Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2805
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #260 on: July 02, 2021, 11:05:49 AM »
After burnout, how does it possibly continue to gain altitude in order to achieve an additional 4250km to apogee?

Same way a baseball can fly upwards after only being hit once? It’s acceleration. Very strange that you don’t know this.
Sure I know that.

I also know it will not cover an additional 4250km, as it will start deceleration once burn out has occurred.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2021, 11:24:25 AM by Action80 »
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #261 on: July 02, 2021, 11:19:43 AM »
The issue is engine burn of five minutes.

The issue is distance traveled of 250km in five minutes.

Average rate of travel to achieve 250km is 3000/kmh.

AATW proposal appears to exceed that number.

246.66 is less than 250, because counting.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2805
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #262 on: July 02, 2021, 11:22:26 AM »
The issue is engine burn of five minutes.

The issue is distance traveled of 250km in five minutes.

Average rate of travel to achieve 250km is 3000/kmh.

AATW proposal appears to exceed that number.

246.66 is less than 250, because counting.
Yes.
246.66 is 3.34 less than 250.
Because it only worsens your position.
But thanks.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #263 on: July 02, 2021, 12:11:20 PM »
Can you elaborate? You asked me to "make it fit", if you're going to quibble about a few km then I'd suggest that's just you being pretty disingenuous.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2805
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #264 on: July 02, 2021, 12:52:35 PM »
Can you elaborate? You asked me to "make it fit", if you're going to quibble about a few km then I'd suggest that's just you being pretty disingenuous.
I am not quibbling over your numbers.

You did that.

You will see your numbers do not fit.

Analyze it.

Total distance - 246.66km

Total time traveled to attain distance - 5 min

Rate of travel = Slightly less than 3000km/h.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

Rama Set

Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #265 on: July 02, 2021, 12:54:29 PM »
*average velocity 3,000km/h. Not necessarily the velocity at t=5.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2805
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #266 on: July 02, 2021, 01:09:24 PM »
*average velocity 3,000km/h. Not necessarily the velocity at t=5.
I understand that.

Just like an auto race, the guy could be flying well past or limping across the finish line at well below the average time necessary to have won the race.

In this case, the breakdown AATW provided surpasses the average rate of travel over that distance.

So it doesn't work.

And the missile will commence deceleration almost immediately upon burn out.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

Rama Set

Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #267 on: July 02, 2021, 02:49:53 PM »
Yes it will decelerate but all it needs is to get to the apogee of its flight path.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2805
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #268 on: July 02, 2021, 03:00:32 PM »
^ Correct. It only needs to attain an additional 4250 km to apogee while under no continued impetus. And in accordance with RE, subjected to slightly over 9m/s2 at that altitude.

No more engine to maintain a required 8500km/h average rate of travel for let's say 30 minutes, against that immediate opposing force.

Once engine burn out occurs, a missile will commence deceleration (i.e., slow down its rate of travel).
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

Rama Set

Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #269 on: July 02, 2021, 04:02:50 PM »
Yes. That’s right. Now, care to show your complete calculation showing it’s impossible?

SteelyBob

Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #270 on: July 03, 2021, 12:43:59 PM »
^ Correct. It only needs to attain an additional 4250 km to apogee while under no continued impetus. And in accordance with RE, subjected to slightly over 9m/s2 at that altitude.

No more engine to maintain a required 8500km/h average rate of travel for let's say 30 minutes, against that immediate opposing force.

Once engine burn out occurs, a missile will commence deceleration (i.e., slow down its rate of travel).

You don't appear to be reading anybody's posts. I, and several others, have patiently explained this over several posts, such as mine here - https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18167.msg240697#msg240697 - which you haven't acknowledged or engaged with in any way.

You are making repeated errors with both minor facts/numbers (such as g=9ms-2 at 4250km, whereas its actually less than half that number, as per another of my previous posts that you've ignored), and with major conceptual things, such as the fact that the average velocity over a period of time can easily be far greater than the mean of the start and end velocities if the velocity profile is non-linear.

Are you just trolling, or are you genuinely struggling with this?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2805
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #271 on: July 06, 2021, 10:56:21 AM »
^ Correct. It only needs to attain an additional 4250 km to apogee while under no continued impetus. And in accordance with RE, subjected to slightly over 9m/s2 at that altitude.

No more engine to maintain a required 8500km/h average rate of travel for let's say 30 minutes, against that immediate opposing force.

Once engine burn out occurs, a missile will commence deceleration (i.e., slow down its rate of travel).

You don't appear to be reading anybody's posts. I, and several others, have patiently explained this over several posts, such as mine here - https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18167.msg240697#msg240697 - which you haven't acknowledged or engaged with in any way.

You are making repeated errors with both minor facts/numbers (such as g=9ms-2 at 4250km, whereas its actually less than half that number, as per another of my previous posts that you've ignored), and with major conceptual things, such as the fact that the average velocity over a period of time can easily be far greater than the mean of the start and end velocities if the velocity profile is non-linear.

Are you just trolling, or are you genuinely struggling with this?
You should read the post again.

I never claimed g=9m/s2 at 4250km.

Why are you misrepresenting my posts?

But, just in case you are not and cannot understand what the issue is:

Specifically, at 250km, g=is slightly above 9m/s2.

Now, according to you, a missile has burnt out its fuel and the engine has ceased functioning.

It immediately commences deceleration.

Yet, it needs to achieve an additional 4250km in altitude to reach apogee.

Not gonna happen.

In addition, race car velocity profiles are also decidedly non-linear. A race car can certainly be screaming full throttle or be limping across the finish line at the end of the trip. In the end, the race is decided by who completes the required miles in the least amount of time and that is determined by average speed over the entire required course. d=rt. And you still seem to think my issue is with d=rt being far greater.

You should look again.

So your argument concerning that issue is illegitimate and specious.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2021, 11:08:37 AM by Action80 »
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

SteelyBob

Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #272 on: July 06, 2021, 09:31:11 PM »

You should read the post again.

I never claimed g=9m/s2 at 4250km.

Well what exactly is this sentence saying then?:
It only needs to attain an additional 4250 km to apogee while under no continued impetus. And in accordance with RE, subjected to slightly over 9m/s2 at that altitude.

There's no other altitudes mentioned in your post, or indeed the preceding one that you seemed to be responding to.

Why are you misrepresenting my posts?

I'm certainly not trying to do that - you must surely see how that might be misinterpreted? Still, you are at least acknowledging that g is, according to generally accepted scientific consensus (or 'RE', if you like) reducing all the time with increasing altitude.

But, just in case you are not and cannot understand what the issue is:

Specifically, at 250km, g=is slightly above 9m/s2.

Now, according to you, a missile has burnt out its fuel and the engine has ceased functioning.

It immediately commences deceleration.

Yep, agreed

Yet, it needs to achieve an additional 4250km in altitude to reach apogee.

Again, yes - agreed.

Not gonna happen.

Why not? It's fine to disagree, but at this point you've got to offer something up by way of calculation. I've linked you to a really good website that shows in some detail how the calculations work. It's far from easy maths, because the force due to gravity acting on the missile is reducing all the time. You could start by simplifying it - how high would the missile go if g was constant at, say 9ms-2? As maths teachers the world over like to say...show your working too, please.

In addition, race car velocity profiles are also decidedly non-linear. A race car can certainly be screaming full throttle or be limping across the finish line at the end of the trip. In the end, the race is decided by who completes the required miles in the least amount of time and that is determined by average speed over the entire required course. d=rt. And you still seem to think my issue is with d=rt being far greater.

The reason people keep calling you out on this is that the only thing that affects the missile's final trajectory from hbo onwards is its velocity at that point - 250km in this example. It's not really clear why you think a particular average speed over a distance precludes a particular velocity at the end of that distance/time. To give an example with some more down-to-earth numbers, imagine driving a Ferrari at exactly 30mph for 59 minutes and 50 secondhand then putting your foot down in the last 10 seconds. Your final speed will be very high - well over 100mph, let's say - but your average speed will be as near as doesn't matter to 30mph.


You should look again.

So your argument concerning that issue is illegitimate and specious.

If you want to progress the debate, you need to actually offer something up by way of counter-argument. You just seem to be saying 'no it isn't' to everything, without actually presenting any calculations of your own. You must have done some kind of sums to reach your conclusions. Let's see them.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2805
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #273 on: July 07, 2021, 10:22:16 AM »
^I have offered numbers.

Your numbers.

So, if you are going to state a missile traveling at over 16,000 km/h @ an altitude of 250km, without engine power, is going to overcome g=slightly over 9m/s2 in order to travel an additional 4250km to apogee, the simple fact is we disagree. I disagree based on what you wrote earlier, when you stated a missile subject to g=9.82m/s2 would decelerate to 0 in 12 minutes if traveling the same speed.

And regardless, d=rt still applies. To travel 250km in 5 minutes results in an average rate of travel of 3000km/h. The numbers reflected do not result in that outcome.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

SteelyBob

Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #274 on: July 07, 2021, 10:41:48 AM »
^I have offered numbers.

Your numbers.

So, if you are going to state a missile traveling at over 16,000 km/h @ an altitude of 250km, without engine power, is going to overcome g=slightly over 9m/s2 in order to travel an additional 4250km to apogee, the simple fact is we disagree. I disagree based on what you wrote earlier, when you stated a missile subject to g=9.82m/s2 would decelerate to 0 in 12 minutes if traveling the same speed.

Great. Now read the rest of that post - I said 'At which point you'll probably say 'so how come it flew for 50 minutes? Surely 12 x 2 = 24?'...read past that bit. As we've discussed a post or two ago, g reduces with increasing altitude, so it takes a lot longer to decelerate than 12 minutes. All covered off in that website I linked to. If you disagree, fine, but how long would it take to decelerate, and what would be the distance travelled, if g reduced in the manner generally agreed upon? You're saying it's wrong...but what's the right answer then? It can't be 12 minutes, and we know it must be bigger than that number. 

And regardless, d=rt still applies. To travel 250km in 5 minutes results in an average rate of travel of 3000km/h. The numbers reflected do not result in that outcome.

Again, I'm not disputing the average velocity. But there's no reason at all why the final velocity at the end of the burn is inconsistent with that. If most of the acceleration happens in the latter stages, just like the car in my previous example, why can't you have a high end velocity but a low average?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2805
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #275 on: July 07, 2021, 11:27:57 AM »

Great. Now read the rest of that post - I said 'At which point you'll probably say 'so how come it flew for 50 minutes? Surely 12 x 2 = 24?'...read past that bit.
Remind me to what post you are referring. Thanks.

ETA: Found it.
The Hwasong 15, for example, was estimated to have reached 7.17km/s at the end of its burn. At that velocity, it would take around 12 minutes to decelerate to 0 at 9.81ms-2
Which then leads us to the other complicating factor that you aren't considering, which is the progressive reduction in g as you get further away from earth. At 4000km, for example, the ICBM would only experience a g of 3.7ms-2. That's why the calculations get complex very quickly - you've got variable mass and g, and a rotating planet.

Of course, I guess you disagree with the rotating round planet bit, and probably the reducing g bit as well. That's fine...but the burden then falls on you to explain what exactly did happen to the rocket if it flew for 50 odd minutes and only went 950km from the launch site, and how far it would be able to travel if it was launched at a shallower angle.
Here, you want to skip to the end part where g=approx 3.7m/s2, ignoring all the values in between.
As we've discussed a post or two ago, g reduces with increasing altitude, so it takes a lot longer to decelerate than 12 minutes. All covered off in that website I linked to. If you disagree, fine, but how long would it take to decelerate, and what would be the distance travelled, if g reduced in the manner generally agreed upon? You're saying it's wrong...but what's the right answer then? It can't be 12 minutes, and we know it must be bigger than that number.
I would prefer you launder your own wash.

Neatly press, fold, and drawer, or hang in the closet as you wish.

I am telling you the missile travelling at 16,000km/h at an altitude of 250km, under no engine power, subject to g slightly above 9m/s2, will not climb an additional 4250km.

Period.

You believe in this stuff.

I do not because as I have demonstrated in numerous posts, governments lie about this type of crap ALL the time.

It is warmongering, fearmongering crap, designed to keep a terrified populace. 
And regardless, d=rt still applies. To travel 250km in 5 minutes results in an average rate of travel of 3000km/h. The numbers reflected do not result in that outcome.

Again, I'm not disputing the average velocity. But there's no reason at all why the final velocity at the end of the burn is inconsistent with that. If most of the acceleration happens in the latter stages, just like the car in my previous example, why can't you have a high end velocity but a low average?
If you understand what d=rtmeans, then you know that 0-16,000km/h over the course of 5 minutes would not average out to a final distance of 250km.

It doesn't matter whether the high end acceleration takes place in front or at the end of the run.

I am giving you all your numbers.

I don't personally accept it as truth, but you should act on your own information to support your argument ICBM's exist and they need RET to operate.

Have a great day!
« Last Edit: July 07, 2021, 11:43:54 AM by Action80 »
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

SteelyBob

Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #276 on: July 07, 2021, 12:21:43 PM »

Here, you want to skip to the end part where g=approx 3.7m/s2, ignoring all the values in between.

No, not at all. As I said, and as laid out nicely in the site I linked to, you have to do some calculus - some integration to find the area under the velocity time graph essentially.

As we've discussed a post or two ago, g reduces with increasing altitude, so it takes a lot longer to decelerate than 12 minutes. All covered off in that website I linked to. If you disagree, fine, but how long would it take to decelerate, and what would be the distance travelled, if g reduced in the manner generally agreed upon? You're saying it's wrong...but what's the right answer then? It can't be 12 minutes, and we know it must be bigger than that number.
I would prefer you launder your own wash.

Neatly press, fold, and drawer, or hang in the closet as you wish.

No idea what you're on about here. I've shown you calculations, websites etc. You've just said 'it isn't so', without providing any explanation.

I am telling you the missile travelling at 16,000km/h at an altitude of 250km, under no engine power, subject to g slightly above 9m/s2, will not climb an additional 4250km.

Period.
But it's not subject to g at slightly above 9ms-2, it's subject to a g profile that reduces from just above 9 down to below 4 at apogee.

You believe in this stuff.

Not so much 'believe' as 'find the evidence for it compelling'

I do not because as I have demonstrated in numerous posts, governments lie about this type of crap ALL the time.

It is warmongering, fearmongering crap, designed to keep a terrified populace. 

Governments lie, but science is science.

If you understand what d=rtmeans, then you know that 0-16,000km/h over the course of 5 minutes would not average out to a final distance of 250km.

It doesn't matter whether the high end acceleration takes place in front or at the end of the run.

For simplicity, imagine a profile where its speed doubled every minute, finishing at 16,000, and to keep the maths simple, just keep the velocity flat over each minute and then step it up at the end of each minute. So zero, then 1000km/h after one minute, then 2000km/h after 2 minutes, then 4000km/h after 3 minutes, then 8000km/h after 4 minutes, and a snap to 16,000km/h at the finish line.
Total distance in that case would be 1000/60 + 2000/60 + 4000/60 + 8000/60 = 250km

Now, clearly that's an inaccurate model, because the velocity can't just instantly double, and in the rocket example the mass is never zero - it decays, presumably linearly if the thrust is constant, to whatever the zero-fuel mass of the system is. But by reducing the time step, you can increase the accuracy, and it nevertheless illustrates the point.

I really don't get how to make this any clearer, but then it's not helped by your continued refusal to actually show any maths of your own.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2805
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #277 on: July 07, 2021, 12:37:34 PM »
^The entirety of this post just above mine here gets a big thumbs down, especially that last feeble attempt at trying to brush away the fact that 250km traveled in 5 minutes = 3000km/h average speed over those 5 minutes.

Just pitiful.

Really pitiful.

Moving on.

The missile is subject to g slightly above 9m/s2 at 250km.

It is no longer under engine power.

It will not be able to gain an additional 4250km in altitude in order to subject itself to the claimed g=3.7m/s2 at 4500km, let alone in the required time frame.

Again, you are the one claiming ICBM's are real.

I am not.

I did not start the thread and you did not either, but you are the one supporting ICBM's as reality and the fact they exist as being somehow relevant to the shape of the earth.

I am calling the entire issue of ICBM's a crock of bullshit.

Prove otherwise.

You can't.

That is why you so desperately desire for the subject to be buried now.

I have clearly shown your math to be nonsense.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2021, 12:48:43 PM by Action80 »
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

Rama Set

Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #278 on: July 07, 2021, 01:00:05 PM »
You haven’t shown anything. You’ve asserted all of your points. Showing this mathematically would be extremely compelling. We have already been presented with calculations showing it is possible and all you do is give a thumbs down. I can’t imagine a less compelling rebuttal from you other than a “nuh-uh”.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2805
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #279 on: July 07, 2021, 01:13:26 PM »
Showing this mathematically would be extremely compelling.
I agree.

Kindly demonstrate the compelling mathematical evidence that a missile, under no engine power, traveling at a rate of 16,000km/h, at an altitude of 250km, subject to a g=slightly above 9m/s2, will continue to gain altitude to an apogee of 4500km.

By the way, how was your trip to outer space?
« Last Edit: July 07, 2021, 01:26:42 PM by Action80 »
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.