[markjo]

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.

[Rama Set]

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?

[Tom Bishop]

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.

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.

[Hoppy]

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.

[garygreen]

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?

[markjo]

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. 

[markjo]

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.

[Rama Set]

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.

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?

[Gulliver]

...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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

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.

[Tom Bishop]

...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.

[markjo]

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?

[markjo]

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?

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?

[Gulliver]

...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.

[garygreen]

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:

“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.”

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.

Before take-off, the satellite vehicle will resemble one of today's high-altitude rockets, except that it will be about three times as big—150 feet tall, and 30 feet wide at the base. After take-off it will become progressively smaller, because it actually will consist of three rockets—or stages—one atop another, two of which will be cast away after delivering their full thrust. The vehicle will take off vertically and then tilt into a shallow path nearly parallel to the earth. Its course will be over water at first, so the first two stages won't fall on anyone  after they're dropped, a few minutes after take-off.

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.