The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: markjo on November 02, 2014, 12:57:35 AM

Title: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: markjo on November 02, 2014, 12:57:35 AM
So, what is the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the solar system, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?

Tom, you seem to enjoy dragging out this tired piece of copypasta, but you never seem explain just what it means.  For example, exactly what "never before seen rocket technologies" are you referring to and who said that NASA invented them from scratch?  You do realize that solid propellent rockets were invented hundreds of years ago and liquid propellent rockets were invented more than 30 years before NASA was even founded, don't you?  What rocket technologies did NASA invent for the moon program that didn't already exist in some form or other?  If anything, NASA pretty much just scaled up the rocket existing technology.

Also, when did NASA ever claim that they were doing the impossible, let alone on a daily basis?  I think that you also have a rather unconventional notion of "constantly" when referring to moon landings and Mars probes.

Personally, I think that the simplest explanation is that you are desperately grasping at straws so that you can dismiss any evidence that so completely and conclusively contradicts FET.
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: Gulliver on November 02, 2014, 04:08:56 AM
So, what is the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the solar system, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?

Tom, you seem to enjoy dragging out this tired piece of copypasta, but you never seem explain just what it means.  For example, exactly what "never before seen rocket technologies" are you referring to and who said that NASA invented them from scratch?  You do realize that solid propellent rockets were invented hundreds of years ago and liquid propellent rockets were invented more than 30 years before NASA was even founded, don't you?  What rocket technologies did NASA invent for the moon program that didn't already exist in some form or other?  If anything, NASA pretty much just scaled up the rocket existing technology.

Also, when did NASA ever claim that they were doing the impossible, let alone on a daily basis?  I think that you also have a rather unconventional notion of "constantly" when referring to moon landings and Mars probes.

Personally, I think that the simplest explanation is that you are desperately grasping at straws so that you can dismiss any evidence that so completely and conclusively contradicts FET.
Thank you, markjo. You make excellent points.

Please let me "springboard" off those points here. Tom, you seem to be reaching for Occam's Razor, or the Law of Parsimony See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor). It provides a set of guideline to select between two competing hypotheses to explain a result. For example, if a bird spins in a circle and then pecks a blue button, she receives a bit of food. If the same bird just pecks a blue button and still gets a bit of food then she should apply the principle and at least try to save the effort of spinning around for the same result.

Since FET does not use hypotheses (or theories) (Refer to EnaG Chapter 1.), FET does not use the Razor and cannot benefit from it.

The zetetic process is complete when the conclusion is beyond all reproach Unfortunately for Rowbotham, he made a grievous error regarding momentum. As a result his conclusion integral to the rest of the book fails and all conclusions from that mistake forward must be reworked and never relied upon. See:
R. fails to understand Kinetics. An object in motion tends to remain in motion. No, a ball thrown from a moving object does not lose its motion just by being thrown. This knowledge was written down carefully and precisely over 190 years before the publication of EnaG. R. is out of step with our understanding of Kinetics and fails miserably on this page. Why do FEers point to a text with such clear mistakes?
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 02, 2014, 08:53:56 PM
Tom, you seem to enjoy dragging out this tired piece of copypasta, but you never seem explain just what it means.  For example, exactly what "never before seen rocket technologies" are you referring to and who said that NASA invented them from scratch?  You do realize that solid propellent rockets were invented hundreds of years ago and liquid propellent rockets were invented more than 30 years before NASA was even founded, don't you?  What rocket technologies did NASA invent for the moon program that didn't already exist in some form or other?  If anything, NASA pretty much just scaled up the rocket existing technology.

NASA created a rocket with such fantastic technology that it broke the mold for how rockets scale up. Check out this article: The Great 1952 Space Program That Almost Was (http://io9.com/the-great-1952-space-program-453511252)

In the early 50's the great physicists and aerospace scientists of the time, including Wherner Von Braun (before he was put in charge of NASA), got together and carefully calculated what would actually be required to get into space and to the moon. The conclusions were that a single rocket to the moon would need to be 1250 feet tall and weigh 800,000 tons. And yes, they knew all about rocket staging, and coasting with inertia in space, which is mentioned several times in the article.

Here are the requirements for what would be required merely to reach earth orbit and provide supplies for an orbital space station:


The ability for a single rocket to reach escape velocity and get to the moon all in a single craft would be an economic impossibility: "That would require, according to von Braun, a rocket taller than the Empire State Building—and ten times the weight of the Queen Mary!"

The government and the military needed to get into earth orbit and to the moon with realistic figures. The resulting product after Kennedy's moon speech was a single Saturn rocket to the moon which was 266 times smaller than what what was predicted. Suddenly going to the moon wasn't such an impossibility anymore. So yes, NASA is claiming to have invented fantastic new technologies contrary to all physics, rocketry, and engineering.

Quote
Also, when did NASA ever claim that they were doing the impossible, let alone on a daily basis?  I think that you also have a rather unconventional notion of "constantly" when referring to moon landings and Mars probes.

NASA is constantly in space, and therefore constantly doing the impossible. Space travel is a military fantasy and a scientific delusion.
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: markjo on November 02, 2014, 09:20:36 PM
The ability for a single rocket to reach escape velocity get to the moon all in a single craft would be an impossibility: "That would require, according to von Braun, a rocket taller than the Empire State Building—and ten times the weight of the Queen Mary!"
You do realize that was for a 50 man crew to go to the moon, not a 3 man crew, don't you?


Quote
Also, when did NASA ever claim that they were doing the impossible, let alone on a daily basis?  I think that you also have a rather unconventional notion of "constantly" when referring to moon landings and Mars probes.

NASA is constantly in space, and therefore constantly doing the impossible. Space travel is a military fantasy and a scientific delusion.
If NASA is constantly in space, then it obviously isn't impossible, now is it?
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 02, 2014, 10:56:20 PM
The ability for a single rocket to reach escape velocity get to the moon all in a single craft would be an impossibility: "That would require, according to von Braun, a rocket taller than the Empire State Building—and ten times the weight of the Queen Mary!"
You do realize that was for a 50 man crew to go to the moon, not a 3 man crew, don't you?

The link does not say that he's talking about the 50 man mission. Von Braun had also stated in works he had previously written that a rocket would need to be of that size to get to the moon, and discounted the idea of a single rocket to the moon as an impossibility. The 50 man mission proposal with the space plane and space station published in the Collier 1952 magazine is a separate comprimise.

The fact is that von Braun and the experts believed that enormous rockets would be necessary. As stated in the article, a cargo rocket which simply could get into earth orbit to provide supplies to a space station, with a cargo capacity of 32 tons (a cargo figure similar to the shuttle and heavy lift rockets), would need to be the size and weight of a light naval cruiser, which is far larger than anything NASA has ever built.
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: Rama Set on November 02, 2014, 11:26:32 PM
I don't know why miniaturization strains your credulity. We went from having room sized computers in the 60s to the first desktops by the late 70s. MBs of memory in the 90s to GBs by the 2000s.
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 02, 2014, 11:44:26 PM
I don't know why miniaturization strains your credulity. We went from having room sized computers in the 60s to the first desktops by the late 70s. MBs of memory in the 90s to GBs by the 2000s.

Your analogy is meaningless. Not everything advances at the rate of computer chips. The efficiency of the internal combustion engine has barely improved over the last 20 years. Spoons haven't improved over the last 20 years. Rockets have not been doubling in efficiency every year.

In fact, improvements in computer chips are increasingly no longer the case. Core clock speed has not improved by any significant margin for years. The clock speed of a core is still 3 to 4 Ghz and has been that way since 2004 (http://www.extremetech.com/computing/116561-the-death-of-cpu-scaling-from-one-core-to-many-and-why-were-still-stuck).

The improvements now come from combining multiple chips together into a multi-core chip. Now you can burn a dvd and play a video game at the same time. This is not an improvement in computer chips. I could have bought two computers in 2004. That's like saying that car technology is improved by a factor of 2x if you buy two ferraris.
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: garygreen on November 02, 2014, 11:45:28 PM
The Collier articles were only ever meant to describe what was technically feasible in 1952.  They were demonstrations, not theoretical limits.

Quote
“Speculations regarding the future technical developments have been carefully avoided,” or, as von Braun explained, “While the [Collier’s] designs may be a far cry from what Mars ships some thirty or forty years from now will actually look like, this approach will serve a worthwhile purpose. If we can show how a Mars ship could conceivably be built on the basis of what we know now, we can safely deduce that actual designs of the future can only be superior. Only by stubborn adherence to the engineering solutions based exclusively on scientific knowledge available today, and by strict avoidance of any speculations concerning future discoveries, can we bring proof that this fabulous venture is fundamentally feasible.”
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 03, 2014, 12:00:16 AM
Right, and by 1958 all technical limitations were overcome, all rocketry limitations became a thing of the past, physics was blown wide open, and the US Government could begin sending things into earth orbit and beyond through the next decade with much smaller and cost effective rockets. Keep dreaming.
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: Rama Set on November 03, 2014, 12:20:31 AM
Right, and by 1958 all technical limitations were overcome, all rocketry limitations became a thing of the past, physics was blown wide open, and the US Government could begin sending things into earth orbit and beyond through the next decade with much smaller and cost effective rockets. Keep dreaming.

You mean engineering was blown wide open. There was no meaningful advance in physics from the rocket engine. Your argument from personal credulity continues unabated. Can you propose a single engineering reason why there could not be a quick advance in technology over a relatively short timespan given sufficient logistical, intellectual and financial capabilities?
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 03, 2014, 12:34:20 AM
Right, and by 1958 all technical limitations were overcome, all rocketry limitations became a thing of the past, physics was blown wide open, and the US Government could begin sending things into earth orbit and beyond through the next decade with much smaller and cost effective rockets. Keep dreaming.

You mean engineering was blown wide open. There was no meaningful advance in physics from the rocket engine. Your argument from personal credulity continues unabated. Can you propose a single engineering reason why there could not be a quick advance in technology over a relatively short timespan given sufficient logistical, intellectual and financial capabilities?

As I said, NASA is claiming to have created never before seen rocket technologies. It's a fantastic claim to have created something thought to be impossible. Despite that the Saturn V rocket engine is using the same basic operation as the V2 weapon from WWII, using fuels well studied for many years, we are expected to believe that they somehow broke the mold and achieved an improvement by a fold of 266 which allowed the US Government to gain moon victory.

It's simply an absurd claim. Anyone with a basic understanding of engineering knows that physical technologies don't improve like that. Shame on you for believing it.
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: markjo on November 03, 2014, 12:35:23 AM
Right, and by 1958 all technical limitations were overcome...
Not all technical limitations, just enough limitations to get the job done.

...all rocketry limitations became a thing of the past...
Not all rocketry limitations, just enough to get the job done.

...physics was blown wide open, and the US Government could begin sending things into earth orbit and beyond through the next decade with much smaller and cost effective rockets. Keep dreaming.
Huh?  The Saturn V was the biggest rocket that the US ever made.
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: markjo on November 03, 2014, 12:51:09 AM
As I said, NASA is claiming to have created never before seen rocket technologies.
Again, which specific technologies are you referring to?

It's a fantastic claim to have created something thought to be impossible.
Do you mean something impossible like a very large liquid propellant rocket engine?

Despite that the Saturn V rocket engine is using the same basic operation as the V2 weapon from WWII, using fuels well studied for many years, we are expected to believe that they somehow broke the mold and achieved an improvement by a fold of 266 which allowed the US Government to gain moon victory.
What mold are you referring to?  The F-1 engine certainly was a huge engineering challenge, but what about shouldn't we believe?

It's simply an absurd claim. Anyone with a basic understanding of engineering knows that physical technologies don't improve like that. Shame on you for believing it.
What makes you think that the Saturn V falls in the category of basic engineering?  If anything, it was some of the most sophisticated engineering of its time.
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 03, 2014, 01:02:35 AM
The difference between physical propellant engineering improvements and the improvements in other technologies such as computer chips, is that with computer chips there was never a theoretical limit in the 1960's saying that a silicon chip could not compute cycles at 4 GHz. With rockets, there is a theoretical limit to how much they can lift and whether it could achieve escape velocity.

NASA is claiming something entirely contrary to rocket physics. The scientists of the time knew all about liquid oxygen and kerosene. They said it couldn't be done. But then comes US Government, in space heat, creating an organization which immediately invents this fantastic technology, using known fuels, using an engine which adopts the same basic operation of the V2 weapon.

Clearly questionable. The simplest explanation is that they did not do that.
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: Rama Set on November 03, 2014, 01:10:31 AM

As I said, NASA is claiming to have created never before seen rocket technologies.

It was the first time, of course they had never been seen before.  What else would you expect?

Quote
It's a fantastic claim to have created something thought to be impossible.

Who said it was impossible?  The whole point of the Colliers article you linked to was to give plausibility to the idea.

Quote
Despite that the Saturn V rocket engine is using the same basic operation as the V2 weapon from WWII, using fuels well studied for many years, we are expected to believe that they somehow broke the mold and achieved an improvement by a fold of 266 which allowed the US Government to gain moon victory.

Argument from personal credulity.

Quote
It's simply an absurd claim. Anyone with a basic understanding of engineering knows that physical technologies don't improve like that.

All evidence to the contrary.

Quote
Shame on you for believing it.

Dude, you believe Vitamin C can cure Ebola and you are questioning my critical thinking skills?
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 03, 2014, 01:23:20 AM
The things NASA is claiming are not improvements. The claims break physics themselves. It is absurd that anyone could sit and entertain the idea that one can make a M67 grenade, using the explosive material Composition B, explode with 200 times as much force as it already does. It's simply not going to happen, no matter how much money is thrown at it. Physics are physics.
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: markjo on November 03, 2014, 01:29:44 AM
The difference between physical propellant engineering improvements and the improvements in other technologies such as computer chips, is that with computer chips there was never a theoretical limit in the 1960's saying that a silicon chip could not compute cycles at 4 GHz.
That analogy is so far off, I'm not sure how to respond.

With rockets, there is a theoretical limit to how much they can lift and whether it could achieve escape velocity.
Yes, which is why they designed bigger rockets that could lift and propel more.

NASA is claiming something entirely contrary to rocket physics.
Huh?

The scientists of the time knew all about liquid oxygen and kerosene. They said it couldn't be done.
What about liquid oxygen and kerosene couldn't be done?

But then comes US Government, in space heat, creating an organization which immediately invents this fantastic technology, using known fuels, using an engine which adopts the same basic operation of the V2 weapon.
Do you mean liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen?  If so, the V2 didn't use that.  It used liquid oxygen and alcohol/water.

Clearly questionable. The simplest explanation is that they did not do that.
Didn't do what?
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 03, 2014, 02:37:04 AM
NASA is doing the physically impossible and all I hear is willful denial and avoidance. Instead of beginning to seek out the truth for your own self, you comply to kneel down and bury your faces into the lap of an organization with the motive and the means. If the government says so it must be true. No question or doubt about it.

Physics are physics, markjo. GM can't improve a combustion engine by 200x beyond present technology, no matter how many billions they poured into it. Try not to play ignorant. It is obvious and transparent.
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: Rama Set on November 03, 2014, 02:42:59 AM
Can you please substantiate the claim that what NASA did was physically impossible?
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 03, 2014, 03:22:03 AM
Can you please substantiate the claim that what NASA did was physically impossible?

Please follow along. Scientists of the time said that much bigger and economically unfeasible rockets would be required and then NASA had some kind of undisclosed breakthrough immediately after being founded which allowed them to push liquid kerosene/hydrogen/oxygen beyond physical ability.
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: markjo on November 03, 2014, 03:39:56 AM
Physics are physics, markjo. GM can't improve a combustion engine by 200x beyond present technology, no matter how many billions they poured into it. Try not to play ignorant. It is obvious and transparent.
??? Who said that NASA claimed to improve the combustion engine by 200x?  Do you not understand the difference between making something bigger and making it more efficient?  For example, the F1 engine is a very large rocket engine that burns a lot of fuel very quickly (several tons per second).  I don't recall anyone ever claiming that it was a phenomenally efficient design, just a phenomenally powerful one.
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: Rama Set on November 03, 2014, 03:41:38 AM
Can you please substantiate the claim that what NASA did was physically impossible?

Please follow along. Scientists of the time said that much bigger and economically unfeasible rockets would be required and then NASA had some kind of undisclosed breakthrough immediately after being founded which allowed them to push liquid kerosene/hydrogen/oxygen beyond physical ability.

I was, which was why I assumed you had some other source of information you were relying on. What you just described does not qualify as impossible. What is the maximum energy that can be derived from kerosene-oxygen combustion and hydrogen-oxygen combustion?
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 03, 2014, 05:24:39 AM
Physics are physics, markjo. GM can't improve a combustion engine by 200x beyond present technology, no matter how many billions they poured into it. Try not to play ignorant. It is obvious and transparent.
??? Who said that NASA claimed to improve the combustion engine by 200x

Sigh. GM as in General Motors and combustion engine as in Internal Combustion Engines. GM can't expect to increase the performance of a car's engine by 200x because physics says that it can only be so efficient or powerful.

Quote
Do you not understand the difference between making something bigger and making it more efficient? For example, the F1 engine is a very large rocket engine that burns a lot of fuel very quickly (several tons per second).  I don't recall anyone ever claiming that it was a phenomenally efficient design, just a phenomenally powerful one.

Von Braun was well aware of what happens to a rocket engine when you make it bigger or smaller.

I was, which was why I assumed you had some other source of information you were relying on. What you just described does not qualify as impossible. What is the maximum energy that can be derived from kerosene-oxygen combustion and hydrogen-oxygen combustion?

Sure it does. If scientists of the time say that it is not possible, and NASA does it, NASA has just done the impossible. It doesn't matter what the numbers are. The fact is that NASA is claiming to have done the impossible.
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: Hoppy on November 03, 2014, 05:39:52 AM
NASA is doing the physically impossible and all I hear is willful denial and avoidance. Instead of beginning to seek out the truth for your own self, you comply to kneel down and bury your faces into the lap of an organization with the motive and the means. If the government says so it must be true. No question or doubt about it.

Physics are physics, markjo. GM can't improve a combustion engine by 200x beyond present technology, no matter how many billions they poured into it. Try not to play ignorant. It is obvious and transparent.
Tom you know that NASA can say anything and these folks are going to believe it. I don't think that they can even question the authority of NASA. It is sad, but shows how thorough the brainwashing is in regard to space.
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: garygreen on November 03, 2014, 06:07:21 AM
Right, and by 1958 all technical limitations were overcome, all rocketry limitations became a thing of the past, physics was blown wide open, and the US Government could begin sending things into earth orbit and beyond through the next decade with much smaller and cost effective rockets. Keep dreaming.

The Collier articles aren't describing a technical limitation in rocketry.  They're just Von Braun saying, "here are some rockets we could build using only 1952 technology."  He's not saying that those are the smallest rockets possible in 1952.  He's just saying that 1952 could build those huge rockets if it wanted to.

I don't get why you think that the rockets used to achieve orbit in 1958 break the laws of physics.  Can you be more specific?
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: markjo on November 03, 2014, 06:23:37 AM
Sigh. GM as in General Motors and combustion engine as in Internal Combustion Engines. GM can't expect to increase the performance of a car's engine by 200x because physics says that it can only be so efficient or powerful.
First of all, how are you defining performance?  Secondly, are you suggesting that a 1 HP moped engine and a 1000+ HP race car engine don't use pretty much the same basic technology?

Von Braun was well aware of what happens to a rocket engine when you make it bigger or smaller.
Yes, I'm sure that he did.  Do you?

If scientists of the time say that it is not possible, and NASA does it, NASA has just done the impossible. It doesn't matter what the numbers are. The fact is that NASA is claiming to have done the impossible.
Yes, because when scientists say that something can't be currently done, they are never proven wrong later on as technology improves.  ::)
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: markjo on November 03, 2014, 06:40:23 AM
Tom you know that NASA can say anything and these folks are going to believe it. I don't think that they can even question the authority of NASA. It is sad, but shows how thorough the brainwashing is in regard to space.
I have no problem with Tom questioning anything that NASA says.  I'm just asking Tom to provide actual, specific technical reasons that prove that NASA is wrong or lying.  So far, Tom is being characteristically vague and evasive.
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: Rama Set on November 03, 2014, 12:00:27 PM
Physics are physics, markjo. GM can't improve a combustion engine by 200x beyond present technology, no matter how many billions they poured into it. Try not to play ignorant. It is obvious and transparent.
??? Who said that NASA claimed to improve the combustion engine by 200x

Sigh. GM as in General Motors and combustion engine as in Internal Combustion Engines. GM can't expect to increase the performance of a car's engine by 200x because physics says that it can only be so efficient or powerful.

Quote
Do you not understand the difference between making something bigger and making it more efficient? For example, the F1 engine is a very large rocket engine that burns a lot of fuel very quickly (several tons per second).  I don't recall anyone ever claiming that it was a phenomenally efficient design, just a phenomenally powerful one.

Von Braun was well aware of what happens to a rocket engine when you make it bigger or smaller.

I was, which was why I assumed you had some other source of information you were relying on. What you just described does not qualify as impossible. What is the maximum energy that can be derived from kerosene-oxygen combustion and hydrogen-oxygen combustion?

Sure it does. If scientists of the time say that it is not possible, and NASA does it, NASA has just done the impossible. It doesn't matter what the numbers are. The fact is that NASA is claiming to have done the impossible.

It says the exact opposite Tom. The symposium claimed that it was possible to go to the Moon and that it would cost $4B. They even provided a timeline. Can your be more specific about what passage makes it impossible?
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: Gulliver on November 07, 2014, 06:02:28 PM
...The ability for a single rocket to reach escape velocity and get to the moon all in a single craft would be an economic impossibility: "That would require, according to von Braun, a rocket taller than the Empire State Building—and ten times the weight of the Queen Mary!"...
Tom, why would we need either to limit ourselves to a single rocket (The first stage of the Saturn V had 4!) and to reach escape velocity (All moon shots are still within the gravity well of earth!)? (Total accuracy disclaimer: some stages of the Apollo missions are in earth-sun orbit.)

You seem to be arguing that it's impossible to get from NYC to LA by walking in less than a month, so it's impossible to get there faster by any other means.
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 09, 2014, 03:37:26 PM
Right, and by 1958 all technical limitations were overcome, all rocketry limitations became a thing of the past, physics was blown wide open, and the US Government could begin sending things into earth orbit and beyond through the next decade with much smaller and cost effective rockets. Keep dreaming.

The Collier articles aren't describing a technical limitation in rocketry.  They're just Von Braun saying, "here are some rockets we could build using only 1952 technology."  He's not saying that those are the smallest rockets possible in 1952.  He's just saying that 1952 could build those huge rockets if it wanted to.

I don't get why you think that the rockets used to achieve orbit in 1958 break the laws of physics.  Can you be more specific?

The Collier articles are absolutely describing a technical limitation in rocketry. They need to build them big because they have to be big. As stated in the article, to carry 32 tons the rocket would need to be as big as a light naval cruiser, and goes on to explain how the things we ended up with, the shuttle and other heavy lift rockets with a capacity of around 32 tons, being much smaller.

Why would they build huge rockets because they wanted to? They had to build them that way because that's what the equations called for. Von Braun complains that to make a single rocket to get to the moon and back would be so big as to be an economic impossibility.
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 09, 2014, 03:45:54 PM
Sigh. GM as in General Motors and combustion engine as in Internal Combustion Engines. GM can't expect to increase the performance of a car's engine by 200x because physics says that it can only be so efficient or powerful.
First of all, how are you defining performance?  Secondly, are you suggesting that a 1 HP moped engine and a 1000+ HP race car engine don't use pretty much the same basic technology?

In 1885 1000+ HP race car engines were theoretically possible according to the understandings of thermodynamics and combustion when automobiles were first invented. There was nothing saying that they couldn't exist.

However, these rockets NASA is claiming to have invented for go against all scientific understanding. Combustion, thermodynamics, and rocket physics was well understood in the early 1950's. The scientists of the time understood what could and could not be done.

Quote
Yes, because when scientists say that something can't be currently done, they are never proven wrong later on as technology improves.  ::)

Technology can't overcome physics.
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 09, 2014, 04:00:00 PM
...The ability for a single rocket to reach escape velocity and get to the moon all in a single craft would be an economic impossibility: "That would require, according to von Braun, a rocket taller than the Empire State Building—and ten times the weight of the Queen Mary!"...
Tom, why would we need either to limit ourselves to a single rocket (The first stage of the Saturn V had 4!) and to reach escape velocity (All moon shots are still within the gravity well of earth!)? (Total accuracy disclaimer: some stages of the Apollo missions are in earth-sun orbit.)

You seem to be arguing that it's impossible to get from NYC to LA by walking in less than a month, so it's impossible to get there faster by any other means.

They knew about multiple stages and adding multiple engines per stage to the rocket. That wasn't some later innovation. Look at the illustrations of the 1952 Collier craft.
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: markjo on November 09, 2014, 04:03:53 PM
The Collier articles are absolutely describing a technical limitation in rocketry. They need to build them big because they have to be big. As stated in the article, to carry 32 tons the rocket would need to be as big as a light naval cruiser, and goes on to explain how the things we ended up with, the shuttle and other heavy lift rockets with a capacity of around 32 tons, being much smaller.
Tom, what makes you think that rocket technology was perfected at the time of the Collier article?  Those technical limitations of rocketry that you're describing had a lot to do with the general technical limitations of the early 1950s, such as materials technology (lighter and stronger materials) and rocket engine efficiency.  Just look how much rocket technology improved from Goddard's early rockets to Von Braun's V2 design.  What makes you think that further improvements weren't possible?
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: markjo on November 09, 2014, 04:07:01 PM
However, these rockets NASA is claiming to have invented for go against all scientific understanding. Combustion, thermodynamics, and rocket physics was well understood in the early 1950's. The scientists of the time understood what could and could not be done.
Again, what specific claims were going against the current understanding?

Quote
Yes, because when scientists say that something can't be currently done, they are never proven wrong later on as technology improves.  ::)

Technology can't overcome physics.
What makes you believe that 1952 rocket technology was anywhere near the limits of physics?
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: Gulliver on November 09, 2014, 04:58:16 PM
...The ability for a single rocket to reach escape velocity and get to the moon all in a single craft would be an economic impossibility: "That would require, according to von Braun, a rocket taller than the Empire State Building—and ten times the weight of the Queen Mary!"...
Tom, why would we need either to limit ourselves to a single rocket (The first stage of the Saturn V had 4!) and to reach escape velocity (All moon shots are still within the gravity well of earth!)? (Total accuracy disclaimer: some stages of the Apollo missions are in earth-sun orbit.)

You seem to be arguing that it's impossible to get from NYC to LA by walking in less than a month, so it's impossible to get there faster by any other means.

They knew about multiple stages and adding multiple engines per stage to the rocket. That wasn't some later innovation. Look at the illustrations of the 1952 Collier craft.
Well, you unsuccessfully dodged half of my challenge. That they knew of the technique does not save your quote from its fault. Of course, you've not even addressed your red herring of "escape velocity". Please do a better job.
Title: Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"
Post by: garygreen on November 10, 2014, 05:26:31 PM
The Collier articles are absolutely describing a technical limitation in rocketry. They need to build them big because they have to be big. As stated in the article, to carry 32 tons the rocket would need to be as big as a light naval cruiser, and goes on to explain how the things we ended up with, the shuttle and other heavy lift rockets with a capacity of around 32 tons, being much smaller.

Why would they build huge rockets because they wanted to? They had to build them that way because that's what the equations called for. Von Braun complains that to make a single rocket to get to the moon and back would be so big as to be an economic impossibility.

If von Braun is describing an insurmountable technical limitation in the Collier articles, then prove me wrong and show me a quote to that effect.

Von Braun himself says that the Collier articles are only meant to represent designs that are technically possible using only the technology available in 1952.  He doesn't anywhere say that rockets must be so grandiose, nor does he complain that his rockets are an economic impossibility.  He says exactly the opposite of all of that:

Here is von Braun describing a smaller rocket with a lower lift capacity, used to put a 30-foot-tall satellite into orbit in what he describes as the "first step" in space exploration.

NASA didn't launch any 32-ton payloads into orbit in 1958, so I don't see what the problem is.  I, for one, would expect a rocket built in 1952 with a 64,000 lbs payload to be larger than a rocket built in 1958 with a 30 lbs payload.