are pointed at) and is not providing your satellite cable 24/7 with only problems when the dish is bumped... or weather gets in the way of the signal...
That I may not have. And you I would hazard a guess at. What about anyone else?

As for weather getting in the way or the dish being bumped. Many people have dishes for decades and never altered and yet the so called satellites are supposedly dead and replaced.....but how?
Because when those satellites reach the end of their life (ie nearly run out of station keeping propellant) they are moved to a slight higher "graveyard orbit" and a replacement satellite is moved into place.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Also, the sky is full of clouds at many a time and yet these supposed satellites still manage to send a signal through them yet can't manage it when it rains down here.
Come on for crying out loud, have a think about it.
Firstly the signal from a satellite usually travels through less atmosphere, cloud and rain than a terrestrial TV signal.
Then my TV reception is not affected by clouds and only rarely by heavy rain - get a better TV antenna!

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: JCM
Can you elaborate on how balloons and massive antennaes with deep foundations are providing that point in the sky transmitting satellite TV for thousands and thousands of miles around them? Or guy wires?  How do they work? Are they hanging off the dome made of frozen helium?  You made the claim, you should defend it.
Balloons for weather. Weather balloons. Do I really need to elaborate on that?
There's nothing floating in some vacuum. People need to get out of sci-fi mode.
No you need tl come out of the dark ages and learn a bit about the real world, not the world of your on outdated imagination.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #125 on: March 09, 2019, 02:10:14 AM »

However, let's concentrate on those big engines. The F1 so called rocket engines.
Each one managing to eject 4 tonnes of fuel per second through the pipes to the combustion chamber.

It's easy to just accept it as being some amazing thing.
Let's try and make this more realistic.

Imagine being stood near 4 tonnes of unburned fuel in a big container held aloft and imagine a hole opening up 6 feet in diameter under that load.
How long do you think it would take for the fuel empty from that container?

Fairly quick, right? Maybe 3 seconds more or less, fair enough?
If you want to argue it we can go for 1 second but we know it would be a little longer.

This would be through a 6 foot hole.
The f1 engine does not show any large holes to eject this 4 tonnes a second of fuel from. It shows fairly small feed pipes to a chamber.
There were no large holes but "1428 oxidizer orifices and 1404 fuel orifices (for a total of 2832 total orifices).":
Quote
The injector face has 1428 oxidizer orifices and 1404 fuel orifices (for a total of 2832 total orifices). The orifices are arranged in pairs such that the propellant being expelled through the holes intersect or impinge in a doublet, like-on-like pattern (i.e., two streams of oxidizer impinge and two streams of fuel impinge).

Quote from: sceptimatic
Take a look at the F1 engines. Look at the diagrams.
Reason with yourselves.
Sure. Those F1 engines were huge!

The Engines That Propelled Us Into Space, Recovered From the Ocean Floor

That huge quantity of fuel was fed through a massive injector plate into the combustion chamber. You can read the detail in: HeroicRelics: F-1 ENGINE INJECTOR

Here is a little extract:
Quote
Much has been written about the voracious appetite of the Saturn V's S-IC (first) stage engines: They could consume the propellant equivalent of a backyard swimming pool in 10 seconds. They could empty an Olympic-size swimming pool in about 2 ½ minutes. The liquid oxygen (LOX) alone is equivalent to 54 railroad tank cars. Buzz Aldrin once calculated that the S-IC gets about one foot per gallon (although according to heroicrelics calculations, it's closer to .6 or .7 feet per gallon).

This huge quantity of propellant is pumped from the S-IC's tanks into each F-1 engine's combustion chamber through an injector (sometimes called an injector plate).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The injector measured about 44 inches in diameter, with about 39 inches of that exposed to the combustion chamber. The injector was about 8 inches thick, from back to injector face.

It had a CRES (corrosion-resistant steel; more commonly known outside the aerospace industry as stainless steel) body with 31 ring grooves, 16 fuel ring grooves alternating with 15 oxidizer ring grooves. The fourteen copper rings containing the fuel orifices and the 2 circular copper baffles were brazed to the fuel ring grooves. The fifteen copper rings containing the oxidizer orifices were brazed to the oxidizer ring grooves.

As detailed above, the oxidizer ring grooves were supplied with oxidizer from the LOX dome by axially drilled holes. The fuel ring grooves were supplied from the fuel inlet manifold (shown in the exploded view diagram above) by 32 radial fuel feed passages. The arrangement of fuel feed passages in a typical injector is depicted in the following diagram:


Quote from: sceptimatic
After all, you aren't going to be able to shoot a massive cannon ball through  the barrel of an sir pistol just as you aren't going to throw 4 tonnes of fuel through a small diameter pipe.
Nobody is claiming they are "going to throw 4 tonnes of fuel through a small diameter pipe" but through 2832 small pipes.
"Reasoning with yourselves" is a useless exercise if you have no facts on which to base that reasoning.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #126 on: March 09, 2019, 03:40:07 AM »

However, let's concentrate on those big engines. The F1 so called rocket engines.
Each one managing to eject 4 tonnes of fuel per second through the pipes to the combustion chamber.

It's easy to just accept it as being some amazing thing.
Let's try and make this more realistic.

Imagine being stood near 4 tonnes of unburned fuel in a big container held aloft and imagine a hole opening up 6 feet in diameter under that load.
How long do you think it would take for the fuel empty from that container?

Fairly quick, right? Maybe 3 seconds more or less, fair enough?
If you want to argue it we can go for 1 second but we know it would be a little longer.

This would be through a 6 foot hole.
The f1 engine does not show any large holes to eject this 4 tonnes a second of fuel from. It shows fairly small feed pipes to a chamber.
There were no large holes but "1428 oxidizer orifices and 1404 fuel orifices (for a total of 2832 total orifices).":
Quote
The injector face has 1428 oxidizer orifices and 1404 fuel orifices (for a total of 2832 total orifices). The orifices are arranged in pairs such that the propellant being expelled through the holes intersect or impinge in a doublet, like-on-like pattern (i.e., two streams of oxidizer impinge and two streams of fuel impinge).

Quote from: sceptimatic
Take a look at the F1 engines. Look at the diagrams.
Reason with yourselves.
Sure. Those F1 engines were huge!

The Engines That Propelled Us Into Space, Recovered From the Ocean Floor

That huge quantity of fuel was fed through a massive injector plate into the combustion chamber. You can read the detail in: HeroicRelics: F-1 ENGINE INJECTOR

Here is a little extract:
Quote
Much has been written about the voracious appetite of the Saturn V's S-IC (first) stage engines: They could consume the propellant equivalent of a backyard swimming pool in 10 seconds. They could empty an Olympic-size swimming pool in about 2 ½ minutes. The liquid oxygen (LOX) alone is equivalent to 54 railroad tank cars. Buzz Aldrin once calculated that the S-IC gets about one foot per gallon (although according to heroicrelics calculations, it's closer to .6 or .7 feet per gallon).

This huge quantity of propellant is pumped from the S-IC's tanks into each F-1 engine's combustion chamber through an injector (sometimes called an injector plate).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The injector measured about 44 inches in diameter, with about 39 inches of that exposed to the combustion chamber. The injector was about 8 inches thick, from back to injector face.

It had a CRES (corrosion-resistant steel; more commonly known outside the aerospace industry as stainless steel) body with 31 ring grooves, 16 fuel ring grooves alternating with 15 oxidizer ring grooves. The fourteen copper rings containing the fuel orifices and the 2 circular copper baffles were brazed to the fuel ring grooves. The fifteen copper rings containing the oxidizer orifices were brazed to the oxidizer ring grooves.

As detailed above, the oxidizer ring grooves were supplied with oxidizer from the LOX dome by axially drilled holes. The fuel ring grooves were supplied from the fuel inlet manifold (shown in the exploded view diagram above) by 32 radial fuel feed passages. The arrangement of fuel feed passages in a typical injector is depicted in the following diagram:


Quote from: sceptimatic
After all, you aren't going to be able to shoot a massive cannon ball through  the barrel of an sir pistol just as you aren't going to throw 4 tonnes of fuel through a small diameter pipe.
Nobody is claiming they are "going to throw 4 tonnes of fuel through a small diameter pipe" but through 2832 small pipes.
"Reasoning with yourselves" is a useless exercise if you have no facts on which to base that reasoning.
And what feeds the 2832 small pipes?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #127 on: March 09, 2019, 04:11:54 AM »

However, let's concentrate on those big engines. The F1 so called rocket engines.
Each one managing to eject 4 tonnes of fuel per second through the pipes to the combustion chamber.

It's easy to just accept it as being some amazing thing.
Let's try and make this more realistic.

Imagine being stood near 4 tonnes of unburned fuel in a big container held aloft and imagine a hole opening up 6 feet in diameter under that load.
How long do you think it would take for the fuel empty from that container?

Fairly quick, right? Maybe 3 seconds more or less, fair enough?
If you want to argue it we can go for 1 second but we know it would be a little longer.

This would be through a 6 foot hole.
The f1 engine does not show any large holes to eject this 4 tonnes a second of fuel from. It shows fairly small feed pipes to a chamber.
There were no large holes but "1428 oxidizer orifices and 1404 fuel orifices (for a total of 2832 total orifices).":
Quote
The injector face has 1428 oxidizer orifices and 1404 fuel orifices (for a total of 2832 total orifices). The orifices are arranged in pairs such that the propellant being expelled through the holes intersect or impinge in a doublet, like-on-like pattern (i.e., two streams of oxidizer impinge and two streams of fuel impinge).

Quote from: sceptimatic
Take a look at the F1 engines. Look at the diagrams.
Reason with yourselves.
Sure. Those F1 engines were huge!

The Engines That Propelled Us Into Space, Recovered From the Ocean Floor

That huge quantity of fuel was fed through a massive injector plate into the combustion chamber. You can read the detail in: HeroicRelics: F-1 ENGINE INJECTOR

Here is a little extract:
Quote
Much has been written about the voracious appetite of the Saturn V's S-IC (first) stage engines: They could consume the propellant equivalent of a backyard swimming pool in 10 seconds. They could empty an Olympic-size swimming pool in about 2 ½ minutes. The liquid oxygen (LOX) alone is equivalent to 54 railroad tank cars. Buzz Aldrin once calculated that the S-IC gets about one foot per gallon (although according to heroicrelics calculations, it's closer to .6 or .7 feet per gallon).

This huge quantity of propellant is pumped from the S-IC's tanks into each F-1 engine's combustion chamber through an injector (sometimes called an injector plate).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The injector measured about 44 inches in diameter, with about 39 inches of that exposed to the combustion chamber. The injector was about 8 inches thick, from back to injector face.

It had a CRES (corrosion-resistant steel; more commonly known outside the aerospace industry as stainless steel) body with 31 ring grooves, 16 fuel ring grooves alternating with 15 oxidizer ring grooves. The fourteen copper rings containing the fuel orifices and the 2 circular copper baffles were brazed to the fuel ring grooves. The fifteen copper rings containing the oxidizer orifices were brazed to the oxidizer ring grooves.

As detailed above, the oxidizer ring grooves were supplied with oxidizer from the LOX dome by axially drilled holes. The fuel ring grooves were supplied from the fuel inlet manifold (shown in the exploded view diagram above) by 32 radial fuel feed passages. The arrangement of fuel feed passages in a typical injector is depicted in the following diagram:


Quote from: sceptimatic
After all, you aren't going to be able to shoot a massive cannon ball through  the barrel of an sir pistol just as you aren't going to throw 4 tonnes of fuel through a small diameter pipe.
Nobody is claiming they are "going to throw 4 tonnes of fuel through a small diameter pipe" but through 2832 small pipes.
"Reasoning with yourselves" is a useless exercise if you have no facts on which to base that reasoning.
And what feeds the 2832 small pipes?
Are you totally helpless? That information is in the reference I gave you!
The oxidiser (LOX) is supplied through two very large pipes and the fuel (RP-1) through two not quite so large ones:

Quote from: HeroicRelics
F-1 ENGINE INJECTOR
The injector is located near the forward end of the engine. Just forward of the injector is the LOX dome (also called the oxidizer dome), through which the liquid oxygen is directed en route to the injector. The LOX dome is bolted to the injector by 16 inner-dome support bolts, and both the oxidizer dome and the injector are bolted to the thrust chamber body by 64 outer-dome attach bolts. The LOX dome, injector, and thrust chamber body are indexed to each other by one diamond-shaped and one round, noninterchangeable index pin, spaced 180 degrees apart at the interface flanges below the two oxidizer dome inlets.

Right click image and select open imag in new tab for a 1332x1135 pixel version of this image in a new window.
         From p. 1-7 (p. 22 in the PDF) of F-1 Engine Familiarization Training Manual (R-3896-1)
                          [direct link to 16.8M PDF file at UAH's USSRC Archive]
                                     Extraction and cleanup by heroicrelics.org.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #128 on: March 09, 2019, 04:43:32 AM »

And what feeds the 2832 small pipes?
Are you totally helpless? That information is in the reference I gave you!
The oxidiser (LOX) is supplied through two very large pipes and the fuel (RP-1) through two not quite so large ones:
Quote from: HeroicRelics
F-1 ENGINE INJECTOR
The injector is located near the forward end of the engine. Just forward of the injector is the LOX dome (also called the oxidizer dome), through which the liquid oxygen is directed en route to the injector. The LOX dome is bolted to the injector by 16 inner-dome support bolts, and both the oxidizer dome and the injector are bolted to the thrust chamber body by 64 outer-dome attach bolts. The LOX dome, injector, and thrust chamber body are indexed to each other by one diamond-shaped and one round, noninterchangeable index pin, spaced 180 degrees apart at the interface flanges below the two oxidizer dome inlets.

So the red arrows allow the oxy and fuel into the chamber. 4 small pipes.
Would that be one tonne per second into each pipe?

Also what pipes supply this engine before it gets to the 4 pipes?
Feel free to duck it if you want to, I'm just asking.



Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #129 on: March 09, 2019, 07:04:02 AM »
Trolltrolltroll on.

*

JackBlack

  • 21560
Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #130 on: March 09, 2019, 01:36:49 PM »
Are the satellites on full beam or are they painted with luminous road sign type covering?
They are covered with highly reflective surfaces. This is important for cooling.

Do those lights stay perfectly still in the night sky until they disappear?
It is impossible to tell if it stays perfectly still or just still within the margin of error of the viewing device.

That I may not have. And you I would hazard a guess at. What about anyone else?
It requires a tripod, a camera with the ability to have a very long exposure, and the skill to point it at the equator. That isn't hard.

the so called satellites are supposedly dead and replaced.....but how?
Because when they are replaced they put the new satellites in the location of the old ones.

Do I really need to elaborate on that?
Yes. If you wish to claim they are replacing the satellites, you need to explain how.

As for antennas; I think they speak for themselves.
There's reasons why they're so high.
Yes, there is a very simple reason.
EARTH IS ROUND!
By putting them up high the signal can propogate further before the horizon obscures it. This means they have a much larger range.
This height would not be needed if Earth was flat.

People need to get out of sci-fi mode.
Yes, you really do.

*

JackBlack

  • 21560
Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #131 on: March 09, 2019, 02:10:21 PM »
Forget small rockets.
Why? They show your claims to be nonsense.
I'm not going to forget them just to prop up your lies.

It's simple. You say if a model rocket can do it, why not a 3000 tonne one.
Let's make this simple and clear. All you need to do is answer it as best you can.
No I don't.
You are the one making the claim that 3000 tonne rockets are impossible and blow themselves apart. The burden is on you to show this.
No pathetic appeals to ridicule.
Provide the equations based upon reality or real world comparisons to show the issue.

Any pipe will have a flow rate. A maximum flow rate and it will not be 4 tonnes per second.
So you want to appeal to flow rate?
In that case please provide these maximum flow rates. Make sure you do it for kerosene (specially RP-1) and liquid oxygen, as different fluids have a different maximum flow rate. Also note the construction of the pipe, as different materials can support a different flow rate due to allowing different pressures and different surface interactions.

Also make sure you note that that 4000 kg/s is not just fuel. Instead it is the combined fuel and oxidiser, where there is roughly 1.5 as much oxygen as fuel by mass.

You see, this is where people lose their logic in favour of acceptance of sci-fi
You mean in favour of ridicule. Rather than even attempting to do the problem, you just dismiss it as fiction by ridiculing it.

Also note that this now has absolutely nothing to do with the rocket blowing itself apart like your prior attempt at ridicule.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2019, 02:13:19 PM by JackBlack »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #132 on: March 09, 2019, 03:01:54 PM »
Also what pipes supply this engine before it gets to the 4 pipes?
Go and look it up yourself! I've given you enough references - let your fingers do the walking!
You've got no answers and no evidence and refuse to do anything to find any.

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #133 on: March 09, 2019, 05:39:35 PM »
All arguments aside, the F-1 engine is a fascinating piece of engineering!

Judging solely from the photograph, with the engine being 18.5 feet high, those oxidizer feed pipes look to be about a foot in diameter.
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #134 on: March 09, 2019, 06:10:16 PM »
All arguments aside, the F-1 engine is a fascinating piece of engineering!

Judging solely from the photograph, with the engine being 18.5 feet high, those oxidizer feed pipes look to be about a foot in diameter.
Have a look at the “moon rocket” engine back to life: The story of young engineers who resurrected an engine nearly twice their age by LEE HUTCHINSON
Here is a photo indicating the size of the Rocketdyne F-1:

Note the "little man-in-black" standing on the right.

But the original F-1 simply had too many individual parts hand welded by craftsmen that are simply not around any more.
The plans are all still available but each F-1 engine was hand-crafted.

So the new engine (if it's ever built as envisaged) would be constructed quite differently using modern manufacturing techniques:

Photo of the F-1/F-1B comparison chart Dynetics/PWR had on display at the test firing,
showing several key differences between the F-1 and F-1B.

Note the reduction in the number of parts from over 5000 to under 50 though it is not finalised and only a few bits have been tested.

Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #135 on: March 09, 2019, 11:30:45 PM »
So Sceptimatic tells us to be free thinkers but he is incapable of visualising a very large pump pushing large volumes of liquid through a large pipe.....?
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #136 on: March 10, 2019, 01:43:26 AM »
Are the satellites on full beam or are they painted with luminous road sign type covering?
They are covered with highly reflective surfaces. This is important for cooling.

There is no cooling in your so called vacuum, no matter how much you try to spin it.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #137 on: March 10, 2019, 03:00:16 AM »

So you want to appeal to flow rate?
Also make sure you note that that 4000 kg/s is not just fuel. Instead it is the combined fuel and oxidiser, where there is roughly 1.5 as much oxygen as fuel by mass.

It still all has to flow through those small pipes. And yes they are small considering what's supposed to be whacked through them.

It makes for reasonable sci-fi but that's as far as it goes.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #138 on: March 10, 2019, 03:01:00 AM »
Also what pipes supply this engine before it gets to the 4 pipes?
Go and look it up yourself! I've given you enough references - let your fingers do the walking!
You've got no answers and no evidence and refuse to do anything to find any.
Normally you seem keen to show the stuff. What's the matter?

*

JackBlack

  • 21560
Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #139 on: March 10, 2019, 03:02:32 AM »
There is no cooling in your so called vacuum, no matter how much you try to spin it.
I meant temperature management.

However there is cooling in a vacuum.
You not liking radiative cooling doesn't magically make it cease to exist.

And yet again you run off on a pathetic distraction rather than dealing with the actual issue at hand and backing up your insane nonsense.

Where are your calculations of maximum flow rate through the pipe?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #140 on: March 10, 2019, 03:02:37 AM »
All arguments aside, the F-1 engine is a fascinating piece of engineering!

Judging solely from the photograph, with the engine being 18.5 feet high, those oxidizer feed pipes look to be about a foot in diameter.
They're a great gimmick for show.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #141 on: March 10, 2019, 03:18:12 AM »
All arguments aside, the F-1 engine is a fascinating piece of engineering!

Judging solely from the photograph, with the engine being 18.5 feet high, those oxidizer feed pipes look to be about a foot in diameter.
Have a look at the “moon rocket” engine back to life: The story of young engineers who resurrected an engine nearly twice their age by LEE HUTCHINSON
Here is a photo indicating the size of the Rocketdyne F-1:

Note the "little man-in-black" standing on the right.

But the original F-1 simply had too many individual parts hand welded by craftsmen that are simply not around any more.
The plans are all still available but each F-1 engine was hand-crafted.

So the new engine (if it's ever built as envisaged) would be constructed quite differently using modern manufacturing techniques:

Photo of the F-1/F-1B comparison chart Dynetics/PWR had on display at the test firing,
showing several key differences between the F-1 and F-1B.

Note the reduction in the number of parts from over 5000 to under 50 though it is not finalised and only a few bits have been tested.
The man in black looks to be a woman in purple but that's beside the point.

It's amazing how the engine cannot be replicated due to the craftsmen of yesteryear being so good at piecing together thousands of parts and welding to extreme, eh?
Now it's down to 50 parts because it's better to do that than to actually replicate a supposed outstanding piece of engineering.

The story is a great story, it really is. It's good Hollywood type top to bottom stuff from narration to pictures to video to specifics that nobody can ever verify, down to the big composite effigies that pass off as the rockets of yesteryear.

When your budget for filming and making models and such like, is limitless, you can do whatever the hell you want.
Everyone is happy because those who make the films and what not are getting their kicks and trappings and the fat cats are getting their kicks and trappings.
The public are generally mesmerised and happy (at the time) to have some so called bragging rights that they had no issue handing over the mega bucks their tax dollars added up to.


*

JackBlack

  • 21560
Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #142 on: March 10, 2019, 03:27:39 AM »
It's amazing how the engine cannot be replicated due to the craftsmen of yesteryear being so good at piecing together thousands of parts and welding to extreme, eh?
No, it "cannot be replicated" because as they were being built the parts were being custom fit with the skill and expertise of those assembling it.
With today's technology that is no longer required as we can have it made correctly with machining and have it pieces together without needing the custom fit.

The story is a great story, it really is. It's good Hollywood type top to bottom
Quit with your pathetic baseless assertions.
Start backing up your insane claims.
You claim it would blow itself apart, PROVE IT!
You claim the flowrate is impossible, PROVE IT!

Stop with your pathetic, baseless ridicule.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #143 on: March 10, 2019, 03:31:12 AM »
So Sceptimatic tells us to be free thinkers but he is incapable of visualising a very large pump pushing large volumes of liquid through a large pipe.....?
I can certainly visualise a large pump pushing large volumes through a pipe.

Not 4 tons per second for 5 engines equalling 20 tons per second from one tank of so called kerosene and one tank of liquid oxy.

The trouble with people is they get desensitised to it all, thinking it's nothing compared to the size of the rocket.
The reality should be ....well the reality would simply not be a reality because it wouldn't work.

Not only is the so called fuel dumped at that rate, it then has to burn.
Think about that burn from that 20 tons of released fuel.

Good sci-fi but that's all it is.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #144 on: March 10, 2019, 03:47:08 AM »
There is no cooling in your so called vacuum, no matter how much you try to spin it.
I meant temperature management.

However there is cooling in a vacuum.
You not liking radiative cooling doesn't magically make it cease to exist.

And yet again you run off on a pathetic distraction rather than dealing with the actual issue at hand and backing up your insane nonsense.

Where are your calculations of maximum flow rate through the pipe?
There's a valid reason why electrical components require heat sinks and fans and VENTILATION to allow that heat to dissipate.

They require them because they're in atmosphere and the atmosphere has to be pushed about. Moved. Shifted to move along expanded (hot air) to replace with less expanded air as a more dense covering to dampen heat build.

If I was to take a working laptop and place it inside a waterproof bag and push out most of the air then seal it shut, how long before that laptop burns out or shuts down due to overheating?

You know the answer and you don't need to place a time limit on it. Just the words "not long"....right?
Deny this and all you will be doing is denying the truth to yourself, not me.

So don't think for one second that a supposed electronic so called satellite full of electronics, as we are told will work.
You clearly know a fan does not work in a chamber with so much atmosphere evacuated.
You clearly know the fiction writers cannot put a fan inside a so called satellite.
You also clearly know that to radiate anything it has to have something to radiate in, just like a radiator in your home radiates its heat from its outer skin to expand the air and be hit by denser less expanded air.

In your so called space, there is none of that. Your components are all heat. All electronic components are heat in varying stages and that heat must be dissipated.

You need to move matter to dissipate heat. Your space provides you with little to none.
Your components are essentially entombed inside that bag I mentioned, because there's no way to radiate, unless you use magic.



« Last Edit: March 10, 2019, 03:50:23 AM by sceptimatic »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #145 on: March 10, 2019, 03:55:01 AM »

No, it "cannot be replicated" because as they were being built the parts were being custom fit with the skill and expertise of those assembling it.
With today's technology that is no longer required as we can have it made correctly with machining and have it pieces together without needing the custom fit.


How many so called F1 engines were built from start to finish?
 Custom fit my aris.
If there was a few then you'd have an argument.
The issue is there apparently was more than a few...right?
That's the story.

Of course, in the real world of model making and such and museum pieces, then yes, custom is the word.

The story breaks down badly when you look at it piece by piece.

*

JackBlack

  • 21560
Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #146 on: March 10, 2019, 04:06:36 AM »
The reality should be ....well the reality would simply not be a reality because it wouldn't work.
So far all we have for that is your pathetic ridicule.
If you wish to convince any sane person you will need far more than that.

Show the math that shows this is impossible.

There's a valid reason why electrical components require heat sinks and fans and VENTILATION to allow that heat to dissipate.
Except, they don't actually need that.
Plenty of electronics work just fine without that.
Those that do heat up significantly just need a way to dump the heat.
The simplest way to do so is a heat sink and fan.
That doesn't mean other ways are impossible.

Now stop with your pathetic analogies and false equivalences.
If you wish to assert radiative cooling doesn't exist you will need to focus on radiative transfer of heat.
Showing a device which is designed to use forced air circulation can't cool itself with radiative cooling with the same design just shows you don't understand heat transfer.

If you would like a valid analogy then according to you, standing in the shade under a tree should have you feel much hotter than standing in direct sunlight in a glass greenhouse.
That is because the glass provides a barrier to the motion of the air, while standing in the shade does not.
But the radiative heat transfer of the sun doesn't care. Instead it goes through the glass and still heats you up, but can't penetrate whatever is providing the shade letting you stay cool.


The story breaks down badly when you look at it piece by piece.
Really? Because you are yet to show a single problem. Instead all you have done is repeatedly assert there is a problem and try to ridicule it.

Now again, quit with the pathetic distraction and deal with your claims of impossibility of the rocket.
You claim it would blow itself up, yet can provide nothing to show that.
You claim the flow rate is impossible, yet can provide nothing to show that.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #147 on: March 10, 2019, 05:27:31 AM »
There is no cooling in your so called a vacuum, no matter how much you try to spin it.
Incorrect!
Heat is transferred by radiation, conduction and convection. And radiation is just as effective in a vacuum as anywhere else.
No spin is needed!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #148 on: March 10, 2019, 05:34:38 AM »

No, it "cannot be replicated" because as they were being built the parts were being custom fit with the skill and expertise of those assembling it.
With today's technology that is no longer required as we can have it made correctly with machining and have it pieces together without needing the custom fit.

How many F1 engines were built from start to finish?
Something like  the total of these:
    Sixty-five F-1 engines were launched aboard thirteen Saturn Vs.
    Ten F-1 engines were installed on two production Saturn Vs that never flew.
    A test engine is on display at the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney, Australia.
    An F-1 engine, on loan from the National Air and Space Museum, is on display at the Air Zoo in Portage, Michigan.
    An F-1 engine is on a horizontal display stand at Science Museum Oklahoma in Oklahoma City.
    F-1 engine F-6049 is displayed vertically at the Museum of Flight in Seattle, WA as part of the Apollo exhibit.
So what?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« Reply #149 on: March 10, 2019, 05:45:04 AM »
In your so called space, there is none of that. Your components are all heat. All electronic components are heat in varying stages and that heat must be dissipated.

You need to move matter to dissipate heat. Your space provides you with little to none.
Your components are essentially entombed inside that bag I mentioned, because there's no way to radiate, unless you use magic.
Heat can be conducted to where it can radiate into space.

It is an extremely important issue!
Why should feed you like a baby Read a bit about it for yourself in:
         Learn more about Thermal Control System
         Spacecraft Thermal Control SystemsCol. John E. Keesee
         Adanced Cooling technologies, Spacecraft Thermal Control.