The energy (fuel mass) used up to brake the space craft (the mass of the fuel 'burnt') is evidently not part of the space craft after braking...
Not as mass, of course. You failed to account for this both in a momentum-conservation formation and in an energy-conservation formulation. Not only did you fail to account for it, you admitted it was a significant factor that you intentionally omitted from your model. The excuse you gave for the omission was the factually-incorrect accusation that NASA had failed to provide you with appropriate values. You never did suggest or prove that the factor you omitted was irrelevant or inconsequential. Hence you knew from the start that your model was wrong, yet you had the audacity to set it up as the yardstick against which to judge the work of thousands of qualified professionals whose credentials and prior success are well established.
Hence it is highly dishonest of you to present a model you knew to be incomplete, assert that it proves someone else wrong who used the proper methods, and then challenge others to show you the error of your ways. When you promise a reward for meeting that challenge, then ignore the many subsequent refutations, you cross the line to criminal fraud.
But that's not even half the problem. As has been belabored, while the expended propellant mass is no longer combined with the spacecraft dry mass to arrive at the combined mass of the spacecraft for the purpose of computing momentum and energy, the propellant mass is still part of the
system you defined when you set up the energy balance equation. If you don't understand what constitutes a system for the purposes of energy computations, then you need remedial training.
...but has been transmitted to the surrounding space through the rocket exhaust and cannot be used by the space craft. It is gone.
No. While it was previously convenient to consider the propellant as a constituent of the spacecraft mass, that is an improper formulation. If you consider the mass of the propellant as part of the system for initial conditions, you must consider it as part of the system for final conditions, even if the overall system mass is a set of disjoint particles. You suggest that the relevant properties of the propellant, in the form of exhaust gases, are released to the environment. This leads you to compute incorrectly the required change in kinetic energy, and thus the required fuel mass. The propellant properties, in terms of residual heat and of mechanical energy, remain part of the system. That is how energy-balance checks work.
Your inability to properly maintain the consistency of system formulation and your incorrect assertion that propellant kinetic energy (or mass, since it's unclear to what you refer) is somehow transmitted across the system boundary into the environment and thus exempt for consideration is simply wrong. You have attempted to style these errors as mere refinements or improvements to your model, but they are not refinements. You have failed the first step of energy-balance formulation, which is to define the system. This is a glaring, fundamental error, not some minute detail you can safely sidestep.
Pls return to topic So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
First, do not attempt to moderate the thread. You are neither the thread author nor the forum moderator, and you have been warned by the moderator not to attempt to control what can and cannot be posted. It is a hallmark of the most dishonest conspiracy theorists to attempt to avoid refutations by declaring them irrelevant or off-topic. I assure you our moderator will not fall for such cheap tricks.
Second, no one here is attempting to win the money. They are simply trying to set the record straight on the basis of their devotion to historical truth in general, and out of their enjoyment of the field of rocketry. I've lost count of the number of times you've tried to force a discussion of the money instead of a discussion of your claims to which the money refers.
Third, no one believes you have the money and would pay it out if you did. An ordinary person claiming to have a very large sum of money and announcing he is willing to pay it to someone for performing a task constitutes an extraordinary claim. You have the burden to prove that claim, which in this case means proving that the money exists and is available under the conditions you specify. I have described to you the means by which monetary rewards are commonly offered and escrowed for collection. I have invited you to prove by those means that your reward is winnable. You have ignored that invitation. I have asked you why you are unwilling to submit to customary means of offering prizes, and you have similarly ignored that. I have no alternative but to conclude that the money does not exist and you have no intention of ever paying it. Hence I infer from that conclusion that your obsession over the non-existent prize is an intentional distraction.
In order to win you have to understand basic space travel physics...
You have to realize that there are literally thousands of people in the world who understand not only basic space travel physics but also advanced space travel physics, that these people practice it professionally, and that practically none of them work for NASA. Space engineering is a decades-old
commercial endeavor, of which I and others here are active practitioners. We are not the "fat NASA PhDs" of your straw-man fantasy, but engineers who work for a living and whose success is determined solely by whether our machines succeed in their assigned tasks.
The bottom line is that you cannot write a bunch of impressive-looking gobbledy-gook and fool everyone into thinking you have knowledge that you do not have. Rocket science is not such an esoteric or priestly field that egregious errors cannot be quickly discovered. Your ego-centric fantasy of being some genius engineer and exposing the imagined sins of the actual practitioners in the field simply does not hold up in the real world.
...that a mass of fuel transformed into a force to brake the space ship in the voyage is gone.
Gone, but not forgotten. It must be included in the final-condition expression of the system, even though it is no longer physically contained within the spacecraft. Your inability to properly formulate an energy-balance problem for spacecraft dynamics is one of the many signs that you are not sufficiently versed in the appropriate field of engineering. This makes you an improper judge for whether you model is correct, and an improper judge of whether thousands of professionals did their jobs correctly.
The fact that you refuse to be corrected on this point (and indeed few others), tells us you are no engineer, and that your alleged million-euro reward is nothing more than irrelevant chest-thumping designed to inflate your substantial ego.
Same applies to fuel used during travel at sea?
No.
A properly formulated energy-balance equation would be relevant in each case, but that's entirely irrelevant from the notion that the model for one case applies to the dynamics of another case. Some equation E1 may apply to a ship at sea under conditions of straight-line travel at constant speed. Some other equation E2 may apply to a spacecraft in accelerated flight in an orbital environment. To say that some equation may be written in each case is not the same as believing that E1 ≡ E2.
Your error at the highest level is presuming that because you think you understand the dynamics of maritime propulsion, you can apply the same dynamic formulations to all propulsion. You evidently do not understand as much as you think about maritime propulsion, because part of any such understanding is realizing how one particular expression fits into the overarching science that supports it -- specifically, what factors exist in the science, but which may be safely ignored in some expression. You are dumbly applying one expression to a dissimilar system, ignorantly omitting in the final result the simplifications that removed terms in the source.
Compare a car running out of fuel
Why do you think that directly compares?
