[Lemmiwinks]

Tom, where can I get more information about these liquid fueled fireworks that you speak of?

Why, do liquid fueled rockets operate at a fundamentally different principal than solid fuel rockets? Is an engine that takes diesel fundamentally different than an engine that takes unleaded?

Yes, liquid fueled rockets allow variable thrust, solid fuel ones are 100% thrust the moment they light up.

Also you believe in nuclear bombs, but not ICBMs? Because ICBMs involve basically entering very low orbit, and if we can do that, then why cant we do a low orbit or more?

[Tom Bishop]

Nah, if they were running a fake space program they wouldn't create a Saturn V with the official specs, with the ability to reach escape velocity at 4 miles a second, with a mass of over 6.5 million pounds, filled to the brim with dangerous rocket fuel. They would have created an inferior version that only needed to fly out of sight.

It was a rocket masquerading as it's bigger brother in a show: A firework.

Just how much smaller could such a "smaller brother" be and still fly out of sight of the international press? How why to you refer to "reach escape velocity"? We've repeatedly pointed out your ignorance on this point. Please stop referring to escape velocity as though a rocket must reach that velocity for whatever reason you erroneously invoke it.

The Saturn V is significantly bigger than, say, the V2 rocket technology the US stole from postwar germany. The V2 had no problem going up into the air until they got out of sight.

[Tom Bishop]

Tom, where can I get more information about these liquid fueled fireworks that you speak of?

Why, do liquid fueled rockets operate at a fundamentally different principal than solid fuel rockets? Is an engine that takes diesel fundamentally different than an engine that takes unleaded?

Yes, liquid fueled rockets allow variable thrust, solid fuel ones are 100% thrust the moment they light up.

Also you believe in nuclear bombs, but not ICBMs? Because ICBMs involve basically entering very low orbit, and if we can do that, then why cant we do a low orbit or more?

ICBMs do not exist. At best we have ballistic missiles.

[markjo]

ICBMs do not exist. At best we have ballistic missiles.

Tom, ICBMs are ballistic missiles.  The clue is in the name.

[Rama Set]

ICBMs do not exist. At best we have ballistic missiles.

Tom, ICBMs are ballistic missiles.  The clue is in the name.

I think it is the IC he objects to, not the BM (pun intended).

[markjo]

ICBMs do not exist. At best we have ballistic missiles.

Tom, ICBMs are ballistic missiles.  The clue is in the name.

I think it is the IC he objects to, not the BM (pun intended).

I have never seen a single valid reason as to why ICBMs should be impossible on a flat earth.  In fact, I would think that, in some ways, they might even be easier on a flat earth because you don't have to worry about the curvature of the earth or the Coriolis effect.

[Rama Set]

ICBMs do not exist. At best we have ballistic missiles.

Tom, ICBMs are ballistic missiles.  The clue is in the name.

I think it is the IC he objects to, not the BM (pun intended).

I have never seen a single valid reason as to why ICBMs should be impossible on a flat earth.  In fact, I would think that, in some ways, they might even be easier on a flat earth because you don't have to worry about the curvature of the earth or the Coriolis effect.

Isn't Tom just incredulous that sufficient power can be generated by rocket engines for some inexplicable reason?

[Pete Svarrior]

I don't understand why you're equating "ICBMs do not exist" to "it is physically impossible for ICBMs to ever exist". Could you clarify?

[Rama Set]

I don't understand why you're equating "ICBMs do not exist" to "it is physically impossible for ICBMs to ever exist". Could you clarify?

Is that for Markjo or myself?

[Tom Bishop]

ICBMs do not exist. At best we have ballistic missiles.

Tom, ICBMs are ballistic missiles.  The clue is in the name.

I think it is the IC he objects to, not the BM (pun intended).

I have never seen a single valid reason as to why ICBMs should be impossible on a flat earth.  In fact, I would think that, in some ways, they might even be easier on a flat earth because you don't have to worry about the curvature of the earth or the Coriolis effect.

It's not possible for a rocket to take off from the US and hit Moscow without earth orbit. Why do you think the US had to bother making a space program, real or not, if ballistic missiles could travel that far?

[Rama Set]

ICBMs do not exist. At best we have ballistic missiles.

Tom, ICBMs are ballistic missiles.  The clue is in the name.

I think it is the IC he objects to, not the BM (pun intended).

I have never seen a single valid reason as to why ICBMs should be impossible on a flat earth.  In fact, I would think that, in some ways, they might even be easier on a flat earth because you don't have to worry about the curvature of the earth or the Coriolis effect.

It's not possible for a rocket to take off from the US and hit Moscow without earth orbit. Why do you think the US had to bother making a space program, real or not, if ballistic missiles could travel that far?

Because sending a rocket to the moon is much more energy intensive than sending one from Washington to Moscow. But that does not answer why Earth's orbit cannot be attained.

[Tom Bishop]

Because sending a rocket to the moon is much more energy intensive than sending one from Washington to Moscow. But that does not answer why Earth's orbit cannot be attained.

Despite the devastation of the V2 against London and its indefensible nature, Hitler couldn't hit the US from Germany with the V2 no matter how much fuel he put into it. Doing so would have ended the war. Once the US got a hold of the V2 technology when the war ended there was a push to develop it enough to catch onto earth orbit, strap a nuke on it, and give the ultimate weapon the ultimate position. Military defense and Cold War buildup sparked the country's race to space.

Did you learn nothing about the Cold War and its influence on the space program in high school?

[Pete Svarrior]

I don't understand why you're equating "ICBMs do not exist" to "it is physically impossible for ICBMs to ever exist". Could you clarify?

Is that for Markjo or myself?

Anyone who makes the association, really. Markjo seems to be the only person who made it explicitly, but if you share the sentiment, then it's for both of you.

[Rama Set]

I don't understand why you're equating "ICBMs do not exist" to "it is physically impossible for ICBMs to ever exist". Could you clarify?

Is that for Markjo or myself?

Anyone who makes the association, really. Markjo seems to be the only person who made it explicitly, but if you share the sentiment, then it's for both of you.

Not me, although Tom seems to have just implied that achieving orbit is not possible which I find to be curious and confusing.

[Rama Set]

Because sending a rocket to the moon is much more energy intensive than sending one from Washington to Moscow. But that does not answer why Earth's orbit cannot be attained.

Despite the devastation of the V2 against London and its indefensible nature, Hitler couldn't hit the US from Germany with the V2 no matter how much fuel he put into it. Doing so would have ended the war. Once the US got a hold of the V2 technology when the war ended there was a push to develop it enough to catch onto earth orbit, strap a nuke on it, and give the ultimate weapon the ultimate position. Military defense and Cold War buildup sparked the country's race to space.

Did you learn nothing about the Cold War and its influence on the space program in high school?

A fascinating post with Ad Hominem implications that is a total non sequitur to mine. Care to answer why achieving Earth orbit is not possible now?

[Tom Bishop]

Because the earth is not a globe.

[Rama Set]

Because the earth is not a globe.

I see nothing in that that would prevent a ballistic missile travelling between continents.

[Tom Bishop]

Because the earth is not a globe.

I see nothing in that that would prevent a ballistic missile travelling between continents.

Hitler tried, failed. More fuel means more weight, which means more fuel, which adds even more weight, meaning more fuel required, ad infinitum, limiting the overall effectiveness of ballistic rockets. Rocket scientists in agreement that earth orbit needed to overcome physical and technological limitations. US space program started after war specifically to get ICBMs into orbit.

[Rama Set]

Because the earth is not a globe.

I see nothing in that that would prevent a ballistic missile travelling between continents.

Hitler tried, failed. More fuel means more weight, which means more fuel, which adds even more weight, meaning more fuel required, ad infinitum, limiting the overall effectiveness of ballistic rockets. Scientists said earth orbit needed to overcome physical and technological limitations. US space program started after war specifically to get ICBMs into orbit.

Hirer couldn't do it so it is impossible. I see...

[Tom Bishop]

Because the earth is not a globe.

I see nothing in that that would prevent a ballistic missile travelling between continents.

Hitler tried, failed. More fuel means more weight, which means more fuel, which adds even more weight, meaning more fuel required, ad infinitum, limiting the overall effectiveness of ballistic rockets. Scientists said earth orbit needed to overcome physical and technological limitations. US space program started after war specifically to get ICBMs into orbit.

Hirer couldn't do it so it is impossible. I see...

I would trust Hitler as as authority. He put a lot of state money into researching the matter. The top scientists at NASA during the space race era were ex-Nazi war criminals.