Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Richard Branson offers his thoughts on UFOs

83 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

stereologist
2 minutes ago, toast said:

Thats not correct. The distance Earth/Moon is ca. 0,0025AU. The Voyager 1 probe, which is now at a distance of 146AU to Earth, was launched on a Titan 3 rocket which had only 26% of the thrust of the Saturn V. Every carrier that is able to reach the third cosmic velocity and every carrier that is able to reach the second cosmic velocity and uses gravity-assist on planets in the solar system can, in theory, reach every point in the universe. But time is doing the trick here.

It's the gravity assist that helps and also the size of the payload. The Voyagers and other satellites that have gone out far are much smaller than the command module and LEM were.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Minimalists
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, toast said:

Thats not correct. The distance Earth/Moon is ca. 0,0025AU. The Voyager 1 probe, which is now at a distance of 146AU to Earth, was launched on a Titan 3 rocket which had only 26% of the thrust of the Saturn V. Every carrier that is able to reach the third cosmic velocity and every carrier that is able to reach the second cosmic velocity and uses gravity-assist on planets in the solar system can, in theory, reach every point in the universe. But time is doing the trick here.

Never claimed to be a damn Astronomer did I. 

Edited by Minimalists
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
9 minutes ago, stereologist said:

It's the gravity assist that helps and also the size of the payload. The Voyagers and other satellites that have gone out far are much smaller than the command module and LEM were.

Yeah, of course, but I wanted to explain the carrier Saturn V itself to be powerful enough to reach destinations far beyond the Moon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
2 minutes ago, Minimalists said:

Never claimed to be a damn Astronomer did I.

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists
Just now, toast said:

No.

Have a nice day...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
9 hours ago, stereologist said:

That's not the issue at all. It is not reliability.

The issue is that it is not possible to provide enough fuel to make the journey to the nearest star in a century.

 

Not sure about that, l am pretty sure the Late Stephen Hawking, wouldn't have just made up a big ship, without doing some maths first?

8 hours ago, stereologist said:

The Apollo 11 mission was 8 days 3 hours 18 minutes and 35 seconds. During that time the Saturn V only burned for 17 minutes and 8 seconds.

The video in question shows a rocket that is going by Neptune with the implication that the rocket has been burning nonstop.

The fastest object in our solar system is Oumuamua. In a little under 2 years it is 10AU out. Neptune is 30AU out. Let's say it took 1 1/2 years for it to get to where it is. Then it is 4 1/2 years to get to Neptune. Even if this hypothetical rocket is much, much faster it is a year or more out to the orbit of Neptune. That requires over 30,000 Saturn Vs to burn for that period of time. 

Actually, it takes way more because you need fuel to be pushing the heavy fuel.

Clearly, the rocket in the video was not a conventional rocket.

The video showed flying past Neptune within a week, and Alpha Centauri, within 4 years. and sure the ship would weight a lot, but as they said, it builds up more and more speed, over time.

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
Just now, tmcom said:

Not sure about that, l am pretty sure the Late Stephen Hawking, wouldn't have just made up a big ship, without doing some maths first?

The video showed flying past Neptune within a week, and Alpha Centauri, within 4 years. and sure the ship would weight a lot, but as they said, it builds up more and more speed, over time.

B)

I have already shown that the ship would have had to have been thousands of times larger just to keep the thrust going and that would have not accelerated the ship to the speeds suggested by the video.

Your appeal to Hawking has no bearing on the issue. Where does it state that the rocket is a chemical rocket?

There isn't enough fuel in the known universe for a chemical rocket. Clearly, the rocket is not a chemical rocket.

Please provide evidence to support your case. So far you have provided nothing but a video which does not support your case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

To tmcom. You seem to be having some trouble understanding what was written. Here is what I wrote.

Quote

I heard on a podcast that if you wanted to reach Proxima Centari in 100 years with a chemical rocket you would have to have more fuel than the matter in the known universe. 

For those with the instant response of that's BS realize that the limit is 100 years. You have to get the rocket up to speed and then slowed down to accomplish the task in 100 years. That involves a lot of fuel and fuel that does nothing more than push fuel as well as pushing the payload. The fuel requirements increase exponentially which is why chemical rockets cannot get us there in a century.

You have completely failed to comprehend what was in the video. You have failed to understand that my comment was about chemical rockets.

You need to read posts and undertand that the video you used does not address the comment I made.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.