Recent Posts

21
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by Roundy on June 18, 2021, 05:22:48 PM »
22
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« Last post by Action80 on June 18, 2021, 03:56:38 PM »
Great.

So, next we have these two questions.

How many lbs of fuel contributed to the 159,000 lb weight of the missile?

What was the altitude achieved at t+5?

Fuel mass discussed elsewhere. Height at burnout of the order of 250km or thereabouts.
Thank you.

So, travelling at just under 3000 km/h at t+5 and having attained an altitude of only 250 km, do you think the missile will continue to rise to an altitude of 4500 km in over or under 53 minutes?
23
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« Last post by SteelyBob on June 18, 2021, 03:28:26 PM »
Great.

So, next we have these two questions.

How many lbs of fuel contributed to the 159,000 lb weight of the missile?

What was the altitude achieved at t+5?

Fuel mass discussed elsewhere. Height at burnout of the order of 250km or thereabouts.
24
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« Last post by Action80 on June 18, 2021, 02:26:30 PM »
Thanks WTF_S; 

To confirm, my contention is that the missile launches at a mass of 159,000 lbs, the majority of which is fuel, and all consumed within the initial, single, 5-minute, burn, which accelerates it on a high angle trajectory where y>x.
You contend that 159,000 lbs consisted of a, "majority of which is fuel," based on "what exactly?"

Total burn time = 5 minutes.
Any idea on the altitude and rate of travel achieved by the time of engine cut off? It is apparent you disagree with the 4500 km achieved at that time, contending an unpowered ballistic object can continue gaining a significant amount of altitude after impetus is removed.

Majority of the mass is fuel?  It's an aluminium tube with a 2000lb warhead at one end, and a rocket motor at the other.  You work it out.  What exactly do you think is inside the part between the motor and warhead?  Its a fuel tank or, for a solid fuel motor, containment for the fuel mass.
You have no idea then? The materials necessary would need to be of such strength as to withstand the forces sustained.

In other words, soda can aluminum would not fit the bill and not just any aluminum tube.

Plus, where does the idea of solid fuel come from?

Take a shot at a figure.

Try UDMH weight per gallon, and high tensile strength aluminum and split it all up.
Altitude and velocity at engine shut-down? 

No idea. 
Thanks.
25
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« Last post by WTF_Seriously on June 18, 2021, 01:55:23 PM »
You contend that 159,000 lbs consisted of a, "majority of which is fuel," based on "what exactly?"

Based on the fact that it's going to be quite similar to this:

https://minutemanmissile.com/solidrocketboosters.html as well as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman#:~:text=The%20Minuteman%2DIII%20has%20a,800%20ft%20(240%20m).

I'll highlight the pertinent points for the Minuteman II and III since it appears reading isn't your thang.

1st stage weight 51,251 lbs.  Fuel weight 45,670 lbs.
2nd stage weight 16,057 lbs. Fuel weight 13,680lbs.
3rd stage weight 8,187 lbs. Fuel weight 7,292 lbs.

In case math ain't your deal either, that's total stage weight 75,795.  Total fuel weight 66,642. With the total missile weight of 79,432 that would be 83+% fuel.  I'll give you credit for knowing the definition of majority.


Quote
Any idea on the altitude and rate of travel achieved by the time of engine cut off? It is apparent you disagree with the 4500 km achieved at that time, contending an unpowered ballistic object can continue gaining a significant amount of altitude after impetus is removed.

Didn't take my advice on that high school physics class evidently.  I even pointed out the important things here like initial velocity and acceleration (hint: in this case it's G).  I did forget to mention how to calculate distance traveled.

Extremely curious how high you think a bullet travels when shot straight up.  You do realize a bullet is an 'unpowered ballistic object' once it leaves the barrel, right?

If you'd like to continue your 'Nuh uh!' game that's great.  But please, try not to embarrass yourself in the process.
26
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« Last post by DuncanDoenitz on June 18, 2021, 01:54:30 PM »
Thanks WTF_S; 

To confirm, my contention is that the missile launches at a mass of 159,000 lbs, the majority of which is fuel, and all consumed within the initial, single, 5-minute, burn, which accelerates it on a high angle trajectory where y>x.
You contend that 159,000 lbs consisted of a, "majority of which is fuel," based on "what exactly?"

Total burn time = 5 minutes.
Any idea on the altitude and rate of travel achieved by the time of engine cut off? It is apparent you disagree with the 4500 km achieved at that time, contending an unpowered ballistic object can continue gaining a significant amount of altitude after impetus is removed.

Majority of the mass is fuel?  It's an aluminium tube with a 2000lb warhead at one end, and a rocket motor at the other.  You work it out.  What exactly do you think is inside the part between the motor and warhead?  Its a fuel tank or, for a solid fuel motor, containment for the fuel mass.

Altitude and velocity at engine shut-down?  No idea, I'm not a rocket scientist.  As a layman, I couldn't be more specific than to say its high and fast; not only has it been accelerating for the last 5 minutes, but its rate of acceleration has been increasing as fuel is consumed.  As an aircraft engineer, I know that its aerodynamic drag following engine shutdown will be very small-to-non-existent, due to the low-to-non-existent air density (drag being {drag-coefficient x air-density x surface-area x velocity-squared}/2).  Therefore, the only braking force to its vertical velocity component is due to gravity. 

Significant amount of altitude after impetus removed?  You have maybe heard of the German Flak 36, the 88 mm anti aircraft gun from WW2?  Its impetus was removed at an altitude of about 15 feet (the end of the barrel) and it had an effective altitude range of over 30,000 feet (around 6 miles), and that was in draggy-air. 
27
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« Last post by Action80 on June 18, 2021, 01:20:14 PM »

Well, if I cut an ellipse in half, what shape am I left with?

Call me suspicious, but this looks like a parabola to me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwasong-15#/media/File:Trajectories_of_Hwasong-14.svg

They aren't the same thing - see https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiT9_DWlaHxAhU05eAKHQmACxEQFjAHegQIHhAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcourses.lumenlearning.com%2Fboundless-algebra%2Fchapter%2Fintroduction-to-conic-sections%2F&usg=AOvVaw1-N5oByVcSeU7_75VNTX7G if you're interested.
Interesting, even though I already understood that an ellipse and a parabola are not the same thing, hence the query as to what is left upon rendering an ellipse in two.
But don't worry about it - let's develop your point further. Where were you going with your argument?
First point.

Does this image of the flight trajectory, presented here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwasong-15#/media/File:Trajectories_of_Hwasong-14.svg
depict an ellipse or a parabola.

That image depicts a parabola.
Great.

So, next we have these two questions.

How many lbs of fuel contributed to the 159,000 lb weight of the missile?

What was the altitude achieved at t+5?
28
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« Last post by SteelyBob on June 18, 2021, 12:57:01 PM »

Well, if I cut an ellipse in half, what shape am I left with?

Call me suspicious, but this looks like a parabola to me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwasong-15#/media/File:Trajectories_of_Hwasong-14.svg

They aren't the same thing - see https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiT9_DWlaHxAhU05eAKHQmACxEQFjAHegQIHhAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcourses.lumenlearning.com%2Fboundless-algebra%2Fchapter%2Fintroduction-to-conic-sections%2F&usg=AOvVaw1-N5oByVcSeU7_75VNTX7G if you're interested.
Interesting, even though I already understood that an ellipse and a parabola are not the same thing, hence the query as to what is left upon rendering an ellipse in two.
But don't worry about it - let's develop your point further. Where were you going with your argument?
First point.

Does this image of the flight trajectory, presented here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwasong-15#/media/File:Trajectories_of_Hwasong-14.svg
depict an ellipse or a parabola.

That image depicts a parabola.
29
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« Last post by Action80 on June 18, 2021, 12:33:26 PM »

Well, if I cut an ellipse in half, what shape am I left with?

Call me suspicious, but this looks like a parabola to me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwasong-15#/media/File:Trajectories_of_Hwasong-14.svg

They aren't the same thing - see https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiT9_DWlaHxAhU05eAKHQmACxEQFjAHegQIHhAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcourses.lumenlearning.com%2Fboundless-algebra%2Fchapter%2Fintroduction-to-conic-sections%2F&usg=AOvVaw1-N5oByVcSeU7_75VNTX7G if you're interested.
Interesting, even though I already understood that an ellipse and a parabola are not the same thing, hence the query as to what is left upon rendering an ellipse in two.
But don't worry about it - let's develop your point further. Where were you going with your argument?
First point.

Does this image of the flight trajectory, presented here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwasong-15#/media/File:Trajectories_of_Hwasong-14.svg
depict an ellipse or a parabola.
30
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« Last post by SteelyBob on June 18, 2021, 12:22:58 PM »

Well, if I cut an ellipse in half, what shape am I left with?

Call me suspicious, but this looks like a parabola to me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwasong-15#/media/File:Trajectories_of_Hwasong-14.svg

They aren't the same thing - see https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiT9_DWlaHxAhU05eAKHQmACxEQFjAHegQIHhAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcourses.lumenlearning.com%2Fboundless-algebra%2Fchapter%2Fintroduction-to-conic-sections%2F&usg=AOvVaw1-N5oByVcSeU7_75VNTX7G if you're interested.

But don't worry about it - let's develop your point further. Where were you going with your argument?