[alright1234 (OP)]

While your at it tell me what is causing the halve circle path of the CSML and the CSML is propagating with a constant velocity since why would you use more fuel? Also, Space X thought that a rocket engine has a 50% efficiency.

If you are asking why why it follows a curved trajectory, then the answer is Earth's and Moon's gravity.  Early on the Earth's gravity dominates, but as it moves further away this effect becomes weaker as the Moon's becomes stronger.

The craft would have to burn fuel in order to maintain a constant speed. As it is, it is on a ballistic trajectory and has to give up velocity in exchange for climbing higher in the Earth's gravity field.  Upon the beginning of the trans-lunar trajectory it is moving at something over 10.9 km/sec ( not that much shy of escape velocity) .  By the time it gets to near Moon space, it will have given up almost all of that speed during the long climb against Earth's gravity.

Checkmate king two.

[Bored chemist]

While your at it tell me what is causing the halve circle path of the CSML and the CSML is propagating with a constant velocity since why would you use more fuel? Also, Space X thought that a rocket engine has a 50% efficiency.

If you are asking why why it follows a curved trajectory, then the answer is Earth's and Moon's gravity.  Early on the Earth's gravity dominates, but as it moves further away this effect becomes weaker as the Moon's becomes stronger.

The craft would have to burn fuel in order to maintain a constant speed. As it is, it is on a ballistic trajectory and has to give up velocity in exchange for climbing higher in the Earth's gravity field.  Upon the beginning of the trans-lunar trajectory it is moving at something over 10.9 km/sec ( not that much shy of escape velocity) .  By the time it gets to near Moon space, it will have given up almost all of that speed during the long climb against Earth's gravity.

Checkmate king two.

I think you just knocked your king over- or are we playing pidgeon chess?

[Bored chemist]

So, now that you know you are wrong, are you going to apologise?

[Janus]

The math is quite simple:
An object in a circular orbit has an orbital energy of E= -um/2r , where u is the gravitational parameter for the body it is orbiting, m is its mass, and r it orbital radius. This is the same as the Sum of its kinetic energy mv^2/2 and its gravitational potential energy -um/r or E= mv^2/2-u/r  . It reduces to the first equation when you substitute sqrt(u/r), the circular orbital  for v in the last equation.
For an object sitting on the surface of the Earth, its energy is just E= -um/re, where re is the  radius of the the Earth.

Thus the energy difference between an object sitting on the surface of the Earth and one in a circular orbit is:
E = -um/2r-(-um/re) = um/re-um/2r = um(1/re-1/2r)
u = 3.987e14 for the Earth, re= 6378,000m and r = 6578000m   
if m=1000kg,  then energy difference is
E= 3.987e14(1000)(1/63378000-1/(2(6578000)) = 3.22e10J 
This is a bit more than the value I gave earlier as that value was just for the transfer from surface to LEO, and neglected the boost needed to circularize the orbit.
It's both rocket science and orbital mechanics.

Well if you do mgh to geosync orbit, at 35000km G=0.75 @~r=20000km you get something like 3x10 per tonne. This still seems a bit high for me, suppose it has to do with the fact that once out of the atmosphere the object already has significant velocity due to the fact it is orbiting at the speed of planet rotation and the planets solar orbit etc etc

Again, you are neglecting the energy needed for the craft to attain orbital velocity.  If you were to assume no obstacles or atmosphere, you could put an object in orbit around the Earth just above its surface, but you would have to accelerate it up to a bit over 7.9 km/sec n order to do so.  This, in of itself, would require 3.13e10 joules per 1000 kg of mass. mgh doesn't even come into play because you never raised the object any height in Earth's gravity field.
To attain GEO requires 5.78e10 joules per 1000 kg, 2.56e10 joules per 1000 kg more than the 200 km LEO orbit.

But this, like the mgh discrepancy creates a problem. The energy content of diesil fuel being 4.9x10^10per tonne, halved ish for the oxidiser  giving 2.5x10^10 per fuel tonne burned. You would never ever make orbit if it required any x10^10 number due to inefficiency and container weights. Same goes for the mgh to the moon !

You are making the same mistake as some eminent scientist(I can't remember who)did when trying to claim that a rocket could never escape the Earth.  He worked out how much energy would be needed to accelerate 1 kg  to escape velocity, and compared to to amount of energy that could be released by 1 kg of Nitro-glycerine, the most powerful explosive of the time.  He showed that this was less than the energy needed to get the 1 kg of nitro-glycerine up to escape velocity.  He argued that if nitro-glycerine couldn't even get its own mass up to escape velocity, how could you get a rocket up to it?
What he failed to realize is that with a rocket, you don't need to get the entire mass of your fuel up to escape velocity. The vast majority of the fuel mass  gets left behind near the surface of the Earth.
For a rocket it is all about having enough thrust to lift your rocket and the exhaust velocity.  Exhaust velocity determines what kind of mass-ratio you need in terms of fuel to payload. 
It comes down to the rocket equation
dV = Ve ln(MR)
dV is the velocity change of your rocket,  Ve is its exhaust velocity, MR is the mass ratio ( Fueled rocket mass/ dry mass of rocket).
In addition, the RP-1 rocket fuel (kerosene equivalent) was only used in the first stage of the Saturn V, the remaining stages used liquid Hydrogen,  which allow for an ISP of 421 sec vs, the lower ISP of 263 sec for the first stage ( to get exhaust velocity from ISP, multiply it by g.)
Regardless of what you think, this is the actual science behind this.

[alright1234 (OP)]

I calculated the efficiency using the Saturn rocket and got .004%.

[Bored chemist]

I calculated the efficiency using the Saturn rocket and got .004%.

I guess that explains why you don't want to do maths about the Cavendish experiment.

[alright1234 (OP)]

I'm saving it.

[Bored chemist]

You seem to have misspelled "I'm saying sh**"

[alright1234 (OP)]

While your at it tell me what is causing the halve circle path of the CSML and the CSML is propagating with a constant velocity since why would you use more fuel? Also, Space X thought that a rocket engine has a 50% efficiency.


https://www.space.com/spacex-crew-dragon-explosion-nasa-memo.html 

[Kryptid]

I calculated the efficiency using the Saturn rocket and got .004%.

Show the math.

While your at it tell me what is causing the halve circle path of the CSML

The same thing that causes all orbits.

[alright1234 (OP)]

I calculated the efficiency using the Saturn rocket and got .004%.

Show the math.

While your at it tell me what is causing the halve circle path of the CSML

The same thing that causes all orbits.

The earth's gravity has a negligible effect on the 50,000 kg CSML. I'm saving it for a surprise. You like surprise don't you.

[Kryptid]

The earth's gravity has a negligible effect on the 50,000 kg CSML.

Given that the Earth's gravity can hold onto an object as distant as the Moon for billions of years, this statement is wrong.

[alright1234 (OP)]

Then why are astronaut in the ISS weightless?

[Kryptid]

Then why are astronaut in the ISS weightless?

The same reason that a ball dropped off of the Empire State Building is weightless: because they are in free fall. The astronauts are constantly falling towards the Earth, but since they are moving parallel to the Earth's surface, the Earth always curves away from them at the same rate that they fall. That is what an orbit is. Isaac Newton figured that out a long time ago:

[alright1234 (OP)]

Why does not a penny in the ISS stick to the walls?

[Kryptid]

Why does not a penny in the ISS stick to the walls?

There is no reason that it should.

[alancalverd]

OK, that makes sense except for the expressed-as-power part.  It should be expressed as total work.  Power is the rate that the work is performed, which is often quite low for the most efficient engines.

Which is why I said "rate of consumption of fuel x specific energy" The product is kg/sec x joules/kg = joules/sec, i.e. watts.

[alancalverd]

Why does not a penny in the ISS stick to the walls?

Because Orbit chewing gum is a terrestrial breath freshener, not astronaut issue.

[Petrochemicals]

You are making the same mistake as some eminent scientist(I can't remember who)did when trying to claim that a rocket could never escape the Earth.  He worked out how much energy would be needed to accelerate 1 kg  to escape velocity, and compared to to amount of energy that could be released by 1 kg of Nitro-glycerine, the most powerful explosive of the time.  He showed that this was less than the energy needed to get the 1 kg of nitro-glycerine up to escape velocity.  He argued that if nitro-glycerine couldn't even get its own mass up to escape velocity, how could you get a rocket up to it?
What he failed to realize is that with a rocket, you don't need to get the entire mass of your fuel up to escape velocity. The vast majority of the fuel mass  gets left behind near the surface of the Earth.
For a rocket it is all about having enough thrust to lift your rocket and the exhaust velocity.  Exhaust velocity determines what kind of mass-ratio you need in terms of fuel to payload. 
It comes down to the rocket equation
dV = Ve ln(MR)
dV is the velocity change of your rocket,  Ve is its exhaust velocity, MR is the mass ratio ( Fueled rocket mass/ dry mass of rocket).
In addition, the RP-1 rocket fuel (kerosene equivalent) was only used in the first stage of the Saturn V, the remaining stages used liquid Hydrogen,  which allow for an ISP of 421 sec vs, the lower ISP of 263 sec for the first stage ( to get exhaust velocity from ISP, multiply it by g.)
Regardless of what you think, this is the actual science behind this.

Yes, all the fuel does not need to go all the way, but to put it in perspective diesel and oxygen combined have roughly a 2.35x10 to 10 energy content which is an energy dense for weight content. Minus inefficiencys and load, etc. To put a tonne in orbit at 400km requires you to put roughly HALF the fuel at 200km. The energy kinetic has to do with other factors such as orbit of the planet around the sun angular momentum etc. To put 1000kg in 400km range you have to lift enough energy to 200km range to put it the aditional 200km distance between it. Sort of a reverse 0f 9.81ms

The problem of fuel weights is thought of in interstellar travel, the bigger the fuel load the bigger the ammount of fuel needed to be carried.

[alright1234 (OP)]

Then why are astronaut in the ISS weightless?

The same reason that a ball dropped off of the Empire State Building is weightless: because they are in free fall.

What is the velocity of free fall of the ISS? This proves the Newton gravity equation is false since the mass should not be weightless. Right If it is falling (free fall) it must be falling downward which it is not. Pretty good there old chap. I was walking through the halls of Harvard and I thought of this.