NASA SLS hot fire test. NASA test the four Block 2 RS-25 engines of the new SLS Moon rocket core stage.

[Icke-Kia]

 

[cannon_gray]

I guess the fundamental question they'll be looking at is whether SLS is so expensive because of the contractors working on it (ie could a little NewSpace™ magic fix this) or because the architecture is fundamentally expensive. I suspect the answer is both, even if the hydrolox-sustainer + SRB architecture was economically comparable, the use of the RS-25 dooms the budget.

[oz93666]

Still testing , testing !?....

 

80 years after Hitler showed he had master rocket technology by impacting  thousands of V2's on London ,

 NASA is still Testing rocket engines .. despite itself having fired quiet a few rockets ....

 

A rocket is the very simplest of devices , it's just an empty chamber into which two reactants are pumped and ignited.

 

 

No moving parts , nothing to go wrong , only the pumps ...simple pumps for delivering fluid reactants ....

 

An Internal combustion engine or a jet engine is infinitely more complex with hundreds of moving parts , yet we don't have planes exploding and falling from the sky , or cars constantly breaking down ....

 

This is all about the ET controllers preventing public access to Space .....They don't mind us moving on the surface or in Earth's  atmosphere ....

 

So NASA can show their latest test , and the public will be mesmerized by the roar and power  and not ask ...  "Why are they still testing?"

[screamingeagle]

45 minutes ago, oz93666 said:

Why are they still testing?"

pushing back the development of the society,same goes for FIA push of "hidrogen engines"

 

spending money in usless way or the least efficient 

[Icke-Kia]

11 hours ago, oz93666 said:

Still testing , testing !?....

 

80 years after Hitler showed he had master rocket technology by impacting  thousands of V2's on London ,

 NASA is still Testing rocket engines .. despite itself having fired quiet a few rockets ....

 

A rocket is the very simplest of devices , it's just an empty chamber into which two reactants are pumped and ignited.

 

 

No moving parts , nothing to go wrong , only the pumps ...simple pumps for delivering fluid reactants ....

 

An Internal combustion engine or a jet engine is infinitely more complex with hundreds of moving parts , yet we don't have planes exploding and falling from the sky , or cars constantly breaking down ....

 

This is all about the ET controllers preventing public access to Space .....They don't mind us moving on the surface or in Earth's  atmosphere ....

 

So NASA can show their latest test , and the public will be mesmerized by the roar and power  and not ask ...  "Why are they still testing?"

Aircraft Engines are tested before and after fitting as are car engines and they've made a few of those. Formula one teams do massive amounts of testing but look at how many cars breakdown.

Only 46 RS-25s have ever flown, a small amount by comparison. I dont think an 8 minute test of each new engine is over the top.

Edit Are you claiming rocketry is easy?

Edited April 14, 2021 by Icke-Kia

[screamingeagle]

1 hour ago, Icke-Kia said:

Edit Are you claiming rocketry is easy?

i would guess.....what needs to be known about rocket tech,is known

they are going in circles,calling it progres...

[oz93666]

8 hours ago, Icke-Kia said:

Aircraft Engines are tested before and after fitting as are car engines and they've made a few of those. Formula one teams do massive amounts of testing but look at how many cars breakdown.

Only 46 RS-25s have ever flown, a small amount by comparison. I dont think an 8 minute test of each new engine is over the top.

Edit Are you claiming rocketry is easy?

 

I can understand the fascination with rockets and space Icke-kia ...But what is much more fascinating is the truth about what is really going on in space ....

 

The Secret Government has had anti-gravity propulsion for over 70 years ...They have vast fleets of craft , bases throughout the solar system ... This is beyond any doubt , we have close to 100  reliable whistle-blowers , all telling a similar story 

 

 

[Icke-Kia]

 

22 hours ago, screamingeagle said:

i would guess.....what needs to be known about rocket tech,is known

they are going in circles,calling it progres...

And yet Musk has spent millions of his own money developing a new engine (Raptor) which is being impoved on with each new batch.

Rocketry is always moving forward and even with the best trained minds and massive budgets things still sometimes fail and people still loose their lives.

More testing is whats needed if we want spacecraft to be like planes.

Edited April 15, 2021 by Icke-Kia
Double quote

[screamingeagle]

1 hour ago, Icke-Kia said:

 

And yet Musk has spent millions of his own money developing a new engine (Raptor) which is being impoved on with each new batch.

Rocketry is always moving forward and even with the best trained minds and massive budgets things still sometimes fail and people still loose their lives.

More testing is whats needed if we want spacecraft to be like planes.

in engineering there is always place for improvment..... "know how"  but the basics are the same....

 

Musk had to spent "his own" money because the cult which enabeled him to make that money, told him so.....to push nwo,diystopian society 

[Icke-Kia]

22 hours ago, screamingeagle said:

in engineering there is always place for improvment..... "know how"  but the basics are the same....

 

Musk had to spent "his own" money because the cult which enabeled him to make that money, told him so.....to push nwo,diystopian society 

Understanding the basics is easy a kid could do it, getting them to work in a space program is the hard part. 

 

[screamingeagle]

37 minutes ago, Icke-Kia said:

Understanding the basics is easy a kid could do it, getting them to work in a space program is the hard part. 

i agree......but

 

 70ish years of rocket enigines,i think they know what are they doing...

they also know how inferior that techno is (for space trave)

 

they are "reinventing"  space race because of need a cover story for tons of satelite launch

[Icke-Kia]

How many raptors have gone bang so far?

 

How does SpaceX's launching of satellite's tie in with the new spac race?

[The Illuminator]

Wow, so many nasa fan boys on this site. Sad times.

[oddsnsods]

52 minutes ago, The Illuminator said:

Wow, so many nasa fan boys on this site. Sad times.

 

This thread is a year old.

[The Illuminator]

3 minutes ago, oddsnsods said:

 

This thread is a year old.

 

I appreciate that Odds mate. I've been delving into the bowels of DI and its been uncomfortable reading tbh. We are on a alternative site but have to sift through reems of msm propaganda to get to the good stuff. That is if the discussion is ever allowed to evolve past the entry level shite that the naughty posters want. 

 

 

Saying that though.....not sure what has happened in a year for all those fan boys to tear down their Nasa posters mind.

 

That organisation is as corrupt as they come and are the epitome of what we are fighting against. In my humble of course.

[endfreemasonscum]

But rockets in space?

 

Here is a pretty good conversation between a nasa shill and someone who thinks that illustrates the hoax well...

 

[Arnie]

3 hours ago, endfreemasonscum said:

But rockets in space?

 

Well yes, that's the best place for them to operate. The problem is with those who don't understand very basic laws of motion.

 

I'm sure you understand that if you throw x amount of force in one direction, you will generate an equal amount of force in the opposite. As the rocket carries its own oxidisers and energy, they mix together and basically explode out of a hole in the back. It is an enormous amount of force and consequently enables an enormous amount of mass to be moved in the opposite direction.

 

3 hours ago, endfreemasonscum said:

Here is a pretty good conversation between a nasa shill and someone who thinks that illustrates the hoax well...

 

What exactly is a NASA shill? To me it sounds like some phoney label made up by people who don't understand space travel. The guy doesn't even mention NASA and he is arguing with a very poorly educated person who thinks rockets work by pushing off of something (I know, really daft isn't it), I'm sure you don't think this.

 

He makes a good point though about station keeping as mass increases. The mass being joined to the station, luckily carries the same orbital intertia so needs no positive adjustment, but where the station drops into a lower orbit, more power on the thrusters would be required. The energy generated by the chemical reactions involved is vastly more than the actual mass.

 

Hope that helps.

Edited September 4, 2022 by Arnie

[Arnie]

1 hour ago, Arnie said:

It is an enormous amount of force and consequently enables an enormous amount of mass to be moved in the opposite direction.

 Oops, typing too quickly, that should say energy. The mass has enormous velocity.

[The Illuminator]

5 hours ago, Arnie said:

 

Well yes, that's the best place for them to operate. The problem is with those who don't understand very basic laws of motion.

 

I'm sure you understand that if you throw x amount of force in one direction, you will generate an equal amount of force in the opposite. As the rocket carries its own oxidisers and energy, they mix together and basically explode out of a hole in the back. It is an enormous amount of force and consequently enables an enormous amount of mass to be moved in the opposite direction.

 

 

What exactly is a NASA shill? To me it sounds like some phoney label made up by people who don't understand space travel. The guy doesn't even mention NASA and he is arguing with a very poorly educated person who thinks rockets work by pushing off of something (I know, really daft isn't it), I'm sure you don't think this.

 

He makes a good point though about station keeping as mass increases. The mass being joined to the station, luckily carries the same orbital intertia so needs no positive adjustment, but where the station drops into a lower orbit, more power on the thrusters would be required. The energy generated by the chemical reactions involved is vastly more than the actual mass.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Arnie, have you been to space? Chances are you haven't. So you are basically going off someone else's account. When said someone is a proven habitual liar and fraudster. Why would you take anything they say seriously?

 

In this day and age of life manipulation, media fakery, government overreach etc. How could anyone with a sane mind and critical disposition not question everything they have been force fed since birth? 

 

Next you'll be saying but but but did you see that tesla in space........

[Arnie]

15 minutes ago, The Illuminator said:

Arnie, have you been to space? Chances are you haven't. So you are basically going off someone else's account.

 

That is a very poor argument. Have you ever been to the top of Everest, bottom of the Sea, in Concorde...it's a crap statement. I go by volume, supporting evidence, data, and the virtually insane chance of so many people lying. What exactly IS your claim here?

 

15 minutes ago, The Illuminator said:

When said someone is a proven habitual liar and fraudster. Why would you take anything they say seriously?

 

Do you understand the nature of circular reasoning? I don't accept that they are habitual liars or fraudsters, and just maybe you've been sucked into believing the wrong fraudsters. That would be the people claiming the fraud.

 

15 minutes ago, The Illuminator said:

In this day and age of life manipulation, media fakery, government overreach etc. How could anyone with a sane mind and critical disposition not question everything they have been force fed since birth?

 

Yeah, exactly, I bet you anything that you do not apply any of that thinking to stuff that reinforces what you already believe.

 

15 minutes ago, The Illuminator said:

Next you'll be saying but but but did you see that tesla in space........

 

Next I'll be making you the same offer as someone else that got turned down. Give me just one piece of your so called habitual lies and fraud. One item at a time, can you do that? Debate it for real. So show me your undebunkable piece of evidence.

 

Edited September 4, 2022 by Arnie