The sickest video of returning from space ever

Quote from: Papa Legba on May 29, 2016, 01:32:04 AM

As I have already pointed out, balancing one solid object upon another solid object has nothing whatsoever to do with Aerodynamics, which deals with the behaviour of solid objects in a gaseous medium, most specifically Earth's atmosphere.

As you have pointed out? 

I am afraid that the great Herr Professeur Poppy Leghume pointing out anything about "rokitts" does not alter the facts one iota!

How did the Saturn Vs, Space Shuttles and even Space-X get off the ground. You might not believe that they got into orbit or had any thrust in a vacuum, but, they certainly did get off the ground and ended up pretty high!

Whatever the great Herr Professeur Poppy Leghume might think, balancing a rocket on its tail is a very similar control problem to balancing a broomstick!
You are I suppose an expert on closed loop control systems too! I used to find them a bit hard, but of course no problem for the great Herr Professeur Poppy Leghume.

Smaller rockets can have a launching rail to keep them straight till they achieve enough velocity for aerodynamic stability.
But large rockets accelerate too slowly for this to be practical, so they need an active balance control system or they can go unstable, and we seen that happen often enough.

I'm sure you'll be enthralled with all the information on gimballed rockets etc in How Do Rockets Maintain Stability At Liftoff?

it's makes sense; Congratulations

Carefully read the following: You do not know how to read. Center of Mass =/= Center of Gravity in any sense of the terms, at least as far as physics is concerned.

...
They are not used interchangeably in matters of physics, of which rocket science is part.

^Bull shit as there will be zero effort exerted toward any level of understanding.

CoM =/= CoG.

And you know it, as does all the rest of the sock puppets.

The attempt at equivalency finds it birth in the same recesses of the mind from which arose the love fest over sticky gauges.

CoM is not equivalent to CoG.

Nice try though.

Who is we? You got a mouse in your pocket?

CoM =/= CoG

They may reference CoM, but knowing the rule that CoP must remain behind CoG, it is clear any interpretation equating CoM with CoG would be in error. The terms are clearly NOT synonymous.

The fact you cannot understand CoG and CoM are different is not my problem. There are plenty of sources indicating exactly that on the Internet. Do some research before you come here again, uh?

CoM & CoG are near enough interchangeable in Terrestrial conditions...

*crickets*

LOL.

Again, Losers:

CoM & CoG are near enough interchangeable in Terrestrial conditions...

So thanks Geoff for definitively proving the Saturn V was fake.

Here are the lies you refuse to address yet again:

Quote from: totallackey on July 19, 2016, 04:32:26 AM

Depends on how much you think your pretty plane relates to rocketry and the topic at hand...

I got a clue for you: IT DOESN'T HAVE A FUCKING THING TO DO WITH ANYTHING WE ARE DISCUSSING.

Jesus, you are fucking dense or something.

Do you believe that the centre-of-pressure and centre-of-gravity don't have to be accounted for with regards to airplanes and jets?

The centre of lift of an airplane wing & the centre of pressure of a rocket are two completely different things.

Only a retarded sock-puppet shill would try to confuse them.

This is the THIRD time I've had to tell you on this fucking thread alone btw...

Which'd get you banned off any normal forum.

But as you shills run this one I guess you'll just wait a few pages & try again...

Because shills.

Plus this:

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 16, 2016, 10:20:18 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 16, 2016, 07:38:53 AM

how do they drive the turbines?

You tell me; you're the fake 'expert'.

Anyhoo; you are avoiding the point.

Again:

How do you 're-ignite' a gas that's already been ignited?

How did it get 'de-ignited' in the first place?

The gas generators run on a very rich fuel mix so not all of the fuel gets burned.  The fuel rich exhaust is fed into the engine nozzle extension (well past the combustion chamber and throat) where it may or may not burn on its own.

Did you ever notice the dark gasses coming out of the F-1 engine when the Saturn V takes off?  That's the fuel rich exhaust from the gas generator just before it re-ignites.

Sadly for you, here is a a video of teh NASA rokkit enjynerrz stating at 3:50 that yes, teh sparklers ARE to ignite excess hydrogen from teh rokkit enjynnz:



Here is a hydrogen safety sheet stating that hydrogen dissipates harmlessly in open air:

http://arhab.org/pdfs/h2_safety_fsheet.pdf

So yeah; setting fire to it would seem to be the least safe thing to do, especially as it would potentially cause premature ignition; you know, before the correct rate of flow was established in teh combuschun chaymbah?

Which could make the whole thing blow to bits?

Which happened all the time in early rocket tests?

Which is why they never, ever, had sparks shooting everywhere beneath their rockets during ignition?

LOL!!!

You are all busted, a-fucking-gain!

The sparklers are there to ignite the silly fake model engines...

Because they do not have 'combustion chambers' & are not part of a 'shpayze-rokkit'...

They are shitty stage-props; big bunsen burners, at best.

Toodle-pip, Losers!

Actually, that is the 9th time you have had to tell us that on this fucking thread alone.

Thanks for counting, Rainman.

You still haven't provided a logical counter to one single point though, so here comes number 10:

Again, Losers:

CoM & CoG are near enough interchangeable in Terrestrial conditions...

So thanks Geoff for definitively proving the Saturn V was fake.

Here are the lies you refuse to address yet again:

Quote from: totallackey on July 19, 2016, 04:32:26 AM

Depends on how much you think your pretty plane relates to rocketry and the topic at hand...

I got a clue for you: IT DOESN'T HAVE A FUCKING THING TO DO WITH ANYTHING WE ARE DISCUSSING.

Jesus, you are fucking dense or something.

Do you believe that the centre-of-pressure and centre-of-gravity don't have to be accounted for with regards to airplanes and jets?

The centre of lift of an airplane wing & the centre of pressure of a rocket are two completely different things.

Only a retarded sock-puppet shill would try to confuse them.

This is the THIRD time I've had to tell you on this fucking thread alone btw...

Which'd get you banned off any normal forum.

But as you shills run this one I guess you'll just wait a few pages & try again...

Because shills.

Plus this:

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 16, 2016, 10:20:18 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 16, 2016, 07:38:53 AM

how do they drive the turbines?

You tell me; you're the fake 'expert'.

Anyhoo; you are avoiding the point.

Again:

How do you 're-ignite' a gas that's already been ignited?

How did it get 'de-ignited' in the first place?

The gas generators run on a very rich fuel mix so not all of the fuel gets burned.  The fuel rich exhaust is fed into the engine nozzle extension (well past the combustion chamber and throat) where it may or may not burn on its own.

Did you ever notice the dark gasses coming out of the F-1 engine when the Saturn V takes off?  That's the fuel rich exhaust from the gas generator just before it re-ignites.

Sadly for you, here is a a video of teh NASA rokkit enjynerrz stating at 3:50 that yes, teh sparklers ARE to ignite excess hydrogen from teh rokkit enjynnz:



Here is a hydrogen safety sheet stating that hydrogen dissipates harmlessly in open air:

http://arhab.org/pdfs/h2_safety_fsheet.pdf

So yeah; setting fire to it would seem to be the least safe thing to do, especially as it would potentially cause premature ignition; you know, before the correct rate of flow was established in teh combuschun chaymbah?

Which could make the whole thing blow to bits?

Which happened all the time in early rocket tests?

Which is why they never, ever, had sparks shooting everywhere beneath their rockets during ignition?

LOL!!!

You are all busted, a-fucking-gain!

The sparklers are there to ignite the silly fake model engines...

Because they do not have 'combustion chambers' & are not part of a 'shpayze-rokkit'...

They are shitty stage-props; big bunsen burners, at best.

Toodle-pip, Losers!

Well, we have given counters to every single one, but you don't care. So we just ignore you now. It's pretty much a routine now.