WHY would the government trick us?

In any case, I'm not afraid of the lizard people.

I'm not afraid of your imaginary fiends either.

There is a difference between skydiving (potentially survivable with the right equipment), and entering a vacuum chamber

where the right equipment exists for both?
So what is the difference?

Again, your argument works equally well against planes.

I'm not afraid of your imaginary fiends either.

Of course not. Why would anyone be afraid of themselves?

As for a plane, they are equipped with compressed air that circulates within the chamber. So long as the plane isn't punctured and rapidly depressurizing, the same air can recirculate all day. This is quite different from scuba, which moves from tank to lungs and then out of the lungs. It is also different from the space suit, which
https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/how-long-can-an-astronaut-survive-in-their-spacesuit-in-open-space.html

Astronauts can survive in their spacesuits as long as the oxygen tanks allow them to continue breathing. The two oxygen tanks and the emergency oxygen supply in current EMU suits collectively contain 6.5 to 8 hours (+ 30 minutes) worth of oxygen.

Btw, 6 to 8 hours is the amount of time that you can stay in a large room with no air pumped in. What a coincidence! Almost like the spacesuit doesn't actually produce or convert any air, and just uses a storage or existing air.

AGAIN.

Only fools enter an area where they are assured of no oxygen. In 50 years, we will make devices that extract oxygen from hydrogen, allowing indefinite swimming. But no chemical or technological device can bypass the simple law that "matter cannot be created or destroyed." No oxygen? You'd better leave.

As for a plane, they are equipped

Yes, that is right, they have equipment. Equipment which allows people to survive these environments.
With similar equipment for being in a complete vacuum.

Only fools enter an area where they are assured of no oxygen.

And in space they are not, if they take the right equipment.
And the ISS is NOT a spacesuit.

In 50 years, we will make devices that extract oxygen from hydrogen

No, we wont, as that is physically impossible.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 19, 2024, 02:58:55 PM

In 50 years, we will make devices that extract oxygen from hydrogen

No, we wont, as that is physically impossible.

Oh, it’s quite simple.  You just need to extract 8 hydrogen atoms and squish them together.  Presto, oxygen.

Quote from: JackBlack on October 19, 2024, 03:08:43 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 19, 2024, 02:58:55 PM

In 50 years, we will make devices that extract oxygen from hydrogen

No, we wont, as that is physically impossible.

Oh, it’s quite simple.  You just need to extract 8 hydrogen atoms and squish them together.  Presto, oxygen.

Wouldn't you need 16? Unless you got really lucky?

Quote from: JackBlack on October 19, 2024, 03:08:43 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 19, 2024, 02:58:55 PM

In 50 years, we will make devices that extract oxygen from hydrogen

No, we wont, as that is physically impossible.

Oh, it’s quite simple.  You just need to extract 8 hydrogen atoms and squish them together.  Presto, oxygen.

God, you people pretend to be scientific, but you obviously don't know shit.

In my science classes, we learned that electricity can split simple molecules. Our salt system splits salt off into chlorine. In the same way, you can split off (and recombine) 8H₂O -> 4O₂ + 8H₂. The hydrogen gas releases and combines with something else later. The major problem is how not to electrocute yourself.

1
The salt ions are alrwady free flaoting in disolved form.
The elctricity just attracsts them by their respective charge

Moving atoms is not the same as alchemy/ reforming new atoms

2
Marko and jack are both right.
Except the quasar/ star required to reform atoms...


3
Mostly everyone here will agree you ar ethe most wrong

In my science classes, we learned that electricity can split simple molecules.

Did you learn in your science classes that both hydrogen and oxygen are atoms, not molecules? 

BTW, using electrolysis to split water into hydrogen and oxygen is old news.

Quote from: markjo on October 19, 2024, 10:53:36 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on October 19, 2024, 03:08:43 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 19, 2024, 02:58:55 PM

In 50 years, we will make devices that extract oxygen from hydrogen

No, we wont, as that is physically impossible.

Oh, it’s quite simple.  You just need to extract 8 hydrogen atoms and squish them together.  Presto, oxygen.

God, you people pretend to be scientific, but you obviously don't know shit.

In my science classes, we learned that electricity can split simple molecules. Our salt system splits salt off into chlorine. In the same way, you can split off (and recombine) 8H₂O -> 4O₂ + 8H₂. The hydrogen gas releases and combines with something else later. The major problem is how not to electrocute yourself.

Did you learn also in that same science class that the earth you live upon is a giant globe? Or do you prefer the term, "ball"?

It's a bit late in the day to be telling everybody here you appeal to science, or I suppose it's selective science with you, isn't it? Like how your dear old grand father suffers selective hearing and can never hear you when you ask him for some money.

I love how you totally ignored my post where you could win money by helping out NASA. Selective everything with you that doesn't rock your feeble minuscule sized world view.

Would you care to guess what shape an atom is? Cube, pyramid, ball, or flat?

Small hint : Flat is not a three dimensional shape. It's two dimensional and can be perfectly represented on a flat piece of paper. But atoms like the Earth, like us all, live in a three dimensional world.

God, you people pretend to be scientific, but you obviously don't know shit.

Have you considered the possibility that we do actually know things, and it is your understanding that is complete shit?

In my science classes, we learned that electricity can split simple molecules. Our salt system splits salt off into chlorine. In the same way, you can split off (and recombine) 8H₂O -> 4O₂ + 8H₂. The hydrogen gas releases and combines with something else later. The major problem is how not to electrocute yourself.

Notice how this doesn't match what you said before?
You said creating oxygen from hydrogen.
What you are describing now is electrolysis of WATER to produce oxygen and hydrogen.

That is not a device that extracts oxygen from hydrogen.
That is a device that splits WATER into oxygen and hydrogen.

But it looks like you are so scientifically ignorant you don't realise the difference between water and hydrogen.

The main problem has nothing to do with electrocution considering the voltages involved.
The main problem is how to make it efficient, as this process typically has significant energy lost to heat.

Stardust

Also a fun movie

https://youtube.com/shorts/nCzc7N5cXQ8?si=0PrYJjeSxhFl6Np3

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 20, 2024, 05:45:51 AM

In my science classes, we learned that electricity can split simple molecules.

Did you learn in your science classes that both hydrogen and oxygen are atoms, not molecules? 

BTW, using electrolysis to split water into hydrogen and oxygen is old news.

Hey genius. The mashup of the two is called a molecule.

Yes, hydrolysis is old news. What we don't have is a Self Contained Hydrolyzing Underwater Breathing Apparatus (SCHUBA for short, and no I don't have a lisp). Nor do we have batteries that can last hundreds of hours to perform this, or electronics that can work out how to generate their own energy. The first and second might be down the road, not sure about the third.

But I am pretty sure of something. We will never have a device that can do the following: 0O₂ -> 8O₂, because chemistry has rules. So unless we have a plan to convert water or carbon dioxide into air, outer space is inherently dangerous, and I have no desire to visit, even if I believed we could make it there, which I don't.

What the waht?

But also
Said with such confidence
Amazing!

Hey genius. The mashup of the two is called a molecule.

Yet you were the "genius" suggesting we turn hydrogen into oxygen.

Yes, hydrolysis is old news. What we don't have is a Self Contained Hydrolyzing Underwater Breathing Apparatus (SCHUBA for short, and no I don't have a lisp). Nor do we have batteries that can last hundreds of hours to perform this, or electronics that can work out how to generate their own energy. The first and second might be down the road, not sure about the third.

Notice how you have now moved completely away from not electrocuting yourself?

The third is pure fantasy which is physically impossible.
Electronics will never be able to generate their own energy. If they could, it would be a perpetual motion device, which you already admit can't happen.
So they will always be taking in their energy from elsewhere, such as solar panels or a powerplant.

The first and second are intrinsically related.
We don't have a portable device for generating enough oxygen to breathe because of the power requirements of such a device, and the inability to provide that power.
It requires roughly 300 kJ/mol to split water.
That means roughly 600 kJ/mol of O2, or ~18.75 kJ/g O2 produced.
Humans, at rest, need roughly 2 g per minute.
So if you want that to last for an hour, you would need roughly 2.25 MJ.

A battery I have for my quadcopter is a 14.8 V, 3.3 Ahr battery. That is 175 kJ, assuming no losses.
That would provide roughly 5 minutes of oxygen, assuming nothing else needs power.

An electric car with a 100 kWhr = 360 MJ battery would be able to provide oxygen for less than 3 hours.

Perhaps a simpler way to look at it is energy density.
Lithium ion batteries have an energy density of roughly 1 MJ/kg.
Compare that to the 18.75 MJ/kg needed to split water to get oxygen.
As long as the tank is light enough, it makes far more sense to just bring the oxygen with you.
The only exception is if you need to take it very far and have a different power source, like the sun on solar panels, which need to be large enough to capture enough energy (~600 W per person at rest).

Splitting water is VERY energy intensive. Which relates to why hydrogen makes great rocket fuel, and why we have burnt hydrocarbons for so long.

But I am pretty sure of something. We will never have a device that can do the following: 0O₂ -> 8O₂, because chemistry has rules. So unless we have a plan to convert water or carbon dioxide into air, outer space is inherently dangerous, and I have no desire to visit, even if I believed we could make it there, which I don't.

Or if we take the oxygen with us.
And that isn't just true for space.
It is also true for high altitude aircrafts (or just hiking up high mountains) and scuba diving.

Loads of places are "inherently dangerous."
Yet people go there all the time.

What we don't have is a Self Contained Hydrolyzing Underwater Breathing Apparatus (SCHUBA for short, and no I don't have a lisp).

No, but we do have CO2 scrubbers to make you limited air supply last quite a lot longer.

Nor do we have batteries that can last hundreds of hours to perform this, or electronics that can work out how to generate their own energy.

Well, not batteries, but we do have fuel cells that basically run electrolysis backwards to generate electricity and water.

But I am pretty sure of something. We will never have a device that can do the following: 0O₂ -> 8O₂, because chemistry has rules.

Pretty sure that we'll never have a device that can convert hydrogen into oxygen either.

So unless we have a plan to convert water or carbon dioxide into air, outer space is inherently dangerous, and I have no desire to visit, even if I believed we could make it there, which I don't.

Again, CO2 scrubbers.  Next best thing to electrolysis.

Well, not batteries, but we do have fuel cells that basically run electrolysis backwards to generate electricity and water

Which is nice and all, but only delays the wind-down of energy usage. Remember, perpetual energy still hasn't been invented by anything of mankind.

Pretty sure that we'll never have a device that can convert hydrogen into oxygen either.

You don't need to. Chemistry is about splitting molecules, and those atoms bond with something else.

All chemical processes, as my old teacher said, is about changing partners (he compared it to square dancing). That part's easy. Creating something out of nothing? Not so much.

Quote

Well, not batteries, but we do have fuel cells that basically run electrolysis backwards to generate electricity and water

Which is nice and all, but only delays the wind-down of energy usage. Remember, perpetual energy still hasn't been invented by anything of mankind.

Maybe not perpetual in the strictest sense, but the sun is a pretty good energy source that will out last mankind.

Quote

Pretty sure that we'll never have a device that can convert hydrogen into oxygen either.

You don't need to. Chemistry is about splitting molecules, and those atoms bond with something else.

But that is what you appealed to, converting hydrogen into oxygen.

But this is just going further and further from the topic.
Yes, we need air to breathe. This causes a problem for diving, high altitude planes, and space.
But we have equipment to deal with it.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 24, 2024, 06:08:30 PM

Quote

Well, not batteries, but we do have fuel cells that basically run electrolysis backwards to generate electricity and water

Which is nice and all, but only delays the wind-down of energy usage. Remember, perpetual energy still hasn't been invented by anything of mankind.

Maybe not perpetual in the strictest sense, but the sun is a pretty good energy source that will out last mankind.

No, the sun is a perpetual energy source.

Reread what I said.

Remember, perpetual energy still hasn't been invented by anything of mankind.

We humans don't know how to do this. But the sun is designed by God, and will last as long as he wishes.

It's not very bright or hot, (when we stop playing with distance, it doesn't need to be) but it's perpetual.

No, the sun is a perpetual energy source.

Then that means that solar panels are good way of tapping into that perpetual energy.  Good thing that space craft have been using them for a bunch of years already.

Honestly, I have no idea why space travel/moon landing deniers think that they have all these gotchas that no one else has figured out.  I'm also not sure why you're so obsessed with perpetual motion/energy.

No, the sun is a perpetual energy source.

No, it isn't.
It is a nuclear reactir which is consuming fuel.
It is just very large and the fuel will last a long time.

Reread what I said.

And what about what you have said before?

It is impossible for humans (as per the laws of thermodynamics) to generate perpetual energy

You have said it is impossible, that it violates the laws of thermodynamics.
To go against that is to claim pure magic.

We humans don't know how to do this.

Because it is impossible.
But when you decide to reject reality and cling to magic BS you can pretend anything is possible.

It's not very bright or hot, (when we stop playing with distance, it doesn't need to be) but it's perpetual.

When we honestly represent its distance, it does need to be.
It is very bright, and very hot, and it isn't magic, so it isn't perpetual.

Even just given the amount of light it provides across Earth, it must be very bright.

But again, none of this is showing any problem with space travel.

If anything it shows the exact opposite.
It shows that we don't need batteries for hundreds of hours, just for as long as it is in Earth's shadow.

For an LEO satellite, that is roughly 45 minutes.
Remember, that is why the idea of balloons to replace satellites is stupid.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 25, 2024, 06:16:34 AM

No, the sun is a perpetual energy source.

Then that means that solar panels are good way of tapping into that perpetual energy.  Good thing that space craft have been using them for a bunch of years already.

Honestly, I have no idea why space travel/moon landing deniers think that they have all these gotchas that no one else has figured out.  I'm also not sure why you're so obsessed with perpetual motion/energy.

Again, you need lessons in reading comprehension.

It's not very bright or hot, (when we stop playing with distance, it doesn't need to be) but it's perpetual.

These aren't "gotchas" they are you making assumptions that isn't in the text.

The sun isn't bright enough or hot enough to be a reliable source of energy.  Further, you have to draw power from a moving object. Further, the device used to draw such energy doesn't do a good job of it, and doesn't have a good reserve of it. 

The best device suited for drawing solar energy? Still a plant.

The best means of releasing years of stored solar energy? Building plants that have turned to oil.

I'm so "obsessed" as you put it with the truth.

If you drive a car with limited fuel through a mountain where there is no gas, what do you expect but to run out of fuel? So why do you expect different in outer space, miles away from stars?

If you drive a car with limited fuel through a mountain where there is no gas, what do you expect but to run out of fuel? So why do you expect different in outer space, miles away from stars?

If you're planning a trip into a hazardous environment with limited resources, then you plan that trip very carefully.  I don't know why you would think that space travel isn't planned very, very carefully.

Again, you need lessons in reading comprehension.

Quote

It's not very bright or hot, (when we stop playing with distance, it doesn't need to be) but it's perpetual.

These aren't "gotchas" they are you making assumptions that isn't in the text.

No, you just need a tiny bit of intelligence.
We know how much energy comes from the sun.
If you are saying the sun is too cold and dark to give that, you are just saying your model is delusional BS.

The best device suited for drawing solar energy? Still a plant.

No, it isn't.
Plants are vastly inefficient and still suffer from the "problems" you listed.

The best means of releasing years of stored solar energy? Building plants that have turned to oil.

You mean a completely unsustainable method where you are burning far more than is ever stored?

And with a bunch of horribly inefficient steps.
First all the losses associated with converting the solar energy into chemical potential energy, all the energy used by the plant, all the energy lost as the plant breaks down and turns into oil, and then the inefficiencies of burning that oil.

I'm so "obsessed" as you put it with the truth.

You most certainly aren't given how often you have lied.

So why do you expect different in outer space, miles away from stars?

Firstly, most things in outer space we have put there are quite close to stars, a comparable distance to Earth.
So that means they can use solar panels.

And what makes more sense, travelling relying only upon energy from fuel you have carried with you, or also being able to use energy from the sun?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 27, 2024, 07:20:16 AM

If you drive a car with limited fuel through a mountain where there is no gas, what do you expect but to run out of fuel? So why do you expect different in outer space, miles away from stars?

If you're planning a trip into a hazardous environment with limited resources, then you plan that trip very carefully.  I don't know why you would think that space travel isn't planned very, very carefully.

Oh I dunno, maybe because they have a giant booster filled with all the fuel they should ever need, but instead of having that as a store for trip lasting months, they blow it all in one go, like idiots who don't know how to open champagne bottles because they've seen this done on films. Then they toss that huge potential fuel reserve back to earth because reasons (herp derp, it adds momentum by slingshot effect). Then they waste that momentum too making a pit stop to visit the ISS or repair old satellites. Then you expect me to believe there is some sort of magical bank that retains all of that, so they can just start up again, no problem!

Even if you had this wonderful perfect space where you don't need friction to move (you do, and thus all your movements are confounded by what you call gravity and inertia), a spaceship ought to be designed thus:

The main shuttle is like a small truck towing an RV, the shuttle does all of the maneuvering, and can park the "RV" for scouting trips or to leave fuel reserves for the next person. The shuttle uses some tiny fuel source (basically like the dark matter eggs in Futurama, something dense enough that you can store a whole bunch of then in a room the size of my bedroom) and has enough for about five trips with almost no weight added. Trust me, it doesn't. The boosters provide the speed and take pressure off the shuttle for long trips, but fine maneuvers are done by the shuttle. None of this thrown away resource crap.

But of course, you can't do this. The tyranny of weight equation means that the more you pack for the trip, the more sluggish and unable to launch the rocket is, and the dark secret they push aside is that when air gets thinner (as it does when you lift against atmosphere, buoyancy is in full effect. Objects rise is they lighter in density than their than their surroundings. You can't load a crate filled with marbles into a rocket and expect the rocket to keep thrust. That's what all these supplies are. Added density. And the closer you get to space, the lower and lower the air density gets, and heavier the shuttle and boosters are in comparison. So no, they can never pack enough for these supposed trips around the galaxy.

 "But I have this video from Action Labs that shows a rocket taking off in a vacuum chamber!" That's not what I asked. I asked if it could continue to go upwards in a chamber 30 miles high. The answer is, no, it cannot. You need to make a bigger rocket with more reserve fuel. The bigger rocket runs into tyranny of weight, and at a certain point where it runs out of fuel, it crashes down to the ground. While propulsion can supercede buoyancy in the same way as a metal ship can travel across the ocean or a metal airship can fly for miles, once the gas is cut, buoyancy takes over. If you filled the ship with osmium nails or priceless gold artifacts, your metal ship sinks like a stone. An object's mass always has the last laugh. And because they always have to bear this in mind until they have a perpetual fuel source, this is all theater to get us to believe in the process while they angle for more funding.

Oh I dunno, maybe because they have a giant booster filled with all the fuel they should ever need, but instead of having that as a store for trip lasting months, they blow it all in one go

So what you are saying is you are incapable of planning it, and like the arrogant fool you are, you pretend that means no one can plan it.

They have a booster which is filled with fuel to get them into space, and either into orbit, or onto a specific trajectory to go to another planet.

As well as that, they have the rest, which contains things like solar panels for power, so they don't need to carry their fuel.

Then they toss that huge potential fuel reserve back to earth because reasons

You mean they toss the dead weight, so they aren't carting around all that weight they don't need to.

Then they waste that momentum too making a pit stop to visit the ISS or repair old satellites.

No, they don't.
The ISS isn't sitting there stationary. They don't come to a stop to dock with the ISS.

It would be more like driving down a freeway, seeing your friend, and driving beside their car for a while to wave to them.

Then you expect me to believe there is some sort of magical bank that retains all of that, so they can just start up again, no problem!

No. There are manoeuvring thrusters, and depending on what is being launched, the main craft may have a rocket engine of its own with its own fuel supply.
But there is no magic here.

a spaceship ought to be designed thus:
The main shuttle is like a small truck towing an RV, the shuttle does all of the maneuvering, and can park the "RV" for scouting trips or to leave fuel reserves for the next person. The shuttle uses some tiny fuel source (basically like the dark matter eggs

i.e. you want pure magic.

You don't care about reality at all, or actually planning.
You just want your magic to work magically with no concerns for practicality.

But of course, you can't do this. The tyranny of weight equation means that the more you pack for the trip, the more sluggish and unable to launch the rocket is

That's right. It shows your idea is pure BS.

the dark secret they push aside is that when air gets thinner

There is less resistance, so it is easier to move.
That is not a dark secret.
That is just your wilful ignorance.

buoyancy

Is entirely insignificant for rockets.

Even if you just wanted to consider water in air.
1 kg of water has a volume of roughly 1 L which is roughly 1.2 g of air.
So it reduces the apparent weight by a mere 0.12%.

So no, they can never pack enough for these supposed trips around the galaxy.

What supposed trips around the galaxy?

I asked if it could continue to go upwards in a chamber 30 miles high.

The answer is YES you can.
You need a rocket to provide enough thrust for that time, but that's it.
Again, we can see rockets doing that in air no problem, and we know you can get better thrust in a vacuum because you don't have the air to push out of the way.

at a certain point where it runs out of fuel, it crashes down to the ground.

Only if you're an idiot and don't have it either exceed escape velocity or go into orbit.

once the gas is cut, buoyancy takes over.

You mean gravity and air pressure takes over.
But guess what? That wont pull a craft out of orbit.

You are just spouting the same refuted crap you have already spouted and had refuted countless times.

Oh I dunno, maybe because they have a giant booster filled with all the fuel they should ever need...

Sorry, but I just don't have the energy to go over all the the things that you have so obviously wrong.   Seriously, if you want to prove space flight impossible, then at least learn how space flight is supposed to work as opposed to your fantasy version.  I know that it's easier for you to disprove your own straw man, but it just gets awfully tedious for everyone else.

You first.

I know all their flimsy rationale.

I also know that what they do is similar to having an orgy (sorry, it was the first analogy that I could come up with) and being completely exhausted after the first girl. No, there are thirty other girls and you wasted the big load on the first.

A round trip to Jupiter is 888 million miles.
Go ahead, you tell me why you wasted the big booster getting past the Karman Line (only 60 miles or so). I'm sure there's a good explanation.

But as for me, that's a bit like wasting gas to rev up a car to bolt ahead at 300 mph for 1/2 mile, and then not having gas to drive home. Or overclocking a computer to run at 6000% for three minutes, and not being able to use it at all after that.

Unless you expect me to believe there is limitless rocket fuel sitting in the much smaller shuttle, I don't buy it.

It's also awfully tedious to listen to smug assholes who refuse to be real telling me "Oh you just don't understand The Science." No, I'm not one of your Big State groupies. The science that makes sense to me is the science that can get things done. We wasted half the day yesterday trying approaches that didn't work (we were removing boards from a deck, and alot of the tools we had wouldn't cut it). At the end of the day, the only science that matters is real science. When something isn't sustainable, all the mystique around it isn't worth shit. If you waste an enormous booster getting only the equivalent of a few feet in a four mile cross country run, and you expect others to believe that a much smaller shuttle can do the rest of the job, you fully deserve to be mocked. Loudly.

why does it have to be limitless?

I know all their flimsy rationale.

Yet you clearly either don't understand, or you just intentionally spout pure BS.

A round trip to Jupiter is 888 million miles.

And they don't need to have the rocket on the entire way.

Go ahead, you tell me why you wasted the big booster getting past the Karman Line (only 60 miles or so). I'm sure there's a good explanation.

To reach escape velocity, to get out of Earth's orbit.

Tell me why they shouldn't?
As you clearly have no idea.

But as for me, that's a bit like wasting gas to rev up a car to bolt ahead at 300 mph for 1/2 mile, and then not having gas to drive home.

Because you either have no idea what you are talking about, or are intentionally lying to everyone.

It is more like starting in a massive deep hole, and spending the vast majority of your fuel getting up and out of that hole, and then coasting the rest of the way, except at times (comparing it to going to Jupiter), you grab onto something to give you a nice speed boost.

Or how about this for a comparison:
Strapping an explosive behind you, having it detonate and propel you out through a barrel so that all the fuel is used up basically an instead over a few cm. Then travelling up to a few km.
According to your delusional BS, this shouldn't be possible, and the only way to have guns work is if each bullet had their own little rocket motor which lasted the entire time.

We can also go to something much simpler, throwing a ball. According to your delusional BS, as soon as it is released from your hand it should basically just fall to the ground at your feet, and the only way to throw it a considerable time is if the ball has a rocket engine on it to keep it going.

Do you not realise just how childish and delusional your crap is?

Unless you expect me to believe there is limitless rocket fuel sitting in the much smaller shuttle, I don't buy it.

Of course you don't buy it, because you don't want to. So you make no attempt at understanding it.

It's also awfully tedious to listen to smug assholes

Then stop talking, as you are the smug asshole here, spouting pure BS as if you must be right and refusing to understand anything that shows you are wrong.

The science that makes sense to me

Is not actually science. Instead it is delusional BS.

At the end of the day, the only science that matters is real science.

Like the science of how rockets go to space?
How they have put countless things in orbit, including GPS satellites which are used all the time.

When something isn't sustainable, all the mystique around it isn't worth shit.

Like oil and other fossil fuels?

If you waste an enormous booster getting only the equivalent of a few feet in a four mile cross country run, and you expect others to believe that a much smaller shuttle can do the rest of the job, you fully deserve to be mocked. Loudly.

Again, see a bullet.
Your stupidity is focusing only on distance and ignoring everything else.
It is not wasting all the energy getting just a few feet.
It is using its energy to get speed (i.e. momentum and kinetic energy).
It is that that keeps it going.
If you actually understood science, you would understand this. But because that would destroy your delusional fantasy you refuse to do so.

If you were designing bullets, you would make it take loads more gunpowder to keep it going all the way, and end up travelling at such a low speed it would be useless.