Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - JHelzer

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 8  Next >
21
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: It's not all about NASA
« on: August 01, 2018, 05:57:30 AM »
Would you care to elaborate on what "very reasons for existence" you believe that NASA fabricated?

From the wiki...
Quote
There is no Flat Earth Conspiracy. NASA is not hiding the shape of the earth from anyone. The purpose of NASA is not to 'hide the shape of the earth' or 'trick people into thinking it's round' or anything of the sort.

There is a Space Travel Conspiracy. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space. That was the purpose of NASA's creation from the very start: To put ICBMs and other weapons into space (or at least appear to). The motto "Scientific exploration of new frontiers for all mankind" was nothing more than a front.

22
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: It's not all about NASA
« on: July 31, 2018, 03:32:51 AM »
NASA has never launched a rocket or built a space ship. It's a group of contractors.
Where's the "like" button?

23
I don't recall hearing about the idea of shielding UA before.
All I can find is:
Quote
The mass of the earth is thought to shield the objects atop it from the direct force of UA.
It is not surprising ICanScienceThat hasn't heard of it before.  The quote you gave from the wiki is the reference I know about. 

24
Flat Earth Community / Re: Is FET Dangerous?
« on: July 27, 2018, 07:41:56 PM »
Anyway, being a scientist, I find it highly disturbing how silly believes can get and flat-earth has to be one of the top-runners. I don't particularly care if anyone believes in flat earth or not. But I do care when people are stubbornly convinced by nonsense, it is the worst thing you can possibly do. It only leads to misery and disaster, if you pick the wrong thing to be convinced by (luckily, flat-earth is harmless in that regard).
I agree with Sciratio's conclusion, but the views presented are too extreme. Being stubbornly convinced by nonsense is the worst thing you can possibly do?  Nope.  I can think of several things that are worse.  I'd say that presenting extreme values is probably right on par with stubborn nonsense.  Neither are the worst possible.
I do agree that a belief in a divergent earth shape is harmless.

25
...is this a serious hypothesis that I'm expected to pick holes in? Or perhaps this is just wild speculation...
I apologize for being over-sensitive and unclear.
I will try again.

Introduction:
The wiki introduces the concept of a force called universal acceleration which acts on the Earth, but not on objects on the surface.  This replaces the acceleration of our mass toward the Earth due to gravity with an acceleration of the Earth toward us.  The immediate effect is the same in both models.

There is an implicit question.  Why doesn't UA effect both the earth and me?  If it did, I would be weightless above the surface of the earth.
The wiki mentions two possibilities for this: shielding or exponential mass response to UA.

Personal Conjecture:
I like the shielding theory better, so...
If a small mass, for example a rocket, escaped the UA shielding provided by the earth, would it not follow that the UA force would have direct effect and accelerate the mass along with the earth producing the effect we see in the OP video.  What I am suggesting is that what is called low earth orbit could instead be stepping outside the UA shielding above a flat earth.


26
I'm not sure how I'm supposed to take this. Is this a joke, and I'm supposed to laugh along with you? Or is this a serious hypothesis that I'm expected to pick holes in? Or perhaps this is just wild speculation, and I just need to open my mind and imagine what it might be like?
You know that condescending attitude that you try not to have, but everyone tells you you keep doing it?
There it is.

Categorize this under personal conjecture.

27
The Earth is accelerated by UA.
We are shielded from UA and are therefore accelerated by the Earth pushing us along.
If it is possible to escape Earth's shielding, then a body would be accelerated by UA directly and would move synchronously with the Earth.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

28
3. Is there another possibility?
They have escaped the Earth's shielding from Universal Acceleration.

29
 Circumnavigation is performed by moving in a great circle for both FE and RE models.

30
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Water on Mars
« on: July 26, 2018, 05:33:44 PM »
Our technological development has been a case of necessity, not curiosity. Sure, you can claim that "by making it necessary to go to Mars, we can spur technological development" but then we need to remember that all of those things would be built right here on Earth, making going to Mars moot.
Necessity is the mother of invention.  It will be the inventors living on Mars (or the Moon) who learn to develop closed system habitats that fully recycle human waste for reuse.  We can't  develop that on Earth.  There is no need.  It is way too easy to just throw our waste away so we always will.  But once the Mars community develops it there, it will be very helpful in abolishing poverty here on Earth.

31
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Lunar Module
« on: July 25, 2018, 08:57:56 PM »
2) The SpaceX Falcon 9 block 5 is a human rated launch vehicle.
Not yet, it isn't.  It needs to have 7 successful unmanned flights in its final crew configuration before becoming man rated.  To the best of my knowledge, the required updated helium tanks were not included in any of the block 5 launches yet (the third launch was early this morning), so the F9 block 5 still needs at least 7 more launches before it can be man rated.

From spaceflightnow.com
https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/05/11/spacex-debuts-an-improved-human-rated-model-of-the-falcon-9-rocket/

The successful launch propelled SpaceX closer to launching astronauts for NASA, which will fly on the same “Block 5” model of the Falcon 9 rocket that flew Friday
SpaceX engineers also added a permanent fix on the Block 5 upgrade to resolve a concern with turbine wheel cracks inside the Merlin engine’s turbopump, and new helium tanks that are not susceptible to pooling frozen liquid oxygen and friction that led to the explosion of a Falcon 9 rocket on the launch pad in 2016.
Both changes were meant to make the Falcon 9 compliant with NASA human-rating safety standards.

I guess if the Block 5 falcon has launched 3 times, they need 4 more.  The SpaceFlightNow launch schedule says that could be done by the end of August.  So unless SpaceX is planning to spend $42 billion in the next month, they should just come in under the NASA standard for low earth taxi service.

32
Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA going to SUN
« on: July 25, 2018, 06:36:08 PM »
Correct diagnosis.  I definitely had faltering attention on Monday.
Today, with your guidance, I found a different article which described the temperature control systems as something very different than "just like a car radiator".
Many thanks.

33
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Lunar Module
« on: July 25, 2018, 05:53:46 PM »
Projects go over budget all the time.

Add in the fact that NASA had two VERY public fatality incidents with two separate missions, with all the inspection, revision and such that followed, with all the health and safety considerations thereafter, and I'm not surprised at all that they were well over budget.

I know of at least one public transport project in the UK that went three times over its original budget, and that didn't have any loss of life considerations at all ....

Anyone following on from this (SpaceX, etc.) has the benefit of hindsight with respect to what NASA did, and how that affects what they do, so any direct comparison between the pioneering project being more expensive than the project which followed it (both chronologically and logistically) would appear to be moot.   
All well stated.  Your points work very well when a project goes three times over budget.
Don't you join me is questioning when the project goes 8 times over budget?  Or is thirty times more expensive than it needs to be?

Shouldn't NASA be included in organizations that "benefit of hindsight".  I have put effort into not comparing pioneering projects with follower projects.  The SLS booster is comparable to Falcon Heavy.  Orion is comparable to Dragon.  SLS will be comparable to BFR (when they exist).  It's not like I'm comparing Saturn V to Falcon 1.

Yes government costs more, yes human rated costs more.  Twice as much... fine.  Three times over budget... that happens.  I am agreeing with you guys about this.  But what are limits of your ability to just say space is hard and things go over budget?  At some point someone needs to ask what's really going on here.  If 20 times over actual costs is not enough for you what is?

34
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Lunar Module
« on: July 25, 2018, 04:56:02 PM »
You’ve done nothing to show NASA wastes money other than balling at budget sizes.
Comparing budget sizes is a valid method of inspecting claims of wasted money.


35
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Lunar Module
« on: July 25, 2018, 04:53:33 PM »

Do you seriously expected them to be efficient?

Inefficient isn't a good enough descriptor for NASA. Inefficient works for Boeing who will use $4.2 billion to do a job that really takes $2.6 billion to do. If you told me that this comparison is a description of not efficient I would agree.
 

Also, you seem to be ignoring the mission capabilities they are designing the SLS for. They go well beyond the interesting but much more limited SpaceX Falcon 9.

Fine. Apples and oranges. I get it. How about this then... We are being told that it takes $2.6 billion to build a system to deliver people to low earth orbit. All the Space shuttle ever claimed to do was deliveries to low earth orbit. How much did that cost to develop? If they were inefficient, it would have cost $5 billion. Maybe they were REALLY inefficient at $10 billion. Nope. NASA's original cost projection for the Shuttle was $43 billion to develop and $54 million per flight (inflation adjusted to 2011 dollars). These are all projections for space systems that can carry 7 people to low earth orbit.
 
We don't know the actual development cost of the Shuttle program. But we have been told that the actual per flight number didn't end up being $54 million. It's was $450 million. "Not efficient" cannot be an acceptable descriptor of NASA. I'd have to go with "conspiratorial" instead.

36
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Lunar Module
« on: July 25, 2018, 03:51:26 PM »
Why haven't we been back at all? Money, primarily.

A 2005 report by NASA estimated that returning to the moon would cost about $104 billion (which is $133 billion today, with inflation) over about 13 years. The Apollo program cost about $120 billion in today's dollars.

And yet SpaceX developed the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 for $390 million total.
NASA has spent $11.9 billion on SLS so far and it may never get done.

No matter what we may believe about the shape of the earth, we can all agree that NASA's SLS program is fake.
We know that it costs $400 million to develop a rocket (that can launch and land).  What has NASA done with the other 11.5 BILLION?

Do I/we need to point out that the Falcons are not, at present, manned craft, and don't constitute a lunar mission?

Here's an apple. Please compare it to an orange, why don't you?

1) I show you a 1 pound apple next to a 30 pound orange and all you have to say about it is we shouldn't compare apples to oranges?  I call foul on that answer.

2) The SpaceX Falcon 9 block 5 is a human rated launch vehicle.  The Falcon Heavy is supposed to support lunar missions.  Are you sure they're not both oranges? What about BFR?  Is that an apple or an orange?

My point, that NASA makes absurd amounts of money disappear, is still uncontested.  I can understand the argument that it took 120 billion to do something for the first time.  But how can anyone say, "Ok, that sounds fine" when NASA says it will cost $133 billion to do it again?


37
My future kids asking me: "Daddy, did the earth look nice from the windows of the planes of your era?"
I would feel cursed to be born in the post-windows era.
Your future kids will think you were cursed for for growing up in an era without augmented reality.

38
Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA going to SUN
« on: July 23, 2018, 11:51:19 PM »
When I was in college I took a customer service class and it had a strange effect on me.  I started noticing bad customer service everywhere I went.  The kind of thing I had been oblivious to before.  FE has done a little of that for me here.

Quote from: the video from the link in the OP
Here's the technical triumph.  The space craft's thermal regulation system will use just a gallon of water to dissipate heat just like a car radiator

Before coming to this website, I wouldn't notice that, but now I catch things that sound ridiculous.  I am confident that there is a great explanation and model for the probes cooling system with an ordinary gallon of water, but you have to admit that it sounds crazy to say we have a new thermal dispersal system that will allow us to approach the Sun like never before.  It's water in a car radiator.  They invented it a hundred years ago, but we just figured out that we can use it for this too. Who knew?  It's a technical triumph!

39
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Lunar Module
« on: July 23, 2018, 09:27:33 PM »
Why haven't we been back at all? Money, primarily.

A 2005 report by NASA estimated that returning to the moon would cost about $104 billion (which is $133 billion today, with inflation) over about 13 years. The Apollo program cost about $120 billion in today's dollars.

And yet SpaceX developed the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 for $390 million total.
NASA has spent $11.9 billion on SLS so far and it may never get done.

No matter what we may believe about the shape of the earth, we can all agree that NASA's SLS program is fake.
We know that it costs $400 million to develop a rocket (that can launch and land).  What has NASA done with the other 11.5 BILLION?

40
I was wondering how they were going to be able to show a round earth to the upcoming space passengers.
This will do it.  Wide angle lens video "windows".

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 8  Next >