Where did that energy go? It was dumped!
"Dumped" is not a very engineer-like description. Please use the correct terminology, so that there is no ambiguity when it comes to litigating your million-euro fraud. Did that energy leave the system? If not, how should it be properly accounted for in the energy-balance equation so that the total energy is the same on either side of the = sign? If it did leave the system, how should an energy-balance equation for this system correctly account for factors that were once part of the system but were then lost to the environment?
As I and others have repeatedly stated, your energy-balance formulation is wrong because you redefine the system for your end conditions. Subtracting the mass that was ejected overboard, and its associated kinetic energy,
redefines the system for the purposes of balancing energy. Hence your initial and final conditions don't relate to the same system. You need to learn to think abstractly like an engineer, not intuitively like a layman.
What are you trying to say?
We're trying to say that your construction of the energy-balance equation in this case is wrong. We've been saying it for more than 40 pages, and yet you still don't understand.
To illustrate your error we've applied your model to a simpler form of the same problem. Your implied contention is that if you remove mass from the system, you no longer have to consider it part of the system for energy-balance purposes. So what we've done is to remove velocity from the problem by holding it constant (i.e., so that it can be canceled algebraically from both sides of the equation), which allows us also to remove the parts of the equation dealing with propulsion and changes in velocity. The resulting problem has only the mass terms at constant velocity in all cases. That forms a useful base case.
If your model is correct, the energy equations should still balance in this base case. Absent any chemical energy or complicating factors, you're dealing with mass moving at a constant velocity in the initial condition, and mass moving at the same constant velocity in the final condition, with no change in velocity across the equation. But since your model requires us to subtract the separated mass from the system, we end up with less kinetic energy on the right-hand side (final condition) of the equation than there is on the left-hand side (initial condition). Since your model doesn't balance the energy in the base case, it is incorrect. But if we include the separated mass in the final conditions -- which is the proper way to formulate a closed system for energy-balance purposes -- the energy balances in the base case. This proves to us that any valid model for balancing the energy in a spacecraft propulsion system must include the mass and velocity of the exhaust products.
This discussion is getting sillier and sillier.
Indeed, due entirely to your incompetence, arrogance, and stubbornness. We have been telling you the same thing for 40 pages, and you utterly refuse to grasp why your model is incorrect, regardless of how "simple" you've made it. You've failed to take the most elementary step of first validating your model on a simple case, and then arrogantly failed to recognize the value of it when someone else does that work for you.
You've been repeatedly given sources you continue to say don't exist. That is blatantly dishonest. While we may attribute your inability to see the error in your computations to an understandable lack of competence in a highly specialized and demanding field, the bald denial of the existence plainly before your face is evidence either of a criminal motivation to mislead (since you make a monetary offer based in part on the existence of such evidence), or considerable mental dysfunction.
The discussion grows increasingly silly because you keep retreating farther into a world
Like the post about space navigation by sextant and compass and charts at high g (like in a WWII bomber) while swinging into Moon orbit...
I've flown in a B-17 bomber, and it's not what I would call a "high g" experience. The problem with navigating a B-17 is the cramped quarters, not the motion of the airplane. Navigation sightings by any method are not attempted while the aircraft is in anything but straight and level flight.
Similarly Apollo missions didn't attempt optical navigation during accelerated flight. For the SPS burns the crew was strapped into their couches in the CM. And the optical methods by "sextant ... and charts" (no compass) is only the calibration step for the
actual guidance and navigation controls, which were inertial in nature. That task only had to be accomplished once every four hours or so, when the spacecraft was safely in inertial cruise flight.
Really? A supposed marine engineer doesn't know how inertial navigation works?
And as has been belabored, SPS burns are not "high g" maneuvers. I can routinely accelerate and corner my automobile at 0.3 g, although not today because it is icy. That's slightly more than the SPS imparts to the occupants of the CSM.
or that weak structures like tin boxes...
What evidence have you presented that the CM is the "weak tin box" you say it is? The entire CM outer hull and heat shield was built according to the same construction and materials methods as are used on the F-16 Falcon and F-22 Raptor, which are high-g applications. Further, stronger materials were used for the CM (e.g., high-strength steel instead of aluminum alloy) than for the high-performance jet fighters.
Sorry, just announcing that the CM is a weak airframe does not substantiate your claim or support your belief. You bear the burden to prove that your uninformed opinion is actually correct.
can slow down from 11 200 m/s to 100 m/s (re-entry)...
Do you deny the existence of aerodynamic drag? Why do you think denial of a well-known physical principle is the basis from which to challenge an entire industry?
by friction/turbulence without burning up.
Your unwillingness to learn the relevant sciences and consult the references you say do not exist (but which have been provided for you right here in this forum) is not a basis from which to argue there is some mystery regarding atmospheric re-entry. As has been amply illustrated above, you lack a fundamental knowledge of how those forces work, and especially how the heat transfer works.
You don't understand ablative cooling. It's not a difficult science, and it's not something confined to space travel. That means lots of people know about it and know how it works. You can't effectively fool the world into thinking this is some mysterious pseudoscience dreamed up by NASA.
You don't understand that the particular formulation of the heat shield in Apollo actually created a gas barrier using the
chemical properties of the ablation process, and that this barrier layer has a very low coefficient of thermal conduction. If most of the heat stays in the compressed air ahead of the spacecraft and cannot easily pass into the heat-sensitive portion of the spacecraft, then aerodynamic heating is effectively managed.
It's called "insulation." You might want to check into it. It isn't a super-secret NASA pseudo-invention either.
Sorry, you have to do much better to earn topic!
No, sorry, the onus is on you. We've shown that your beliefs, which you offer money to overturn, are based on denial, misconception, and in some cases bald-faced lies -- all of which you affirmatively refuse to correct in public. The fact that you're silently changing your site to accommodate our corrections is evidence that you admit error, which was the condition of your test. The fact that you're doing so surreptitiously is evidence that you're evading the payout, which is
prima facie evidence of fraud in any jurisdiction. I'm sure I won't have any problem finding a lawyer in France who will be happy to sue you for the sum.
