There aren't any robots. 
How can a rocket land on the moon?
- Thread starter Spencer666
- Start date
- Status
List of mistakes:
1) Thrust is not required to be sudden or violent. Ion engines thrust for months at very low thrust levels.
1) Launch platform bases are designed to NOT react against the rocket's thrust. The Apollo program launch pad had a huge hole in the base so the engine exhaust could pass through. The Soyuz launch facility holds the rocket over a huge pit so that the launch pad is not exposed to the engine's exhaust.
2) Rockets do not "push against the atmosphere" as previously explained.
3) Rockets do not "push against the tail section during split." And to correct your terminology, what you meant to say was that they push "against the first stage during staging." And that's also wrong. Indeed, in the case of SpaceX, the second stage waits until it is hundreds of feet from the first stage before starting its engine to protect the first stage from damage. Hence no "pushing against."
So yes, you are 100% incorrect. Again.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
They're not mistakes. He really is trolling just to get reactions - making up as much nonsense as he thinks he can get away with.
Every time things calm down, he steps it up a notch:
A rocket loses speed when the air density is thinner , that is why their rockets have to have an escape velocity / speed to jump the quantum gap , i.e event horizon.
Now you know rocket facts !
Spencer666
Registered Member
Moderator note:
Spencer666 has been permanently banned from sciforums for trolling.
---
Looking at Spencer666's posts in this thread, the only possible conclusion is that he is trolling.
Examples:
This reference to the "British Space Association" (mentioned in another of his posts) is to what appears to be a non-existent organisation of his own invention.
Also, note the response to member suspicions that Spencer666 is a sock puppet of a previously-banned member. He loves this speculation and attempts to fan the flames.
----
Although this is a topic that could be discussed in this thread, the thread is irretrievably broken by the trolling. Therefore, it is closed.
Spencer666 has been permanently banned from sciforums for trolling.
---
Looking at Spencer666's posts in this thread, the only possible conclusion is that he is trolling.
Examples:
He refuses to back up his claims with evidence or arguments. When asked for calculations, or some kind of justification in terms of physics, he either ignores the request or, as here, denies that he needs to provide the necessary justification.
He makes many claims in the thread, without ever attempting to support any of them.
He inserts generalised statements aimed at provoking an angry or outraged response from readers. It is common from trolls on a science forum to assert that science itself is a dogma.
Note that Spencer makes no attempt to explain why any of the considered responses he received are "unfounded garbage". Again, the aim can only be to attempt to provoke an angry reaction.
More of the same.
Here, he constructs a straw man in an attempt to divert the discussion to a new topic, ignoring the replies he received.
Spencer claims credentials that he doesn't possess, apparently.
This reference to the "British Space Association" (mentioned in another of his posts) is to what appears to be a non-existent organisation of his own invention.
Also, note the response to member suspicions that Spencer666 is a sock puppet of a previously-banned member. He loves this speculation and attempts to fan the flames.
More of the same.
A post completely disconnected with the discussion topic, and containing an irrelevant video.
----
Although this is a topic that could be discussed in this thread, the thread is irretrievably broken by the trolling. Therefore, it is closed.
- Status