ENDEAVOUR - the 30-year Space Shuttle hoax

[hoi.polloi]

Well, because Simon -- the rocket's fuel builds up upon itself, and since the fuel is already going 4km/s, it can double it by pushing off of the fastest fuel. Double the fuel, and double the acceleration. It's math. Why can't you do math? NASA is clearly wrong that the thrust does not build upon itself.

Or wait, that's not it. Let's see, the uh, er, well, the ... hey what's that behind you? Is that a Holocaust Denier? Eeek! Eeeeeeek! (dash)


Farewell Jachin! Farewell Baez! The towers have been falling for years and we never noticed.

Sorry, I am in a silly mood. In all seriousness, I think NASA tries to work in the idea that the Earth's spin and its gravity eventually aid in some way to 'spin away' from the rocket and "help" put it into orbit after a certain distance. How do they get away with such fuzzy numbers?

Simple: by accelerating to the edge of known reasoned argument and orbiting there.

Since astrophysics gets directly into the whole strange problem of whether the Earth actually spins (for which there appears to be no strict evidence yet) and how gravity actually works (for which there are presently contradictory perspectives), NASA could conceivably futz with things in the unknowns and come up with something that nobody could possibly afford to investigate — save themselves. Which, in fact, appears to be just exactly what they have done.

Too bad for them their animations look like Disney fantasy or it might have worked out longer, maybe?

[Heiwa]

Thereafter, between 45km of altitude and 110km of altitude, the Shuttle's on-board engines took over, supplying the thrust needed to accelerate from 1,35km/s to the staggering velocity of 8km/s (in spite of a max exhaust speed of 4.4Km/s)and all the while battling against Earth's gravity + aerodynamic drag - with this little fuel tank still attached underneath it...


Truly fascinating, isn't it?

Yes, evidently every US Space Shuttle launch is an empty mock-up disappearing in the sky leaving just smoke behind, because a Space Shuttle is too heavy to carry the required fuel to get into, e.g. ISS orbit ... and can never carry out a re-entry, as discussed elsewhere on CF.
Only the French Ariane 5 rockets can put light satellites into orbit using much, much more fuel. Reason is that rockets actually work (in vacuum), because, e.g. the exhaust velocity of the mass of hot gas (producing the thrust/force) is always relative to the moving rocket itself. If the rocket is moving at 8 000 m/s relative Earth and the exhaust is at 4 400 m/s relative the rocket, the exhaust is at 12 400 m/s speed relative Earth. Simple mathematics.

[simonshack]

Only the French Ariane 5 rockets can put light satellites into orbit using much, much more fuel.

The French must be smarter!

[simonshack]

*

Hmm, no. The French aren't any wiser after all.
They actually carry LESS fuel (proportionally) than the Shuttle.


SPACE SHUTTLE http://www.howstuffworks.com/rocket2.htm

LAUNCH MASS: 2.000.000kg

SRB fuel mass: 500.000kg
ET fuel mass: 616.000kg
total fuel mass: 1.116.000kg ( % of launch mass = 55,8%)



ARIANE 5 http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/e ... pecs.shtml

LAUNCH MASS: 710.000kg

SRB fuel mass; 230.000kg
VULCAIN fuel mass: 155.000kg
AESTUS fuel mass: 9700kg
total fuel mass: 394.700kg ( % of launch mass = 55,6%)

[simonshack]

*

ARIANE LAUNCH:

The French rocket expert clearly says here (at 2:00 into the video) :

"EACH booster is burning 2tons (2000kg) of propellant per second".

So that's 2000kg burning every second? From EACH of the two main boosters? Mon Dieu! That'll give the Ariane only 99seconds worth of life before it runs totally dry!!! (2000kgX99secsX2boosters = 396.000kg). C'est la catastrophe!


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FbyM0f6y_M

But hey, the French expert's name is 'Simon'. Perhaps he is just totally clueless?


°°°°°°°°
2000kg X 99secs X 2boosters = 396.000kg - VERY simple maths!

[Starbucked]

The fact, or at least likelihood that satellites exist in orbit, and in a vacuum is probably enough evidence to suggest that rocketry got them there (as opposed to balloons or whatnot).
So would that not be irrefutable evidence, as per Heiwa's info, that rockets work in a vacuum?

At least with that Ariane 5 launch video (thanks Simon, I was just going to upload that) I see a real looking event taking place (At least until it is beyond camera range.) and that French launch crew doesn't look like extras from Hollywood casting.

By comparison, the latest from China, the Shenzhou-10 "launch", actually jammed my BS meter!


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LndYEpfr1UA

I love this new chapter from China. I'm sure the rest of the chapters of this story will continue without incident.

Will the Chinese space station be added to "Fakery In Orbit" or will it merit a new topic?

[hoi.polloi]

The fact, or at least likelihood that satellites exist in orbit, and in a vacuum ...

Both the premise of the statement and the statement itself are false, from my point of view.

For your premise: satellites, in my opinion, do not seem to sustain enough evidence that they exist in the form they are depicted by their ground imagery. As for what the glowing lights in the sky are, there are many alternatives. It seems the world governments pull no punches in keeping true science in an obsolete paradigm. Why not airplanes? Balloons? Powerful jets? Any of the above with mirrors? Near Earth Asteroids? Meteorites?

As for rockets even reaching orbit, if it were possible, I do not think it necessarily implies satellites as being plausible. More plausible, but not relatively plausible compared to the potential problems. Furthermore, should we really use one mysterious science (satellites) to inflate the value of another mysterious science (spacecraft and astrophysics)? That seems like the "pile it on" method of justifying false sciences and superstitions we've faced in recent years, such as, "evolution must be real because ... dinosaur bones!"

Getting back to why rocketry doesn't even prove satellites; for instance, are space walks possible? What kind of radiation do the astronauts face? Why are they depicted in bright sunlight if gamma rays, intense x-rays or other waves are so dangerous? Shouldn't all space walks be safely conducted in the pitch darkness of Earth's umbra using headlamps? Do de-pressurized cargo bays open up, the robot arm sends the satellite on its way, then the satellite safely navigates the rest of the way in case of meteorites as small as sand traveling like bullets through the ionosphere crossing its path? What is the effect of radiation at such a height? Why aren't consumers given better information about what they are paying for? Could it be that people don't care as long as they address the bill and the BoobTube turns on?

Until these questions are answered, antenna, ground wave, sky wave and cable systems presently explain all possible long-range communication without the need for such expensive gadgetry. Do they not? If you disagree, please bring your refutations and explanations to the satellite thread: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1070

Make sure you've read the whole thing to catch up on the arguments, please.

As for craft copying [st]Disney's[/st] [st]NASA's[/st] huckster Von Braun's system of rocketry, well, what's the point of sending things beyond camera range? Growing space microbes? Supporting NASA's mathematical simulation model for the universe because none of us can refute it with our own rockets?

Wait a minute. Hmm.

[sceppy]

Take a look at any 'real' rocket lift off and what you will always see is an 'immediate' acceleration. This is the key to actually getting a rocket into the air to fight through the friction and its own weight of construction and fuel, because it creates an immediate low pressure friction all the way down its sides, which is key to its stability 'vertically.'
Also, the immediate acceleration is because of the dense atmosphere at ground level...plus, the solid ground itself.
Basically, it's a springboard.
Once that springboard action is used up...the rocket continues at that speed until it's fuel is used.
It cannot gain speed, unless more thrust is added, which cannot be done, because it has to use 'maximum' thrust on lift off.
The reason it can keep its same vertical speed, is a mixture of happenings.
1.The rocket gets lighter, the higher it goes.
2.The upper air friction gets weaker, the higher it goes.
Couple that against the nozzle staying the same shape, plus the same thrust, ensures that it keeps a constant speed.

Any rocket launch that you see as a slow start, is bogus.
You will only ever see a slow rocket launch, on video...never in real life.

[hoi.polloi]

Any rocket launch that you see as a slow start, is bogus.

When I played with Estes rockets as a little kid, I experienced rocketry as something more like this. The contacts complete a circuit - blowing off a controlled explosion - the whole long bullet suddenly going off at top speed and slowly decelerating until it hit the top of its short-range arc and the nose was forced to come out from pressure. Well, hopefully, since otherwise the parachute wouldn't deploy.

This toy is a far cry from complex rocket science, but I've never seen an Estes rocket hover in place, slowly building up momentum like Fred Flintstone with his invincible feet and then take off. It's all momentum, all at once, right away.

[simonshack]

Take a look at any 'real' rocket lift off and what you will always see is an 'immediate' acceleration.
Any rocket launch that you see as a slow start, is bogus.

Absolutely right, dear Sceppy :


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxgMhHOaUSY

This amateur rocket built by Steve Eves in 2009 was a 1/10 scale replica of the (in)famous "SaturnV" which allegedly landed three asstronots on the moooon (distance: 400.000km) - and back...

Steve's rocket achieved an altitude of 1,35km (4440ft) http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... ts/4315103

Enough said?

[sceppy]

It's very easy for intelligent people to be duped by this rocketry and how it's supposed to work, against how it really works, because all kinds of variations of Newtons laws get thrown into the mix.
To find out the truth about something, the best place to start, 'is at the start', which is lift off, for a rocket.

A jet plane is a winged horizontal rocket with wheels.
When a plane gains momentum along the runway...it can only lift its mass, once its speed can create more low pressure air over the wings, so that the high pressure air under them can lift them.
Basically, the air has to push the wings up.
Now this is key to how rockets work, as in pushing up, as it's the same...only vertically under a rockets super hot immensely low pressure void which is created and is attacked or pushed back in a nano second race to fill its super mass ejection.

It does this in a cone like manner, meaning the hotter gas at the nozzle speedily barges the incoming attacking denser pressure out of the way and does this in a stream, dictated by the shape of the rocket nozzle which as we know, is in itself like a cone.

So think of the air pressure under the rocket, sort of acting like a massive conical flask, allowing the hot air to get inside of it and allowing it to span out into a wider area...and as this happens...the gases are cooling... and the more they cool, the more reactionary force is acting against them.
It's so nano second fast that it becomes hard to explain fully and is the reason why people underestimate the power of atmospheric pressure.

To give a simple analogy, is to imagine an Olympic sprinter ( burning thrust) trying to run through a conical flask shaped crowd of people (atmospheric pressure) moving towards him.
He will barge through the lesser number in the neck shape but the sheer mass of the spanning out crowd will eventually grip him and carry him forward, basically making him a part of their density.

Imagine this happening for miles... and that's what thrust does against atmospheric pressure and what atmospheric pressure does back.

This action/reaction gets used in the wrong context and that's why people get really confused.
This is why rockets cannot "ever" work in a vacuum.

[simonshack]

*

All of the 135 shuttle cartoons at once.
Get ready for a psychedelic experience :


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkMWUP9XP-o

A tip of my hat to Robin for this 'historical' mosaic


And here's an animated gif I made a while ago - just as a
reminder of what those Shuttle animations looked like...

[Heiwa]

*

ARIANE 5 http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/e ... pecs.shtml

LAUNCH MASS: 710.000kg

SRB fuel mass; 230.000kg
VULCAIN fuel mass: 155.000kg
AESTUS fuel mass: 9700kg
total fuel mass: 394.700kg ( % of launch mass = 55,6%)

Actually the Ariane 5 launch mass may be 770 000 kg incl. 16 000 kg pay load (a satellite). The remainder 754 000 kg is mainly fuel. The rocket tanks/engines, etc. may have mass 24 000 kg, so it seems you need to burn 730 000 kg fuel to get 16 000 kg pay load into LEO using an Ariane 5. Say it will cost $160 million, then to get 1 kg into LEO cost $ 10 000:- . Or to get 1 kg into LEO you need to burn 46 kg fuel.
The US/NASA were 4.6 times better with their Saturn 5 1969. They only needed 10 kg fuel to get one 1 kg into LEO (that could then speed off to the Moon).
I always wonder why the French cannot make the Ariane 5 less fuel consuming and on par with Saturn 5 44 years ago.

[Boethius]

*

HOW DID THE SHUTTLES ACHIEVE ESCAPE VELOCITY?


The Space Shuttle, weighing 2million kg at launch, apparently used the most advanced liquid fuel (hydrogen/oxygen) propellants known to mankind - with an exhaust velocity of 4.4km/s.(15.840km/h)

NASA told us that a Space Shuttle would detach itself from its main tank at 110km altitude ("MECO" - Main Engine Cutoff) at which point its rockets were switched off - having reached a velocity of approx 8km/s.(28.800km/h)

"The most advanced liquid-fuelled chemical rockets today produce an exhaust velocity of, at best, 4.5 km/s. There is nowhere else to go: this is close to the theoretical limit of chemical energy extraction."
(source: see link to book below)

So the obvious question is: how did the Shuttle achieve a speed of 8 km/s with a max exhaust velocity of 4.4 km/s?

The only 'explanation' I've been able to find so far is from a book called "Rocket and Spacecraft Propulsion: Principles, Practice and New Developments". However, it is clearly meant to be referring to a rocket "performing in the vacuum of space" - and cannot possibly apply to a 2million kg spacecraft still battling against gravity and aerodynamic drag :


http://books.google.it/books?id=xBYYasV ... .6&f=false

To be sure, here it is once again...
Newton's 2nd Law:"Force is equal to mass times acceleration (for constant mass). An object will accelerate in the direction of any net force applied to it. The greater the force, the greater the acceleration. The greater the mass, the slower the acceleration."

Hello again, simon!

I shall try to answer your question about the rocket moving faster than it's exhaust, with the caveat that I'm only talking about rockets traveling through the atmosphere of course

First, an observation about the book "Rocket and Spacecraft Propulsion: Principles, Practice and New Developments" which says:

exhaust [...] once it has left the nozzle of the rocket engine has no further effect on the rocket

This, I agree is the case with rockets in a vacuum.
However, this statement doesn't agree with the sceppy model of rockets in the atmosphere, which I believe has legs.
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... &start=300

OK, here we go
Using (and not abusing) our man Newton we see that F=MA (Force = Mass x Acceleration)

If, in our rocket, Force = 1, Mass = 1 and Acceleration = 1 then:
1 = 1 x 1

If the rocket mass drops to .5 while the exhaust still produces the same amount of force then:
1 = .5 x 2
The rocket has doubled it's acceleration and can start to move faster then the exhaust velocity

Given that a rocket is something like 95+% fuel this analysis is reasonable

Now, what happens when the rocket's velocity surpasses its exhaust speed?

Via the Sceppy Model
If a rocket is going up at 1,000 m/s and the exhaust is shooting out at 500 m/s, just to pick some easy numbers, the "sweet spot" of the exhaust plume, where the most work is done by the atmosphere to equalize the low pressure exhaust gas with the high pressure air around it (the sceppy model), will have moved 500 m farther back from the rear of the craft.The exhaust plume shoots out 500 m in one second but the ship has moved an extra 500 m ahead of it.

This means that the force of the thrust will be diminished accordingly because the source of the thrust is farther away from the rear of the ship.

Going back to Newton, the way he was meant to be used, we find that F=MA still holds and that
Force is now, say half = .5
Mass is half = .5
Acceleration must be 1
And the ship's high rate of acceleration is retarded
.5 = .5 x 1

So it seems that once you get your rocket out in front of it's exhaust plume the rocket is going to slow down.

Via the NASA model
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/thrsteq.html

Thrust = Massflow + Difference in pressure between exhaust and atmosphere

When the rocket is accelerated to faster than the exhaust velocity the rocket:
1. the massflow component of thrust is constant because amount of fuel exiting the nozzle per second is constant
2. The pressure differential component increases the higher up the rocket goes because of lower atmospheric pressure

NASA rockets will continue to accelerate and in fact do better the higher up they go (until they run out of fuel)

NB: the NASA model assumes that when the external pressure is 0 (in a vacuum) the pressure differential component is maximized and hence gas-exhaust rockets are perfect for space travel. According to NASA.

[simonshack]

I always wonder why the French cannot make the Ariane 5 less fuel consuming and on par with Saturn 5 44 years ago.

ARIANE CARTOONS

And I wonder how the French cannot make more decent / less absurd cartoons than these:

"ARIANE 5 exploding on June 4, 1996" (after what appears to be 13seconds of flight: the audio track is clearly uninterrupted - in spite of 'camera switch' seen at 11sec):


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYUrqdUyEpI

A longer "video" of same "ARIANE 5 exploding on June 4,1996" (after what appears to be 33seconds of flight) :


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp_D8r-2hwk

According to this article, it exploded after 40 seconds - AT 3700m OF ALTITUDE:

"On June 4, 1996 an unmanned Ariane 5 rocket launched by the European Space Agency exploded just forty seconds after its lift-off from Kourou, French Guiana. Ariane explosion The rocket was on its first voyage, after a decade of development costing $7 billion. The destroyed rocket and its cargo were valued at $500 million."
http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/disasters/ariane.html

In the real world, it would of course take at least 10 seconds for the sound to reach the cameraman. Yet, in both "videos" we hear the sound of the explosion JUST as it occurs visually. The sheer incompetence / stupidity / laziness or plain in-your-face arrogance of whoever animated the two above Ariane cartoons is absolutely breathtaking.

I dearly hope no one will argue that sound travels as fast as light.




*****************
Just more of the same-ol'-same-ol' stoopid special fx imagery ...