abonnementen ibood.com bol.com
  zondag 12 maart 2017 @ 15:37:04 #176
445108 t4600c
BNW geit
pi_169461549
registreer om deze reclame te verbergen
quote:
0s.gif 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.
Actually, claiming that anyone who disagrees with you has cognitive dissonance is sad.

The Apollo 11 SM & CM didn't stop at the moon, only the LM did. The SM & CM went into lunar orbit and thus didn't need to break to a complete halt at all.

You do understand that rockets are variable mass systems, don't you? As you burn the fuel, the system gets lighter and needs less force to accelerate it.

You cannot. People much smarter than you can.

N-body solutions can be brute forced.

Again, you can't but people much smarter than you can.

Claiming that it's a hoax doesn't qualify as proof. Prove any laws used for the Apollo program wrong.
Spoiler: You can't.

His assumptions are monumentally contradicted by his cheerful acceptance of satellites in earth orbit who have to know when they are in the correct orbit, and particularly in the case of geostationary satellites that are moved to their final position having started out in a different orbit.

He doesn't think anyone can calculate the required amount of fuel. He doesn't understand how an orbital insertion works. He doesn't know how how a gravity turn works. He doesn't know anything.

Here's a nice link that explains it

http://www.planetary.org/(...)atellite-to-gto.html

and which also includes a very interesting link to here

http://astrogatorsguild.com/

and also

http://www.agi.com/products/

(which he will not understand and will pretend didn't happen. Even though those accurate simulators can fly any Apollo mission perfectly fine.)


quote:
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.
Klopt

quote:
Which you didn't have.
Onzin... dat hadden ze wel. Kan je allemaal berekenen. Dat jij die wetten niet begrijpt...tja.

Je blijft maar zeggen dat niemand de benodigde brandstof VS massa niet kan berekenen, maar zie hier:

http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/apollo/apollo.txt

Bewijs ze fout.

[ Bericht 2% gewijzigd door t4600c op 12-03-2017 15:48:40 ]
America went from a round Earth to a round Moon. Deal with it.
pi_169463239
quote:
0s.gif 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.
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?
  zondag 12 maart 2017 @ 16:45:29 #178
445108 t4600c
BNW geit
pi_169463303
quote:
0s.gif 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?
:')

You do understand that something doesn't need to decelerate down to 0 m/s to fall back down to Earth, right?

So if you think the CM needed to do that for re-entry, you're absolutely wrong.
It shows how you know about Apollo and even basic orbital manoeuvres.

[ Bericht 1% gewijzigd door ChrisCarter op 12-03-2017 17:05:10 ]
America went from a round Earth to a round Moon. Deal with it.
pi_169463510
registreer om deze reclame te verbergen
quote:
0s.gif 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.
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.

[ Bericht 4% gewijzigd door ChrisCarter op 12-03-2017 17:03:57 ]
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
  zondag 12 maart 2017 @ 16:59:24 #180
445108 t4600c
BNW geit
pi_169463662
quote:
0s.gif 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.
Show me your Grand dad's calculations that prove any Apollo mission impossible.
America went from a round Earth to a round Moon. Deal with it.
  zondag 12 maart 2017 @ 18:18:27 #181
47122 ATuin-hek
theguyver's sidekick!
pi_169465969
quote:
0s.gif 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?
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.

Edit: Also, don't forget that the spacecraft gets lighter and lighter, as propellant is expended. That factor is not taken into account in your rough calculations.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
pi_169468776
registreer om deze reclame te verbergen
quote:
0s.gif 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.

7000m/s relative to what?

quote:
It has mass 1 000 kg. You intend to brake to 0 m/s speed and then drop straight down to Earth.
Well, that is never the intend.
pi_169469927
quote:
0s.gif 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.
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.
pi_169469956
quote:
0s.gif Op zondag 12 maart 2017 16:53 schreef Tingo het volgende:
I still believed the TV rather than my Grandad
And now you believe youtube videos.

So not much has changed
pi_169470018
quote:
0s.gif 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.
Nee, het bewijs is niet terug te vinden in deze discussie
Daarom draai je er omheen.
Mooie praatjes verdoezelen dat niet.
pi_169470105
quote:
0s.gif 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.
Deze discussie heeft een deel17

[ Bericht 2% gewijzigd door ChrisCarter op 12-03-2017 20:51:25 ]
  Moderator zondag 12 maart 2017 @ 20:51:14 #187
450551 crew  ChrisCarter
Ti Ta Toverland
pi_169470311
Nou is het wel weer genoeg met je ge-dombo. Kappen.
  zondag 12 maart 2017 @ 21:02:47 #188
47122 ATuin-hek
theguyver's sidekick!
pi_169470722
quote:
0s.gif 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.
Als je daar gelukkig van wordt, moet je dat vooral lekker blijven geloven ^O^
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
pi_169471806
quote:
1s.gif Op zondag 12 maart 2017 20:46 schreef CynicusRomanticusRob het volgende:

[..]

Deze discussie heeft een deel17
Maakt niet uit, FOK is een heel prettig forum waarbij je eenvoudig kunt terug klikken door citaten.
En dan komen we terug op je reactie dat er meer hersenen worden gebruikt door bepaalde personen en A-Tuinhek die vraagt of je dat kunt onderbouwen.
En je beweert dat te kunnen, maar ondertussen doe je het niet.
pi_169476475
It seems nobody could answer my test:

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.
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.
pi_169476848
quote:
0s.gif 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.
It seems that you ignore the fact that there is no point in going from 7000m/s to 0m/s.

quote:
You cannot even fly up to it and service it.
Yes you can and it has been done several times in the past.

quote:
Why? Beacuse you cannot dock with it.
You don't have to dock with it in order to repair it.
And no, not all satellites stay in orbit for eternity.
You admitted that earlier on.
pi_169476854
quote:
0s.gif 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.
Why would anyone intend to do that.
There is no point in doing that.
  maandag 13 maart 2017 @ 09:19:12 #193
47122 ATuin-hek
theguyver's sidekick!
pi_169477675
quote:
0s.gif 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.
In order to answer that, we need the ISP of the engine. But as I stated before, it's an completely nonrealistic scenario.

And when you've figured out that number, here you can calculate the answer:
http://www.strout.net/info/science/delta-v/

[ Bericht 10% gewijzigd door ATuin-hek op 13-03-2017 09:24:44 ]
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
  maandag 13 maart 2017 @ 12:55:55 #194
47122 ATuin-hek
theguyver's sidekick!
pi_169480849
Trans-lunar_injection.svg
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
  maandag 13 maart 2017 @ 13:30:41 #195
47122 ATuin-hek
theguyver's sidekick!
pi_169481619
Meer leesvoer over re-entry en waarom hier relatief weinig brandstof voor nodig is:
http://space.stackexchang(...)e-shuttle-to-landing
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
pi_169481841
quote:
0s.gif Op zondag 12 maart 2017 20:43 schreef Wantie het volgende:

[..]

And now you believe youtube videos.

So not much has changed
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.

[ Bericht 3% gewijzigd door ChrisCarter op 13-03-2017 14:57:57 ]
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
  maandag 13 maart 2017 @ 14:02:26 #197
47122 ATuin-hek
theguyver's sidekick!
pi_169482456
quote:
0s.gif 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.
Maybe you should watch more of the educational ones. There are some pretty good ones available.

[ Bericht 3% gewijzigd door ChrisCarter op 13-03-2017 14:58:11 ]
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
  maandag 13 maart 2017 @ 14:34:15 #198
189978 controlaltdelete
Ik reageer niet op trollen
pi_169483213
quote:
0s.gif 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?).
Als je naar de comments kijkt zie je dat veel mensen hetzelfde denken. Maar goed, vast bang voor de camera en geen mediatraining :Z

[ Bericht 2% gewijzigd door ChrisCarter op 13-03-2017 14:58:20 ]
Als je in discussie gaat met een trol, wint hij. Als je een trol beledigt, wint hij. Als je tekeer gaat tegen een trol, wint hij. Het enige waar trollen niet tegen kunnen, is te worden genegeerd.
pi_169483471
quote:
0s.gif 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 :Z
Nee, pure confirmation bias.
Meer niet.
  maandag 13 maart 2017 @ 15:26:12 #200
47122 ATuin-hek
theguyver's sidekick!
pi_169484388
quote:
0s.gif 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 :Z
Weegt dat ene stukje hobby psychologie op tegen het bewijs dat mensen daar wel geweest zijn?
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
abonnementen ibood.com bol.com
Forum Opties
Forumhop:
Hop naar:
(afkorting, bv 'KLB')