Escape velocity and Speed of light?

Quote from: Heiwa on July 09, 2020, 11:20:18 AM

Quote from: JJA on July 09, 2020, 10:10:25 AM

You published findings that it's impossible to return from space? Citation required, I don't believe you. And making a web page doesn't count as publishing. 

You've provided no proof or any valid reasoning or logic other than claiming it's impossible. That's it, just you saying NO. Not much evidence, other than showing your profound ignorance.

Sorry, there are no peer reviewed scientific descriptions of how to re-enter from space and land intact on Earth anywhere. I know re-entry is taught universities, etc, but without any evidence at all! NASA, ESA, etc say it is easy but ... no evidence. Nobody can explain how to return from space and land on Earth.

What?

No evidence? Five hundred people that went to space and back from several countries don't count? Dozens of space agencies launching satelites and rockets, including several private companies aren't evidence?  Maybe not to you, because you just blanket deny anything involving space.  Easy to say there is no evidence when you just see no space, hear no space.

You again, provide nothing but YOUR assertion it's impossible. Reality would disagree.

Nobody can explain it to YOU because you are simply incapable of understanding it. That's not NASA's fault. The rest of us can understand it just fine.

Your inability to understand doesn't make it a lie, it just make you, well, figure it out.

Yes, >500 persons say that they have done a re-entry and then landed either in an ocean or in a Khazak desert or in a Shuttle at a USAF base but ... no re-entries ever took place. I have explained why at my website since many years. It is not a conspiracy theory but a simple fact. Just ask any of the 500 how they did it. They haven't got a clue. They just await that you shall kiss their feet and admire them.
I still await a scientific, peer reviewed description how to do a re-entry without being vaporized by heat generated when braking.

Quote from: JJA on July 09, 2020, 11:32:45 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 09, 2020, 11:20:18 AM

Quote from: JJA on July 09, 2020, 10:10:25 AM

You published findings that it's impossible to return from space? Citation required, I don't believe you. And making a web page doesn't count as publishing. 

You've provided no proof or any valid reasoning or logic other than claiming it's impossible. That's it, just you saying NO. Not much evidence, other than showing your profound ignorance.

Sorry, there are no peer reviewed scientific descriptions of how to re-enter from space and land intact on Earth anywhere. I know re-entry is taught universities, etc, but without any evidence at all! NASA, ESA, etc say it is easy but ... no evidence. Nobody can explain how to return from space and land on Earth.

What?

No evidence? Five hundred people that went to space and back from several countries don't count? Dozens of space agencies launching satelites and rockets, including several private companies aren't evidence?  Maybe not to you, because you just blanket deny anything involving space.  Easy to say there is no evidence when you just see no space, hear no space.

You again, provide nothing but YOUR assertion it's impossible. Reality would disagree.

Nobody can explain it to YOU because you are simply incapable of understanding it. That's not NASA's fault. The rest of us can understand it just fine.

Your inability to understand doesn't make it a lie, it just make you, well, figure it out.

Yes, >500 persons say that they have done a re-entry and then landed either in an ocean or in a Khazak desert or in a Shuttle at a USAF base but ... no re-entries ever took place. I have explained why at my website since many years. It is not a conspiracy theory but a simple fact. Just ask any of the 500 how they did it. They haven't got a clue. They just await that you shall kiss their feet and admire them.
I still await a scientific, peer reviewed description how to do a re-entry without being vaporized by heat generated when braking.

After a 10 second search here's one to get you started:

Spacecraft Re-Entry Impact Point Targeting using Aerodynamic Drag
Sanny R. Omar1 and Riccardo Bevilacqua2
University of Florida, ADAMUS Laboratory, Gainesville, FL 32611
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170000348.pdf

And here's a list of a whole bunch of published, peer reviewed papers/articles regarding re-entry, heat shielding, and braking:

https://www.science.gov/topicpages/r/re-entry+aerodynamic+heating

How many of these scientific, peer reviewed description how to do a re-entry without being vaporized by heat generated when braking papers do you need? There appears to be a lot of them. It seems really difficult to publish findings for things where you obviously did no research. Did you not ever search on the topic?

Quote from: Heiwa on July 09, 2020, 09:21:36 PM

Quote from: JJA on July 09, 2020, 11:32:45 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 09, 2020, 11:20:18 AM

Quote from: JJA on July 09, 2020, 10:10:25 AM

You published findings that it's impossible to return from space? Citation required, I don't believe you. And making a web page doesn't count as publishing. 

You've provided no proof or any valid reasoning or logic other than claiming it's impossible. That's it, just you saying NO. Not much evidence, other than showing your profound ignorance.

Sorry, there are no peer reviewed scientific descriptions of how to re-enter from space and land intact on Earth anywhere. I know re-entry is taught universities, etc, but without any evidence at all! NASA, ESA, etc say it is easy but ... no evidence. Nobody can explain how to return from space and land on Earth.

What?

No evidence? Five hundred people that went to space and back from several countries don't count? Dozens of space agencies launching satelites and rockets, including several private companies aren't evidence?  Maybe not to you, because you just blanket deny anything involving space.  Easy to say there is no evidence when you just see no space, hear no space.

You again, provide nothing but YOUR assertion it's impossible. Reality would disagree.

Nobody can explain it to YOU because you are simply incapable of understanding it. That's not NASA's fault. The rest of us can understand it just fine.

Your inability to understand doesn't make it a lie, it just make you, well, figure it out.

Yes, >500 persons say that they have done a re-entry and then landed either in an ocean or in a Khazak desert or in a Shuttle at a USAF base but ... no re-entries ever took place. I have explained why at my website since many years. It is not a conspiracy theory but a simple fact. Just ask any of the 500 how they did it. They haven't got a clue. They just await that you shall kiss their feet and admire them.
I still await a scientific, peer reviewed description how to do a re-entry without being vaporized by heat generated when braking.

After a 10 second search here's one to get you started:

Spacecraft Re-Entry Impact Point Targeting using Aerodynamic Drag
Sanny R. Omar1 and Riccardo Bevilacqua2
University of Florida, ADAMUS Laboratory, Gainesville, FL 32611
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170000348.pdf

And here's a list of a whole bunch of published, peer reviewed papers/articles regarding re-entry, heat shielding, and braking:

https://www.science.gov/topicpages/r/re-entry+aerodynamic+heating

How many of these scientific, peer reviewed description how to do a re-entry without being vaporized by heat generated when braking papers do you need? There appears to be a lot of them. It seems really difficult to publish findings for things where you obviously did no research. Did you not ever search on the topic?

Thanks. But none of the papers are peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community. NASA & Co encourage all the time students to write papers about space, bla, bla.
I always love the suggestion that a re-entry starts at point A in the upper atmosphere where there is no air - 120 000 m altitude - and 7000 m/s speed and that you then drop down to point B (the impact location!) at ground/sea level during 15 minutes and stops there at 0 speed. A soft impact, LOL!
If you ask how to find point A (so you can start), there is nobody to answer. And the trajectory A to B you better forget, too. Is it straight, curved, how do you know that you slow down, where you are, etc? Nobody knows! Imagine that >500 asstronuts have landed not knowing how the braking went to avoid hitting something during the re-entry.

I remind you that the #1 re-entry was done by the Hero of the Sovietunion, Yuri G back in 1961. When he was dropping down from A above, he opened a door of his spacecraft, jumped and landed by parachute. His spacecraft landed intact not far away. And there were people there to witness it. I describe it at my website. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelw1.htm#18

Thanks. But none of the papers are peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community.
I always love the suggestion that a re-entry starts at point A in the upper atmosphere where there is no air - 120 000 m altitude - and 7000 m/s speed and that you then drop down to point B at ground/sea level during 15 minutes and stops at 0 speed. If you ask how to find point A (so you can start), there is nobody to answer. And the trajectory AB you better forget, too. Is it straight, curved, how do you know that you slow down, etc! Nobody knows.

Rubbish!
Those that do plan these things base their reentry trajectories on much research, measurement and theory.

So you don't have the brains to understand controlled atmospheric braking.
That's your problem, tough! What you believe or don't believe affects no one but yourself.
Wallow is ignorance to your heart's content .

Quote from: Heiwa on July 10, 2020, 12:30:42 AM

Thanks. But none of the papers are peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community.
I always love the suggestion that a re-entry starts at point A in the upper atmosphere where there is no air - 120 000 m altitude - and 7000 m/s speed and that you then drop down to point B at ground/sea level during 15 minutes and stops at 0 speed. If you ask how to find point A (so you can start), there is nobody to answer. And the trajectory AB you better forget, too. Is it straight, curved, how do you know that you slow down, etc! Nobody knows.

Rubbish!
Those that do plan these things base their reentry trajectories on much research, measurement and theory.

So you don't have the brains to understand controlled atmospheric braking.
That's your problem, tough! What you believe or don't believe affects no one but yourself.
Wallow is ignorance to your heart's content .

Please, re-entries have been done since 1961 without any research since then. Click on the link above. You should meet Yuri G but it seems you arrive at a photo of Buzz Aldrin, PhD, planting straw berries on the Moon.  http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelw1.htm#18 . You have to scroll down to meet Yuri!

Quote from: rabinoz on July 10, 2020, 12:46:18 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 10, 2020, 12:30:42 AM

Thanks. But none of the papers are peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community.
I always love the suggestion that a re-entry starts at point A in the upper atmosphere where there is no air - 120 000 m altitude - and 7000 m/s speed and that you then drop down to point B at ground/sea level during 15 minutes and stops at 0 speed. If you ask how to find point A (so you can start), there is nobody to answer. And the trajectory AB you better forget, too. Is it straight, curved, how do you know that you slow down, etc! Nobody knows.

Rubbish!
Those that do plan these things base their reentry trajectories on much research, measurement and theory.

So you don't have the brains to understand controlled atmospheric braking.
That's your problem, tough! What you believe or don't believe affects no one but yourself.
Wallow is ignorance to your heart's content .

Please, re-entries have been done since 1961 without any research since then.

Says who? You?

Every new re-entry vehicle needs considerable research, experimental work design and testing.

And atmospheric braking (though from sub-orbital speed) has been done since the 1950s.

Quote from: Heiwa on July 10, 2020, 01:08:23 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 10, 2020, 12:46:18 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 10, 2020, 12:30:42 AM

Thanks. But none of the papers are peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community.
I always love the suggestion that a re-entry starts at point A in the upper atmosphere where there is no air - 120 000 m altitude - and 7000 m/s speed and that you then drop down to point B at ground/sea level during 15 minutes and stops at 0 speed. If you ask how to find point A (so you can start), there is nobody to answer. And the trajectory AB you better forget, too. Is it straight, curved, how do you know that you slow down, etc! Nobody knows.

Rubbish!
Those that do plan these things base their reentry trajectories on much research, measurement and theory.

So you don't have the brains to understand controlled atmospheric braking.
That's your problem, tough! What you believe or don't believe affects no one but yourself.
Wallow is ignorance to your heart's content .

Please, re-entries have been done since 1961 without any research since then.

Says who? You?

Every new re-entry vehicle needs considerable research, experimental work design and testing.

And atmospheric braking (though from sub-orbital speed) has been done since the 1950s.

Yes, I am an expert of re-entries since many years since Yuri Gagarin and John Glenn faked them.
 http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelw1.htm#18
Of course John Glenn was assisted by a woman that checked all the calculations. She was Afro-American, i.e. her family was former slaves! Imagine that.

Quote from: JJA on July 09, 2020, 11:32:45 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 09, 2020, 11:20:18 AM

Quote from: JJA on July 09, 2020, 10:10:25 AM

You published findings that it's impossible to return from space? Citation required, I don't believe you. And making a web page doesn't count as publishing. 

You've provided no proof or any valid reasoning or logic other than claiming it's impossible. That's it, just you saying NO. Not much evidence, other than showing your profound ignorance.

Sorry, there are no peer reviewed scientific descriptions of how to re-enter from space and land intact on Earth anywhere. I know re-entry is taught universities, etc, but without any evidence at all! NASA, ESA, etc say it is easy but ... no evidence. Nobody can explain how to return from space and land on Earth.

What?

No evidence? Five hundred people that went to space and back from several countries don't count? Dozens of space agencies launching satelites and rockets, including several private companies aren't evidence?  Maybe not to you, because you just blanket deny anything involving space.  Easy to say there is no evidence when you just see no space, hear no space.

You again, provide nothing but YOUR assertion it's impossible. Reality would disagree.

Nobody can explain it to YOU because you are simply incapable of understanding it. That's not NASA's fault. The rest of us can understand it just fine.

Your inability to understand doesn't make it a lie, it just make you, well, figure it out.

Yes, >500 persons say that they have done a re-entry and then landed either in an ocean or in a Khazak desert or in a Shuttle at a USAF base but ... no re-entries ever took place. I have explained why at my website since many years. It is not a conspiracy theory but a simple fact. Just ask any of the 500 how they did it. They haven't got a clue. They just await that you shall kiss their feet and admire them.
I still await a scientific, peer reviewed description how to do a re-entry without being vaporized by heat generated when braking.

Sorry.

Your website is no more a reference than Time Cube is.

If your only evidence is "I wrote it on my web page" then you have nothing.

You can ignore all the actual evidence out there, and pretend it doesn't exist but it's just crazy ranting.

Quote from: rabinoz on July 10, 2020, 01:58:00 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 10, 2020, 01:08:23 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 10, 2020, 12:46:18 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 10, 2020, 12:30:42 AM

Thanks. But none of the papers are peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community.
I always love the suggestion that a re-entry starts at point A in the upper atmosphere where there is no air - 120 000 m altitude - and 7000 m/s speed and that you then drop down to point B at ground/sea level during 15 minutes and stops at 0 speed. If you ask how to find point A (so you can start), there is nobody to answer. And the trajectory AB you better forget, too. Is it straight, curved, how do you know that you slow down, etc! Nobody knows.

Rubbish!
Those that do plan these things base their reentry trajectories on much research, measurement and theory.

So you don't have the brains to understand controlled atmospheric braking.
That's your problem, tough! What you believe or don't believe affects no one but yourself.
Wallow is ignorance to your heart's content .

Please, re-entries have been done since 1961 without any research since then.

Says who? You?

Every new re-entry vehicle needs considerable research, experimental work design and testing.

And atmospheric braking (though from sub-orbital speed) has been done since the 1950s.

Yes, I am an expert of re-entries since many years since Yuri Gagarin and John Glenn faked them.
 http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelw1.htm#18
Of course John Glenn was assisted by a woman that checked all the calculations. She was Afro-American, i.e. her family was former slaves! Imagine that.

What is it with you and smart, capable women? You constantly bring them up like it's proof of some crime that a woman was involved.

Yes, I am an expert of re-entries...

No, you aren't.  Stop lying.

Quote from: Heiwa on July 10, 2020, 02:53:41 AM

Yes, I am an expert of re-entries...

No, you aren't.  Stop lying.

No, I am an expert. I have, e.g. analyzed the Gagarin and John Glenn re-entries 1961/2 and found that they are both pure fantasies. See link provided above.

Quote from: Heiwa on July 10, 2020, 02:53:41 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 10, 2020, 01:58:00 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 10, 2020, 01:08:23 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 10, 2020, 12:46:18 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 10, 2020, 12:30:42 AM

Thanks. But none of the papers are peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community.
I always love the suggestion that a re-entry starts at point A in the upper atmosphere where there is no air - 120 000 m altitude - and 7000 m/s speed and that you then drop down to point B at ground/sea level during 15 minutes and stops at 0 speed. If you ask how to find point A (so you can start), there is nobody to answer. And the trajectory AB you better forget, too. Is it straight, curved, how do you know that you slow down, etc! Nobody knows.

Rubbish!
Those that do plan these things base their reentry trajectories on much research, measurement and theory.

So you don't have the brains to understand controlled atmospheric braking.
That's your problem, tough! What you believe or don't believe affects no one but yourself.
Wallow is ignorance to your heart's content .

Please, re-entries have been done since 1961 without any research since then.

Says who? You?

Every new re-entry vehicle needs considerable research, experimental work design and testing.

And atmospheric braking (though from sub-orbital speed) has been done since the 1950s.

Yes, I am an expert of re-entries since many years since Yuri Gagarin and John Glenn faked them.
 http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelw1.htm#18
Of course John Glenn was assisted by a woman that checked all the calculations. She was Afro-American, i.e. her family was former slaves! Imagine that.

What is it with you and smart, capable women? You constantly bring them up like it's proof of some crime that a woman was involved.

You mean Katherine Johnson? She died some years ago >100 years old. Senator and asstronut John Glenn relied on her 1962. She was called in to put some color to the show!

Quote from: JJA on July 10, 2020, 06:10:03 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 10, 2020, 02:53:41 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 10, 2020, 01:58:00 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 10, 2020, 01:08:23 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 10, 2020, 12:46:18 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 10, 2020, 12:30:42 AM

Thanks. But none of the papers are peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community.
I always love the suggestion that a re-entry starts at point A in the upper atmosphere where there is no air - 120 000 m altitude - and 7000 m/s speed and that you then drop down to point B at ground/sea level during 15 minutes and stops at 0 speed. If you ask how to find point A (so you can start), there is nobody to answer. And the trajectory AB you better forget, too. Is it straight, curved, how do you know that you slow down, etc! Nobody knows.

Rubbish!
Those that do plan these things base their reentry trajectories on much research, measurement and theory.

So you don't have the brains to understand controlled atmospheric braking.
That's your problem, tough! What you believe or don't believe affects no one but yourself.
Wallow is ignorance to your heart's content .

Please, re-entries have been done since 1961 without any research since then.

Says who? You?

Every new re-entry vehicle needs considerable research, experimental work design and testing.

And atmospheric braking (though from sub-orbital speed) has been done since the 1950s.

Yes, I am an expert of re-entries since many years since Yuri Gagarin and John Glenn faked them.
 http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelw1.htm#18
Of course John Glenn was assisted by a woman that checked all the calculations. She was Afro-American, i.e. her family was former slaves! Imagine that.

What is it with you and smart, capable women? You constantly bring them up like it's proof of some crime that a woman was involved.

You mean Katherine Johnson? She died some years ago >100 years old. Senator and asstronut John Glenn relied on her 1962. She was called in to put some color to the show!

Your misogyny and racism is getting more tiresome than your inability to understand basic physics and constantly pushing your crazy web page.

Your misogyny and racism is getting more tiresome than your inability to understand basic physics and constantly pushing your crazy web page.

Please, I love women of all backgrounds and I understand basic physics which I present at my website. Anything wrong? When will you accuse me of being a Holocaust denier?

Quote from: markjo on July 10, 2020, 06:17:05 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 10, 2020, 02:53:41 AM

Yes, I am an expert of re-entries...

No, you aren't.  Stop lying.

No, I am an expert.

What qualifies you as an expert in atmospheric reentry?

I have, e.g. analyzed the Gagarin and John Glenn re-entries 1961/2 and found that they are both pure fantasies.

Evidently your analysis was flawed.

Quote from: rabinoz on July 10, 2020, 01:58:00 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 10, 2020, 01:08:23 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 10, 2020, 12:46:18 AM

Wallow is ignorance to your heart's content .

Please, re-entries have been done since 1961 without any research since then.

Says who? You?

Every new re-entry vehicle needs considerable research, experimental work design and testing.

And atmospheric braking (though from sub-orbital speed) has been done since the 1950s.

Yes, I am an expert of re-entries since many years since Yuri Gagarin and John Glenn faked them.
 http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelw1.htm#18
Of course John Glenn was assisted by a woman that checked all the calculations. She was Afro-American, i.e. her family was former slaves! Imagine that.

Run away! You are no more an expert on re-entries than Elvis Presley!

And your Yuri Gagarin and John Glenn are over a decade late, proving that you are nothing but a con-man and a fraud but everyone knows that.

With nuclear weapons, atmosphere re-entry, interplanetary space missions and so much else you have the gall to think that if you can't understand something it's impossible.

It might be different if you had any one valid reason for these things  being impossible but you never do.

So how dare you claim that everyone else except little Mr Anders is lying about all these things?
Ever looked in a mirror?

I've never heard of a person with such an over-the-top ego.

Now run away!

Quote from: JJA on July 10, 2020, 07:03:40 AM

Your misogyny and racism is getting more tiresome than your inability to understand basic physics and constantly pushing your crazy web page.

Please, I love women of all backgrounds and I understand basic physics which I present at my website. Anything wrong? When will you accuse me of being a Holocaust denier?

I'll accuse you of being a Holocaust denier if you deny the holocaust.

If you constantly make snarky comments about 'girls' and Katherine Johnson then I'm going to call you as I see it. You were the one who brought up Katherine Johnson out of nowhere to mention that a black woman was involved when trying to deny the entire space program, like that somehow is evidence of anything. Don't blame me for pointing it out.

As for anything wrong, yes. Your entire crazy web site.

Quote from: Heiwa on July 10, 2020, 07:13:37 AM

Quote from: JJA on July 10, 2020, 07:03:40 AM

Your misogyny and racism is getting more tiresome than your inability to understand basic physics and constantly pushing your crazy web page.

Please, I love women of all backgrounds and I understand basic physics which I present at my website. Anything wrong? When will you accuse me of being a Holocaust denier?

I'll accuse you of being a Holocaust denier if you deny the holocaust.

If you constantly make snarky comments about 'girls' and Katherine Johnson then I'm going to call you as I see it. You were the one who brought up Katherine Johnson out of nowhere to mention that a black woman was involved when trying to deny the entire space program, like that somehow is evidence of anything. Don't blame me for pointing it out.

As for anything wrong, yes. Your entire crazy web site.

Just for the record: I consider all NASA projects with humans in space as 100% fraud. No Americans have ever been in space and all persons of all colors/races involved in this stupid, old hoax are criminals in my view. It is quite easy to prove it.
Same with this project to film a very big, solid celestial object - with diameter same as our Solar System -  >50 million light years away in the center of a galaxy and call it a Black Hole! It is 100% fraud and the girl and her colleagues putting the stupid image together are criminals. Again it is quite easy to prove it.
I know exactly why they do it! It is stealing money with no risk involved.

Just for the record: I consider all NASA projects with humans in space as 100% fraud. No Americans have ever been in space and all persons of all colors/races involved in this stupid, old hoax are criminals in my view. It is quite easy to prove it.

Then prove it to the appropriate law enforcement agency and send the criminals to jail.

Quote from: Heiwa on July 10, 2020, 02:28:06 PM

Just for the record: I consider all NASA projects with humans in space as 100% fraud. No Americans have ever been in space and all persons of all colors/races involved in this stupid, old hoax are criminals in my view. It is quite easy to prove it.

Then prove it to the appropriate law enforcement agency and send the criminals to jail.

He won't, because he thinks if he enters the USA, they will blackbag him and toss him in a dark cell to rot for telling "secrets" about the atomic bomb.

Just for the record: I consider all NASA projects with humans in space as 100% fraud. No Americans have ever been in space and all persons of all colors/races involved in this stupid, old hoax are criminals in my view. It is quite easy to prove it.

Well, Mr Know-it-all, prove it!

Same with this project to film a very big, solid celestial object - with diameter same as our Solar System -  >50 million light years away in the center of a galaxy and call it a Black Hole! It is 100% fraud and the girl and her colleagues putting the stupid image together are criminals. Again it is quite easy to prove it.
I know exactly why they do it! It is stealing money with no risk involved.

So obviously you know nothing of astronomy or cosmology either. Figured as much!
Maybe you know something thing about safety at sea but there seems little else.
Everything else is your conspiracy theories and severe Dunning-Kruger Syndrome - You think you're smarter than everybody else.
It's a wonder you're not a flat Earther too.

Quote from: Stash on July 09, 2020, 10:40:39 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 09, 2020, 09:21:36 PM

Quote from: JJA on July 09, 2020, 11:32:45 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 09, 2020, 11:20:18 AM

Quote from: JJA on July 09, 2020, 10:10:25 AM

You published findings that it's impossible to return from space? Citation required, I don't believe you. And making a web page doesn't count as publishing. 

You've provided no proof or any valid reasoning or logic other than claiming it's impossible. That's it, just you saying NO. Not much evidence, other than showing your profound ignorance.

Sorry, there are no peer reviewed scientific descriptions of how to re-enter from space and land intact on Earth anywhere. I know re-entry is taught universities, etc, but without any evidence at all! NASA, ESA, etc say it is easy but ... no evidence. Nobody can explain how to return from space and land on Earth.

What?

No evidence? Five hundred people that went to space and back from several countries don't count? Dozens of space agencies launching satelites and rockets, including several private companies aren't evidence?  Maybe not to you, because you just blanket deny anything involving space.  Easy to say there is no evidence when you just see no space, hear no space.

You again, provide nothing but YOUR assertion it's impossible. Reality would disagree.

Nobody can explain it to YOU because you are simply incapable of understanding it. That's not NASA's fault. The rest of us can understand it just fine.

Your inability to understand doesn't make it a lie, it just make you, well, figure it out.

Yes, >500 persons say that they have done a re-entry and then landed either in an ocean or in a Khazak desert or in a Shuttle at a USAF base but ... no re-entries ever took place. I have explained why at my website since many years. It is not a conspiracy theory but a simple fact. Just ask any of the 500 how they did it. They haven't got a clue. They just await that you shall kiss their feet and admire them.
I still await a scientific, peer reviewed description how to do a re-entry without being vaporized by heat generated when braking.

After a 10 second search here's one to get you started:

Spacecraft Re-Entry Impact Point Targeting using Aerodynamic Drag
Sanny R. Omar1 and Riccardo Bevilacqua2
University of Florida, ADAMUS Laboratory, Gainesville, FL 32611
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170000348.pdf

And here's a list of a whole bunch of published, peer reviewed papers/articles regarding re-entry, heat shielding, and braking:

https://www.science.gov/topicpages/r/re-entry+aerodynamic+heating

How many of these scientific, peer reviewed description how to do a re-entry without being vaporized by heat generated when braking papers do you need? There appears to be a lot of them. It seems really difficult to publish findings for things where you obviously did no research. Did you not ever search on the topic?

Thanks. But none of the papers are peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community. NASA & Co encourage all the time students to write papers about space, bla, bla.

This is precisely why you're considered a liar and a fraud.  You claim "none of the papers are peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community." Right out of the gate, that's a lie.

The first on the long list of published papers I provided, Spacecraft Re-Entry Impact Point Targeting using Aerodynamic Drag, was authored by two Phd's at U of Florida had their paper published in the Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics & presented their paper at the AIAA Science and Technology Forum (SciTech 2017). And has been reviewed/cited 17 times.

So why would you lie and say, "none of the papers are peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community."?

If Heiwa fell 100 feet head first onto concrete,
why wouldn't his brain splatter everywhere?

If Heiwa fell 100 feet head first onto concrete,
why wouldn't his brain splatter everywhere?

1) He doesn't have one.

2) His skull is so thick and dense nothing gets through it and does more damage to the concrete than the concrete does to it.

Anders is so dense that he absorbs neutrinos.

This is precisely why you're considered a liar and a fraud.  You claim "none of the papers are peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community." Right out of the gate, that's a lie.

The first on the long list of published papers I provided, Spacecraft Re-Entry Impact Point Targeting using Aerodynamic Drag, was authored by two Phd's at U of Florida had their paper published in the Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics & presented their paper at the AIAA Science and Technology Forum (SciTech 2017). And has been reviewed/cited 17 times.

So why would you lie and say, "none of the papers are peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community."?

I just note that NASA asked these people to produce their pseudo scientific garbage or my funny theories for other NASA people (the scientific community? LOL) to adore to see what nonsense you can get away with. US universities are full of such PhDs. It is simple - there is no Aerodynamic Drag at 120 000 m altitude to enable a re-entry. So Gagariin and Glenn faked it 1961/2 with their orbits around Earth and re-entries. Just study my findings about them.

If it makes you happy to call me a liar and a fraud, pls go ahead. You are not alone. I feel sorry for you.

It is simple - there is no Aerodynamic Drag at 120 000 m altitude to enable a re-entry.

Would you please stop saying such stupid things?  The atmospheric pressure at 120,000 is very low, but it is not zero.  At 17,000+ mph, it doesn't take very much atmospheric pressure for a blunt body to cause aerodynamic drag, especially considering that the atmosphere gets more dense as you get lower.

Quote from: Heiwa on July 10, 2020, 08:59:12 PM

It is simple - there is no Aerodynamic Drag at 120 000 m altitude to enable a re-entry.

Would you please stop saying such stupid things?  The atmospheric pressure at 120,000 is very low, but it is not zero.  At 17,000+ mph, it doesn't take very much atmospheric pressure for a blunt body to cause aerodynamic drag, especially considering that the atmosphere gets more dense as you get lower.

So what is the atmospheric pressure (Pa) at 120 000 m? Why not copy it in a wind tunnel and do a test? How much is the drag (N)? Can it slow down a spacecraft returning doing a re-entry? According Gagarin and Glenn their spacecrafts slowed down in <10 minutes to enable landnings 1961/2. My finding is that both events never took place.

Quote from: markjo on July 10, 2020, 09:22:11 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 10, 2020, 08:59:12 PM

It is simple - there is no Aerodynamic Drag at 120 000 m altitude to enable a re-entry.

Would you please stop saying such stupid things?  The atmospheric pressure at 120,000 is very low, but it is not zero.  At 17,000+ mph, it doesn't take very much atmospheric pressure for a blunt body to cause aerodynamic drag, especially considering that the atmosphere gets more dense as you get lower.

So what is the atmospheric pressure (Pa) at 120 000 m? Why not copy it in a wind tunnel and do a test? How much is the drag (N)? Can it slow down a spacecraft returning doing a re-entry? According Gagarin and Glenn their spacecrafts slowed down in <10 minutes to enable landnings 1961/2.

Your 'findings' are nothing more than you simply stating it's impossible because you can't understand it.

I find it baffling that someone who claims to be a smart engineer thinks we should just build a wind tunnel capable of pushing air at 17,000 mph at 0.0000000049 atmospheres of pressure. Really. Just build that you say? I'd love to see your design. A really big fan I bet.

You also don't seem to understand that the drag at 120,000m slows it down a little, which drops it deeper into the atmosphere, which slows it more, which drops it further, ect until it's fully inside the atmosphere and slowed enough to use a parachute.

Why do you keep posting on subjects you do no research on? Look up some answers before just throwing your hands up in surrender and deciding it's impossible because you don't know anything.

My finding is that both events never took place.

My finding is you have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote from: Heiwa on July 10, 2020, 09:54:30 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 10, 2020, 09:22:11 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 10, 2020, 08:59:12 PM

It is simple - there is no Aerodynamic Drag at 120 000 m altitude to enable a re-entry.

Would you please stop saying such stupid things?  The atmospheric pressure at 120,000 is very low, but it is not zero.  At 17,000+ mph, it doesn't take very much atmospheric pressure for a blunt body to cause aerodynamic drag, especially considering that the atmosphere gets more dense as you get lower.

So what is the atmospheric pressure (Pa) at 120 000 m? Why not copy it in a wind tunnel and do a test? How much is the drag (N)? Can it slow down a spacecraft returning doing a re-entry? According Gagarin and Glenn their spacecrafts slowed down in <10 minutes to enable landnings 1961/2.

Your 'findings' are nothing more than you simply stating it's impossible because you can't understand it.

I find it baffling that someone who claims to be a smart engineer thinks we should just build a wind tunnel capable of pushing air at 17,000 mph at 0.0000000049 atmospheres of pressure. Really. Just build that you say? I'd love to see your design. A really big fan I bet.

You also don't seem to understand that the drag at 120,000m slows it down a little, which drops it deeper into the atmosphere, which slows it more, which drops it further, ect until it's fully inside the atmosphere and slowed enough to use a parachute.

Why do you keep posting on subjects you do no research on? Look up some answers before just throwing your hands up in surrender and deciding it's impossible because you don't know anything.

Quote from: Heiwa on July 10, 2020, 09:54:30 PM

My finding is that both events never took place.

My finding is you have no idea what you are talking about.

I have worked at two ship model testing tanks and knows the physics of model testing in interface water/air where wave and friction resistances follow different scale laws and done many model tests to obtain full scale results.
So it should be very easy to test a wingless spacecraft with a shield at the front to measure its resistance/drag at various speeds. But it has not been done!Reason? No wingless spacecraft has ever flown anywhere.