The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: AATW on July 21, 2019, 06:45:12 PM
-
Lots of coverage of the 50th anniversary of the first moon landing. This caught my eye and wondered if there were any FE thoughts
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-49001181
What I thought interesting about this it’s a team in the UK who were tracking a Russian craft in orbit around the moon and listening in to the Apollo 11 astronauts.
This is a team independent of NASA and the Russian space agency and verifying the work of both.
Any thoughts?
-
Skies have been blue and clear for almost a week. Yesterday we get announcement of rain middle next week. Chemtrails appear. They will be spraying like crazy next few days. The world is fake fake fake for the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
-
I don't see how that's a reply to anything I posted.
Here are the quotes from the article:
Back on Earth, four scientists at Jodrell Bank Observatory in Cheshire were keeping a close ear on events unfolding on the lunar surface - and with good reason.
The Apollo 11 crew were not alone.
Sir Bernard Lovell and his team were officially tracking an unmanned Russian space probe in orbit around the Moon at the same time.
Bob Pritchard, an engineer at Jodrell who was monitoring transmissions, believed the Russians were making a late dash in the space race.
With the giant Lovell radio telescope also tuning in to communications with Apollo 11, Mr Pritchard said they could hear every word.
"You had the voices of the astronauts as they talked to Ground Control and they re-transmitted the voices of Ground Control talking to the astronauts, so we could hear both sides of the conversation."
Mr Pritchard said he did not immediately appreciate the significance of what the team had heard.
"I think it finally struck home when one saw the pictures on television of the astronauts returning to Earth," he said.
"And then you walked out of your house and looked up into the night sky and saw the Moon and said 'Human beings have walked on that Moon' and then you think 'I picked up the signals from them'."
These aren't NASA employees. They don't work for the Russian space agency either.
So are these guys lying? Are they "in on it"?
Or have they been fooled along with the rest of us saps?
-
I have doubts in that story.
Firstly, it was 1969 technology, I have doubts that a smaller UK observatory had too much technical possibilities during that time.
And further, the telemetry data that went back and forth was readable by everybody with the right equipment that wanted to listen to it anyway. I doubt that being in a moon orbit would have given them any advantage.
-
think of who profits from this- the Russians, the Brits and the Americans, or more specifically those countries governments. Together they can use these lies to keep their citizens under control.
I don't know how the chaps at Jodrell Bank monitoring a Russian probe or the Apollo manned mission in any way keeps me under control.
What does that mean?
-
think of who profits from this- the Russians, the Brits and the Americans, or more specifically those countries governments. Together they can use these lies to keep their citizens under control.
I don't know how the chaps at Jodrell Bank monitoring a Russian probe or the Apollo manned mission in any way keeps me under control.
What does that mean?
Maybe it means you are on a flat earth website arguing your point, for what you believe should be readily apparent and indisputable to the masses?
-
think of who profits from this- the Russians, the Brits and the Americans, or more specifically those countries governments. Together they can use these lies to keep their citizens under control.
I don't know how the chaps at Jodrell Bank monitoring a Russian probe or the Apollo manned mission in any way keeps me under control.
What does that mean?
Maybe it means you are on a flat earth website arguing your point, for what you believe should be readily apparent and indisputable to the masses?
It is indisputable to the masses. flat earthers make up tiny fraction while them very vast majority of people have accepted the earth is a spheroid. The tiny fraction of people that do dispute it really have little to no impact on the masses.
-
The masses have been conditioned , from childhood , to accept the globe earth model without question . We are not presented with any alternative . Truth isn't determined through democracy .
50 years ago it was easy to get to the moon - now we can't get out of low earth orbit . Alarm bells should be ringing .
-
think of who profits from this- the Russians, the Brits and the Americans, or more specifically those countries governments. Together they can use these lies to keep their citizens under control.
I don't know how the chaps at Jodrell Bank monitoring a Russian probe or the Apollo manned mission in any way keeps me under control.
What does that mean?
Maybe it means you are on a flat earth website arguing your point, for what you believe should be readily apparent and indisputable to the masses?
It is indisputable to the masses. flat earthers make up tiny fraction while them very vast majority of people have accepted the earth is a spheroid. The tiny fraction of people that do dispute it really have little to no impact on the masses.
Why be on a FET website arguing for something so apparent and indisputable, is the point.
Some might argue that indicates some form of treatment is called for...others might argue that being on call to argue the readily apparent and indisputable point is a clear indication of being under the control of something.
-
think of who profits from this- the Russians, the Brits and the Americans, or more specifically those countries governments. Together they can use these lies to keep their citizens under control.
I don't know how the chaps at Jodrell Bank monitoring a Russian probe or the Apollo manned mission in any way keeps me under control.
What does that mean?
Maybe it means you are on a flat earth website arguing your point, for what you believe should be readily apparent and indisputable to the masses?
It is indisputable to the masses. flat earthers make up tiny fraction while them very vast majority of people have accepted the earth is a spheroid. The tiny fraction of people that do dispute it really have little to no impact on the masses.
Why be on a FET website arguing for something so apparent and indisputable, is the point.
Some might argue that indicates some form of treatment is called for...others might argue that being on call to argue the readily apparent and indisputable point is a clear indication of being under the control of something.
Information, curiosity, amusement. I'm not the one disputing the earth's shape, FES is. I am basically 100% certain the earth is spheroid and believe it or not, this website only helped me confirm that certainty. I came, I saw what FES had to say, I disagree with FES's position. I stick around because I find it interesting.
Think of it this way, if a champion boxer is up 30 wins and 0 losses in his career, just because 30 people tried to step up and beat him doesn't mean his championship is questionable. He is still the champion. I see FES as one of the challengers.You tried but you lost. You can continue to argue how you won the fight but if you did, you'd be the champion. That is to say, if FES were right and it all made sense then by god, everyone would be agreeing with you.
Of course I'm still of the opinion that the champion can be beat. there is always that very slight chance however impossible it may seem that the world is actually a big flat disk and that the moon landings didn't happen and space travel isn't real or possible. I think it's more probably that we live in the matrix...
-
The masses have been conditioned , from childhood , to accept the globe earth model without question . We are not presented with any alternative
Why should we be presented with an alternative? When I was at school I learned that Australia was a continent in the southern hemisphere. I was told that light bends as it goes from air to glass.
I wasn't presented with an "alternative". Why should I be? There is no serious debate about these things. This isn't "conditioning", it's just presenting truth and actually when it come to the thing about light bending I remember us doing an experiment to prove it. When there are areas in science where there is some debate then alternatives are presented. When you have satellites sending back photos of the globe earth, an ISS orbiting it and hundreds of people who have seen it for themselves then no, the matter is settled so no alternative is presented.
Nor should it be.
Truth isn't determined through democracy
Nor should it be. Truth is truth, you don't get to vote on it.
50 years ago it was easy to get to the moon - now we can't get out of low earth orbit . Alarm bells should be ringing.
Firstly, it was never easy. Secondly, the space race and the moon landings were the culmination of a decade or so long battle with the Russians. The Russians scored a lot of initial points, first satellite, first dog, for man in space. The Americans then started pumping a LOT of money in to catch up and ultimately overtook them. Here's the NASA budget over time as a percentage of budget.
(https://i.ibb.co/Xbcrmys/NASABudget.jpg)
Absolutely no-one in the US would put up with 4.5% of the government's budget being spent on NASA now, once the first couple of moon landings had been done there was a lot of pressure for NASA to scale back, the last 2 Apollo missions ended up being cancelled. There was huge political will to get this done in the 60s and they spent an astonishing amount to achieve it:
And there were consequences for the astronauts:
https://www.space.com/33571-apollo-astronauts-heart-risk-deep-space-travel.html
So yeah, I can understand there being cautious about going through the Van Allen belts again and with the budget now they're not going to achieve things so quickly. But unmanned probes have been sent out by many nations. India currently have a probe orbiting the moon:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-49404019
-
Of course, there's an alternative explanation for why NASA is being rapidly scaled down, and why they make less and less big news. Retiring it to obscurity is probably the best move at this point.
-
Think of it this way, if a champion boxer is up 30 wins and 0 losses in his career, just because 30 people tried to step up and beat him doesn't mean his championship is questionable. He is still the champion. I see FES as one of the challengers.You tried but you lost. You can continue to argue how you won the fight but if you did, you'd be the champion. That is to say, if FES were right and it all made sense then by god, everyone would be agreeing with you.
One thing I can't get my head around is someone wanting to check things out for themselves.
(In itself a reasonable, even commendable thing)
The person doing an experiment in which they can, say, see lower than you'd expect on a globe earth.
And instead of thinking "maybe there's some atmospheric effect" or "maybe I miscalculated" or "maybe I suck at doing experiments" thinking "holy shit, the earth is flat!"
That's quite a leap and the implications of it are massive. It involves the finest minds in the last millennium all being wrong and huge conspiracies to fake space travel and therefore somehow presumably fake all the technologies which work because of satellites like GPS and satellite TV to name just two.
To add to the OP, the Australians were "in on it" too.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/apollo-11-50-years-on-a-look-at-australias-role-in-the-moon-landing/
-
It was incredibly easy to get men to the moon and even easier to bring them back . Did nasa ever do a trial run - launching a rocket from the moon to rendezvous with an orbiting spacecraft ? Nah -no need .
They didn't have to , it was so easy . It called scifi nowadays.
You can't change physical laws to enable rocket engines to produce thrust in a vacuum .
So why is it so hard to put man above earth orbit now ?
-
Of course, there's an alternative explanation for why NASA is being rapidly scaled down
Their budget has increased by 22% since 2014.
FY 2014 - $17.6 billion.
FY 2015 - $18.0 billion.
FY 2016 - $19.3 billion
FY 2017 - $19.2 billion.
FY 2018 - $19.5 billion.
FY 2019 - $20.7 billion.
(source https://www.thebalance.com/nasa-budget-current-funding-and-history-3306321)
That was after a few years of cutbacks, admittedly. There's certainly no evidence that it's being rapidly scaled down though in terms of their budget.
My graph was to contrast the level of investment in the 60s when the space race was at its height and investment since that.
Although private companies are sniffing around, SpaceX have been winning contracts to deploy satellites, so there may be less investment in NASA.
-
It was incredibly easy to get men to the moon and even easier to bring them back.
Well no, it wasn't. The first American in space was in 1961, the first man on the moon was 1969. That's 8 years of work with a LOT of money thrown at it, as I showed above it was around 4.5% of the budget of the the entire country at its peak.
Did nasa ever do a trial run
Yes. They did loads of trial runs.
It was Apollo 11 which went to the moon. Before Apollo there were the Gemini and Mercury programmes.
The other Apollo missions were used to practice all kinds of things needed to get to the moon and yes, including rendezvous.
A whole list here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_missions#Unmanned_test_missions
Loads of unmanned missions to test the rocket.
Apollo 8 went to the moon.
Apollo 9 tested rendezvous and docking
Apollo 10 tested the same thing but this time at the moon - the LM descended to 8.4 miles from the surface before coming back and docking.
Apollo 11 landed.
So yes, you can see in that list that in incremental stages they tested every thing they could practically test.
On earth they spent hours and hours in simulators testing every conceivable scenario and malfunction.
They spent time practising landing in a device which had rockets which fired to make the craft act as though it was in one 6th gravity. Armstrong famously crashed one, ejecting not long before he did so.
So yes. They did lots of trial runs. It wasn't easy.
You can't change physical laws to enable rocket engines to produce thrust in a vacuum
You don't have to change any physical laws.
https://www.livescience.com/34475-how-do-space-rockets-work-without-air.html
So why is it so hard to put man above earth orbit now?
It was always hard. And I posted a link above showing the effect of the Apollo missions on the astronauts.
A combination of budget cuts compared with the 1960s, a lack of political will to go back to the moon and a lack of public interest meant the focus has been on other things like unmanned probes, the Shuttle programme and building the ISS. The focus seems to be switching back to the moon again and I'd be very excited if they did go back as there hasn't been a manned mission in my lifetime, and I'm not that young.
Quite honestly, your arguments are a mix of incredulity and ignorance. Read "A Man On The Moon" by Andrew Chaikin if you want to learn more about the Apollo missions.
-
The masses have been conditioned , from childhood , to accept the globe earth model without question . We are not presented with any alternative . Truth isn't determined through democracy .
50 years ago it was easy to get to the moon - now we can't get out of low earth orbit . Alarm bells should be ringing .
Tell that to the folks that deploy geostationary satellites. Getting to the moon this time will be so much easier than it was in the 60's. We don't have to invent every single thing this time.
-
You can't change physical laws to enable rocket engines to produce thrust in a vacuum .
Just to add to my previous post about Newton's Third Law
Here's a video showing this works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BsrzO7aXNs
-
It was incredibly easy to get men to the moon and even easier to bring them back . Did nasa ever do a trial run - launching a rocket from the moon to rendezvous with an orbiting spacecraft ? Nah -no need .
AllAround answered some of this but there is more. You say it was easy? Did you know the computers ran programs that were hard-wired. The wire would pass through a gate to be a One and out of the gate to be a zero. Does that sound easy?
You can't change physical laws to enable rocket engines to produce thrust in a vacuum .
This is the crux of the problem with many Flearthers. A fundamental lack of science comprehension. How old were you when you first heard that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction?
So why is it so hard to put man above earth orbit now ?
Orbit is not hard, it's expensive. The STS shuttle system was a huge mistake and set NASA back decades and 100's of billions. The US Airforce demanded specifications and features that made the system cost so much more. Cost overruns and delays that made the system complex and the reusability was too expensive. Now with private industry that has money to burn we are seeing huge strides in launch vehicles. Reusable components are a big part of making orbit cost-effective. There's an old saying "if you get to orbit you are halfway to anywhere".
The physics behind space flight are pretty simple.
-
Their budget has increased by 22% since 2014.
[...]
Sounds like you're describing inflation.
-
Their budget has increased by 22% since 2014.
[...]
Sounds like you're describing inflation.
Well, that's a factor. But I took the GDP Growth figure from this list:
https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-inflation-rate-history-by-year-and-forecast-3306093
And over the same period, if my maths is right, inflation is less than 13%. The budget went up 22% in that period.
It's certainly not a sign that NASA is being "rapidly scaled down"
-
It's certainly not a sign that NASA is being "rapidly scaled down"
On a general trend, it absolutely is. Taking a few data points that don't fit the trend and claiming that they disprove the trend is not how you do data analysis.
-
You can't change physical laws to enable rocket engines to produce thrust in a vacuum .
Just to add to my previous post about Newton's Third Law
Here's a video showing this works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BsrzO7aXNs
Things don't run on Newton's third law . The third law is a natural consequence of a force being applied (Newton's 2nd law ) to accelerate a body in uniform motion , or stationary ( Newton's 1st law ) . Can't put it any simpler than that .
A rocket engine uses thrust to accelerate . Thrust is a reactive force - when a mass flow meets resistance then thrust is generated perpendicular to the direction of the mass flow i.e. back up the nozzle in the rocket engine case , driving the rocket forward . Simple physics .
Mass flow into a vacuum must meet a resistance in order to generate thrust . It cannot thrust against itself. See joules law for expansion of gas into a vacuum .
Here is a better video of a guy using a proper vacuum chamber in an effort to prove rockets ( won't )work in a vacuum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76JM03a6WH4
The principle of geostationary satellites is the invention of science fiction writer A.C. Clarke . Had to be since no physicist would have come up with that . Same as rockets in a vacuum - fairytale .
-
You can't change physical laws to enable rocket engines to produce thrust in a vacuum .
Just to add to my previous post about Newton's Third Law
Here's a video showing this works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BsrzO7aXNs
Things don't run on Newton's third law . The third law is a natural consequence of a force being applied (Newton's 2nd law ) to accelerate a body in uniform motion , or stationary ( Newton's 1st law ) . Can't put it any simpler than that .
A rocket engine uses thrust to accelerate . Thrust is a reactive force - when a mass flow meets resistance then thrust is generated perpendicular to the direction of the mass flow i.e. back up the nozzle in the rocket engine case , driving the rocket forward . Simple physics .
Mass flow into a vacuum must meet a resistance in order to generate thrust . It cannot thrust against itself. See joules law for expansion of gas into a vacuum .
Here is a better video of a guy using a proper vacuum chamber in an effort to prove rockets ( won't )work in a vacuum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76JM03a6WH4
The principle of geostationary satellites is the invention of science fiction writer A.C. Clarke . Had to be since no physicist would have come up with that . Same as rockets in a vacuum - fairytale .
Apparently you didn't watch the whole video. Start at 4:30 and watch till the end. The experimenters final words on the subject after a successful test:
"...there you go rocket motors can produce just as much thrust if not a little bit more in vacuum as they can in air because they're not pushing against the air they are pushing against the fuel that is being burned and thrown overboard now the rocket was difficult to ignite in a vacuum because it needed some pressure to get the fuel grain to burn but once I did that it did just fine..."
-
In both videos you see that the rocket fuel will only ignite when in a container under pressure - they both have to be converted into bombs to ignite lol. As the guy says - it needs pressure , which is absent under vacuum is it not ?
-
In both videos you see that the rocket fuel will only ignite when in a container under pressure - they both have to be converted into bombs to ignite lol. As the guy says - it needs pressure , which is absent under vacuum is it not ?
I think you missed the point. The rocket could ignite in both tests yet had a hard time staying ignited until he put the little capsule around it in the second go. In a liquid fuel rocket in space the oxidizer (hence the name) provides the sustained oxygen inside the rocket chamber to keep the ignition going.
But the test isn't so much about ignition, it's about whether the rocket will thrust in a vacuum and in the second test, once burn was achieved, it did in fact thrust.
Bottom line, whether you believe the results of the experiment or not, if you're trying to use it to show that rockets don't thrust in a vacuum you would be showing the exact opposite.
-
Clearly , in both videos , rocket fuel with it's own oxidizer cannot ignite in a vacuum . The point is , that is the laws of physics in action .
The ignition of the fuel has to be carried out in a pressurized container - a bomb . That is the point .The experiments are carried out in a small chamber , once the bomb explodes you have pressure in the sealed chamber which allows the fuel to burn and thrust occurs , which will increase as the internal pressure increases until the fuel burns out.
Both videos show that rocket engines - which are not bombs - will not work in a near vacuum , even with oxidizer .
In the theoretic vacuum of space you still need pressure outside the rocket nozzle to produce thrust .
Rocket science without hocus pocus . Laws of physics as derived from experiment here on earth .
-
Clearly , in both videos , rocket fuel with it's own oxidizer cannot ignite in a vacuum . The point is , that is the laws of physics in action .
Are you talking ignition or burn? Yes, it's difficult to ignite, but how the tester ignited it with a little bit of oxygen encasing it got it to ignite and then it burned freely in the vacuum. Once you get it going, it burns.
The ignition of the fuel has to be carried out in a pressurized container - a bomb . That is the point .The experiments are carried out in a small chamber , once the bomb explodes you have pressure in the sealed chamber which allows the fuel to burn and thrust occurs , which will increase as the internal pressure increases until the fuel burns out.
I'm not really following. You're saying that no matter what these experiments demonstrate doesn't mean anything because the chamber is small?
Both videos show that rocket engines - which are not bombs - will not work in a near vacuum , even with oxidizer .
Actually they are bombs, just open on one end which allows the gasses created to escape causing thrust.
In the theoretic vacuum of space you still need pressure outside the rocket nozzle to produce thrust .
Why? Please explain.
-
The mincing of words has begun . There is no controlled ignition - this rocket engine fuel, complete with it's own oxidizer , will not ignite in that low pressure environment . Now that fact stares you in the face when you watch these experiments unfold.
Once the rocket engine ignition system is turned into a bomb - by sealing the container with glue under atmospheric pressure and placing this into the vacuum - we can explode this bomb , which pressurises the vacuum.
A bomb with "one end open" is not a bomb - it is a nozzle .
The term "controlled burn" is different to the term "explosion" .
I have already directed you to Joules experiment concerning expansion of gas into a vacuum , the results of which show that no work is done in the process .These videos are repeats of those scientific experiments - substituting rocket fuel (which changes to gas when burnt ) for gas .
I am unable to open your eyes for you because you are conditioned to believe that rocket engines work in a vacuum . You see the principles of rocketry in front of you but cannot understand what you see
because you think scientists will not lie or deceive you .
Scientists knew this too at one time - the experiments of Joules led them to that conclusion .
During the 60's I recall our physics teacher outlining the principles of physics applied to the three stage Saturn rocket . Five big nozzles to lift from the launch pad and accelerate quickly in the pressure of the lower atmosphere (stage 1) . These large area nozzles worked well but lost thrust exponentially as altitude increased , hence stage 2. Smaller area of these nozzles increased thrust - which is governed by nozzle area , mass flow and outside air pressure . Stage 3 rocket gave final acceleration - smallest nozzle area .
In order to keep accelerating nozzle size has to decrease . Plain rocket science . All proven . Rockets don't work in a vacuum . As you see in the videos .
-
The mincing of words has begun . There is no controlled ignition - this rocket engine fuel, complete with it's own oxidizer , will not ignite in that low pressure environment . Now that fact stares you in the face when you watch these experiments unfold.
Once the rocket engine ignition system is turned into a bomb - by sealing the container with glue under atmospheric pressure and placing this into the vacuum - we can explode this bomb , which pressurises the vacuum.
A bomb with "one end open" is not a bomb - it is a nozzle .
The term "controlled burn" is different to the term "explosion" .
So like I asked, none of these vacuum experiments work for you because you believe that the rocket ignition breaking the seal creates pressure inside the vacuum wich allows the rocket to burn and thrust? Essentially, it's no longer working in a 'vacuum', right?
I have already directed you to Joules experiment concerning expansion of gas into a vacuum , the results of which show that no work is done in the process .These videos are repeats of those scientific experiments - substituting rocket fuel (which changes to gas when burnt ) for gas .
Actually I can't see where you've directed anyone to Joule and free expansion, etc, I searched, maybe missed it somehow. In any case, why don't you describe why the classic and trite usage of "free expansion does no work" is useful to this discussion and how that applies to rocket propulsion in a vacuum.
I am unable to open your eyes for you because you are conditioned to believe that rocket engines work in a vacuum . You see the principles of rocketry in front of you but cannot understand what you see because you think scientists will not lie or deceive you .
I could easily switch this up for you too:
I am unable to open your eyes for you because you are conditioned to believe that rocket engines don't work in a vacuum. You see the principles of rocketry in front of you but cannot understand what you see because you think Flat Earth YouTube content generators will not lie or deceive you.
So spare us both the soliloquy as they cancel each other out.
Scientists knew this too at one time - the experiments of Joules led them to that conclusion.
Experiments of the likes of Joule and Newton led us to the conclusions we have today, Laws of Thermodynamics and of Motion do not contradict one another. They are bedrocks of physics and seem to work really, really well.
During the 60's I recall our physics teacher outlining the principles of physics applied to the three stage Saturn rocket . Five big nozzles to lift from the launch pad and accelerate quickly in the pressure of the lower atmosphere (stage 1) . These large area nozzles worked well but lost thrust exponentially as altitude increased , hence stage 2. Smaller area of these nozzles increased thrust - which is governed by nozzle area , mass flow and outside air pressure . Stage 3 rocket gave final acceleration - smallest nozzle area .
In order to keep accelerating nozzle size has to decrease . Plain rocket science . All proven . Rockets don't work in a vacuum . As you see in the videos .
I'm not aware that 'to keep accelerating nozzle size has to decrease'. And I don't know what that would have to with whether rockets work in space or not. I do know that multi-stage rockets tend to be "stepped down" in size due to the reduction in payload mass achieved by doing so.
You could have skipped all of your psuedo-science/analysis above and just responded with, "Plain rocket science. All proven. Rockets don't work in a vacuum." That's basically the the total amount of what you said anyway.
-
It's certainly not a sign that NASA is being "rapidly scaled down"
On a general trend, it absolutely is. Taking a few data points that don't fit the trend and claiming that they disprove the trend is not how you do data analysis.
You said "is being rapidly scaled down". Implying a continuing trend. But that is not the current trend.
You'd need 4% inflation every year for a 22% increase in NASA spending to just be inflation, inflation has been lower than that every year.
Spending has increased in real terms over the last 5 years. I'm not saying that is evidence of rapid expansion of NASA, it isn't.
But neither is it indicating that NASA is being "rapidly scaled down", that implies an ongoing process of scaling down which isn't what the figures show no matter how you wriggle.
Have operations scaled down since the 60s? Of course, the space race provoked a huge spike in spending which clearly wasn't sustainable.
But since then although there has been some cut in spending there is no evidence that operations are being "rapidly scaled down".
If you do have evidence showing that then please present it.
-
[/quote]
So like I asked, none of these vacuum experiments work for you because you believe that the rocket ignition breaking the seal creates pressure inside the vacuum wich allows the rocket to burn and thrust? Essentially, it's no longer working in a 'vacuum', right?
The experiments work perfectly well . Physics in action - not theory . That is why the rocket engines cannot work in the vacuum , as shown in the experiments .
That is why the experiment then has to be changed to one of " oh look - a bomb will explode in a
vacuum " which is a totally different experiment . Simple science .
The rest of your post is waffle .
-
The experiments work perfectly well . Physics in action - not theory . That is why the rocket engines cannot work in the vacuum , as shown in the experiments .
Hmmm, to me the question was, does a rocket propel in a vacuum? In both experiments and the others I've seen, yes, the rocket propelled in a vacuum. As evidenced in the videos.
So yes, physics in action, in the evacuated vacuum chamber the rockets did, indeed, propel.
But your position is, "Yes they did, but..." I can see why you're making up reasons why the rocket did propel in the vacuum, but according to you, for the wrong reasons. Reasons I disagree with. And that's fine. But what happened to you spouting off about Joule and gas expansion and such as to why a rocket won't work in a vacuum? Why won't a rocket work in a vacuum? What's your 'physics' reason for that notion?
-
You said "is being rapidly scaled down". Implying a continuing trend. But that is not the current trend.
Once again, pay attention. What you're doing is isolating a small portion of a trend and pointing out that it doesn't match. You're correct on a point of fact, but your analysis of it defies standard data analysis practice.
You also insist on using the wrong unit. Ditch the US Dollar and use the percentage of the budget.
Over the past 20 years, this has halved. There is no statistically significant portion of time during which that trend was broken.
-
You also insist on using the wrong unit. Ditch the US Dollar and use the percentage of the budget.
OK.
(https://i.ibb.co/qmxPjpq/NASABudget2.jpg)
(source https://www.lpi.usra.edu/exploration/multimedia/NASABudgetHistory.pdf )
Annoyingly this graph isn't up to date but I found this:
For all it does, NASA receives just 0.4% of the $4.7 trillion FY 2020 federal budget.
(source https://www.thebalance.com/nasa-budget-current-funding-and-history-3306321)
Over the past 20 years, this has halved. There is no statistically significant portion of time during which that trend was broken.
After the real peak of spending in the 60s space race it went down rapidly from nearly 4.5% in 66-67 to 1% in about '75.
It went down from then till about '86 to 0.75% then back up to 1% in around '91.
Since then yes, there is a downward trend but it's a change from 1% to 0.4% over a 28 year period is hardly "rapid".
The only period when you could claim that NASA's operation was being "rapidly scaled down" is after the space race and it's obvious why that was, the US won, after the first couple of missions public interest waned, the last few missions were cancelled which is why there's a sodding great unused Saturn V rocket in the Kennedy Space Centre in Florida.
There is a trend certainly and there was a big cut in funding in the wake of the financial crisis but I don't think you can sensibly claim that NASA is being "rapidly" scaled down.
-
Since then yes, there is a downward trend but it's a change from 1% to 0.4% over a 28 year period is hardly "rapid".
It's about as fast as you can go without outright firing half of your staff on the spot, which probably wouldn't work so well. It's as rapid as rapid gets.
There is a trend certainly and there was a big cut in funding in the wake of the financial crisis
Well, at least we progressed from "but there's no trend though, is there?" so that's something. Whether or not you agree with my use of the word "rapid", the inconvenient truth remains obvious.
-
The experiments work perfectly well . Physics in action - not theory . That is why the rocket engines cannot work in the vacuum , as shown in the experiments .
Hmmm, to me the question was, does a rocket propel in a vacuum? In both experiments and the others I've seen, yes, the rocket propelled in a vacuum. As evidenced in the videos.
So yes, physics in action, in the evacuated vacuum chamber the rockets did, indeed, propel.
But your position is, "Yes they did, but..." I can see why you're making up reasons why the rocket did propel in the vacuum, but according to you, for the wrong reasons. Reasons I disagree with. And that's fine. But what happened to you spouting off about Joule and gas expansion and such as to why a rocket won't work in a vacuum? Why won't a rocket work in a vacuum? What's your 'physics' reason for that notion?
You saw the rocket fail in vacuum conditions in both videos - practicle physics in action .
You saw the experiment re-designed . The you saw a different experiment .
You saw a bomb explode at which point the vacuum no longer exists . Rocket fuel then burns increasing the pressure in the chamber and so thrust increases with pressure . Practicle physics in action but in a pressurised chamber .
See my above posts above regarding the reactive force of thrust which is used to accelerate rockets . Everything is explained - even the use of Newton's laws - no 3rd law without the 2nd . I understand your struggle with basic physic principles . It's evident that these are not taught correctly now - dumbing down of the population by selective teachings leading to inability to question what they are told they "know".
Someone posted earlier that it was amazing that the average of the nasa mob was 24 yrs. I always wondered how they pulled off the deception . When I saw that comment I realised how .
-
You can't change physical laws to enable rocket engines to produce thrust in a vacuum .
Just to add to my previous post about Newton's Third Law
Here's a video showing this works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BsrzO7aXNs
Things don't run on Newton's third law . The third law is a natural consequence of a force being applied (Newton's 2nd law ) to accelerate a body in uniform motion , or stationary ( Newton's 1st law ) . Can't put it any simpler than that .
A rocket engine uses thrust to accelerate . Thrust is a reactive force - when a mass flow meets resistance then thrust is generated perpendicular to the direction of the mass flow i.e. back up the nozzle in the rocket engine case , driving the rocket forward . Simple physics .
Mass flow into a vacuum must meet a resistance in order to generate thrust . It cannot thrust against itself. See joules law for expansion of gas into a vacuum .
Here is a better video of a guy using a proper vacuum chamber in an effort to prove rockets ( won't )work in a vacuum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76JM03a6WH4
The principle of geostationary satellites is the invention of science fiction writer A.C. Clarke . Had to be since no physicist would have come up with that . Same as rockets in a vacuum - fairytale .
Apparently you didn't watch the whole video. Start at 4:30 and watch till the end. The experimenters final words on the subject after a successful test:
"...there you go rocket motors can produce just as much thrust if not a little bit more in vacuum as they can in air because they're not pushing against the air they are pushing against the fuel that is being burned and thrown overboard now the rocket was difficult to ignite in a vacuum because it needed some pressure to get the fuel grain to burn but once I did that it did just fine..."
What difference did it make to watch it to the end?
Any test purported to take place in a vacuum here on earth is ridiculous on its face...
It's nowhere near what space is purported to be and it would not maintain initial tor once an ignition attempt is made or achieved due to expulsion of matter into the environment.
-
Since then yes, there is a downward trend but it's a change from 1% to 0.4% over a 28 year period is hardly "rapid".
It's about as fast as you can go without outright firing half of your staff on the spot, which probably wouldn't work so well. It's as rapid as rapid gets.
Halving your expenditure over a 28 years period is as rapid as rapid gets? ???
After the space race it went from 4.5% in 1966 to 1% in 1975.
That's more than quartering the budget in 9 years. Now THAT is a rapid scaling down and we all know why - the space race was over. The US won.
The public interest was waning, they could no longer justify that level of spending. That's why the later Apollo missions were scrapped.
It's "rapidly scaling down" I take issue with. It's clearly not true. There was a rapid scaling down after the 60's, sure.
Since then yes, the general trend has been downwards but in the last 5 years NASA spending has gone up in real terms.
Since 2010 the budget has been pretty consistently hovering around 0.5% of the budget (0.52% in 2010, 0.49% this year).
the inconvenient truth remains obvious.
And what do you think that is? What are you actually getting at here? I imagine NASA budgets could be affected by private enterprises by SpaceX - why let NASA launch your satellites if SpaceX can do it cheaper? But that's just a shifting of the money devoted to space exploration* elsewhere. (*using the word in the very loosest sense, I mean it to cover all space related stuff from manned missions to launching probes to fly past Pluto to launching satellites for GPS etc). Let's agree that budgets have, over time, gone down as a %age of the total budget. What do you think that's a smoking gun of?
NASA doesn't seem anywhere close to being quietly closed down, their budget this year is over $20bn, they have over 17,000 employees. They're not about to turn the lights off.
I'm not sure what your actual point is here.
-
Here is a better video of a guy using a proper vacuum chamber in an effort to prove rockets ( won't )work in a vacuum.
???
That video literally shows the opposite of what you're claiming.
In his initial test he says "The rocket did not ignite" and then says "This motor is not designed to work in a vacuum. The gunpowder can't sustain a burn."
Then when he modifies the rocket so there's some pressure for it to ignite in he shows it works and then says
"Rocket motors can produce just as much thrust in vacuum.
They are not pushing against the air, they are pushing against the fuel that is being burned and thrown overboard."
He concludes:
"Now the rocket was difficult to ignite in a vacuum because it needed some pressure to get the fuel grain to burn but once I did that, it did just fine.
And since I was able to figure it out, I'm sure the folks at NASA can do it."
-
Here is a better video of a guy using a proper vacuum chamber in an effort to prove rockets ( won't )work in a vacuum.
???
That video literally shows the opposite of what you're claiming.
In his initial test he says "The rocket did not ignite" and then says "This motor is not designed to work in a vacuum. The gunpowder can't sustain a burn."
Then when he modifies the rocket so there's some pressure for it to ignite in he shows it works and then says
"Rocket motors can produce just as much thrust in vacuum.
They are not pushing against the air, they are pushing against the fuel that is being burned and thrown overboard."
He concludes:
"Now the rocket was difficult to ignite in a vacuum because it needed some pressure to get the fuel grain to burn but once I did that, it did just fine.
And since I was able to figure it out, I'm sure the folks at NASA can do it."
The rocket was modified by turning the ignition mechanism into a bomb . Good grief . As totallackey points out ,you are not going to pressurise the vacuum of space . No pressure = no fuel burn .
Nasa is in the process of distancing itself from it's space/scifi programme . Future visits to the moon and planets will be passed on to the film and cgi industries .
-
The rocket was modified by turning the ignition mechanism into a bomb. Good grief.
Well, sort of, yes. A bomb is basically an explosion in a container. What makes them so dangerous is that the container is not strong enough to contain the explosion so it fragments and the parts fly everywhere at great speed and that also releases the energy of the explosion itself. This is what causes the damage.
The difference with a rocket is there is a hole in the container so the gases resulting from the explosion have somewhere to vent, that causes the thrust and the rocket accelerates in the opposite direction. Not because it’s pushing against the atmosphere but because of Newton’s Third Law.
The other difference with a rocket is it has a supply of fuel to keep the combustion going for a long time which means, for rockets designed to get to space, it can keep accelerating long enough to achieve the speeds necessary for orbit. Sometimes as you’ve said this is done by having several stages.
The tricky thing in a vacuum is keeping the combustion going. Combustion needs oxygen. In the video he did that by creating a little chamber full of air. That allowed the combustion to happen, the explosion blew the plug out, the gases vented out the hole and that pushed the rocket forward in a vacuum.
The way big rockets do this is they have their own oxygen supply. If they didn’t then combustion wouldn’t happen and the rocket wouldn’t work.
As totallackey points out ,you are not going to pressurise the vacuum of space . No pressure = no fuel burn
Correct. Which is why the rockets have their own oxygen supply to allow the combustion to happen.
This isn’t rocket science...
-
Halving your expenditure over a 28 years period is as rapid as rapid gets? ???
Under the circumstances, yes. They had already cut most of their easy expenditure by the point you're considering. Firing staff en masse is not as simple.
Once again, poor data analysis. "This number is big while this number is small" is not an approach that will lead to anything useful.
And what do you think that is? What are you actually getting at here?
Why NASA is being quietly retired into obscurity is left as an exercise to the reader.
I imagine NASA budgets could be affected by private enterprises by SpaceX - why let NASA launch your satellites if SpaceX can do it cheaper?
NASA contractors are still paid from NASA's budget whilst they're working for NASA. This is a non-factor.
-
You could also be jumping to conclusions. Maybe NASA are getting more efficient with how they spend, maybe the US have higher priority things to be spending their budgets on. There are enough pissed off people who struggle to get by while their government are (in their opinion) burning money to send rovers to planets pointlessly. You went straight for the conclusion that plays toward your narrative and I really hate saying that... You may or may not notice you're doing it. There are plenty of possible reasons for NASA's budget lowering over time other than "oh shit, we gotta phase this fake stuff out slowly and quietly so no one starts to realise it's fake".
Heck you could take for example my budget for spending on video games lowering over time too but that's not because there's some kind of conspiracy or fakery at play, it's because I already own enough games that I don't really need to buy so many any more, it's because my spending habits were quite bad and I'm slowly becoming better at spending over time. God I'd hate to see how much money I wasted on games in my teen years.
Point being is that you don't know for sure the reason their budget is lowering over time and you've come up with an answer based on your bias and opinion.
-
some kind of conspiracy or fakery at play
Beautifully ironic, as always. Note that I said nothing about conspiracy or fakery - indeed, I chose not to offer a conclusion at all, and merely pointed out that multiple interpretations are available.
Your response appears to be a complete agreement with everything I've said, and a strong disagreement with things I didn't say, but which you're attributing to me for reasons unbeknownst.
Perhaps it is you who's jumping to conclusions?
-
some kind of conspiracy or fakery at play
Beautifully ironic, as always. Note that I said nothing about conspiracy or fakery - indeed, I chose not to offer a conclusion at all, and merely pointed out that multiple interpretations are available.
Your response appears to be a complete agreement with everything I've said, and a strong disagreement with things I didn't say, but which you're attributing to me for reasons unbeknownst.
Perhaps it is you who's jumping to conclusions?
Fair point, I suppose you didn't directly say anything of the sort. I interpreted your post way back in page 1 of this thread in a way you suggested somewhat that their slow and quiet retirement is 'the best move' meaning they're intentionally trying to make a quiet and subtle exit from existence. Why is it for the best in your opinion?
I came to the conclusion because we all know you don't trust NASA. You've actually said it yourself you think they're liars.
-
And what do you think that is? What are you actually getting at here?
Why NASA is being quietly retired into obscurity is left as an exercise to the reader.
Well, it isn't. Over a long period of time there has been a reduction, sure.
But since 2010 that reduction has stopped. Whether it will continue or reverse remains to be seen. There were very rapid reductions from the late 60s to the mid-70s. Further reductions into the mid 80s and then the budget increased for a few years. Possibly to do with the Space Shuttle programme. Since then there was a slow decrease but that stopped after the financial crisis. Since then the funding has pretty much flat-lined, over the last 5 years there's actually been some increase in real terms.
So no, absolutely no sign it's being retired, quietly or otherwise.
I imagine NASA budgets could be affected by private enterprises by SpaceX - why let NASA launch your satellites if SpaceX can do it cheaper?
NASA contractors are still paid from NASA's budget whilst they're working for NASA. This is a non-factor.
Private enterprises are winning contracts from the military to launch satellites.
https://www.defensenews.com/space/2019/02/20/spacex-ula-each-get-air-force-contracts-for-trio-of-space-launches/
I imagine some of that money will end up going to NASA, they're using NASA's launch pads, but I can't imagine all of it will so that would be a factor.
And that's a good thing, NASA shouldn't have a monopoly when it comes to space exploration, it's good that other countries or private enterprises are creating some competition and driving innovation.
-
Why is it for the best in your opinion?
I don't know for certain. It could be that they've found a better way of doing what they do, or it could be that they want to do less of it. This is regardless of whether you choose to paint NASA as a conspiracy or as a legitimate space organisation. Given my impression that the reduction in funding correlates with a drop in media coverage, I'm leaning towards the latter.
I came to the conclusion because we all know you don't trust NASA. You've actually said it yourself you think they're liars.
It's one thing to distrust someone, and another thing entirely to directly slander them - I'd only make an outright accusation if I had strong reasoning to back it up. I may well be insane, but I try to be cautious and collected in my insanity. ;)
-
They had already cut most of their easy expenditure by the point you're considering. Firing staff en masse is not as simple.
You know what would be simple? Not hiring new people to replace those who retire , quit, or get fired. But they're not doing that either.
-
You know what would be simple? Not hiring new people to replace those who retire , quit, or get fired. But they're not doing that either.
Indeed, this simple and common method of cost-cutting has been a major factor in the trend we're investigating. Thanks for sharing!
-
You know what would be simple? Not hiring new people to replace those who retire , quit, or get fired. But they're not doing that either.
Indeed, this simple and common method of cost-cutting has been a major factor in the trend we're investigating. Thanks for sharing!
The last sentence of his post says that's not what they're doing. Your reply is basically just "are too!". How is that not low content posting?
To be honest I really struggled to find NASA staff numbers over time although I guess their budget is a rough proxy for staff numbers.
-
The last sentence of his post says that's not what they're doing. Your reply is basically just "are too!". How is that not low content posting?
He described precisely what NASA was doing, and combined it with a grammatically ambiguous statement, which you clearly interpreted the other way from me.
He said that in order to reduce its budget further, NASA should not hire staff to replace those who leave. He then followed it up by saying that "they're not doing that".
I interpreted it as "NASA are not hiring staff to replace those who leave", you seem to have read it as "NASA are not not hiring staff[...]". Since the former interpretation reflects what's currently happening and doesn't rely on a double negation, I gravitated towards it as a much more likely one.
But perhaps I was too generous in assuming that our friend is truthful and somewhat literate. If we instead assume your interpretation, two things come to light:
- My post would unintentionally look like an "yuh uh, they are too!!!"
- Zonk's post would be a deliberate and intentional "nuh uh, they ain't!!!!!"
I don't see how that makes matters any better, why it's worth our time, or why you'd want to talk about it in this thread. It sounds to me like you're trying to divert the discussion from the matter at hand, though I'm not sure why you'd want to do that either.
With that nonsense hopefully out of the way, let's get back on track.
To be honest I really struggled to find NASA staff numbers over time although I guess their budget is a rough proxy for staff numbers.
Let's bring you up to speed, then. Start with https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_FY_2016_Budget_Estimates.pdf - page 600.
Of course, it counts FTEs rather than heads, but I'm sure you'll be able to forgive me if I suggest they're analogous. You can clearly see that, as of 2016, NASA had no plans of replacing the hundreds of staff that left in the prior couple of years.
A more recent budget estimates document (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy19_nasa_budget_estimates.pdf) provides us with more insight:
Human resource management; including: recruitment, hiring, workforce planning, training, and performance management. In FY 2019, NASA will continue rightsizing its workforce with a reduction of 110 FTE relative to the 2018 Request. NASA will continue to explore opportunities across the Agency to find efficiencies in workforce productivity.
(page 622)
From page 701, we can also see that the total civil service FTE count has dropped further from the 2016 projection.
If you want to delve deeper, you can see budgets from 2003 and onwards here: https://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html
(Everything prior to 2003 is broken links, helpfully)
Note that this omits contractors, who are not as well protected by law, and who are much more likely to be booted without having to go through too many steps.
-
50 years ago it was easy to get to the moon - now we can't get out of low earth orbit.
We can, but nobody is putting up the money to do so with manned missions. Most everyone has other priorities.
"Not trying to" is different from "can't" ...
-
Of course, there's an alternative explanation for why NASA is being rapidly scaled down, and why they make less and less big news. Retiring it to obscurity is probably the best move at this point.
It may not be "big news", but it's news that matters for sections of the scientific community. Have a browse at NASA's Technical Reports Server someday.
And bear in mind what the first A in NASA stands for....
-
It was incredibly easy to get men to the moon and even easier to bring them back . Did nasa ever do a trial run - launching a rocket from the moon to rendezvous with an orbiting spacecraft ?
Yes. Trial runs got progressively nearer to the actual Apollo 11 experience in Apollo 1 through 10, the last of which descended to within a few miles of the surface, then returned to dock with the CM. All Apollo 11 had to do in addition to this was land and take off.
-
It was incredibly easy to get men to the moon and even easier to bring them back . Did nasa ever do a trial run - launching a rocket from the moon to rendezvous with an orbiting spacecraft ?
Yes. Trial runs got progressively nearer to the actual Apollo 11 experience in Apollo 1 through 10, the last of which descended to within a few miles of the surface, then returned to dock with the CM. All Apollo 11 had to do in addition to this was land and take off.
Why is it so difficult to admit that nasa never did a trial launching of an unmanned lunar module , from its launchpad table , away from the surface of the moon ?
-
They didn’t do that simply because they had no way of getting the thing on the moon unmanned in the first place.
But Apollo 10 descended to near the lunar surface before ascending and docking with the command module.
That tested all the principles - the rocket firing and the docking. If you look at all the missions which led up to Apollo 11 you can see they tested incrementally everything they practically could.
If your argument is they just went there and hoped it all worked without testing things then that is incorrect.
Again, I recommend “A Man On The Moon” by Andrew Chaikin
-
They reportedly tested all principles apart from the important principle of the return launch from the moon - I can see you admitting this now .
It is not my argument that they just went there and hoped it would all work out - in this case that is is an unarguable fact since nasa admit they did not carry out this test , even with an unmanned simple rocket type vehicle .
A test of a docking manoeuvre is a test of docking manoeuvre ,not a test of lunar launch. At no stage was this extremely important procedure ever tested .
My view is that there was no need because the landing would never happen .
-
It wasn’t tested because it wasn’t possible to test it. They tested everything they practically could and Apollo 10 was a test of the rocket which would launch them from the moon.
I’m not clear what your argument is here. Yes, there was a risk they might not return. That was actually planned for, a speech was written for Nixon in case that happened. Collins was asked about it at the press conferences before they left. There is always an element of risk when exploring new things. That is the nature of exploration. They did all they could to mitigate that risk.
The only way of testing what you’re suggesting is for them to land unmanned on the moon first. I don’t think they were able to, to this day only 3 countries have managed a soft landing on the moon, the Indian space agency have just failed to do it.
-
They reportedly tested all principles apart from the important principle of the return launch from the moon - I can see you admitting this now .
It is not my argument that they just went there and hoped it would all work out - in this case that is is an unarguable fact since nasa admit they did not carry out this test , even with an unmanned simple rocket type vehicle .
A test of a docking manoeuvre is a test of docking manoeuvre ,not a test of lunar launch. At no stage was this extremely important procedure ever tested .
My view is that there was no need because the landing would never happen .
Since the Apollo 10 LM slowed the descent to almost zero firing the ascent engine was a valid test. You seem to forget that all of this was new and being invented as they did it. The failure of the Indian mission over the last few days is a reminder of why they didn't land an unmanned craft to test the launch. It's not easy with today's technology to do an automated landing.
-
Why is it so difficult to admit that nasa never did a trial launching of an unmanned lunar module , from its launchpad table , away from the surface of the moon ?
I don't see any need to "admit" to it, any more than I need to admit that there were no trial runs in other risky human endeavours.
Land speed records, water speed records, air speed records - all got there by incrementally getting nearer and nearer the goal, until someone stepped out beyond that.
I don't see this any different. NASA was under a budget, and under a timescale to complete the human landing before 31 Dec 1969, directed by their President. They did the incremental stuff, and designed the process of leaving the lunar surface with due care and attention to detail.