Actually, claiming that anyone who disagrees with you has cognitive dissonance is sad.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 10:23 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
[..]
Hm,
There are two types!
1. Satellites orbiting Earth. They are easy to put in orbits! Just apply a force and send them into orbits from ground. They cannot ever land on Earth ground again. Arianespace does it all the time. Via Airbus NV I am a shareholder. We meet 12 April 2017 at Okura Hotel, Amsterdam, Holland, to discuss it.
2. Spacecrafts going to the Moon, Mars or asteroids. They are all fake! Propaganda. Just to impress stupid people. They cannot orbit anything. They have to start from Earth/LEO/EPO, stop and restart at target (Moon, Mars, asteroid) and return and stop back on Earth and it is not possible. You cannot carry the fuel (energy) with you to do it and ... you are lost anyway. You don't know where you are in 3D space during the trip/trajectory.
To travel in space (like Apollo 11) you have to stop at the target (Moon) and then restart there to continue the trip. But you cannot carry the fuel with you for it. You get too heavy. And you must be able to predict the trajectory of your trip ... but you cannot. The n-body problem. And you cannot re-enter and land on Earth again. You are returning too fast and cannot identify the location, where to start the dip into the atmosphere. I have proven it all at my website, i.e. human space travel is a hoax. Only people suffering from cognitive dissonance cannot accept it. It is sad
The spacecraft arrived in high velocity lunar orbit and then escaped (stopped going round in orbit) from high speed lunar orbit and for that you must apply great (rocket) forces on the spacecraft at the right time, location, duration, amplitude and direction and for that you need fuel and a good steering and navigation system.
Which you didn't have.
You seem to be in some sort of denial.
I asked NASA for calculations and Apollo 11 fuel use, but got no reply.
The 1969 Apollo 11 is a good example why human space travel is not possible. Apollo 11 was 100% science fiction or a Hollywood show.
Kloptquote:The spacecraft arrived in high velocity lunar orbit and then escaped (stopped going round in orbit) from high speed lunar orbit and for that you must apply great (rocket) forces on the spacecraft at the right time, location, duration, amplitude and direction and for that you need fuel and a good steering and navigation system.
Onzin... dat hadden ze wel. Kan je allemaal berekenen. Dat jij die wetten niet begrijpt...tja.quote:Which you didn't have.
Re satellites in Earth orbit they can just ... orbit. No brake, no engine, nothing. Just a satellite orbiting. They cannot go anywhere else than round and round.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 14:22 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:
[...]
And on your terrace this somehow does not happen?
[..]
And why wouldn't it be possible? The chemical reactions work fine in space, and the cassettes were radiation shielded.
[..]
I think you just didn't understand the explanation Which is perfectly fine, as long as you remain open to information, and don't just dismiss it as fake because it's beyond your current level of comprehension.
[..]
Sure they do. It's called a rocket engine. Once you start hitting the atmosphere, drag does the rest.
[..]
Sure you do. You can calculate the required phase angles, delta-v needed for the burn, how much fuel that will use etc etc. In a way it is easier in space, because once you're going, you just keep going.
[..]
Again, sure they do. I keep saying this, because there are answers to all these problems you see.
If you really want to learn more about all of this, I can recommend a very good space simulator video game, called Kerbal Space Program. It can teach you a lot about orbital mechanics, rocket staging, gravity turns, the rocket equation, navigation in the solar system etc etc.
quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 16:43 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
[..]
Re satellites in Earth orbit they can just ... orbit. No brake, no engine, nothing. Just a satellite orbiting. They cannot go anywhere else than round and round.
Test! Pls answer the following:
Your satellite is in orbit at 300 000 m altitude and with speed 7 000 m/s. It has mass 1 000 kg. You intend to brake to 0 m/s speed and then drop straight down to Earth. Your kinetic energy is of the order 24 500 000 000 J (or Nm). Do you agree?
Thus you have to apply a brake force (N) during a certain time (s).
Say that you apply 24 500 N brake force? It is a lot! Almost 2.5 tonnes force on a 1 tonne satellite.
What is your brake distance from 7 000 to 0 m/s speed?
1 000 000 m? Yes! It is long!
Your average speed while braking is evidently 3 500 m/s, if you brake constantly.
What is then the time for brake from 7 000 to 0 m/s speed? 285.7 s! Yes! Not bad!
Less than 5 minutes.
Now my simple question? How much fuel (kg) is required to apply 24.5 kN force during 5 minutes to stop your satellite?
Isn't it an easy question?
Did you ever believe the Apollo landings?quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 10:23 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
The 1969 Apollo 11 is a good example why human space travel is not possible. Apollo 11 was 100% science fiction or a Hollywood show.
Show me your Grand dad's calculations that prove any Apollo mission impossible.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 16:53 schreef Tingo het volgende:
[..]
Thanks for taking your time Heiwa, but you probably realise already that you are wasting your time with the space fans here.
Did you ever believe the Apollo landings?
I did up until a few years ago, even though my Grandad, who worked building Merlin V12 engines during WWII and on the prototypes of the RB211 engines in the 1960's told me (in so many words) that the moon landings were bullshit. I still believed the TV rather than my Grandad – something that I will always feel stupid about My Grandad thought it was all quite hilarious. But at least I understand the power of indoctrination.
From what I can gather, at the time, there were quite a lot of his colleagues in the aeronautical industry who did not believe the Apollo landing nonsense either.
There was probably a higher proportion of people who didn't believe it at the time than they do now – such is the power of the propaganda.
That is pretty easy to calculate if you know the ISP of the engine, but also completely irrelevant. You also contradict yourself here, first saying a satellite can't go anywhere. The thing is, you don't need to slow down all the way to zero, and sort off fall down. The only thing you need to do is slow down enough that you get low enough for atmospheric drag to become a significant factor. Air resistance (and possibly the ground) will do the rest.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 16:43 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
[..]
Re satellites in Earth orbit they can just ... orbit. No brake, no engine, nothing. Just a satellite orbiting. They cannot go anywhere else than round and round.
Test! Pls answer the following:
Your satellite is in orbit at 300 000 m altitude and with speed 7 000 m/s. It has mass 1 000 kg. You intend to brake to 0 m/s speed and then drop straight down to Earth. Your kinetic energy is of the order 24 500 000 000 J (or Nm). Do you agree?
Thus you have to apply a brake force (N) during a certain time (s).
Say that you apply 24 500 N brake force? It is a lot! Almost 2.5 tonnes force on a 1 tonne satellite.
What is your brake distance from 7 000 to 0 m/s speed?
1 000 000 m? Yes! It is long!
Your average speed while braking is evidently 3 500 m/s, if you brake constantly.
What is then the time for brake from 7 000 to 0 m/s speed? 285.7 s! Yes! Not bad!
Less than 5 minutes.
Now my simple question? How much fuel (kg) is required to apply 24.5 kN force during 5 minutes to stop your satellite?
Isn't it an easy question?
7000m/s relative to what?quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 16:43 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
Your satellite is in orbit at 300 000 m altitude and with speed 7 000 m/s.
Well, that is never the intend.quote:It has mass 1 000 kg. You intend to brake to 0 m/s speed and then drop straight down to Earth.
Ja dat kan ik wel, maar wil ik niet doen (analyses maken zijn dus ook niet jouw ding?). Ik ga niet voor een of andere dombo (die al meteen mijn vraag en/of antwoord niet begreep vanaf het begin) terugbladeren in een saaie nutteloze discussie om mijn bewijs te halen. Mijn gelijk is namelijk terug te lezen. Als je er zoveel waarde aan hecht, ga je zelf maar alles teruglezen.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 11:20 schreef Wantie het volgende:
[..]
Nee, dat kun je niet. Vandaar dat je om de hete brij heen draait.
And now you believe youtube videos.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 16:53 schreef Tingo het volgende:
I still believed the TV rather than my Grandad
Nee, het bewijs is niet terug te vinden in deze discussiequote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 20:42 schreef CynicusRomanticusRob het volgende:
[..]
Ja dat kan ik wel, maar wil ik niet doen (analyses maken zijn dus ook niet jouw ding?). Ik ga niet voor een of andere dombo (die al meteen mijn vraag en/of antwoord niet begreep vanaf het begin) terugbladeren in een saaie nutteloze discussie om mijn bewijs te halen. Mijn gelijk is namelijk terug te lezen. Als je er zoveel waarde aan hecht, ga je zelf maar alles teruglezen.
Deze discussie heeft een deel17quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 20:44 schreef Wantie het volgende:
[..]
Nee, het bewijs is niet terug te vinden in deze discussie
Daarom draai je er omheen.
Mooie praatjes verdoezelen dat niet.
Als je daar gelukkig van wordt, moet je dat vooral lekker blijven gelovenquote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 20:42 schreef CynicusRomanticusRob het volgende:
[..]
Ja dat kan ik wel, maar wil ik niet doen (analyses maken zijn dus ook niet jouw ding?). Ik ga niet voor een of andere dombo (die al meteen mijn vraag en/of antwoord niet begreep vanaf het begin) terugbladeren in een saaie nutteloze discussie om mijn bewijs te halen. Mijn gelijk is namelijk terug te lezen. Als je er zoveel waarde aan hecht, ga je zelf maar alles teruglezen.
Maakt niet uit, FOK is een heel prettig forum waarbij je eenvoudig kunt terug klikken door citaten.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 20:46 schreef CynicusRomanticusRob het volgende:
[..]
Deze discussie heeft een deel17
So what was the answer? A 1 000 kg satellite doing 7 000 m/s speed in LEO/EPO cannot stop in orbit! It is too small and cannot carry the fuel required to produce any brake force to slow down. It can just contine to orbit for ever. Going round and round. You cannot even fly up to it and service it. Why? Beacuse you cannot dock with it.quote:Your satellite is in orbit at 300 000 m altitude and with speed 7 000 m/s around Earth. It has mass 1 000 kg. You intend to brake in orbit to 0 m/s speed and then drop straight down to Earth. Your kinetic energy is of the order 24 500 000 000 J (or Nm). Do you agree? I know it is an unusual maneuver but why not stop in orbit ... and then drop straight down? OK - the braking takes less than 5 minutes so you might start dropping down then. But by applying the brake force a little upwards, you can maintain altitude. OK?
Thus you have to apply a brake force (N) during a certain time (s).
Say that you apply 24 500 N brake force? It is a lot! Almost 2.5 tonnes force on a 1 tonne satellite.
What is your brake distance from 7 000 to 0 m/s speed?
1 000 000 m? Yes! It is long!
Your average speed while braking is evidently 3 500 m/s, if you brake constantly.
What is then the time for brake from 7 000 to 0 m/s speed? 285.7 s! Yes! Not bad!
Less than 5 minutes.
Now my simple question? How much fuel (kg) is required to apply 24.5 kN force during 5 minutes to stop your satellite? You use the best rocket engine available.
It seems that you ignore the fact that there is no point in going from 7000m/s to 0m/s.quote:Op maandag 13 maart 2017 01:38 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
It seems nobody could answer my test:
[..]
So what was the answer? A 1 000 kg satellite doing 7 000 m/s speed in LEO/EPO cannot stop in orbit! It is too small and cannot carry the fuel required to produce any brake force to slow down. It can just contine to orbit for ever. Going round and round. You cannot even fly up to it and service it. Why? Beacuse you cannot dock with it.
Yes you can and it has been done several times in the past.quote:You cannot even fly up to it and service it.
You don't have to dock with it in order to repair it.quote:Why? Beacuse you cannot dock with it.
Why would anyone intend to do that.quote:Op maandag 13 maart 2017 01:38 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
You intend to brake in orbit to 0 m/s speed and then drop straight down to Earth.
In order to answer that, we need the ISP of the engine. But as I stated before, it's an completely nonrealistic scenario.quote:Op maandag 13 maart 2017 01:38 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
It seems nobody could answer my test:
[..]
So what was the answer? A 1 000 kg satellite doing 7 000 m/s speed in LEO/EPO cannot stop in orbit! It is too small and cannot carry the fuel required to produce any brake force to slow down. It can just contine to orbit for ever. Going round and round. You cannot even fly up to it and service it. Why? Beacuse you cannot dock with it.
Yes - the 1969 Apollo press conference is a good one. It's quite sad.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 20:43 schreef Wantie het volgende:
[..]
And now you believe youtube videos.
So not much has changed
Maybe you should watch more of the educational ones. There are some pretty good ones available.quote:Op maandag 13 maart 2017 13:39 schreef Tingo het volgende:
[..]
Yes - the 1969 Apollo press conference is a good one. It's quite sad.
I haven't really watched that many youtube films about it.And i certainly don't beleive everything -
David McGowans Wagging the Moon Doggie series is a good read.
A lot of people have doubted the moon landings since the day it happened...a long tme before youtube.
You beleive everything on TV. Whether that is a more reliable source of information or not is a matter of opinion I suppose.
Je krijgt haast te doen met die gasten. Ik heb de beelden nog eens bekeken, lijkt wel alsof ze van een begrafenis terugkomen en gebukt gaan onder een zware last (leugens vertellen?).quote:Op maandag 13 maart 2017 13:39 schreef Tingo het volgende:
[..]
Yes - the 1969 Apollo press conference is a good one. It's quite sad.
I haven't really watched that many youtube films about it.And i certainly don't beleive everything .
David McGowans Wagging the Moon Doggie series is a good read.
A lot of people have doubted the moon landings since the day it happened...a long tme before youtube.
You beleive everything on TV. Whether that is a more reliable source of information or not is a matter of opinion I suppose.
Nee, pure confirmation bias.quote:Op maandag 13 maart 2017 14:34 schreef controlaltdelete het volgende:
[..]
Je krijgt haast te doen met die gasten. Ik heb de beelden nog eens bekeken, lijkt wel alsof ze van een begrafenis terugkomen en gebukt gaan onder een zware last (leugens vertellen?).
Als je naar de comments kijkt zie je dat veel mensen hetzelfde denken. Maar goed, vast bang voor de camera en geen mediatraining
Weegt dat ene stukje hobby psychologie op tegen het bewijs dat mensen daar wel geweest zijn?quote:Op maandag 13 maart 2017 14:34 schreef controlaltdelete het volgende:
[..]
Je krijgt haast te doen met die gasten. Ik heb de beelden nog eens bekeken, lijkt wel alsof ze van een begrafenis terugkomen en gebukt gaan onder een zware last (leugens vertellen?).
Als je naar de comments kijkt zie je dat veel mensen hetzelfde denken. Maar goed, vast bang voor de camera en geen mediatraining
Forum Opties | |
---|---|
Forumhop: | |
Hop naar: |