*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?
« Reply #40 on: December 21, 2014, 01:28:18 AM »
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?
Check me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that ICBMs (namely Atlas) came before the space program.

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?
Actually, it's Tom's position, not mine, and I think that he just did.

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.
The V-2 was never designed to reach the US.  That would be the A9/A10, a design which never made it past the drawing board.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregate_%28rocket_family%29#A9.2FA10
« Last Edit: December 21, 2014, 02:13:50 AM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Rama Set

Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?
« Reply #41 on: December 21, 2014, 01:45:09 AM »
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.

You mean the same scientists who said it was possible to get to space and then, when provided with ten times the budget succeeded?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10658
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?
« Reply #42 on: December 21, 2014, 05:57:53 AM »
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?
Check me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that ICBMs (namely Atlas) came before the space program.

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?
Actually, it's Tom's position, not mine, and I think that he just did.

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.
The V-2 was never designed to reach the US.  That would be the A9/A10, a design which never made it past the drawing board.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregate_%28rocket_family%29#A9.2FA10

There you go. Read your link of the rocket required to reach the US. Earth orbit required to cross intercontinental distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10658
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?
« Reply #43 on: December 21, 2014, 06:03:06 AM »
You mean the same scientists who said it was possible to get to space and then, when provided with ten times the budget succeeded?

The US had to pay more for their rockets because they didn't have the benefit of slave labor.

Also, throwing money at scientists doesn't allow them to break the laws of physics.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2014, 06:40:56 AM by Tom Bishop »

Rama Set

Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?
« Reply #44 on: December 21, 2014, 07:03:24 AM »
You mean the same scientists who said it was possible to get to space and then, when provided with ten times the budget succeeded?

The US had to pay more for their rockets because they didn't have the benefit of slave labor.

Also, throwing money at scientists doesn't allow them to break the laws of physics.

The scientists are on record saying it was not against the laws of physics.  Why are you claiming more expertise than those you said were authorities on the matter?

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?
« Reply #45 on: December 21, 2014, 05:04:50 PM »
Quote
The V-2 was never designed to reach the US.  That would be the A9/A10, a design which never made it past the drawing board.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregate_%28rocket_family%29#A9.2FA10

There you go. Read your link of the rocket required to reach the US. Earth orbit required to cross intercontinental distances.
???  Where in that link does it say anything about the A9/A10 needing to achieve orbit in order to reach the US?  Perhaps you're thinking about the A11 and A12 designs.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?
« Reply #46 on: December 21, 2014, 05:06:58 PM »
Also, throwing money at scientists doesn't allow them to break the laws of physics.
You still haven't specified exactly which laws of physics are allegedly being broken.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10658
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?
« Reply #47 on: December 22, 2014, 02:23:34 AM »
You mean the same scientists who said it was possible to get to space and then, when provided with ten times the budget succeeded?

The US had to pay more for their rockets because they didn't have the benefit of slave labor.

Also, throwing money at scientists doesn't allow them to break the laws of physics.

The scientists are on record saying it was not against the laws of physics.  Why are you claiming more expertise than those you said were authorities on the matter?

Actually, the scientists are on record for saying that a rocket would need to enter earth orbit to reach intercontinental targets.

???  Where in that link does it say anything about the A9/A10 needing to achieve orbit in order to reach the US?  Perhaps you're thinking about the A11 and A12 designs.

Did you read the link you posted? The A9/A10/A11/A12 are all stages of a four stage orbital rocket designed to hit America from Europe. The top two stages A9 and A10 can be used as a stand alone tactical rocket, but the operational range falls far short of the 4,100 miles between Washington DC and Germany. Under the illustration of the A9 and A10 configuration the operational range reads "500 Miles".
« Last Edit: December 22, 2014, 02:43:39 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?
« Reply #48 on: December 22, 2014, 02:58:40 AM »
You mean the same scientists who said it was possible to get to space and then, when provided with ten times the budget succeeded?

The US had to pay more for their rockets because they didn't have the benefit of slave labor.

Also, throwing money at scientists doesn't allow them to break the laws of physics.

The scientists are on record saying it was not against the laws of physics.  Why are you claiming more expertise than those you said were authorities on the matter?

Actually, the scientists are on record for saying that a rocket would need to enter earth orbit to reach intercontinental targets.
Citation please.

???  Where in that link does it say anything about the A9/A10 needing to achieve orbit in order to reach the US?  Perhaps you're thinking about the A11 and A12 designs.

Did you read the link you posted? The A9/A10/A11/A12 are all stages of a four stage orbital rocket designed to hit America from Europe. The top two stages A9 and A10 can be used as a stand alone tactical rocket, but the operational range falls far short of the 4,000 miles between Washington DC and Germany. Under the illustration of the A9 and A10 configuration the operational range reads "500 Miles".

Maybe you should read it again more closely.
Quote
Type    IRBM second stage[citation needed]
Service history
In service    test only, not deployed

Production history
Manufacturer    studied by Army Research Center Peenemünde
Unit cost    none mass-manufactured

Specifications
Weight    16,259 kg
Length    14.18 m
Diameter    1.65 m maximum
Warhead    2,200 pound payload[28]

Engine    A9
Wingspan    3.2 m
Operational range  500 statute miles
Flight altitude    190 km (in single flight) or 390 km (in A9/A10)
Speed    3,400 m/s (in A9/A10)
Launch platform   ground launch pad or A-10

As you can clearly see, this is primarily dealing with just the A9 stage, except when noted as the second stage of an A9/A10 configuration. 

Then again, since none of this ever went into production, the argument is moot.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Rama Set

Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?
« Reply #49 on: December 22, 2014, 11:33:02 AM »
You mean the same scientists who said it was possible to get to space and then, when provided with ten times the budget succeeded?

The US had to pay more for their rockets because they didn't have the benefit of slave labor.

Also, throwing money at scientists doesn't allow them to break the laws of physics.

The scientists are on record saying it was not against the laws of physics.  Why are you claiming more expertise than those you said were authorities on the matter?

Actually, the scientists are on record for saying that a rocket would need to enter earth orbit to reach intercontinental targets.


That does not in any way contradict what I said and in fact is the point of what I said.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10658
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?
« Reply #50 on: January 03, 2015, 10:43:30 PM »
As you can clearly see, this is primarily dealing with just the A9 stage, except when noted as the second stage of an A9/A10 configuration. 

Then again, since none of this ever went into production, the argument is moot.

Then what is the range? If the America rocket only needed the A9 and A10 stages to hit america, what were the much bigger A11 and A12 stages for?

The intent was, clearly, to get into orbit and create an ICBM capable of hitting America. Ballistic missiles don't cut it.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?
« Reply #51 on: January 04, 2015, 01:29:13 AM »
As you can clearly see, this is primarily dealing with just the A9 stage, except when noted as the second stage of an A9/A10 configuration. 

Then again, since none of this ever went into production, the argument is moot.

Then what is the range? If the America rocket only needed the A9 and A10 stages to hit america, what were the much bigger A11 and A12 stages for?
If you had bothered reading the link that I provided, you would have learned that using the A11 in a 3 stage stack would have would have allowed Germany to put about 300 Kg into orbit and adding an A12 stage would have allowed for 10 tonne orbital payloads.

The intent was, clearly, to get into orbit and create an ICBM capable of hitting America. Ballistic missiles don't cut it.
Again, the A9/A10 stack was intended to hit America.  Adding A11 and A12 would have allowed for orbital payloads.  Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Then again, that is what they were intended to do.  Since nothing past the A4 (V2) ever got built, we'll never know how successful any of those designs might have been.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2015, 01:32:13 AM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10658
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?
« Reply #52 on: January 04, 2015, 06:02:40 AM »
As you can clearly see, this is primarily dealing with just the A9 stage, except when noted as the second stage of an A9/A10 configuration. 

Then again, since none of this ever went into production, the argument is moot.

Then what is the range? If the America rocket only needed the A9 and A10 stages to hit america, what were the much bigger A11 and A12 stages for?
If you had bothered reading the link that I provided, you would have learned that using the A11 in a 3 stage stack would have would have allowed Germany to put about 300 Kg into orbit and adding an A12 stage would have allowed for 10 tonne orbital payloads.

The intent was, clearly, to get into orbit and create an ICBM capable of hitting America. Ballistic missiles don't cut it.
Again, the A9/A10 stack was intended to hit America.  Adding A11 and A12 would have allowed for orbital payloads.  Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Then again, that is what they were intended to do.  Since nothing past the A4 (V2) ever got built, we'll never know how successful any of those designs might have been.

So the A9 has a listed operational range of 500 miles, and the A10, a second stage rocket which is only slightly bigger has, according to you, an operational range of over 3600 miles? And the A11 and A12 third and fourth stages were actually unnecessary?
« Last Edit: January 04, 2015, 06:06:39 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?
« Reply #53 on: January 04, 2015, 06:25:45 AM »
So the A9 has a listed operational range of 500 miles, and the A10, a second stage rocket which is only slightly bigger has, according to you, an operational range of over 3600 miles?
Not according to me, but according to Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Astronautica the range was supposed to be about 5000 KM (about 3100 miles).

And the A11 and A12 third and fourth stages were actually unnecessary?
They were necessary for satellite launching, but not for the Projekt Amerika program.

Just out of curiosity Tom, what do you believe that the maximum possible range for any ballistic missile could be without the need for going into orbit first?
« Last Edit: January 04, 2015, 06:41:37 AM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Offline Goose

  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?
« Reply #54 on: January 13, 2015, 05:10:57 PM »
It would be hard to tell what range a ballistic missile could achieve. At a guess, judging the fact that a ballistic missile must always arc to it's height then arc back down, it stands to reason that it will have to achieve half of its target on the up arc and then the other half on the down, obviously still powered.
Taking into account that rockets (genuine rockets) use their fuel up extremely quickly and basing on size of rocket - structure of rocket, I'd estimate that you could maybe hit a target from ground to ground of maybe 40 or 50 miles. This is a guess and simply only that. This does not mean it can't go further than that.

My opinion is that rockets are basic and always will be. They are little more than a firework. You light the fuse, ignite the fuel and the fuel carries the weight into a ballistic trajectory until it quickly extinguishes.

Let's go even more basic and equate it to throwing a ball.
If you throw a ball almost horizontally - maybe gaining a small arc, you will throw it a short distance before it hits the ground, fairly quickly. It requires less power to do so but loses flight due to it not having anything to hold it up after release.

Throw that ball up into the air with all your force in a much steeper arc and your ball will travel much further before hitting the ground.
Yeah I know it's a simple context but that's the thing. You see, a rocket is also a simple thing. It doesn't require these supposed engines they tell us they have on the supposed big saturn V rockets. It stands to reason that they wouldn't work if they were engines.
You have little pumps, pumping fuel and oxygen. They simply couldn't mix it at the rates they tell us these super rockets blast out.
It would literally have to be an open cannister, like a water bottle rocket and air to move something like that - but if that were the case, you could guarantee the rocket would go to lift off and simply collapse into a fire ball.

To get a rocket that size into the air, it would literally have to be made out of super light material, almost as light (to scale) as a firework rocket.
Naturally in a liquid fuel rocket, this can't happen on that scale due to weight of fuel and also the pressure it's under. Realistically the rocket would have to be made of thick metal, like a compressed air cylinder but of mammoth size, which wouldn't get off the ground anyway.

As I explained before on the other site. You would never see any rocket lift off in slow motion like we see in space rocket launches on TV. It just wouldn't happen.
For a rocket to launch straight up - true - like we see on TV, it would have to be ridiculously balanced on take off, meaning all burning fuel somehow pushing it evenly off that launch pad and at super speed. In fact, springboard speed, like a person dropped onto a trampoline then sprung off it. Something like that or you would not have balance.

If you do not take off at speed, you are at the mercy of changing pressures under the rocket and one uneven push against any part of the underside of the rocket fuel means your rocket is going to simply tip over.

Taking off at speed gives balance. The nose of the rocket pushes through the air and transfers that air faster around it, balancing the rocket - as long as that rocket holds a vertical motion - whether it's true vertical or arcing.
If it goes horizonal, it's an unbalanced dead stick unless it sprouts huge wings and a tail section.

So where do space ships go when they're supposedly in space?
The answer, as has been said, is - there is no such thing as space ships. Any rocket that's launched in real time, goes into the drink. It simply arcs into the sea.
What you see on TV on the launchpad, is exactly what the film makers want you to see.
What you see launch in real time from the distance anyone does see it, will be a scale model of what you see on TV. Basically a ballistic missile on a trajectory to the sea.

The clever part of this is that it fits a good purpose because it gives off the supposed reality that it isn't a rocket heading out to sea - but a staging of it, or a solid rocket booster, etc, whilst the ever amazed public believe the rest of it is into space.

Just remember that your little garden firework, or even your larger public firework display rocket, is made of a sort of cardboard. It's fine for the purpose because it's purpose is to take off at super speed and very quickly releases it's energy.

If anyone is interested, go and take a look at any missile launch from army vehicles in the deserts and such.
You will notice that they basically spring into action. They accelerate instantly and are spent in short order.

After that, take a look at model rockets in all sizes. There's some of the shuttle and the saturn V - large models. Watch how they take off.

Now go and take a look at any supposed space launches and notice the almost human running speed that they take off with. It's nonsensical and physically impossible for this to happen unless they all go to take off and then blow up, because there's no way they are going into the sky under walking take off speed.

That's my wholehearted opinion on it.