The sickest video of returning from space ever

Lol

Now hoppy is a tough guy.

Lol

Lol

Now hoppy is a tough guy.

Lol

I didn't say I am tough. I said you're a stupid mother fucker.

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 18, 2016, 02:01:05 PM

Great.

Link us to it then & let's see if it also says this:

Quote from: Mainframes on June 18, 2016, 12:28:21 PM

Papa - the quote you mined regarding stability of rockets relying on the centre of gravity being ahead of the centre of pressure applies to passive control rockets only. If a rocket had active control such as moveable fins or gimbal engines then this is not an issue. And that is also stated in the source you used.

I already know it doesn't btw...

Just wanna see you sick freaks squirm.

Perhaps this Papa....:

Quote

NOTE: Modern full scale rockets do not usually rely on aerodynamics for stability. Full scale rockets pivot their exhaust nozzles to provide stability and control. That's why you don't see fins on a Delta, Titan, or Atlas booster.

This was a flat-out lie.

There is no such note in the source I quoted.

Which is why Mainframes will neither link to nor even name it & a bunch of sock-puppets have popped up to cover for him.

Total dishonesty, bad faith & cancerous sock-shill bullshit as usual.

But don't worry; 'John Davis' is on their case, determined to do absolutely fuck-all about it...

lol.

Anyhoo; let's look at the positives: the fact that the shills are so desperate to divert from the principle that 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 means that Shpayze-seX's fraud rokkitz are definitely violating this principle.

And therefore they are Fake.

SCIENCE, bitches!

Do you ever get the feeling you should just STFU?

Nope.

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 18, 2016, 02:01:05 PM

Great.

Link us to it then & let's see if it also says this:

Quote from: Mainframes on June 18, 2016, 12:28:21 PM

Papa - the quote you mined regarding stability of rockets relying on the centre of gravity being ahead of the centre of pressure applies to passive control rockets only. If a rocket had active control such as moveable fins or gimbal engines then this is not an issue. And that is also stated in the source you used.

I already know it doesn't btw...

Just wanna see you sick freaks squirm.

Perhaps this Papa....:

Quote

NOTE: Modern full scale rockets do not usually rely on aerodynamics for stability. Full scale rockets pivot their exhaust nozzles to provide stability and control. That's why you don't see fins on a Delta, Titan, or Atlas booster.

This was a flat-out lie.

There is no such note in the source I quoted.

Which is why Mainframes will neither link to nor even name it & a bunch of sock-puppets have popped up to cover for him.

Total dishonesty, bad faith & cancerous sock-shill bullshit as usual.

But don't worry; 'John Davis' is on their case, determined to do absolutely fuck-all about it...

lol.

Anyhoo; let's look at the positives: the fact that the shills are so desperate to divert from the principle that 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 means that Shpayze-seX's fraud rokkitz are definitely violating this principle.

And therefore they are Fake.

SCIENCE, bitches!

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 18, 2016, 06:04:23 AM

Because, remember, a rocket cannot fly unless the centre of gravity is ahead of the centre of pressure.

But the Shpayze-seX Horus 9-11 is looking VERY bottom-heavy indeed!

Papa - the quote you mined regarding stability of rockets relying on the centre of gravity being ahead of the centre of pressure applies to passive control rockets only. If a rocket had active control such as moveable fins or gimbal engines then this is not an issue. And that is also stated in the source you used.

AND THIS!!!

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 18, 2016, 02:01:05 PM

Great.

Link us to it then & let's see if it also says this:

Quote from: Mainframes on June 18, 2016, 12:28:21 PM

Papa - the quote you mined regarding stability of rockets relying on the centre of gravity being ahead of the centre of pressure applies to passive control rockets only. If a rocket had active control such as moveable fins or gimbal engines then this is not an issue. And that is also stated in the source you used.

I already know it doesn't btw...

Just wanna see you sick freaks squirm.

Perhaps this Papa....:

Quote

NOTE: Modern full scale rockets do not usually rely on aerodynamics for stability. Full scale rockets pivot their exhaust nozzles to provide stability and control. That's why you don't see fins on a Delta, Titan, or Atlas booster.

What a laughable load of SHIT and SHINOLA!!! Since Mainframes is afraid to post his link where he got his note, I will do the job for the poor stupid fuck...

https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rktstab.html

What he, and all the other fucking lying shills like Geoff fail to mention, is the tremendous fucking lack of READING SKILLS applied in this instance...

Ssssspppppttttt...hey, pay attention...

NOWHERE, ON ANY ARTICLE OR IN ANY PAPER WRITTEN ON THE SUBJECT OF ROCKET STABILITY WILL YOU FIND A CLAIM ASSERTING THE TYPE OF CONTROL SYSTEM USED (i.e., passive = fins, active = engine gimbaling) overrides or otherwise makes NULL AND VOID the need for the ROCKET"S CENTER OF PRESSURE TO BE BELOW THE CENTER OF GRAVITY!!!

AND SINCE SPACEX, WHEN SUPPOSEDLY RETURNING CANNOT POSSIBLY MEET THIS CRITERIA, ALL YOU FUCKING LYING SHILLS CAN GO FUCK YOURSELVES!!! FIRST, REMOVE THE FUCKING STICKING GAUGES FROM YOUR ASS POCKETS!!!

What a laughable load of SHIT and SHINOLA!!! Since Mainframes is afraid to post his link where he got his note, I will do the job for the poor stupid fuck...

https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rktstab.html

Hi Papa Legba.

What he, and all the other fucking lying shills like Geoff fail to mention, is the tremendous fucking lack of READING SKILLS applied in this instance...

Ssssspppppttttt...hey, pay attention...

NOWHERE, ON ANY ARTICLE OR IN ANY PAPER WRITTEN ON THE SUBJECT OF ROCKET STABILITY WILL YOU FIND A CLAIM ASSERTING THE TYPE OF CONTROL SYSTEM USED (i.e., passive = fins, active = engine gimbaling) overrides or otherwise makes NULL AND VOID the need for the ROCKET"S CENTER OF PRESSURE TO BE BELOW THE CENTER OF GRAVITY!!!

First of all, the requirement is for the CoP to be behind the CoG, not necessarily below. 

Secondly, if you look at the link describing the difference between model rockets and real rockets, you find that full scale rockets are able to provide passive stability and control while model rockets usually only provide passive stability.  It seems to me that a good control system can make a pretty big difference.

During flight both model rockets and full scale rockets must provide some system of stability and control. Stability indicates that if the flight path is slightly perturbed, the rocket will return to the previous path and not fly erratically. Control is the ability to maneuver the rocket during flight.

AND SINCE SPACEX, WHEN SUPPOSEDLY RETURNING CANNOT POSSIBLY MEET THIS CRITERIA,

Why not?  The booster is flying downwards with the heavy tail end first and nearly empty propellant tanks which would put the CoG pretty far "forwards" (in the direction of flight).  Then you have the aerodynamic grid fins near the top of the booster which would push the CoP well behind the CoG. 

Quote from: totallackey on June 24, 2016, 04:07:58 PM

What a laughable load of SHIT and SHINOLA!!! Since Mainframes is afraid to post his link where he got his note, I will do the job for the poor stupid fuck...

https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rktstab.html

Hi Papa Legba.

Quote from: totallackey on June 24, 2016, 04:07:58 PM

What he, and all the other fucking lying shills like Geoff fail to mention, is the tremendous fucking lack of READING SKILLS applied in this instance...

Ssssspppppttttt...hey, pay attention...

NOWHERE, ON ANY ARTICLE OR IN ANY PAPER WRITTEN ON THE SUBJECT OF ROCKET STABILITY WILL YOU FIND A CLAIM ASSERTING THE TYPE OF CONTROL SYSTEM USED (i.e., passive = fins, active = engine gimbaling) overrides or otherwise makes NULL AND VOID the need for the ROCKET"S CENTER OF PRESSURE TO BE BELOW THE CENTER OF GRAVITY!!!

Quote from: markjo on June 24, 2016, 06:27:03 PM

First of all, the requirement is for the CoP to be behind the CoG, not necessarily below.

Rocket going UP = CoP below...Rocket going L to R or R to L = CoP behind...Rocket going DOWN  = DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER, THE MOTHER FUCKER IS GOING TO FUCKING CRASH!!!

Secondly, if you look at the link describing the difference between model rockets and real rockets, you find that full scale rockets are able to provide passive stability and control while model rockets usually only provide passive stability.  It seems to me that a good control system can make a pretty big difference.

[/QUOTE]

This paragraph = A TRULY FUCKING WEAK ATTEMPT TO POLISH A GIGANTIC FUCKING TURD!!!

I DID READ THE ARTICLE YOU FUCK...AND LIKE YOUR NITPICKING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "BEHIND," AND "BELOW," (ONLY DIFFERENTIATED IN TERMS OF PERSPECTIVE, YOU DRUNK FUCK) REAL ROCKETS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE EQUIPPED WITH "ACTIVE," STABILITY...SO WHY DID YOU USE THE TERM, "PASSIVE?" TOO SHOOK UP BECAUSE YOU AND YOUR OTHER FUCKING SHILLS = BUSTED ON YOUR BULL SHIT!!!

STFU John!!!

During flight both model rockets and full scale rockets must provide some system of stability and control. Stability indicates that if the flight path is slightly perturbed, the rocket will return to the previous path and not fly erratically. Control is the ability to maneuver the rocket during flight.

AND SINCE SPACEX, WHEN SUPPOSEDLY RETURNING CANNOT POSSIBLY MEET THIS CRITERIA,

Why not?  The booster is flying downwards with the heavy tail end first and nearly empty propellant tanks which would put the CoG pretty far "forwards" (in the direction of flight).  Then you have the aerodynamic grid fins near the top of the booster which would push the CoP well behind the CoG.

BULL SHIT!!! The payload of the rocket = FUCKING GONE!!!

BESIDES, THE TRUE POINT IS THIS!!!

YOU FUCKING SHILLS TRIED TO FUCKING CLAIM THAT ENGINE GIMBALING OVERRIDES THE PRIMARY PRINCIPLE OF ROCKET FLIGHT =  CoP MUST BE BEHIND (BELOW) THE CoG!!!

YOU ARE ALL FUCKING BUSTED, STICKING GAUGE ASS POCKETERS!!! NONE OF YOU KNOW FUCKING SHIT!!!

Rocket going UP = CoP below...Rocket going L to R or R to L = CoP behind...Rocket going DOWN  = DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER, THE MOTHER FUCKER IS GOING TO FUCKING CRASH!!!

Yes, the direction that the rocket is moving does matter quite a lot.

REAL ROCKETS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE EQUIPPED WITH "ACTIVE," STABILITY...SO WHY DID YOU USE THE TERM, "PASSIVE?" TOO SHOOK UP BECAUSE YOU AND YOUR OTHER FUCKING SHILLS = BUSTED ON YOUR BULL SHIT!!!

Stability is passive, control is active.  Real rockets provide both, model rockets only provide one.

Quote from: markjo on June 24, 2016, 06:27:03 PM

Why not?  The booster is flying downwards with the heavy tail end first and nearly empty propellant tanks which would put the CoG pretty far "forwards" (in the direction of flight).  Then you have the aerodynamic grid fins near the top of the booster which would push the CoP well behind the CoG.

BULL SHIT!!! The payload of the rocket = FUCKING GONE!!!

I know, that's why I specifically referred to it as the booster.

BESIDES, THE TRUE POINT IS THIS!!!

YOU FUCKING SHILLS TRIED TO FUCKING CLAIM THAT ENGINE GIMBALING OVERRIDES THE PRIMARY PRINCIPLE OF ROCKET FLIGHT =  CoP MUST BE BEHIND (BELOW) THE CoG!!!

And I pointed out that the CoP is behind the CoG as the booster descends.  It just so happens that since the booster is moving down, "behind" is actually "above".

Just thought I'd mention that the source I got the quote from is NOT this:

https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rktstab.html

I'd never use a NASA source for any rocketry claim if humanly possible...

Because they are full of shit.

So Mainframes is still a fucking Liar.

And if you want to see how the control system for a large liquid-fuelled rocket should work, check out the German V2: exhaust vanes external to the nozzle slaved to rudders on large rear stabilising fins; a beautifully elegant solution that NASA had no choice but to drop as it showed quite clearly that both control & thrust were entirely dependent on aerodynamic factors alone.

You will also note that the CG of the V2 was well ahead of the CP.

Btw, this is one of the posts hoppy was referring to where I prove things which the shills then go on to ignore...

So do please read carefully, idiots!

And if you want to see how the control system for a large liquid-fuelled rocket should work, check out the German V2: exhaust vanes external to the nozzle slaved to rudders on large rear stabilising fins; a beautifully elegant solution that NASA had no choice but to drop as it showed quite clearly that both control & thrust were entirely dependent on aerodynamic factors alone.

You will also note that the CG of the V2 was well ahead of the CP.

The V2 could never be classed as a " large liquid-fuelled rocket". It flew largely in the atmosphere (at least it its design task of bombing London), so could rely on steering vanes. And the V2 also had graphite vanes in the exhaust stream!

Large modern rockets have often have no vanes and rely or gimbaled engines for attitude control and do not need aerodynamic stability!

And as I and much more knowledgeable people have said, the control problem is very similar to balancing an upside down broom.

The V2 could never be classed as a " large liquid-fuelled rocket".

LMFAO!!!

Comedy Gold again...

Go to bed, Geoff.

Quote from: rabinoz on June 25, 2016, 02:17:40 AM

The V2 could never be classed as a " large liquid-fuelled rocket".

LMFAO!!!

Comedy Gold again...

Go to bed, Geoff.

You do really have a sense of humour!
The launch weight of the V2 was about 12,500 kg and it carried a 1,000 kg payload (warhead) all the way to London,
the launch weight of the Falcon 9 was about 505,846 kg and it carried a 13,150 kg payload (satellites, etc) all the way to LEO.


Are you feeling better now?

You know, you're worse than Heiwa, at least he understands how they go up (he put his money on it), just doesn't understand how they can come down.

Quote from: totallackey on June 24, 2016, 08:03:13 PM

Rocket going UP = CoP below...Rocket going L to R or R to L = CoP behind...Rocket going DOWN  = DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER, THE MOTHER FUCKER IS GOING TO FUCKING CRASH!!!

Quote from: markjo on June 24, 2016, 08:44:46 PM

Yes, the direction that the rocket is moving does matter quite a lot. 

Disingenuous fucking reply..failure to acknowledge being appropriately called out as a lying fucking shill is noted.

REAL ROCKETS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE EQUIPPED WITH "ACTIVE," STABILITY...SO WHY DID YOU USE THE TERM, "PASSIVE?" TOO SHOOK UP BECAUSE YOU AND YOUR OTHER FUCKING SHILLS = BUSTED ON YOUR BULL SHIT!!!

Stability is passive, control is active.  Real rockets provide both, model rockets only provide one.

Again, nitpicking, avoiding the real issue. Process described in the following:

markjo: "Damn, we got busted to fucking pieces on our claim the type of stability employed by a rocket (i.e., passive or active, fins or engine gimbals) overrides the main principle of CoP being below (or behind) the CoG...How do we save face and extract ourselves from the argument (I do not want to extract the sticking gauge from my ass, it is beginning to feel rather good actually)? I know...just make like I do not fucking understand and just post some more fucking bull shit and bury the the fucked up shit I claimed earlier...maybe in the responses, some minor point will be made and I can latch on to that and make that the topic of the post...

Fuck you John...STFU.

Quote from: markjo on June 24, 2016, 06:27:03 PM

Why not?  The booster is flying downwards with the heavy tail end first and nearly empty propellant tanks which would put the CoG pretty far "forwards" (in the direction of flight).  Then you have the aerodynamic grid fins near the top of the booster which would push the CoP well behind the CoG.

BULL SHIT!!! The payload of the rocket = FUCKING GONE!!!

I know, that's why I specifically referred to it as the booster.

Further attempt to derail the actual point of contention by nitpicking and verbal chaff deployment noted and dismissed...go tap that ass pocketed gauge a couple times...you like that sensation, don'tcha...

BESIDES, THE TRUE POINT IS THIS!!!

YOU FUCKING SHILLS TRIED TO FUCKING CLAIM THAT ENGINE GIMBALING OVERRIDES THE PRIMARY PRINCIPLE OF ROCKET FLIGHT =  CoP MUST BE BEHIND (BELOW) THE CoG!!!

And I pointed out that the CoP is behind the CoG as the booster descends.  It just so happens that since the booster is moving down, "behind" is actually "above".

You did not you lying fuck. The CoP on the rocket is still the same...cannot change and has never been described to change...

A fucking rocket coming down is going to fucking crash. There is no way around it.

Bottom line, you and the rest of the fucking SHILLS here, got fucking PWNED on the subject matter!!! Tried to claim the type of stability system can override whether CoP is behind the CoG.

STFU John. STFU Geoff.

NOTE: Modern full scale rockets do not usually rely on aerodynamics for stability. Full scale rockets pivot their exhaust nozzles to provide stability and control. That's why you don't see fins on a Delta, Titan, or

What a utter utter load of old twonk and you know fine well.

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 25, 2016, 02:34:58 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on June 25, 2016, 02:17:40 AM

The V2 could never be classed as a " large liquid-fuelled rocket".

LMFAO!!!

Comedy Gold again...

Go to bed, Geoff.

You do really have a sense of humour!
The launch weight of the V2 was about 12,500 kg and it carried a 1,000 kg payload (warhead) all the way to London,
the launch weight of the Falcon 9 was about 505,846 kg and it carried a 13,150 kg payload (satellites, etc) all the way to LEO.

The launch weight of your toy rocket is less than the payload of the Falcon 9  .

There, there, have another rant and rave over that and get back to you playing with your kiddie rockets,
and leave the real Space Rockets to NASA, Space-X and Ariane, etc!

Are you feeling better now?

You know, you're worse than Heiwa, at least he understands how they go up (he put his money on it), just doesn't understand how they can come down.

You are so ignorant you don't understand how they go up. 

You don't even understand the maximum fuel capacity of 767-200ER...

Go tap that sticky, shitty gauge you have pocketed in your ass...

You're so ignorant of any idea on modern rocket stability with gimballed engines and active stability control that it;s not worth wasting time answering you badmouthed shouting!

You are worse that your alter-ego Puppy Leghorn - at least he pretends to know something, even if it's wrong, you just shout meaningless obscenities.

Go back and crawl into your sewer!

Quote from: totallackey on June 24, 2016, 08:03:13 PM

You're so ignorant of any idea on modern rocket stability with gimballed engines and active stability control that it;s not worth wasting time answering you badmouthed shouting!

You are worse that your alter-ego Puppy Leghorn - at least he pretends to know something, even if it's wrong, you just shout meaningless obscenities.

Go back and crawl into your sewer!

Acknowledgment of defeat and admittance of ignorance in the subject matter of rocketry and 767-200ER fuel capacity noted.

Quote from: totallackey on June 24, 2016, 08:03:13 PM

BESIDES, THE TRUE POINT IS THIS!!!

YOU FUCKING SHILLS TRIED TO FUCKING CLAIM THAT ENGINE GIMBALING OVERRIDES THE PRIMARY PRINCIPLE OF ROCKET FLIGHT =  CoP MUST BE BEHIND (BELOW) THE CoG!!!

Quote from: markjo on June 24, 2016, 08:44:46 PM

And I pointed out that the CoP is behind the CoG as the booster descends.  It just so happens that since the booster is moving down, "behind" is actually "above".

You did not you lying fuck. The CoP on the rocket is still the same...cannot change and has never been described to change...

The CoP changes as the configuration of the rocket changes.  The CoP will change as the booster separates from the second stage and again when the grid fins deploy.

A fucking rocket coming down is going to fucking crash. There is no way around it.

Of course there's a way around it.  You just don't want to accept it.

The grid fins would have minimal effect on COP due to their design.

And besides, they do not work at transonic speeds, another huge problem you all avoid addressing.

Also, with nine engines & enormously heavy landing legs, it looks to me like the COG of teh Shpayze-seX Horus 9.11 is behind the COP right from the get-go...

So it could never fly at all.

There are also huge aerodynamic problems with the streamlining of the main rocket body & nose-cone, i.e. all kinds of asymmetrical lumps & bumps which serve little purpose I can discover...

These would also serve to destabilise the rocket, as would the mere act of gimbaling the engines themselves in the absence of aerodynamic control surfaces such as fins & rudders...

Of course, all these problems & more were understood by the late 1950's; which is why large-scale liquid-fuelled rocketry was abandoned as impractical & everything since then has been military-industrial sci-fi propaganda bullshit.

Cue Cryin' Lyin' shill-storm...

The grid fins would have minimal effect on COP due to their design.

And besides, they do not work at transonic speeds, another huge problem you all avoid addressing.

Also, with nine engines & enormously heavy landing legs, it looks to me like the COG of teh Shpayze-seX Horus 9.11 is behind the COP right from the get-go...

So it could never fly at all.

There are also huge aerodynamic problems with the streamlining of the main rocket body & nose-cone, i.e. all kinds of asymmetrical lumps & bumps which serve little purpose I can discover...

These would also serve to destabilise the rocket, as would the mere act of gimbaling the engines themselves in the absence of aerodynamic control surfaces such as fins & rudders...

Of course, all these problems & more were understood by the late 1950's; which is why large-scale liquid-fuelled rocketry was abandoned as impractical & everything since then has been military-industrial sci-fi propaganda bullshit.

Cue Cryin' Lyin' shill-storm...

Huh?

Just thought I'd mention that the source I got the quote from is NOT this:

https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rktstab.html

I'd never use a NASA source for any rocketry claim if humanly possible...

Because they are full of shit.

So Mainframes is still a fucking Liar.

And if you want to see how the control system for a large liquid-fuelled rocket should work, check out the German V2: exhaust vanes external to the nozzle slaved to rudders on large rear stabilising fins; a beautifully elegant solution that NASA had no choice but to drop as it showed quite clearly that both control & thrust were entirely dependent on aerodynamic factors alone.

You will also note that the CG of the V2 was well ahead of the CP.

Btw, this is one of the posts hoppy was referring to where I prove things which the shills then go on to ignore...

So do please read carefully, idiots!

EVERYBODY STOP!!! Mark this on your calendars! Take pictures! PL actually linked to something! This is bigger than capturing the Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot all in one day!

Wrong again.

I copied the link from 'totallackey', who incorrectly attributed it to myself.

But nice job spreading bullshit & diverting from Mainframes' inexcusable Lies, cannon-fodder kid.

Bananas for you tonight!

Plus, this:

The grid fins would have minimal effect on COP due to their design.

And besides, they do not work at transonic speeds, another huge problem you all avoid addressing.

Also, with nine engines & enormously heavy landing legs, it looks to me like the COG of teh Shpayze-seX Horus 9.11 is behind the COP right from the get-go...

So it could never fly at all.

There are also huge aerodynamic problems with the streamlining of the main rocket body & nose-cone, i.e. all kinds of asymmetrical lumps & bumps which serve little purpose I can discover...

These would also serve to destabilise the rocket, as would the mere act of gimbaling the engines themselves in the absence of aerodynamic control surfaces such as fins & rudders...

Of course, all these problems & more were understood by the late 1950's; which is why large-scale liquid-fuelled rocketry was abandoned as impractical & everything since then has been military-industrial sci-fi propaganda bullshit.

Cue Cryin' Lyin' shill-storm...

Wrong again.

I copied the link from 'totallackey', who incorrectly attributed it to myself.

But nice job spreading nonsense & diverting from Mainframes' inexcusable Lies, cannon-fodder kid.

Bananas for you tonight!

Plus, this:

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 25, 2016, 07:41:30 AM

The grid fins would have minimal effect on COP due to their design.

And besides, they do not work at transonic speeds, another huge problem you all avoid addressing.

Also, with nine engines & enormously heavy landing legs, it looks to me like the COG of teh Shpayze-seX Horus 9.11 is behind the COP right from the get-go...

So it could never fly at all.

There are also huge aerodynamic problems with the streamlining of the main rocket body & nose-cone, i.e. all kinds of asymmetrical lumps & bumps which serve little purpose I can discover...

These would also serve to destabilise the rocket, as would the mere act of gimbaling the engines themselves in the absence of aerodynamic control surfaces such as fins & rudders...

Of course, all these problems & more were understood by the late 1950's; which is why large-scale liquid-fuelled rocketry was abandoned as impractical & everything since then has been military-industrial sci-fi propaganda bullshit.

Cue Cryin' Lyin' shill-storm...

Ok, false alarm. And the search for facts by PL continues. And now back to you regularly scheduled program.

I got shills - they're multiplyin'...

Plus this:

The grid fins would have minimal effect on COP due to their design.

And besides, they do not work at transonic speeds, another huge problem you all avoid addressing.

Also, with nine engines & enormously heavy landing legs, it looks to me like the COG of teh Shpayze-seX Horus 9.11 is behind the COP right from the get-go...

So it could never fly at all.

There are also huge aerodynamic problems with the streamlining of the main rocket body & nose-cone, i.e. all kinds of asymmetrical lumps & bumps which serve little purpose I can discover...

These would also serve to destabilise the rocket, as would the mere act of gimbaling the engines themselves in the absence of aerodynamic control surfaces such as fins & rudders...

Of course, all these problems & more were understood by the late 1950's; which is why large-scale liquid-fuelled rocketry was abandoned as impractical & everything since then has been military-industrial sci-fi propaganda bullshit.

Cue Cryin' Lyin' shill-storm...

(actually that already happened).

Wrong again.

I copied the link from 'totallackey', who incorrectly attributed it to myself.

But nice job spreading bullshit & diverting from Mainframes' inexcusable Lies, cannon-fodder kid.

Bananas for you tonight!

Plus, this:

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 25, 2016, 07:41:30 AM

The grid fins would have minimal effect on COP due to their design.

And besides, they do not work at transonic speeds, another huge problem you all avoid addressing.

Also, with nine engines & enormously heavy landing legs, it looks to me like the COG of teh Shpayze-seX Horus 9.11 is behind the COP right from the get-go...

So it could never fly at all.

There are also huge aerodynamic problems with the streamlining of the main rocket body & nose-cone, i.e. all kinds of asymmetrical lumps & bumps which serve little purpose I can discover...

These would also serve to destabilise the rocket, as would the mere act of gimbaling the engines themselves in the absence of aerodynamic control surfaces such as fins & rudders...

Of course, all these problems & more were understood by the late 1950's; which is why large-scale liquid-fuelled rocketry was abandoned as impractical & everything since then has been military-industrial sci-fi propaganda bullshit.

Cue Cryin' Lyin' shill-storm...

Wrong!

I attributed it to Mainframes, the lying fucking shill, who thought he knew where you got the material you were referencing.

These would also serve to destabilise the rocket, as would the mere act of gimbaling the engines themselves in the absence of aerodynamic control surfaces such as fins & rudders...

No rocket can have any significant "aerodynamic stability" until it gains enough velocity.

Small rockets accelerate fast enough to quickly gain aerodynamic stability, but larger rockets (even of V2 size) use steering vanes in the exhaust stream (as in the V2 or later V-2), larger rockets commonly use gimballed engines.

The V-2 was an unmanned, guided, ballistic missile. It was guided by an advanced gyroscopic system that sent signals to aerodynamic steering tabs on the fins and vanes in the exhaust.

From:A-4/V-2 Makeup - Tech Data & Markings.

But hat's the use of telling the world's greatest know-it-all?

Whatever Papa says, the Delta Rockets went up, Saturn Rockets went up, the Ariane Rockets went up and the Space-X Rockets went up stabilised without aerodynamic fins!

Large rockets are controlled and steered by altering the direction of their engine thrust, usually (although not always) by swivelling the engines themselves.

Comment: If nothing is done, the rocket would fall like a simple pencil on my finger.

As others have already pointed out, this analogy is incorrect - the pencil is highly unstable because the direction of the force on it does not change as it starts to fall over, but a rocket's thrust turns with it.  A rocket with properly-aligned engines has no tendency to fall over at launch, but no particular tendency to stand up straight either; it is "neutrally stable".  As it picks up speed, it may gain either stability or instability, depending on the details of the airflow around it.  Most large rockets, in fact, become unstable as speed increases.  The control system typically works hardest in the stratosphere, where the rocket is at high speed in air that is still fairly thick, and where winds are often strong.  They go back to being neutrally stable as the air thins out and aerodynamic forces become insignificant.

Fins on a large rocket are seldom big enough to change this overall picture.
When a large rocket has fins at all, typically they are there to help the control system a little bit in the worst part of the stratosphere.  In some cases, like the Saturn V, the fins are no help at all during normal ascent,
but they slow down the loss of control in certain emergency situations, and give escape systems more time to react.

from Rocket Steering

What do you think the "vanes in the exhaust" were for, just for fun and fancy?

Oh, look what I wrote on this very page, mad blind lying dingus who claims to have me blocked but shuffles round the forum stalking me like a haunted fucking tree?

And if you want to see how the control system for a large liquid-fuelled rocket should work, check out the German V2: exhaust vanes external to the nozzle slaved to rudders on large rear stabilising fins; a beautifully elegant solution that NASA had no choice but to drop as it showed quite clearly that both control & thrust were entirely dependent on aerodynamic factors alone.

And posting lots of fake drawings of fake rockets with fake data on their imaginary control systems doesn't impress anyone either you mental old fabulist.

Wrong!

I attributed it to Mainframes, the lying fucking shill, who thought he knew where you got the material you were referencing.

My point is that it was NOT the article I was quoting & your posting it may have given the impression that Mainframes is not as much of a lying fucking shill as he truly is.

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 25, 2016, 04:05:58 PM

These would also serve to destabilise the rocket, as would the mere act of gimbaling the engines themselves in the absence of aerodynamic control surfaces such as fins & rudders...

No rocket can have any significant "aerodynamic stability" until it gains enough velocity.

Small rockets accelerate fast enough to quickly gain aerodynamic stability, but larger rockets (even of V2 size) use steering vanes in the exhaust stream (as in the V2 or later V-2), larger rockets commonly use gimballed engines.

Quote

The V-2 was an unmanned, guided, ballistic missile. It was guided by an advanced gyroscopic system that sent signals to aerodynamic steering tabs on the fins and vanes in the exhaust.

From:A-4/V-2 Makeup - Tech Data & Markings.

What do you think the "vanes in the exhaust" were for, just for fun and fancy?

But hat's the use of telling the world's greatest know-it-all?

Whatever Papa says, the Delta Rockets went up, Saturn Rockets went up, the Ariane Rockets went up and the Space-X Rockets went up stabilised without aerodynamic fins!

The Delta rocket family - "Look Ma no FINS!"

So stop being an idiot pretending to know all about rocket stability!

Quote from: Henry Spencer

Large rockets are controlled and steered by altering the direction of their engine thrust, usually (although not always) by swivelling the engines themselves.

Comment: If nothing is done, the rocket would fall like a simple pencil on my finger.

As others have already pointed out, this analogy is incorrect - the pencil is highly unstable because the direction of the force on it does not change as it starts to fall over, but a rocket's thrust turns with it.  A rocket with properly-aligned engines has no tendency to fall over at launch, but no particular tendency to stand up straight either; it is "neutrally stable".  As it picks up speed, it may gain either stability or instability, depending on the details of the airflow around it.  Most large rockets, in fact, become unstable as speed increases.  The control system typically works hardest in the stratosphere, where the rocket is at high speed in air that is still fairly thick, and where winds are often strong.  They go back to being neutrally stable as the air thins out and aerodynamic forces become insignificant.

Fins on a large rocket are seldom big enough to change this overall picture.
When a large rocket has fins at all, typically they are there to help the control system a little bit in the worst part of the stratosphere.  In some cases, like the Saturn V, the fins are no help at all during normal ascent,
but they slow down the loss of control in certain emergency situations, and give escape systems more time to react.

from Rocket Steering

Wait, did you just write the Saturn rockets had no fins? Cannot even read your own sources anymore...

That is okay...go down to the corner and have someone start tapping on that sticky gauge...once the tapping stops, maybe you can reconsider your position on this matter, along with your position on the total amount of fuel carried by a 767-200ER...at last check, you claimed 50,000 gallons...and it was spherical...

Quote from: rabinoz on June 25, 2016, 07:01:17 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 25, 2016, 04:05:58 PM

These would also serve to destabilise the rocket, as would the mere act of gimbaling the engines themselves in the absence of aerodynamic control surfaces such as fins & rudders...

No rocket can have any significant "aerodynamic stability" until it gains enough velocity.

Small rockets accelerate fast enough to quickly gain aerodynamic stability, but larger rockets (even of V2 size) use steering vanes in the exhaust stream (as in the V2 or later V-2), larger rockets commonly use gimballed engines.

Quote

The V-2 was an unmanned, guided, ballistic missile. It was guided by an advanced gyroscopic system that sent signals to aerodynamic steering tabs on the fins and vanes in the exhaust.

From:A-4/V-2 Makeup - Tech Data & Markings.

What do you think the "vanes in the exhaust" were for, just for fun and fancy?

But hat's the use of telling the world's greatest know-it-all?

Whatever Papa says, the Delta Rockets went up, Saturn Rockets went up, the Ariane Rockets went up and the Space-X Rockets went up stabilised without aerodynamic fins!

The Delta rocket family - "Look Ma no FINS!"

So stop being an idiot pretending to know all about rocket stability!

Quote from: Henry Spencer

Large rockets are controlled and steered by altering the direction of their engine thrust, usually (although not always) by swivelling the engines themselves.

Comment: If nothing is done, the rocket would fall like a simple pencil on my finger.

As others have already pointed out, this analogy is incorrect - the pencil is highly unstable because the direction of the force on it does not change as it starts to fall over, but a rocket's thrust turns with it.  A rocket with properly-aligned engines has no tendency to fall over at launch, but no particular tendency to stand up straight either; it is "neutrally stable".  As it picks up speed, it may gain either stability or instability, depending on the details of the airflow around it.  Most large rockets, in fact, become unstable as speed increases.  The control system typically works hardest in the stratosphere, where the rocket is at high speed in air that is still fairly thick, and where winds are often strong.  They go back to being neutrally stable as the air thins out and aerodynamic forces become insignificant.

Fins on a large rocket are seldom big enough to change this overall picture.
When a large rocket has fins at all, typically they are there to help the control system a little bit in the worst part of the stratosphere.  In some cases, like the Saturn V, the fins are no help at all during normal ascent,
but they slow down the loss of control in certain emergency situations, and give escape systems more time to react.

from Rocket Steering

Wait, did you just write the Saturn rockets had no fins? Cannot even read your own sources anymore...

That is okay...go down to the corner and have someone start tapping on that sticky gauge...once the tapping stops, maybe you can reconsider your position on this matter, along with your position on the total amount of fuel carried by a 767-200ER...at last check, you claimed 50,000 gallons...and it was spherical...

So sorry, I didn't put my specs on and I missed those tiny things on the bottom! And I can't read yet, just look at the pretty pictures of stuck gauges and thingos!

Actually I can read a tiny bit (better than you apparently), the reference clearly stated:

In some cases, like the Saturn V, the fins are no help at all during normal ascent.

And I did not say that the Saturn had "no fins", I said "stabilised without aerodynamic fins" and the reference did say "the fins are no help at all during normal ascent."

Yes, I admit I did not get the plane type right (big difference between 757 and 767) and the fuel was split over two buildings.
Leave me out of the "gauge tapping", though you must be just a know-it-all kid not to remember the days of analogue electrical instruments that did have bearing friction and literally were tapped.