[KAL_9000]

Hello, all!

I'd like to propose an idea that could prove once and for all whether the Earth is round or flat. I call it Project ESDR (Earth Shape Determining Rocket).

It's simple, really. Since you guys reject photos from space, why don't we take our own?

Let's build a rocket!

DESIGNING A ROCKET: MATH TIME:

Our rocket needs to achieve an altitude of 250,000 feet. This is definitely high enough to see the curvature (or lack thereof, if FET is correct) of the Earth.

4,000 m/s (meters per second, a metric unit of speed) is almost half as fast as rockets accelerate to to get into orbit. It should be more than enough to achieve an altitude equal to or greater than 250,000 feet.

How can we get 4,000 m/s of Δv (change in velocity)? According to Wikipedia, the equation for a rocket's Δv is: Δv = v_eln(m₀/m_f). v_e is the rocket's exhaust velocity or specific impulse, m₀ is the starting mass of the rocket, and m_f is the mass of the rocket after all its fuel is expended. ln is a mathematical term called a natural logarithm.

Let's have the rocket have a m₀ of 1,010 kilograms (1.01 metric tons), and a m_f of 10 kilograms. The rocket's specific impulse will be 92.76, because that's the quoted specific impulse of an efficient model rocket engine. When we run the numbers, we get a Δv of 4198.21 m/s, which is more than enough! Great, we'll need 1 metric ton of fuel and 10 kilograms of payload, which we should be able to do.

Join me next time, where we start working on the rocket's payload and find the right fuel!

[JohnAdams1145]

I'd seriously not advise FE people to build their own rockets. They have denied accepted and heavily-supported science just so they can cling onto the theory that the Earth is flat.  They've said that the Sun is 32 miles wide. They've said that the Sun doesn't use nuclear fusion. They've said the Sun is "electromagnetic" (thus denying stellar nucleosynthesis).

Would you honestly trust one of them to build a rocket for you, given that many are not willing to acknowledge that they have more reading to do? What if they start denying the ideal gas law? Or conservation of energy?

It's already been proposed that they fund together a CubeSat to prove that the Earth is flat (although they'll prove it round). That's never happened. Additionally, there's plenty of amateur rockets already flown rather high, as well as commercial rockets not in control of any government. These have all taken pictures from space. So why waste money "proving" it to them? They'll just say there was some distortion or fisheye lens, or assert that a curve is flat.

[juner]

I'd seriously not advise FE people to build their own rockets. They have denied accepted and heavily-supported science just so they can cling onto the theory that the Earth is flat.  They've said that the Sun is 32 miles wide. They've said that the Sun doesn't use nuclear fusion. They've said the Sun is "electromagnetic" (thus denying stellar nucleosynthesis).

Would you honestly trust one of them to build a rocket for you, given that many are not willing to acknowledge that they have more reading to do? What if they start denying the ideal gas law? Or conservation of energy?

It's already been proposed that they fund together a CubeSat to prove that the Earth is flat (although they'll prove it round). That's never happened. Additionally, there's plenty of amateur rockets already flown rather high, as well as commercial rockets not in control of any government. These have all taken pictures from space. So why waste money "proving" it to them? They'll just say there was some distortion or fisheye lens, or assert that a curve is flat.

While I doubt OP will go anywhere with this thread, keep your rants in the proper forum. If you want to whine about FE, we have places just for that.

Warned.

[ShowmetheProof]

I like how when FE'ers rant it is all perfectly okay, but when a RE'er gets a little excited, it is placed in Angry Ranting.

[Rounder]

We’re in their house.  Don’t like it?  Create your own forum, where roundies can rant and flatties get banned.

Besides, if you want to convince the casual “I just heard about this flat earth thing and wonder if it’s true” reader, maybe you accomplish that more often by sounding like the voice of reason instead of just another shouting troll?

[ShowmetheProof]

I am not a shouting troll. 

[KAL_9000]

I'd seriously not advise FE people to build their own rockets. They have denied accepted and heavily-supported science just so they can cling onto the theory that the Earth is flat.  They've said that the Sun is 32 miles wide. They've said that the Sun doesn't use nuclear fusion. They've said the Sun is "electromagnetic" (thus denying stellar nucleosynthesis).

Would you honestly trust one of them to build a rocket for you, given that many are not willing to acknowledge that they have more reading to do? What if they start denying the ideal gas law? Or conservation of energy?

It's already been proposed that they fund together a CubeSat to prove that the Earth is flat (although they'll prove it round). That's never happened. Additionally, there's plenty of amateur rockets already flown rather high, as well as commercial rockets not in control of any government. These have all taken pictures from space. So why waste money "proving" it to them? They'll just say there was some distortion or fisheye lens, or assert that a curve is flat.

While I doubt OP will go anywhere with this thread, keep your rants in the proper forum. If you want to whine about FE, we have places just for that.

Warned.

Actually, Mister or Miss junker, I plan to go somewhere.
Namely, SPACE! (Or, y'know, get some of you guys to build a rocket to go to space)

[KAL_9000]

I'd seriously not advise FE people to build their own rockets. They have denied accepted and heavily-supported science just so they can cling onto the theory that the Earth is flat.  They've said that the Sun is 32 miles wide. They've said that the Sun doesn't use nuclear fusion. They've said the Sun is "electromagnetic" (thus denying stellar nucleosynthesis).

Would you honestly trust one of them to build a rocket for you, given that many are not willing to acknowledge that they have more reading to do? What if they start denying the ideal gas law? Or conservation of energy?

It's already been proposed that they fund together a CubeSat to prove that the Earth is flat (although they'll prove it round). That's never happened. Additionally, there's plenty of amateur rockets already flown rather high, as well as commercial rockets not in control of any government. These have all taken pictures from space. So why waste money "proving" it to them? They'll just say there was some distortion or fisheye lens, or assert that a curve is flat.

If they want to blow themselves up, it's not my problem .
I'm giving basic design advice for a rocket, not building it for them.

[6or1/2Dozen]

Don't waste your time planning for 250,000 ft, that's not high enough.

The CSXT 'GOFast' launched 2014 reaching an altitude of 73.1 miles (verified to .6 miles at 95% confidence).



Take a minute to read the comments section on it...

[KAL_9000]

Don't waste your time planning for 250,000 ft, that's not high enough.

The CSXT 'GOFast' launched 2014 reaching an altitude of 73.1 miles (verified to .6 miles at 95% confidence).



Take a minute to read the comments section on it...

Ah, but the CSXT 'GOFast' had a NASA-brand fisheye lens (or so they claim)...

[KAL_9000]

Last time, we did some math and decided on 1 metric ton of fuel and ten kilograms of payload. Let's get started!

REMEMBER: I AM NOT A ROCKET SCIENTIST. I LIKE IT WHEN THINGS CATCH FIRE AND EXPLODE, WHICH MEANS I PROBABLY DON'T HAVE SAFETY AS A PRIMARY CONCERN. PLEASE FOLLOW ALL ROCKET SAFETY RULES!!!

DESIGNING A ROCKET: CHOOSING THE FUEL

The simplest fuel for a solid-fuel rocket (like the type of rocket we plan to build) is gunpowder. However, gunpowder doesn't really work well when the rocket motor is as large as ours will be. A good next option is ammonium perchlorate mixed with aluminum powder and hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene, which is a high-performance rocket fuel with a relatively low cost. This fuel has a higher efficiency (higher specific impulse) than model rocket motors, so we can probably get more Δv out of the rocket than I originally thought.

DESIGNING A ROCKET: THE PAYLOAD

Remember, the combined mass of our payload must be lighter than ten kilograms.

We need a computer chip to control our rocket. A Raspberry Pi 3 Model B+ should more than suffice. WEIGHT: 42g

We need a camera to document the shape of the Earth. Let's use a GoPro. WEIGHT: 147g

With structural supports and a parachute, the weight should be under ten kilos.

[douglips]

I think we should just crowdfund tickets on Virgin Galactic for a flat Earther or two - that should be sufficient.

[ShowmetheProof]

The main problem is the cost. 
Raspberry Pi 3:$35.00
GoPro 3:$249.99
Metric Ton of Ammonium Perchlorate(Average):$2550
Total:$2834.99
Would TFES fund this Rocket?  Knowing it could bring them down, put them in more ridicule then they're in right now, and that it would cost more than twenty-eight hundred dollars?  Would they risk it?  Would they be ready to have to accept the truth, in their favor or not?   It doesn't cost much, but it could cost them a lot.  I don't think so. 

[juner]

I like how when FE'ers rant it is all perfectly okay, but when a RE'er gets a little excited, it is placed in Angry Ranting.

Take your off-topic whining to somewhere other than the upper fora. Warned.

I am not a shouting troll. 

2nd warning.

[6or1/2Dozen]

GoFast specs from (2 sources):

http://www.astronautix.com/g/gofast.html

Payload: 18 kg (39 lb). Gross mass: 350 kg (770 lb) ... Apogee: 124 km (77 mi).

The solid propellant motor for the rocket was designated S-50000 and was loaded with 196 kg lbs of ammonium perchlorate-based propellant configured in a monolithic case-bonded grain with a central fin-o-cyl core with a nearly neutral thrust profile. The case was aluminum 6061 with an outer diameter of 25 cm and 4.45 m long. The end closures were retained with two rows of radial bolts. The nozzle was created from a new process using a combination of graphite, carbon fiber, and ablative materials and featured a bell shaped exit cone. Following subscale tests, the final full sized motor delivered a total impulse of 44,000 kgf-sec with a total motor weight of 272 kg.

http://ddeville.com/derek/CSXT.htm

The "GoFast" Rocket

Diameter:   10" OD

Length:   21 feet

Liftoff weight:   724 lbs

Propellant weight:   435 lbs

Motor Classification:   S-50,150

Max Altitude:   72 miles

Max Velocity:   Mach 5

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a 1000kg of ammonium perchlorate is a bit of an over-estimation. Seem like about 200kg would be more than enough get the job done with a 18kg payload. We've already seen what a 250,000+ ft rocket looks like and probably have enough information to reverse-engineer the specific impulse of the motor.

On a side note:

The GoPro needs scrapped though (something about "a NASA-brand fisheye lens[es]"). The camera needs a rectilinear lens, which tend to be more expensive (and heavier).

It's already demonstrated that 380,000 ft isn't enough to demonstrate unmistakable roundness, maybe sticking with the extra fuel to get some extra height might?

[JohnAdams1145]

The point I was trying to make, although in not the most appropriate way, was that it would be redundant to try to build your own rocket to try to prove the Earth is round when it's been done already by many others. It won't work, primarily because of the degree of proof required by Flat Earthers and the innumerable ad hoc explanations they make for virtually every observation that doesn't conform with their beliefs.

Essentially, your logical argument of "I sent a rocket into space and here are the pictures" would be no different than the argument "look at all the YouTube videos of amateurs who have sent rockets really high and they clearly show curvature" and therefore wouldn't present new evidence to the debate.

[KAL_9000]

The point I was trying to make, although in not the most appropriate way, was that it would be redundant to try to build your own rocket to try to prove the Earth is round when it's been done already by many others. It won't work, primarily because of the degree of proof required by Flat Earthers and the innumerable ad hoc explanations they make for virtually every observation that doesn't conform with their beliefs.

Essentially, your logical argument of "I sent a rocket into space and here are the pictures" would be no different than the argument "look at all the YouTube videos of amateurs who have sent rockets really high and they clearly show curvature" and therefore wouldn't present new evidence to the debate.

No, I'm telling THEM how to do it.