The sickest video of returning from space ever

...said some dumb shit...

I worked it out, you're Geoff! You just keep calling everyone else Geoff to throw off the fact that you're Geoff, nice to meet you Geoff!

No, my calculations indicate that the momentum is too high when coming in for landing and that the thrust available is to weak to stop the motion in the available time. If it is all done by computer, it should be easy to print out the trajectory with times, positions, velocity vectors in 3D, masses, thrusts applied in various directions, hypersonic flap motions/results at the top, position of the barge, weather conditions, wind, etc.

It should also be easy for u to show yours calculations, since so far u have showed nothing.....

Btw, if your calculations are those showing the time to hit the ground considering constant speed and not even trying to estimate the effect of aerodynamic drag.... well, say bye bye to your credibility as an engineer

Quote from: Heiwa on May 29, 2016, 10:37:11 PM

No, my calculations indicate that the momentum is too high when coming in for landing and that the thrust available is to weak to stop the motion in the available time. If it is all done by computer, it should be easy to print out the trajectory with times, positions, velocity vectors in 3D, masses, thrusts applied in various directions, hypersonic flap motions/results at the top, position of the barge, weather conditions, wind, etc.

It should also be easy for u to show yours calculations, since so far u have showed nothing.....

Btw, if your calculations are those showing the time to hit the ground considering constant speed and not even trying to estimate the effect of aerodynamic drag.... well, say bye bye to your credibility as an engineer

By the looks of it he is just eyeballing the figures for the trajectory and falcon 9 itself. Not even using the technical read outs. He has just asked me to provide them. This guy is a joke.

You can get the print outs of the relevant parameters off the Internet.

Can't get any details of these 'cold gas thrusters' though...

I worked it out, you're Geoff! You just keep calling everyone else Geoff to throw off the fact that you're Geoff, nice to meet you Geoff!

STFU Geoff, you've already done this in your 'Rayzor' & 'Rabinoz' sock-puppets, remember?

Do you think this is 1995 & you're the only person on the web who's thought of using sock-ID's to control debate?

Have another drink & troll some more bullshit, you desperate old fraud.

Then you have not looked hard enough legba

Quote

No, my calculations indicate that the momentum is too high when coming in for landing and that the thrust available is to weak to stop the motion in the available time

Please show those calculation, due to the fact that they have 9 engines, they can vary thrust between 845kN to 7607kN, It has a dry mass of round 14 tonnes.
 

I do it at my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .

The amount of potential/kinetic energy at the top of the trajectory of the first stage to be recovered is great and speed will just increase from there to become several times hypersonic on the way down at say 10 000 m altitude, when air is thick enough to provide resistance.

But then it is too late.

The rocket engines cannot provide the required thrust to stop or reduce speed of the rocket and furthermore you cannot carry the fuel with you to run the engines.

The whole thing is a hoax. I doubt SpaceX employs 5000 persons to create these illusions of landing a rocket on a barge. Therefore the operating and software systems do not exist in reality. The video is CGI.

Then you have not looked hard enough legba

And you have not helped, Shpokky-boy.

Which, as you seem to know everything else about this fraud, is somewhat suspicious, no?

Whatever; back to your dyslexic disinfo-duties now you poor sod.

Is many times hypersonic a technical term?

Do your figures use the figures from the technical read outs from space x? Or are you eyeballing it?

Quote from: Pythagoras on May 30, 2016, 01:34:43 AM

Then you have not looked hard enough legba

And you have not helped, Shpokky-boy.

Which, as you seem to know everything else about this fraud, is somewhat suspicious, no?

Whatever; back to your dyslexic disinfo-duties now you poor sod.

I'm not here to help you. If you can't be bothered to find the relevant information required to back up your belifes then that's your problem not ours. It just goes to show how lazy you are.

I do it at my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .

The first stage does not go to orbital speeds. So you have not done any calculations.

The amount of potential/kinetic energy at the top of the trajectory of the first stage to be recovered is great and speed will just increase from there to become several times hypersonic on the way down at say 10 000 m altitude, when air is thick enough to provide resistance.

That is why there is a boost back burn. A much lighter vehicle (no second stage attached and less fuel) will require a lot less fuel to change its velocity.

The rocket engines cannot provide the required thrust to stop or reduce speed of the rocket and furthermore you cannot carry the fuel with you to run the engines.

Based on what do you say this? Give us some facts to back your claims. What law of nature says that fuel can only go one way?

The whole thing is a hoax. I doubt SpaceX employs 5000 persons to create these illusions of landing a rocket on a barge. Therefore the operating and software systems do not exist in reality. The video is CGI.

You just said "I can not fathom, therefore it cant be"

you fall in the same category as those that said the following

"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." – Western Union internal memo, 1876

"Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia." – Dr. Dionysius Lardner, 1830

"X-rays will prove to be a hoax." - Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, spoken in 1883.

"There will never be a bigger plane built." - A Boeing engineer, shorty after the company had built a twin engine plane that only held 10 people.

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." – Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

"The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty—a fad." – -The president of the Michigan Savings Bank advising Henry Ford's lawyer not to invest in the Ford Motor Co., 1903

Is many times hypersonic a technical term?

Do your figures use the figures from the technical read outs from space x? Or are you eyeballing it?

Hypersonic speed starts at 330 m/s or so. So many times is say 1000 m/s.

I use the SpaceX figures provided on the Internet - you really have to visit http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for details/links.

There is no stability of the 23 tons rocket in horizontal flight to slow down horizontal movement with say 30 tons fuel in the 20 m long tanks. The fuel will slosh around from one end to the other and the rocket will end up with rocket engines facing upwards and to bring it back vertically with rocket engines at the bottom requires plenty force/moment/energy that you do not have.

The whole thing is a stupid joke. BUT Americans believe anything shown live on TV.

I'm not here to help you.

LMFAO!!!

Oh, I got that already, Shpokky-boy...

You are DEFINITELY not here to help!

Quote from: Pythagoras on May 30, 2016, 01:43:11 AM

Is many times hypersonic a technical term?

Do your figures use the figures from the technical read outs from space x? Or are you eyeballing it?

Hypersonic speed starts at 330 m/s or so. So many times is say 1000 m/s.

I use the SpaceX figures provided on the Internet - you really have to visit http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for details/links.

There is no stability of the 23 tons rocket in horizontal flight to slow down horizontal movement with say 30 tons fuel in the 20 m long tanks. The fuel will slosh around from one end to the other and the rocket will end up with rocket engines facing upwards and to bring it back vertically with rocket engines at the bottom requires plenty force/moment/energy that you do not have.

The whole thing is a stupid joke. BUT Americans believe anything shown live on TV.

330 is supersonic not hypersonic, hypersonic regime starts at mach 5. Btw sonic speed changes with altitude and temperature.

Have you seen the detailed designed of spacex fuel tanks to claim that?

hypersonic regime starts at mach 5.

The original meaning of the term 'hypersonic' was merely an abbreviation of the term 'highly supersonic', & was understood to deal with speeds above Mach 3.

However, as your nasty dyslexic disinfo-ass cannot even tell the difference between the centre of pressure on a body of revolution & the centre of lift on an airplane, it is unsurprising you do not know this.

Sadly, this fact will not prevent your sneering, triumphant & horribly illiterate spamming on the subject forever, will it?

SpaceX's launch today didn't necessarily break any space records but the rocket-cam video may have broken the record for coolest video ever.  I'm hoping we get a full-length hi-def version soon.

That you all believe this fucking bullshit is what is amazing and sick!

Quote from: Papa Legba on May 29, 2016, 06:17:04 AM

A rocket will fly only if the centre of gravity is ahead of the centre of pressure far enough to allow air currents to cause a stabilising effect.

Again, you don't include another principle from the model rocketry page you quote:

Quote

What degree of stability is required? Experience has shown that if the center of gravity and the center of pressure are determined as outlined above, your rocket will have ample stability if the center of gravity is ahead of the center of pressure by at least one half the diameter (caliber) of your rocket.

That's the take off.

As for the landing, if these contraptions can fly around and land using only the balance of the pilot and his limited and slow processing capabilities, I don't see how a modern rocket with the advent of modern accurate sensing systems and fast computer processing capability couldn't do something similar.



Indeed, even a Harrier is able to land with its thrust component located on the bottom of the craft.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

And this peanut gallery short bus joker wants us to equate the pretty pictures with a rocket!!!

Disingenuous bastards are really sick...

when talking about longitudinal stability of an airplane you should talk about the aerodynamic center.... Btw I imagine that u know that there is a relation between the aerodynamic properties of a section of cylinder and certain airfoils....

You imagine a lot of things, luckypoodle...

For example, that I am the least bit interested in your convoluted & illiterate disinfo-spam.

As ever, your imagination has failed you.

Always funny when you keep reminding how little (actually nothing) do you know about aerospace engineering

The person you are trying to shill is currently unavailable.

Please try again later.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 29, 2016, 10:37:11 PM

No, my calculations indicate that the momentum is too high when coming in for landing and that the thrust available is to weak to stop the motion in the available time. If it is all done by computer, it should be easy to print out the trajectory with times, positions, velocity vectors in 3D, masses, thrusts applied in various directions, hypersonic flap motions/results at the top, position of the barge, weather conditions, wind, etc.

It should also be easy for u to show yours calculations, since so far u have showed nothing.....

Btw, if your calculations are those showing the time to hit the ground considering constant speed and not even trying to estimate the effect of aerodynamic drag.... well, say bye bye to your credibility as an engineer

Oh God the heiwa virus has spread!! I thought it was at least in containment!!

Good luck trying to get equations, proof, or anything from him besides the same repeated wishfull hearsay dribble as always. He is a powerful troll, one with many heads to cut off. Sadly not a fully functioning one of the bunch

And this peanut gallery short bus joker wants us to equate the pretty pictures with a rocket!!!

Disingenuous bastards are really sick...

If all you can do is insult your opponents you must be a loser! What about coming with a few facts?

Quote from: Heiwa on May 30, 2016, 02:06:10 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on May 30, 2016, 01:43:11 AM

Is many times hypersonic a technical term?

Do your figures use the figures from the technical read outs from space x? Or are you eyeballing it?

Hypersonic speed starts at 330 m/s or so. So many times is say 1000 m/s.

I use the SpaceX figures provided on the Internet - you really have to visit http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for details/links.

There is no stability of the 23 tons rocket in horizontal flight to slow down horizontal movement with say 30 tons fuel in the 20 m long tanks. The fuel will slosh around from one end to the other and the rocket will end up with rocket engines facing upwards and to bring it back vertically with rocket engines at the bottom requires plenty force/moment/energy that you do not have.

The whole thing is a stupid joke. BUT Americans believe anything shown live on TV.

330 is supersonic not hypersonic, hypersonic regime starts at mach 5. Btw sonic speed changes with altitude and temperature.

Have you seen the detailed designed of spacex fuel tanks to claim that?

Thanks for info about difference of super- and hyper- sonic regimes at different altitudes and temperatures. Hopefully Spacex considers it when braking hard before the quick landing.

Re fuel tanks. No I haven't seen the detail design so please provide it. Only info I have is that they are built of aluminum-lithium whatever that is. Any ideas?

Re fuel tanks. No I haven't seen the detail design so please provide it. Only info I have is that they are built of aluminum-lithium whatever that is. Any ideas?

An engineer that doesn't know about alloys?

Quote from: Heiwa on May 30, 2016, 04:23:05 PM

Re fuel tanks. No I haven't seen the detail design so please provide it. Only info I have is that they are built of aluminum-lithium whatever that is. Any ideas?

An engineer that doesn't know about alloys?

Aluminum!

Quote from: markjo on May 30, 2016, 04:58:53 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 30, 2016, 04:23:05 PM

Re fuel tanks. No I haven't seen the detail design so please provide it. Only info I have is that they are built of aluminum-lithium whatever that is. Any ideas?

An engineer that doesn't know about alloys?

Aluminum!

Are you suggesting that aluminum can't alloy with lithium?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium-lithium_alloy

Quote from: Heiwa on May 30, 2016, 05:45:17 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 30, 2016, 04:58:53 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 30, 2016, 04:23:05 PM

Re fuel tanks. No I haven't seen the detail design so please provide it. Only info I have is that they are built of aluminum-lithium whatever that is. Any ideas?

An engineer that doesn't know about alloys?

Aluminum!

Are you suggesting that aluminum can't alloy with lithium?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium-lithium_alloy

Yes - aluminium can but not aluminum used by SpaceX.

Quote from: markjo on May 30, 2016, 06:09:12 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 30, 2016, 05:45:17 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 30, 2016, 04:58:53 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 30, 2016, 04:23:05 PM

Re fuel tanks. No I haven't seen the detail design so please provide it. Only info I have is that they are built of aluminum-lithium whatever that is. Any ideas?

An engineer that doesn't know about alloys?

Aluminum!

Are you suggesting that aluminum can't alloy with lithium?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium-lithium_alloy

Yes - aluminium can but not aluminum used by SpaceX.

Huh?  Why not?

Huh?  Why not?

Because it can't markjo.....because it can't.

Quote from: markjo on May 30, 2016, 07:23:41 PM

Huh?  Why not?

Because it can't markjo.....because it can't.

Obviously aluminum alloys aren't used nearly as much in marine engineering as they are in aerospace engineering.