201

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« 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. 

202

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 17, 2021, 06:43:39 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. 

Total burn time = 5 minutes. 

Unpowered ballistic cruise flight duration = 48 minutes. 

Total flight duration from launch to impact = 53 minutes. 

Anyone else having trouble with this?  Happy to see if anyone can put it in simpler terms. 

As for the x/y sums, still waiting .........

203

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 15, 2021, 05:08:46 PM »

It's not like you're insistent a 5 minute burn from 177,000lbf engine can elevate 159,000lbs to 4500km.

Correct.  I don't think anyone is suggesting that.  The mass at launch 159,000 lbs.  However, the huge majority of that mass doesn't get anywhere near apogee because it is ....what?  Here's some clues; its flammable, and there's none left after 5 minutes. 

Any ideas? 

Going off at a slight tangent, but lets expand our thinking a little; the standard US Army artillery piece is the M109 Howitzer.  Its barrel is 6 metres long (around 20 feet), and it fires a 155 mm shell around 13 miles (21 km).  I confess I don't know the answer to this myself (as I'm neither an artilleryman nor a rocket scientist), but I wonder how its burn time relates to its flight time?   

204

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 14, 2021, 02:58:02 PM »

This is like he's lost in the desert, and he wants us to find him by working out how he misread the map.  It's purely conjecture, but here's some calculations:

Action80 highlighted the altitude, which corresponds to 2796 miles.  If he assumed that it reached this altitude in (the highlighted) 5 minutes, at a constant velocity of 2796/5 x 60, that would give a speed of 33,500 mph, which is "over 32,000 mph". 

Of course, that would mean that he thought "end of burn time" = "apogee", and that it didn't either accelerate or decelerate during its ascent, and I'm sure he wouldn't be that dumb, because he tells us that knows what the B (and all the other letters) in ICBM stands for. 

However, as many correspondents have already said, we have no idea how he got where he is, so all we have is conjecture. 

205

Science & Alternative Science / Re: The June Eclipse

« on: June 10, 2021, 06:38:37 PM »

I also managed to take a photo of the shadow object from sunny London



Actually quite cloudy London and for a while I thought that had scuppered my attempt, but then it cleared a bit. I don't have a solar filter or anything so that's a reflection in a bucket of water I took into the garden, just took it on my Phone. Quite pleased with it though.

That's really good for being shot as a reflection in the water.  I've be very happy with that result.

Yup.  No curve on that water.

206

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where does the Earth's energy come from? (genuine question)

« on: June 06, 2021, 12:56:26 PM »

From the Sun's atmosphere?  There is negligible hydrogen in Earth's atmosphere. 

207

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 04, 2021, 05:03:20 PM »

I think its more fundamental than that Ron; before you left home, the guy placed an ad in the paper claiming to have a gun, and the local PD, the Sheriff's Dept and State cops also were on TV telling you he has a gun. 

And the cops should know, because they also have guns. 

208

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 03, 2021, 05:44:52 PM »

Though its based on personal experience, looks like RonJ was able to refer to his log to refresh his memory and add a bit of gravitas to his experience.  I don't know if you keep a diary @Action80, but could you provide more detail of your Tomahawk stuff, like where and when, and was it the sub-, surface- or land based version.  And only if its not breaching any security protocols. 

I'm still inclined to think that the whole Tomahawk thing may be a figment of the MIC pseudo-arms dealers and unicorn farmers. 

Oh, and this is a nice touch:  So tell us what was it like to see a non-ICBM in action? Pretty cool, I bet.

Now it looks like Ron is agreeing with you!  Clever!

209

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 03, 2021, 01:40:46 PM »

They said paraded missiles were fake. You haven’t come close to showing that all the ICBMs are fake. In fact your own source disagreed with you. You are master of self-owning.

I think the real issue is no one here has come close to demonstrating ICBM's are real, including you.

Until then, it is just a myth propagated by liars.

You have nothing but a bunch of words from known liars, which you love to repeat.

The OP needs to go to CN.

What about Tomahawk missiles? Are they real? Are mortars real?

At what level of technology does the weapon become fake?

When you cannot produce evidence of use, I would suppose.

I have seen Tomahawks in use, hitting their intended targets.

I have also seen mortars in use, hitting their intended targets.

I am perhaps fortunate never to have seen an actual mortar fired, or a Tomahawk hit its target.  Do you have a source for their existence, or is it just your own testimony?

210

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 02, 2021, 03:50:31 PM »

It is generally accepted that Russia did fake a lot of stuff during the Cold War to pretend that they had more technological prowess than they did. During the Cold War, Russia went around parading fake ICBMs for decades:

Moscow paraded dummy missiles

MANY OF the huge strategic missiles displayed in Red Square parades during the Soviet era were only dummies, but they scared the West into an expensive response, a Russian magazine reported yesterday.

One such fake, GR-1, an acronym for Global Missile, showed during a parade in 1965, prompted the United States to build an anti- missile defence system worth billions of dollars, said the weekly Vlast (Power). In fact, the Soviets had abandoned the GR-1 project long before the parade.

Another two mobile ballistic missiles shown in the same parade were also fakes, their test launches having been a failure, the magazine said. "Foreign military attaches were scared to death, triggering panic in Nato headquarters," it said. "A huge international uproar followed, and only those who prepared this demonstration knew they were dummies." One of the authors of the Vlast report worked as a missile engineer and said he had worked on a support system for one of the fake missiles to prevent it from bouncing on the stone-paved Red Square in Moscow. The magazine said the Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev first bluffed the West with the legend of powerful Russian missiles, saying the Soviet Union was making them "like sausage". "Such comparison sounded ambiguous for the Soviet people, because the sausage was in deficit, but it duly impressed foreigners," it said. At the time of Krushchev's comment, the Soviets had only four intercontinental ballistic missiles on duty, while the United States had 60. "The myth about the Soviet missile superiority was convenient for both the Soviet leadership and the American military industrial complex, which was getting huge contracts," the magazine said.

There is also a book about Russian Cold War fakery; Russia and the Big Red Lie.

So ICBMs exist.  Can you confirm to @Action80 please.

I think the larger point Tom was making is that ICBM's do not actually exist.

Pity that went over your head or through your ears.

Many.  And the others? 

211

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 02, 2021, 03:43:55 PM »

A helicopter is in the atmospheric boundary layer of Earth.   An ICBM is in space.

LOL!

The moon is in space too, in case you forgot.

You do not even know what an ICBM is and are going to presume to now lecture about where things move and how/why the mythical G is going to affect things?

I don't think so.

ICBM;

M = Missile; a projectile.
B = Ballistic; not reliant on aerodynamics for its trajectory.
IC = Inter Continental; having a range typical of the distances between continents. 

The same sources which told you that the initial test of Hwasong-14 had a range of 700 miles, and you trust, also say it reached an altitude of 1750 miles.  Apparently, this gives it the range to hit Alaska and Hawaii.  (I'm not the rocket scientist here, but you have the quadratic equations, so you do the math).  Note that this was the very first test of the Hwasong 14, subsequent development and tests have improved the performance. 

And you will do the math for us? 

212

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 02, 2021, 03:22:35 PM »

A helicopter is in the atmospheric boundary layer of Earth.   An ICBM is in space.

LOL!

The moon is in space too, in case you forgot.

And? 

213

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 02, 2021, 03:20:27 PM »

It is generally accepted that Russia did fake a lot of stuff during the Cold War to pretend that they had more technological prowess than they did. During the Cold War, Russia went around parading fake ICBMs for decades:

Moscow paraded dummy missiles

MANY OF the huge strategic missiles displayed in Red Square parades during the Soviet era were only dummies, but they scared the West into an expensive response, a Russian magazine reported yesterday.

One such fake, GR-1, an acronym for Global Missile, showed during a parade in 1965, prompted the United States to build an anti- missile defence system worth billions of dollars, said the weekly Vlast (Power). In fact, the Soviets had abandoned the GR-1 project long before the parade.

Another two mobile ballistic missiles shown in the same parade were also fakes, their test launches having been a failure, the magazine said. "Foreign military attaches were scared to death, triggering panic in Nato headquarters," it said. "A huge international uproar followed, and only those who prepared this demonstration knew they were dummies." One of the authors of the Vlast report worked as a missile engineer and said he had worked on a support system for one of the fake missiles to prevent it from bouncing on the stone-paved Red Square in Moscow. The magazine said the Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev first bluffed the West with the legend of powerful Russian missiles, saying the Soviet Union was making them "like sausage". "Such comparison sounded ambiguous for the Soviet people, because the sausage was in deficit, but it duly impressed foreigners," it said. At the time of Krushchev's comment, the Soviets had only four intercontinental ballistic missiles on duty, while the United States had 60. "The myth about the Soviet missile superiority was convenient for both the Soviet leadership and the American military industrial complex, which was getting huge contracts," the magazine said.

There is also a book about Russian Cold War fakery; Russia and the Big Red Lie.

So ICBMs exist.  Can you confirm to @Action80 please.

214

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 02, 2021, 02:46:50 PM »

A helicopter is in the atmospheric boundary layer of Earth.   An ICBM is in space. 

215

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 02, 2021, 11:06:25 AM »

So Japan, USA, ROK and North Korea agreed to tell the same lie?  Love to be a fly on the wall at that meeting. 

Seriously, if all references we make are "liars", we can probably agree that any further discussion of any topic is pointless.  Bye.

216

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 01, 2021, 01:22:54 PM »

From Wikipedia:

First test flight
The first publicly announced flight test was on 4 July 2017, to coincide with the US Independence Day celebrations. This flight had a claimed range of 933 kilometres (580 mi) eastwards into the Sea of Japan (East Sea of Korea) and reached an altitude of 2,802 kilometres (9,193,000 ft) during a 39-minute flight.[29]

This range was deliberately shortened, to avoid encroaching on other nations' territory, by 'lofting' the missile: firing it on a trajectory that was inefficiently high, rather than optimised for range. This allows the missile's performance to be tested and demonstrated, without requiring a huge test range.[29]

A prediction for the possible range, following an optimum trajectory, has been given at 6,700 kilometres (4,200 mi)[30] or as much as 10,400 kilometres (6,500 mi) not taking into account the Earth’s rotation. If true, then this brings the U.S. states of Alaska and Hawaii within the missile's range.[29]

Second test flight
Preparations for a second test flight were detected by US intelligence as early as 20 July.[28] On 28 July, the missile was fired at 11:41 p.m local time, the first time which a night time launch was carried out.[31][32] The missile was fired at a lofted trajectory with apogee of 3,700 km (2,300 mi), landing 998 km (620 mi) away with a total flight time of approximately 47 minutes. Based on the data from the test flight, if the missile were fired at the optimal efficient trajectory, it is predicted that the maximum effective range would exceed 10,000 km (6,200 mi). If factoring in the rotation of the Earth, which may provide a range boost when travelling eastward, the Hwasong-14’s coverage area would include the US West Coast, Chicago, and possibly even New York,[16] but only with a substantially reduced payload.[33]

In other words, the missiles were deliberately launched in an unusually high trajectory in order to reduce the effective range, in order to not encroach on neighboring territories, and to keep the missile within DPRK's telemetry range.  Do you understand the part where it says it could reach Alaska, Hawaii, and the continental US West Coast?  And New York with a reduced payload?  Does this count as an ICBM in your dictionary? 

The "claims" were made by DPRK's own KCNA news agency, and confirmed by US, Japanese and ROK trackers. 

217

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Irish reunification

« on: May 31, 2021, 08:47:35 AM »

(incidentally, I voted 2.).

Do you think it might be time for a "lessons learned" session before a hypothetical reunification vote, or do you intend to just keep on keeping on?

In retrospect I don't always make smart decisions, but I will defend to the death my right to keep on making stupid choices. 

218

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Irish reunification

« on: May 30, 2021, 10:48:42 PM »

No one gives a fuck.

Thank you for illustrating why there is increasing support for a united Ireland.

Concurred.   

Being a Northern Ireland resident, I'd vote for unification with anywhere that would have us, but only if its somewhere that Thork isn't; eg Ireland, Iceland, USA, North Korea. 

And if we do get a referendum, for f*ck's sake ask us a proper question that has 2 answers.  Unlike Brexit, where the choice was;

   1.  Stay in the EU.
   2.  Do something else, but we don't know what those choices are yet. 

(incidentally, I voted 2.).

219

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: May 30, 2021, 07:46:44 AM »

Not sure he's still here.  He went to Google some stuff on Friday and, well, you know what a distraction the internet is. 

220

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: May 28, 2021, 02:46:16 PM »

Google "Hwasong 14 test July 4 2017".  Then come back and tell the class all about it.